John In Carolina

Raleigh N&O As Biased As Ever

2009-08-30T12:18:00.003-04:00

The McClatchy Company’s Raleigh News & Observer’s editorial page, once strongly pro-John Edwards, is now just as strongly pro- Barack Obama.

But John Drescher, the paper’s executive editor, assures readers the N&O goes to great lengths to make sure its editorial biases don't creep into its news columns.

With Drescher’s assurance in mind, let’s compare newsobserver.com’s coverage of yesterday’s pro-Obamacare rally in Raleigh with its coverage of the Apr. 15 Raleigh “tea party” rally.

Today’s headline

Pro-health reform rally draws 350

The headlines for the Apr. 15 rally:

"Tea party" gets pretty hot
Thousands of conservatives rally in Raleigh against taxes

As you can see, today’s headline gives no hint of the political orientations of the Obamacare supporters; and neither does the story which follows.

All the rally individual participants quoted today and all the sponsoring organizations are described, not by political orientations, but simply as supporters of health care reform and health care for all.

On the other hand, the N&O’s “tea party” headline makes the unqualified and unsubstantiated claim the rally participants are “conservatives.”

In the "tea party" story itself, the N&O uses the “conservative” label three more times.

Yet most Raleigh “tea party” participants were quick to tell reporters they had no strong party affiliation and considered themselves "unaffiliated" or “independents.”

But the N&O chose to spin what the participants said. Here’s an example:

At age 65, Jim Lewis had never been to a protest, but the nationwide wave of anti-tax "tea parties" -- and the dismay among conservatives with the Obama administration's spending plans and bailouts that sparked them -- finally gave him cause enough.

If Jim Lewis had said “dismay among conservatives” had led him to the rally, you can be sure the N&O would've eagerly quoted him instead of spinning to make it seem such “dismay” helped bring him to the rally.

Here’s another example of N&O political spin from the “tea party” story:

The protests -- which coincided with the deadline for income tax filings and were named to evoke the Boston Tea Party -- resonated with conservatives, who turned out by the thousands to more than 30 of the events around the state.

As polls measuring shifts in public support for Obama’s policies were showing then and continue to show, for the most part liberals were and are supporting his policies while conservatives were and are opposing them.

Its among independents that Obama’s support has dropped significantly.

So it seems reasonable to conclude the “tea parties” have resonated rather strongly among independents.

But the N&O can’t bring itself to tell readers that.

Instead it misleads them by misusing the “conservative” label.

A couple of other items - - -

In the N&O’s "tea party" report we find this:

The protesters were almost entirely white, a fact that hecklers in passing cars pointed out more than once. "All you white rednecks!" yelled one woman as she drove past the courthouse.

Today the N&O says nothing about the racial make-up of the Obamacare supporters.

Why not?

If it was proper to report the racial make up of the "tea party" participants, why not that of the Obamacare participants?

Also, many participants in yesterday’s rally were bused in from as far away as Wilmington and carried identical, professionally-produced signs. You can read more about all of that and view photos here at Conservative Nation.

But you won't read about any of it in the N&O.

The N&O has reported Dems' charges made with little or no proof that "town hall" meetings at which citizens have expressed outrage at the Obama administration's plans to socialize medical care are really just protests “organized” by GOPers.

But when there’s easily documented proof that an Obamacare rally, which took place just a few blocks from its office, was heavily organized by Democratic Party interest groups and the state's NAACP chapter, the N&O says nothing.

Editor John Drescher’s right when he says the N&O’s political biases don’t “creep” into its news columns.

They gush in.

Hat tips: Instapundit

Locomotive Breath

Why Are Obama's and Dems' Numbers Dropping

2009-08-23T19:35:00.006-04:00

President Obama's MSM flacks include ABC's Charlie Gibson and NBC's Brian Williams who pump hard for him in what their producers call "our networks' news reports."

But Gibsons's and Williams' producers and Obama's other flacks such as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman must be worried.

As hard as they pump, spin and outright distort for Obama and his Dem congressional allies, both the President's and his congressional Dem allies' approval numbers continue to drop.

Why?

At least part of the answer is that tens of millions of Americans no longer count on MSM to tell us "that's the way it is today."

Instead, more and more Americans are paying attention to citizen journalists like Mike Williams whose news letter report today, Sunday, Aug. 23, follows:

Obama continues to slip in the polls. Rasmussen reports that 27% of voters now strongly approve of his performance as president, while 41% strongly disapprove. This gives him an index rating of -14.

Obama’s ten-year budget deficit projection is staggering. On Friday he raised it by a mind-boggling two trillion dollars. Then he walked out the door for a summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

Is it constitutional for Obama to require every American to have health insurance?

Is Sarah Palin right that Obamacare envisions “death panels” for end-of-life medical treatment? Obama says he’s offended, but others think Palin has a point. For sure America’s vets do.

Does Obamacare include taxpayer-funded abortions?

Did the White House illegally use taxpayer dollars to push Obamacare? More here.

Didn’t Bush try to tell us that Social Security is in trouble, and didn’t the Dems blow him off? Guess what?

Watch a Marine take Rep. Brian “Brown Shirts” Baird (D-WA) to the woodshed at a town hall.

Is Iraq in trouble? Maybe, maybe not.

Would you be surprised to learn that Greenpeace has been lying about global warming?

Did the UK release Lockerbie mass murder Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi as part of a commercial deal?

Is Obama trying to recreate America in his own image?

Is Obama in over his head?

Mike

"Obama as Hitler" Poster A Dem/Union Plant

2009-08-12T08:56:00.001-04:00

At the BlogProf this morning - - -

BUSTED!: "Obama As Hitler" Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant At John Dingell Townhall! UPDATED with video interview!

***scroll to bottom for an important update (after reading the post of course!)***

Watering the plants, as Glenn Reynolds would say. Nancy Pelosi, the dimmest bulb in the U.S. House, got things started with this absurd assertion last week:

Once she said this, all of a sudden Obama as Hitler posters started popping up at townhall meetings, particularly this one at John Dingell's townhall last Thursday:Note the black man holding up the poster. This screenshot was used in reports by the MSM who painted the protesters as Nazis. Here's the thing, though - that black man is a Dingell supporter!

Last Friday, Frank Beckmann on his show broadcast on WJR 760 AM interviewed an eyewitness that said not only were union thugs let in through a side door before anyone else was let into the venue, but that he clearly saw from his vantage point that very Obama as Hitler poster in that back hallway after the union thugs took their seats.

The interview was around 11:00am, but WJR chose not to post that audio (they only tend to select one or two clips a day to post). I thought it would have been bigger news, and needed more than just that to write a post, albeit an audio clip would have partially sufficed.

In any case, I've been scouring YouTube and the web for more info, and have finally found some. Here is one account that was posted Monday over at FreeRepublic:

A couple that were at Dingals TH meeting said there was a black man outside with a sign comparing Obama the Adolf Hitler. After the meeting ended and when everyone was leaving this same man was handing out Dingal campaign flyers. ...

The rest of the post's here.

Hat tip: Instapundit.com

Another Front-Page NYT Shill For Obama

2009-08-09T16:50:00.004-04:00

Byron York at washingtonexaminer.com recalls Aug. 1992 when, with the country in recession and President George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in the midst of a presidential campaign, the government reported a one tenth of a point decline in the unemployment rate.

York continues:

"Jobless Rate Dips a Notch to 7.7% in Mixed Showing," was the front-page headline of the August 8, 1992 Times.

"The nation's jobless rate improved marginally last month, edging down to 7.7 percent from 7.8 percent," the Times reported. "But the improvement was not enough to signal a stronger economic recovery or to help President Bush as he heads into the Republican National Convention."

Even though the number of jobs actually went up in July 1992 (as opposed to the decline of 247,000 jobs in July 2009), the 1992 Times reported that the economic news "gave no suggestion that the economic recovery was breaking out of its painfully slow pace or, more important, that the job growth was picking up enough to push the unemployment rate down significantly before the election in November."

Pollster Peter Hart told the paper that, "There couldn't be worse political news for George Bush."

Under the sub-headline "Stagnant Period Seen," the Times reported that "most forecasters" predicted "more of the same: an economy that is just muddling along."

The Times looked deep into the data to find "disappointing" numbers everywhere; many of the new jobs were in the service sector, there weren't enough construction jobs, some of the improvement was the result of a government program. (The Times appeared less enthusiastic about government stimulus back then.) . . .

Now let’s flash forward to Aug. 7, 2009 and look at how, with a member of The Times’ own Democratic Party in The White House and the country in recession, The Times reported the government's announcement of a one tenth of a point decline in the unemployment rate.

York reports that now:

The front page of the New York Times is filled with hope about the nation's economic situation.

The lead story, "Job Losses Slow, Signaling Momentum for a Recovery," reporting a decline in the unemployment rate from 9.5 percent in June to 9.4 percent in July, begins by declaring that, "The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way -- and perhaps gathering steam."

"Employers are no longer in a panic," one expert tells the Times.

The paper reports that Obama administration officials "credited the stimulus package" for the improvement, and "some said" job losses would be far worse had the $787 billion stimulus not been passed.

The paper quotes President Obama saying his administration has "rescued our economy from catastrophe."

Put that together with earlier data that the economy shrank at a one percent annual rate in the second quarter, and the Times reports that the news has "convinced many forecasters that when the history of the Great Recession is written, these summer months will be the big turning point, when the economy started to grow again."

Of course, there's some "unsettling information" in the new economic data, but overall, the message of the Times story is: Good news -- the recovery is underway. …

York’s entire report’s here.

The NY Times continues to insist it doesn’t shill for President Obama and the Dems.

And millions of liberals and leftists say that’s true.

But hey, millions of them also say they believe President Obama when he cliams "I never heard any of that stuff" that spewed for years from the pulpit of the anti-white, America-bashing Rev. Jeremiah Wright as Obama sat among the congregants.

Go figure.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Obama Will Eliminate Private Health Care -- The Video

2009-08-03T11:14:00.002-04:00

Hat tip: Drudge Report

Obama- Gates-Crowley Picture Not To Be Missed

2009-08-01T08:30:00.007-04:00

Obama's revealing body language (updated and expanded) by Thomas Lifson

This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own.

So who is compassionate?

And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

***************************************

The rest of Lifson's post is here.

I wonder how many MSM newspapers will run the photo.

And how will they caption it?

Hat tip: AC

New Black Panthers, Beer, & Our Health Care

2009-07-31T16:37:00.003-04:00

Mike Williams' letter today is a "don't miss."

You North Carolinians may recall that about 40 New Black Panthers invaded Durham

during the early days of Duke Lacrosse:

"This is a hate crime, and we want a conviction," declared Malik Zulu Shabazz, the national chairman of the New Panthers, a black separatist group based in Atlanta that is disavowed by the original Black Panther Party. "We are mad and fired up. We demand justice, and we will have justice, one way or the other."

Dressed in black berets and military-style fatigues, several in the group donned bulletproof vests and ammunition belts and holsters that were empty. At least two wore long knives in scabbards strapped to their legs.

This same group intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 elections, and three of its members were subsequently indicted by the Bush Justice Department. But the Obama Justice Department has now dropped the charges. Hans Von Spakovsky:

There is no doubt that this was one of the worst cases of voter intimidation the Department has seen in decades, but it was against militant black defendants, not white defendants. This is exactly the kind of situation that upsets the traditional civil rights community, which does not believe that federal voting rights laws should be used to protect white voters.

The Department’s weak and belated explanation for the dismissal of this suit is frankly absurd.

The Department’s spokeswoman says that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims.” Really?

Then why is the Department refusing to allow the trial team who actually investigated the “facts and the law” or the chief of the Voting Section who supervised the investigation to brief members of Congress?

We all know why – because those lawyers would dispute the spurious claim being made by their political superiors….

The message from the Justice Department with this dismissal is that if you are a member of a black hate group, you can intimidate, threaten, and hurl racial epithets at white voters and poll watchers and the Justice Department will give you a pass.

We all know that if it had been the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood at the polls in Philadelphia acting in this manner towards black voters, Associate Attorney General Perelli and Attorney General Holder would never have even considered dismissing the case.

They would be bragging in the press about their pursuit of a civil injunction against all of these defendants, and would be pressing the Criminal Division at Justice to indict them on criminal charges.

Which leads us to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates and Obama’s Thursday evening swill. Bob Weir:

Now that the beer summit is a part of history, let's look at what was accomplished by the foregoing set of events that should have never been more than a routine police assignment. A white police officer, along with the entire Cambridge, Massachusetts PD, was maligned by a black Harvard professor and a black President of the United States.

A white woman neighbor of the professor, who called the police to report a possible burglary, publicly has been termed a racist and has been harassed to the point of breaking down in tears during a press conference.

Professor Gates has plenty of publicity to help him with his upcoming documentary on race relations in America and President Obama had a major photo op in an attempt to spin his shocking comments into something positive.

There was no handshake between the cop and the professor; no apology from the president or the professor; and there was no chance for the Press to interview the parties together. The only words spoken publicly after the beer fest were from Sgt. Crowley, who said: "We have agreed to disagree."

Well, wasn't that the state of affairs before they met over a couple of brews? Unless there were some clandestine plans made to improve race relations in the future, this was a waste of time.

Evidently, Obama, the man who was going to bring us together, didn't even have enough influence with his buddy Gates to convince him to press the flesh with his arresting officer.

And, speaking of that arrest for disorderly conduct, why has so little been said about the charges being dropped?

If there was ever a case in which political influence wiped its feet on the law, this was it….

Let’s end it for today with Cash for Clunkers, an Obama program that has been suspendedone week. Ed Morrissey: after it ran out of gas in

Somewhere in here, there’s a lesson to be learned about government distortion of private markets.

When government artificially inflate the value of a commodity in attempting social engineering, it usually either spends more money than they initially realize, leave the private sector holding the bag, and make themselves look foolish … at best:

The government suspended the explosively popular cash-for-clunkers program, fearing it would go broke before it could pay what it still owes dealers for a huge backlog of sales, according to congressional offices and a dealer group.

Suspension of the program was confirmed by Bailey Wood, legislative director for the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which had been called Thursday night by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers the program. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., confirmed as well, saying she had been told by congressional leaders.
Why was it “explosively popular”? It made worthless cars valuable again. The vehicles got $4500 for a brief window rather than their previous real value, in many cases a fraction of the government payout.

That inflated value prompted people to rush to their local dealers to use their government subsidy to buy new vehicles.

Unfortunately, Congress miscalculated how many people would be willing to squash their old car for that kind of boost in trade-in value. No harm, no foul, right?

Not exactly. …

Ed concludes:

Of course, no one has really explained why taxpayers should subsidize the destruction of gas-guzzlers (we do remember that we’re paying those ridiculous subsidies, don’t we?) that many of us couldn’t afford when they were sold as new, or that we had better sense than to buy.

No one explained why taxpayers should subsidize sub-prime loans for people who didn’t qualify to buy the houses they wanted ten years ago, either.

It’s yet another example of how government rarely learns from its own mistakes.

This one, fortunately, will be much less costly, but therefore also much less likely to teach people anything.

It’s this same crowd that wants to take over our health care.

Mike

The Gates Episode & Duke Lacrosse

2009-07-30T09:31:00.009-04:00

Andrew Breitbart makes a lot of sense when he says - - -

... Much of America is petrified to bring up race, especially in public forums - the media, in particular.

But for exactly the opposite reasons Mr. Holder, the Obama administration and the brain trust of modern liberalism assert.

Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt.

Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism's brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto.

Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school's professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known.

Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.

Those signatories constituted 90 percent of Duke's African and African-American Studies Department, the subject-matter domain of Mr. Gates, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West and other tenure-wielding, highfalutin, iambic-pentameter-filibustering race baiters, and 60 percent of Duke's women's studies department, another hotbed of victimology posing as intellectualism.

While the media was front and center in preparing for the public executions of the three Duke lacrosse players, they scurried away when they were proved innocent.

The Democratic Media Complex, in its pursuit of Orwellian hate-crime legislation, reparations and sundry non-ameliorative resolutions to America's troubled racial past, pursues its victims with blood lust.

But it cannot act in good faith to redeem those it has destroyed in countless rushes to judgment. (Richard Jewell, R.I.P.)

The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation's history.

This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important.

As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race.

And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job. ...

You can read the whole thing here.

Sgt. Crowley: A Very Powerful CNN Video

2009-07-28T13:06:00.005-04:00

This is a very powerful CNN video that reflects well on Sgt. Crowley and the CPD.

UNC-Wilmington Prof Halkides “Taking a break”

2009-07-27T22:07:00.005-04:00

This evening UNC- Wilmington professor Chris Halkides posted "Taking a break":

I am suspending blogging for an indefinite period.

During that time I do not plan to clear comments.

Thanks to all for their interest.

Chris

Why this “break?” Why so soon?

Just three weeks ago today professor Halkides announced his return from what he called “hiatus” in a post he titled: "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now.'"

Excerpts from professor Halkides' post in italics and parenthesis follow, with my comments in plain:

( In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog. …

He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo. )

Folks, as you can all can see by reading KC Johnson Now and its thread, I did not question KC's truthfulness.

What I questioned was KC's judgment which led him to conclude an obvious hoax by Jill Hopman “could have been correct.”

I continue to question KC’s judgment which led him to give credence to Hopman’s hoax, just as I question the judgment of all those who give credence to Crystal Mangum’s and Tara Levicy’s hoaxes.

( Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources, John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case. )

Nowhere have I said KC made up sources. Halkides' statement is nothing more than a false charge KC Johnson made up and whick Johnson and Halkides have repeated.

You can all see that by reading my posts and what the two professors have said.

I wish both professors and their supporters would stop making that false charge.

( When called on some of these matters, [JinC] either ignored them or brushed them aside.

In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism. ... )

“Traditional journalism?”

Is that what Halkides calls what the N&O did when trashing the lacrosse team, helping frame three of its members, and now still participating in a cover-up of what it did?

By "traditional journalism" is Halkides thinking of Dan Rather and CBS's Texas Air NG story based on forged documents from CBS's "unimpeachable" anonymous source who turned out to be a Democratic party activist and hater of President Bush?

( I wrote this post because [JinC] failed to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others. )

Folks, the Irish have the right term for what professor Halkides is doing here: “pub blathering.”

I'll say more tomorrow about Halkides' "break."

Right now it's your turn.

What do you think caused this sudden "break" so soon after "hiatus?"

And please read KC Johnson Now if you haven't already done so.

John

Update 7/28/09 @ 6:59 PM:

In response to my question last evening about why he was taking a break from blogging, professsor Halkides this morning explained at his blog and on the thread of this post this afternoon:

"I need to concentrate on some professional responsibilities right now, including working on a grant proposal and trying to identify an unknown compound."

We can all wish Halkides well with his grant proposal and scientific research.

Ex-Prosecutor’s Wise Words Re: Gates, Crowley, Obama

2009-07-27T19:44:00.003-04:00

If there's a prize for the Wisest Brief Comment on the story that began when Cambridge Police Sgt. Crowley responded to a breaking and entering call and the fallout since, I'll nominate Ex-prosecutor’s comment on the thread of Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

Police officers have a tough job. People call them for help and, then, want to fight them.

They never know when they'll be shot at or assaulted.

The surest way to get arrested is to be loud and argumentative or ask the magic question, as did Dr. Gates, "Do you know who I am?"

My experience with many, many police officers over the years is that arrest is a last resort for an argumentative citizen.

If Professor Gates had remained calm, he would not have been arrested.

In common parlance, his offense is called "contempt of cop."

President Obama was completely off base in his comments, as he is in much of what he does.

More Of Our Money To The Dems?

2009-07-27T19:11:00.003-04:00

A WSJ editorial today begins - - -

Ever notice that those who endorse high taxes and those who actually pay them aren’t the same people?

Consider the curious case of Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who is leading the charge for a new 5.4-percentage point income tax surcharge and recently called it “the moral thing to do.” About his own tax liability he seems less, well, fervent.

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-front villa and is more often than not rented out.

But when the National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported income looked suspiciously low.

In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property. (bolds added)

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season.

Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of $75,000 over the years.

First he blamed his wife for the oversight because he said she was supposed to be managing the property.

Then he blamed the language barrier. “Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” Mr. Rangel explained. . . .

There’s more here.

But I’m ready to say, “Enough! Stop, Dems!”

What about you?

Did Hopman Have A “Feminist” Motivation?

2009-07-27T10:54:00.003-04:00

Various people at various places have recently offered reasons for why Jill Hopman wrote her Charlie’s Pub hoax story.

From March ’06 when Hopman published it until May 24 of this year, I didn’t think much about her hoax or her motivation(s).

That was largely because her hoax was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that even Mike Nifong didn’t use it to slime the players.

When I did think about it, it was usually in conjunction with recalling how the Raleigh N&O, with no confirming witnesses, used Hopman’s hoax in a hit piece targeting the lacrosse players at a time when they were in great legal and physical peril.

When on May 24 of this year KC Johnson said Hopman’s story “could have been correct,” I thought more about KC’s motivations than Hopman’s.

And on July 6 when Chris Halkides endorsed what KC had said and castigated me for questioning KC’s “could have been correct” claim after which KC promptly linked to Halkides’ post, it was the two professors and not Hopman that I wondered about.

Since then I’ve listened to and read what many people, including many of you, are saying about Hopman, Johnson and Halkides.

I’ve said nothing about what I think Hopman’s motivations were.

When I’ve thought about motivations in connection with the Hopman hoax, it’s mostly been about the two professors’ motivations.

But I’ll offer one thought about Hopman’s "motivation" which I think is important to consider.

But first a few words about “motivation:” We should all get into the habit of using the plural “motivations.” It’s almost always an interacting complex of many factors – some much stronger than others – that lead us to act.

As to Hopman’s motivations, some have offered her “feminism” as one. Perhaps it was. I really don’t know.

But it’s a very safe bet there were many other feminists in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

Yet only Hopman published a hoax piece. And no feminist in Charlie’s that night has ever come forward to publicly support the hoax.

So while I don’t rule out Hopman’s feminism as a factor, even a strong one, in impelling her to create and publish her hoax, I'm confident other factors contributed to what she did, and may have been more powerful motivators than "feminism."

That no other feminist in Charlie’s that night publicly endorsed the hoax and tried to hype it is to their credit, and a reminder that there are all kinds of feminists just as there are all kinds of bloggers.

I don’t plan to say more about Hopman’s motivations because there are many more important related matters to consider regarding the Charlie's hoax, with the motivations of Johnson and Halkides being two of them.

KC Johnson's 7-24-09 Comments & My Response

2009-07-26T16:15:00.008-04:00

On Friday, July 24, 2009 historian and blogger KC Johnson, co-author with Stuart Taylor of Until Proven Innocent (UPI), an account of the Duke lacrosse case, made a lengthy statement on the thread of this post.

KC’s statement follows in full after which I offer my responses below the star line.

KC Johnson said...

As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. (He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting.)

I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. (I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum.)

This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." (Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter.)

While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger.

In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek.

Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly.

July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

********************************************

Folks,

KC’s comments are in italics and parentheses; mine are in plain.

( As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. )

I did not attack KC for “not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O.”

The Stancill- Blythe article was one of a number of specific articles I cited in KC Johnson Now which illustrate the absurdity of this:

UPI claims “The N&O … distinguished itself after its lamentable first few articles in late March[.]” (p. 259, hardcover edition

I added:

That's an absurd statement. It grossly understates what the N&O really did in March.

It presents a characterization of the N&O's subsequent DL coverage which gives readers no hint of what the N&O's DL coverage was really like for weeks, and in some cases many months, after Apr. 1.

Folks, if you haven't already, please read KC Johnson Now. See for yourselves what I actually said.

( To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. )

I can’t recall doing any reporting on what KC calls “the incident” before KC Johnson Now. I only began reporting and commenting on Hopman’s hoax when KC said he found her credible and thought her story could be "correct."

( He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting. )

News “crews.” News “teams” News “organizations.”

But KC Johnson's "not aware of any media organization in which 'crews' do reporting."

I had to smile. What about you?

( I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. )

Yet KC also said Hopman “seemed credible” and that the “confidential witnesses” to whom she referred KC “corroborated in no uncertain terms” her story so that KC Johnson thinks it “could have beed correct.”

But he doesn't say that here, does he?

( So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. )

Again, I didn’t criticize KC for not mentioning “the Charlie’s incident” in UPI or his DIW blog posts.

I wish he’d stop repeating that falsehood.

( At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. )

Here KC's offering another variant of his false claim I attacked him for not publishing on the Stancill-Blythe story. He doesn't make the slightest attempt to respond forthrightly to what I actually said.

KC brings to mind Reagan’s gibe to Carter: “There you go again.”

( I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum. )

I wish KC had said he's praised the N&O for withholding for 13 months statements Mangum made during the Mar. 24, 2006 interview.

Mangum's statements included her claim the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also sexually assaulted at the party but hadn't reported it for fear of losing her job. Also, that Roberts would do anything for money.

( This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. )

I don’t doubt KC’s convinced what he’s done is “appropriate.”

But thoughtful people, including many close to the DL case, are asking why, against all the evidence to the contrary, KC concluded Hopman’s obvious hoax story “could have been correct?”

We don’t even know how KC determined his "witnesses" he apparently didn't communicate with until more than a year after "the incident" were even in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

And KC's said nothing about interviewing any of the lacrosse players or their parents.

When is he going to talk about that?

( Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." )

I’ve already responded to all the rehashing KC’s doing here except the red herring he tosses out about my use of “hoax.”

In reading KC Johnson Now and my comments on its thread, you’ll see I never gave any credence to Hopman’s story. It was and is a false story meant to mislead. That’s what a hoax is.

I plan to continue using the term "hoax" and trying to persuade others that, contrary to what KC and Chris Halkides are saying, Hopman's story is a very obvious hoax.

( Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter. )

KC’s right about my not contacting Hopman. But then I didn’t contact Crystal Mangum before reporting she was a hoaxer.

On the matter of how much importance any of us should place on KC’s assertion he has witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story which he believes “could have been correct” I’ll say much more soon.

And for now here are just two things I'm sure many of you know also:

1) - - - KC’s conclusion expressed on May 24 that Hopman’s story “could have been correct” and his persistence in that belief since tell us something important about his judgment.

2) - - - His “Charlie’s incident” claims have already been clipped and saved by attorneys for defendants accused of trashing the lacrosse players. Who would have thought even a few months ago that those attorneys would come to rely on KC Johnson and to a lesser degree Chris Halkides?

( While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger. )

There he goes again.

If KC thinks repeating that falsehood often enough will get people to believe it, he’s right. Some do.

On the other hand, fair-minded people who’ve looked at what I’ve said don’t.

( In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. )

Sure. That’s routine for a book such as UPI.

( Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek. )

You don't need me to tell you KC’s flailing here.

What he says brought to mind Raleigh N&O editor Linda Williams claim the N&O had to withhold Mangum's statements out of libel concerns.

Attorneys can say more about what KC says.

( Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." )

I use “an extraordinarily strong term like ‘hoax’” only when it’s called for as it is for the stories told by Crystal Mangum and Jill Hopman.

( Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly. )

Most of you know people are wise to evaluate all bloggers credibility post by post.

Folks, thank you for reading and your support.

John

Tough Travel Day: No Blogging Tonight

2009-07-25T20:53:00.002-04:00

You know there are good and bad days.

Today was a bad one.

I was barely able to keep up with email and posting comments.

Look for more tomorrow by noon.

John

Blogging Resumes Early Saturday Evening

2009-07-25T07:18:00.004-04:00

I’d a very heavy work load yesterday and will be traveling from now until late afternoon.

Blogging will resume tonight.

In the meantime, if you haven’t done so already, please read the following posts and their very interesting and informative threads:

Hopman Told A Hoax

Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

If the gods of transportation cooperate I may get a chance to clear some comments around noon today but no promises.

Chris Halkides’ post "Charlie’s" is filled with specious reasoning but you may want to take a look at it anyway.

If you do, I hope you read its thread which includes a broad array of comments including some which belong in the “not so” category and others which belong in the “very worthwhile” category.

There’s an extensive comment on the "Charlie’s" thread from KC Johnson which I’ll respond to tonight at JinC with a briefer comment sent to Halkides for posting on his "Charlie’s" thread.

I hope you’re back tonight or tomorrow morning.

And thanks to all of you who’ve been commenting here.

John

About Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

2009-07-23T20:38:00.004-04:00

Here's Mike Williams' letter today - - -

Pictured below is tenured Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. being arrested for disorderly conduct by the Cambridge police.

You can read the actual police report here.

Obama himself weighed in last night during his press conference, saying the police acted “stupidly” after first admitting that he didn’t know the details of the case.

Patterico has probably the most informed posting I’ve read here.

I’ll give Ed Morrissey the last word for today on this one.

On Obamacare, the President’s sales pitch apparently fell flat. Both Reid and Pelosi have deferred Congressional action until the fall. That’s apparently now OK by Obama.

Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Well, no, champ, it’s not okay. It’s a huge, potentially crippling setback, and a personal embarrassment for him that his big health-care pep talk last night — which even his fans in the punditocracy are panning — was greeted this morning by Harry Reid deciding to pull the plug before the “deadline.”

No problem for the O, though; watch as he segues effortlessly into the new reality.

Too bad he didn’t falsely claim that he never expected to have a bill by August, though.

I’m at the point where I kind of look forward to those Orwellian “but let me be clear, I have consistently said” lies when he has to reverse himself on something.

Note his admonition to the Senate to “just keep working” while they’re getting ready to, um, take a month off.

Exit question: If health-care reform is such an urgent national priority, why aren’t the Democrats suspending their vacations to pass it?

Mike

Two Trillion Tons - A Parody

2009-07-23T16:05:00.001-04:00

Hat tip: AC

Hopman Told A Hoax

2009-07-23T13:35:00.016-04:00

Readers Alert: As first published this post linked to a Google map showing both Charlie's Pub and the house where the lacrosse party was held. Truth Hurts 001 let me know the link was rotten.

I've removed it and thank Truth Hurt 001 for the heads up.

John
________________________

If you’ve read JinC posts here, here and here, you know many of the reasons why, notwithstanding KC Johnson’s claims to the contrary, you can be sure Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is a transparent hoax.

But some people still aren't convinced it's a hoax. So here are more reasons and reasoning which I hope will help persuade at least some of those people to decide Hopman's story was indeed a hoax.

By the evening of Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 the members of Duke’s Men’s lacrosse team were certain:

They were innocent of charges made by Crystal Mangum. No felony crimes occurred at a party many of them had attended. What's more, they'd cooperated to an extraordinary extent with police investigators.

But despite that, the DPD spokesperson was repeatedly telling media “horrific crimes” had been committed by some of them and none of them were cooperating with police.

So the players knew for certain police were lying about them and setting them up for framing and heaven knows what else.

Folks, have you ever been in a town where you knew the cops were calling you and your teammates a bunch of violent felony criminals and whipping up public outrage;

And representing you falsely as a bunch of privileged, violence-prone drunken louts;

Where the regions major newspaper had that morning front-paged a story saying you and your teammates hosted a party that ended in “sexual violence;”

Where the paper's story said the “victim” of your "sexual violence" was a frightened, young black mother gang-raped by three members of your team with the rest of you now covering up for the rapists;

And that in a town with a very large black population;

Where the news story ended with a professor at your university’s law school saying the sport you played was one of “violence;”

Where you knew that despite knowing you and your teammates had been extraordinarily cooperative with police, your university president had just issued a statement about the charges leveled against your team in which he said nothing about your cooperation;

But in which he instead made comments stoking what you knew was the fast-spreading “wall of silence” lie?

Folks, for Hopman's story to be anything other than a hoax, about half the lacrosse team that Saturday night had to decide to go to a crowded bar and start shot-slamming and shouting; acting for all the world exactly like the people wanting you framed were falsely claiming you were.

While I'm confident the lacrosse players knew the great majority of Durham people would respect their persons, they certainly also knew they were at risk of physical harm from unstable, angry individuals. It only takes one.

Charlie’s is a little more than a 1/2 mile away from the house where the party was held and from which three members of your team have fled for their personal safety.

That evening a rally called a “vigil” was held in front of the house during which the lies meant to inflame the community and which were endangering the players were repeated and endorsed.

The team’s parents, a great many of whom were then in Durham, understood the dangerous situation their sons were facing.

Wouldn’t they have kept their sons close to them? Did KC Johnson ever ask any of the parents whether what Hopman wrote could, as he says, “have been correct?”

To further illustrate how beyond belief Hopman’s story is, let’s imagine that somehow about half the lacrosse team did show up at Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006 and began, as Hopman described it in the Mar. 28 Chronicle:

. . .order[ing] round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful(sic) drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

If anything like that had actually happened, don’t you find it incredible that in this world of cells and blackberrys no one seems to have either: 1) called any of the lacrosse parents to let them know what jeopardy their sons were in; or 2) called 911 to complain about the players?

How easy it would have been for Durham Police to respond to a “noise” or “public drunkenness” complaint and enter the bar.

The police could have asked each of “the 20 or so” lacrosse players to show proof of age.

Even if – again we’re only imagining the players were in Charlie’s to show how beyond belief Hopman’s hoax is - even if the police found all the players of age and none drunk, the police being called to Charlie’s and the public drinking and shot slamming of about half the lacrosse team which outraged the other patrons in the bar would have been a front page story.

Where were Charlie’s staff and management during what Hopman says happened?

Hopman makes no mention of staff trying to quiet the players.

Or reminding them of the grave jeopardy at which they were placing themselves.

Or encouraging them to head home and out of the hostile atmosphere described in Hopman’s hoax story.

Hopman makes no mention of staff and management trying to reassure the other patrons that they’re doing something about the players.

In North Carolina, a tavern owner and staff can be held civilly libel for what later happens if they serve patrons who are obviously drunk.

Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is as obvious a hoax as Crystal Mangum’s bathroom story,

Journal Mess At Duke Law

2009-07-23T09:31:00.002-04:00

Legal tabloid Above the Law headlines:

Duke Law's Notification Process for Journal Acceptance Is A Total Train Wreck

In the tabs’ story we read:

. . .The system for notifying students of whether they had been accepted to journals was flawed.

Some people were told they were accepted by a journal when, in fact, they were not.

Others were given placement on journals they didn't apply for. …

The story includes an email from Duke Law’s Director of Publications.

And yes, it's all the fault of “a new computer program.”

Dear All

For the first time, this office used a new computer program intended to improve the efficiency of the process to assist in making the selections for journal membership. Selection lists generated by the program were distributed to the journals on Thursday.

After this distribution, we discovered, and for reasons the publications office does not yet fully understand, the program generated significant errors.

As a result some students who should have received offers for journal membership did not receive those offers, or did not receive offers to join their preferred journal. Some of the offers extended for journal membership were extended in error and will have to be reconsidered.

We are working to redo the selection process as quickly as possible, and will be working through this weekend. We expect to have this process completed by the end of the day on Monday and have the corrected selection lists sent to the journals then.

I very much regret these mistakes and the obvious upset and uncertainty these errors are causing you. Please accept my sincere apology.

Be sure to read the comment thread. Here's the first comment:

It was fun being on DLJ for a day.

Hat tip: A Duke Law friend

Now NPR's Liasson Tells Us

2009-07-22T18:54:00.004-04:00

The BBC reported today - - -

... At a regional summit in Thailand, Mrs Clinton said the US was prepared to bolster the defence of Gulf allies if Iran developed nuclear weapons.

A US Gulf "defence umbrella" would make it unlikely Iran would be stronger or safer with a weapon, Mrs Clinton said. ...

Later, speaking on Fox News, NPR correspondent Mara Liasson said the Obama administration would be irresponsible if it didn't prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran.

I don't remember presidential candidate Barack Obama promising that during his first months in office he would prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran?

Do you?

And I don't remember Liasson and NPR telling us last October if Obama was elected he would - - you know - -

Now they tell us!

US Debt Clock

2009-07-22T09:15:00.003-04:00

Even if you think you're keeping up, prepare to be shocked here.

Sorry To Be Late With Postings

2009-07-21T20:59:00.004-04:00

Folks,

I'm late with promised postings.

One was due Locomotive Breath. I hope he'll give me a little more time.

I'm also late with the post I promised in Chris Halkides' Important Opportunity.

Chris and others, please be patient. I want what I offer you all the best I can do.

That's taking time.

There's also this - - -

Offline I've made to some folks posting commitments which I've not yet met.

I'm sorry about that and count on those folks knowing I appreciate their support and will "carry through."

If tomorrow things go as expected, I'll post in response at least to LB and to Halkides' embrace of KC Johnson's claim of credibity for what's obviously a hoax perpetrated by Jill Hopman.

Thank you for your understanding.

John

Cks From The Hague

2009-07-21T16:27:00.003-04:00

Cks is in The Netherlands completing a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar for Teachers.

For those of you who have been reading cks’ “letters,” here’s her latest followed by my response below the star line.

___________________

I cannot thank the US taxpayers enough for funding such a program that allows teachers the opportunity to study a particular period of history in depth as well as the ability to visit many of the museums which hold items to which they refer in their classrooms; and to visit those places that have played such an important role in the development of our own civilization.

Going from London to a small, leafy suburb in the Netherlands has been in some ways a culture shock. Riders on horses clip clop outside my apartment window during the day. I bicycle into the small town nearby or can walk (though I have not yet) to the North Sea beach that is about three miles away.

We have been on walking tours of both Amsterdam and Den Hag. Tomorrow I am off to Doorn to visit the castle and resting place of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Mostly, at this phase of the seminar program, I am expected to (and am working on) writing a paper that relates to what we have read and observed.

This coming week we are off to northern Netherlands to see the polders and dikes as well as the industries of that region. Our last site visit is the following week to Leiden and Haarlem.

While in the Netherlands, one is in a position to take side trips to visit many places - however, for me, until I am finished with my writing and reading, such meanderings will be put on hold.

Thank you again for your suggestions (and those of others) of places to see while in London.

If you have any suggestions of places in the Netherlands or Belgium to visit I am open to them as well.

******************************************************

Dear cks,

Thanks for keeping us informed.

My favorite part of Amsterdam is the Canal district. It’s not heavily commercial or touristy. It's largely a residential area great for casual strolling.

Almost all the buildings are old, architecturally harmonious and appealing, at least to me.

The area has many nice cafes and restaurants locals favor.

Don’t miss the side streets between the main canal streets. You'll find in those streets many interesting shops.

Breda is a small city not far from The Hague. Most tourists overlook it, but it’s a jewel.

Check it out on the Net to see if you think it might appeal to you.

If you go, don’t miss the Grote Kerk.

Good luck.

Keep in touch.

Best,

John

Why Is Hoaxer Hopman “Credible” To KC Johnson?

2009-07-21T11:53:00.005-04:00

On Mar. 28, 2006 in a Chronicle guest commentary Jill Hopman, an ’05 Duke grad, told an obvious hoax story.

She claimed to have witnessed 20 or so Duke Men’s lacrosse players (the team had 47 members) behaving at a popular Durham bar just like the arrogant, aggressive, booze-swilling tavern louts the players’ most reckless critics were then saying they were. (Some of those critics still make such false claims.)

Here’s part of what Hopman said (all bolds following are mine):

This past Saturday night, days after the lacrosse story appeared in newspapers, I was at Charlie's having a drink with my local softball team when about 20 lacrosse players arrived.

Some were my close friends at Duke. Some are absolutely amazing athletes that shouldn't be tainted by the unfortunate and extremely sad events of this month. Most should not be guilty by association.

Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!"

At this point, the bar started buzzing.

Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers."

Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."

The players had no idea who was intensely analyzing them, nor did they really seem to care.

While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.

Hopman’s story was so quickly and fully discredited that not even Mike Nifong tried to use it against the players.

But KC Johnson later said:

… Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible[.]

Questions: Why did Hopman seem “credible” to KC?

Why didn’t she seem incredible, as in unbelievable?

Chris Halkides' Important Opportunity

2009-07-20T15:20:00.006-04:00

Correction: The post which follows contains a number of references to KC Johnson's claim the hoaxer Jill Hopman's story "could have been correct."
As first published, one of those reference's said "could have been true."

That reference has now been changed from "true" to "correct."

I'm sorry for my error.

John
___________________

Readers Note: For background to this post you should be familiar with the following posts and their threads:

Professor Chris Halkides' post, "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'"

And my posts:

KC Johnson Now

Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax

Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax?

About The Charlie's Hoax, We Should Agree

John

_____________________________________

Folks,

What follows is the full text of a comment Chris Halkides left on the thread of About The Charlie's Hoax, We Should All Agree followed by my response below the star line.

I'll send Chris a link to this post as soon as I post it.

Chris addresses me and begins - - -

When I posted a piece at View-from-Wilmington that discussed the Charlie’s incident, I did so solely because you had expressed skepticism about KC Johnson’s confidential sources in your post, “KC Johnson Now.”

It appears to me that you have altered your position slightly; at the end of “Hopman’s Charlie’s shot slamming hoax” you wrote “I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Charlie’s Pub the night of March 25, 2006 and witnessed the events Hopman described. But I find it both hard to believe and very sad that KC Johnson now gives any credence to people parroting the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax or to the hoax itself.”

I have no problem with altering one’s stance: My own position on what happened at Charlie’s has shifted in subtle ways, due to much intelligent commentary at VfW and JinC. It is worth bearing in mind what John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Although you and I are not in agreement based on the quote above, I consider the issue I first raised to be settled now.

However, I do want to be clear about one thing. Nothing I have written on this matter or any other DL issue is ever intended to keep a story going to embarrass the DL players or their families in any way. Whatever minor misdeeds one or another player may have committed, RCD and the whole team were paid back one hundredfold by Duke, the MSM, law enforcement, and others. On that, too, I trust that we are all agreed.

************************************************

Now my interlinear response.

Dear Chris,

You say - - -

When I posted a piece at View-from-Wilmington that discussed the Charlie’s incident, I did so solely because you had expressed skepticism about KC Johnson’s confidential sources in your post, “KC Johnson Now.”

That’s not correct as anyone can see by reading your post here.

Among other things you say:

[John] questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo.

I didn’t question KC’s truthfulness.

I questioned and continue to question why KC said he has two confidential witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Jill Hopman’s Charlies story, an obvious hoax, but which KC said “could be correct.”

It appears to me that you have altered your position slightly; at the end of “Hopman’s Charlie’s shot slamming hoax” you wrote “I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Charlie’s Pub the night of March 25, 2006 and witnessed the events Hopman described. But I find it both hard to believe and very sad that KC Johnson now gives any credence to people parroting the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax or to the hoax itself.”

I have not altered my "position slightly" regarding KC's Charlie's hoax witnesses.

Since KC first said they "corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman's Charlie's story which he said "could have been correct," I've made clear I think those witnesses couldn't corroborate something that didn't happen.

I still believe that.

I've also asked how, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, KC could say Hopman's story "could have been correct?"

I’m still asking that question. I hope KC answers it.

I have no problem with altering one’s stance: My own position on what happened at Charlie’s has shifted in subtle ways, due to much intelligent commentary at VfW and JinC. It is worth bearing in mind what John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Although you and I are not in agreement based on the quote above, I consider the issue I first raised to be settled now.

What issue do you think is “settled now?”

The issue, as you put it, of my “fail[ing] to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others?”

Or something else?

However, I do want to be clear about one thing. Nothing I have written on this matter or any other DL issue is ever intended to keep a story going to embarrass the DL players or their families in any way. Whatever minor misdeeds one or another player may have committed, RCD and the whole team were paid back one hundredfold by Duke, the MSM, law enforcement, and others. On that, too, I trust that we are all agreed.

Chris, what follows is the most important part of my response.

I believe you when you say you didn’t intend to “embarrass the DL players or their families in any way.”

I also believe you didn’t mean to make things more problematic for them.

Your post was about me; they were simply and unfortunately “collateral damage.”

The most important thing you can do now is to take another look at Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story and conclude what the players and their parents know and what most of us believe: It’s an obvious hoax.

If you conclude it is, there’s something I hope you’ll then do.

That’s to publish a stand-alone post unequivocally labeling Hopman’s story a hoax and explaining why you’re now convinced of that.

I plan to put up at least one post late this evening or tomorrow morning concerning why we can all be sure, KC Johnson’s claim notwithstanding, that Hopman’s Charlie’s story could not have been correct.

I hope you’ll take a look at it.

A stand-alone post such as I’ve described is, IMO, due the players, their parents and those now working to develop as true an account as possible of what happened in Durham in Spring ’06.

It will also reflect well on you.

Best,

John

“The U.S. Steers Left on Honduras”

2009-07-20T11:47:00.002-04:00

Who’s surprised by that WSJ headline?

The story ends with an example of what the Obama administration calls “smart diplomacy:”

Mr. Chávez understands that Mr. Zelaya's star is fading, which is why he called Tom Shannon, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at home at 11:15 p.m on July 9.

Mr. Shannon told me that Mr. Chávez "again made the case for the unconditional return of Mr. Zelaya, though he did so in a less bombastic manner than he has in the past."

Mr. Shannon says that in response he "suggested to him that Venezuela and its [allies] address the fear factor by calling for free and fair elections and a peaceful transition to a new government." That, Mr. Shannon, says, "hasn't happened."

Nor is it likely to. Yet the U.S. continues exerting enormous pressure for the return of Mr. Zelaya. If it prevails, it is unlikely that Mr. Zelaya's mobs or Mr. Chávez will suddenly be tamed.

A Brief Note To Locomotive Breath

2009-07-19T23:14:00.003-04:00

Dear LB,

I'm holding your comment because I want to respond to it on the main page.

That will be one of the first things I do tomorrow, Monday, morning.

I count on your understanding.

Best,

John

An Email to KC Johnson on 7-19-09

2009-07-19T22:42:00.002-04:00

Readers Note: For background to the email to KC Johnson which follows, please read my KC Johnson Now and KC's Durham-in-Wonderland post here.

John
___________________________________

KC,

I promised to be back to you regarding criticisms you’ve made of me and my blogging.

Let’s start with your June 30 Durham-in-Wonderland post which included this:

[T]he blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter.

I take it you were referring to what I said in KC Johnson Now:

I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice. All Joan did was to civilly and persausively disagree with KC over his ridicule of Prejean.

After a look at all the related material I can find, I can see that you never said you'd banned Joan.

If I’d have checked first with you and Joan, I know you both would have told me that.

I’m sorry I didn’t do that.

As for whether my saying you’d banned Joan was a slime, people can judge that for themselves.

The hour is late. I’ll say more soon.

John

Some Days You Just Can't Win

2009-07-19T17:28:00.005-04:00

Folks,

Here in italic is part of a comment KC Johnson admirer skeptical left on the thread of Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax? followed by my comments below the star line.

John,

I am confused. Weren't you the one who resurrected the "Charlie's" story in your "KC Johnson Now" attack?

The way I understood it, you were criticizing KC for going easy on the N&O and you used the "Charlie's" episode as an example.

Then KC explained why he had left out the "Charlie's" incident from UPI-- because he had different stories from different sources.

I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …

*******************************************

Folks,

I didn’t bring Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story “back” because it’s never been “away.”

Her Charlie’s story, really a hoax, has been mentioned by major news organizations.

It’s known to people who’ve closely followed the DL case.

If the suits go forward, which I think they will, every statement, claim, piece of evidence and much else will be reexamined again and again.

The players, parents and many others supporting them know that.

One of their hopes is that the intense scrutiny the suits will generate will this time produce a truer account of events in Durham in Spring ’06 than the one which emerged the first time.

With that understood, let’s be clear about what I said and what KC and Chris Halkides subsequently said and did.

I said on May 25 in KC Johnson Now:

No one in the bar at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story.

People who were at the bar at the time in question and who have spoken publicly have said what the woman claimed was false; and that's why she was barred from the bar and thrown off the softball team.

Blythe & Stancill reported nothing from witnesses who denied what the woman said.

The two reporters & the N&O just went with a smear story they knew would add to the community’s “flaring tensions.”

I think most of you will agree what I posted isn’t hyping a story; it’s knocking it down.

Now here on the thread of KC Johnson Now is part of KC's response to what I said about the hoax and the N&O’s story:

I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article.

In the same comment KC also said Hopman’s story “could have been correct.” (bold added)

But, in fact, Hopman’s Charlie’s hoax story was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that not even Mike Nifong tried to use it against the players.

Now three years later on the Internet of all places KC Johnson claims it “could have been correct.”

Then Halkides embraces KC’s claim in this post.

KC in turn links to Halkides.

And after they do all of that, skeptical says I hyped Hopman's story.

Some days you just can’t win.

In any case, you have the facts now.

I plan to persist.

Thanks for reading.

John

UPDATE @ 9:10 PM EST:

Anon @ 6:54 commented:

Sceptical did not say you hyped the story. He said "you were the one who brought it back." There's a huge difference there.

As we can all see looking back, skeptical said:

I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …

I think Anon has offered a distinction without a difference.

But judge for yourselves.

Talking To Regulars & Recent Commenters

2009-07-18T18:42:00.002-04:00

(This is a post in the old web log tradition of notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for links or background explanations.)

Folks,

My on- and offline email traffic yesterday and today have been heavier than usual.

Some emails are lengthy and deal with sensitive matters which, in part or whole, call for a considered and prompt response.

I’m behind on those emails, but I’ll get to them. Sorry for the delay.

The emails that call for a main page response will get one.

Other emails have been the kind that are usually deleted for the usual reasons.

Regulars know the kind of email comments which get deleted.

If you're new to JinC and don't know, look around. I think you'll understand.

If you don't like a blog that doesn't publish certain things, consider yourself lucky. There are millions of blogs, among which there must be hundreds to your liking.

Tonight or tomorrow morning I’ll post linking to documents that refute sceptical’s unfortunate and prima facie erroneous assertion concerning KC Johnson's and Chris Halkides' hyping of the Charlie’s hoax.

As most of you know, I promised KC Johnson that I’d respond by this weekend to his requests for apologies, admissions of errors, etc.

I plan to have that post up by tomorrow evening.

I’ll try to blog more posts this weekend but no promises.

Right now my intention is to respond to emails by professor Halkides and One Spook after I finish the tasks I’ve just mentioned.

But no promises on that.

You know things happen fast and something else might come up.

To all of you who’ve sent emails or called with expressions of support for my recent blogging, thank you.

Best,

John

About The Charlie’s Hoax, We Should Agree

2009-07-17T21:46:00.014-04:00

that:

1) - - - In Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax? I said about Jill Hopman’s hoax story concerning Duke lacrosse players’ alleged drunken behavior in a Durham bar the night of Mar. 25, 2006:

After all, it had been so quickly and fully discredited back in March 2006 that not even Mike Nifong had used it against the lacrosse players. (bold in original)

2 - - And that KC Johnson said @ 8:57 PM on the thread of KC Johnson Now:

. . . “I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article. (bold added) "

“The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was not because of a partiality to the N&O but because I had no clear grounds for attacking the article.

"My general approach, given that there were so many articles worth criticizing in the case, was not to do posts on an article that could have been correct.” . . . (bold added)

We can agree on those two quotes, right?

And we should all be able to also agree KC knows that in her Chronicle op-ed Hopman said:

. . This past Saturday night, days after the lacrosse story appeared in newspapers, I was at Charlie's having a drink with my local softball team when about 20 lacrosse players arrived.

Some were my close friends at Duke. Some are absolutely amazing athletes that shouldn't be tainted by the unfortunate and extremely sad events of this month. Most should not be guilty by association.

Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers."

Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."

The players had no idea who was intensely analyzing them, nor did they really seem to care. While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.

Needless to say, it was hard to stomach how their actions conveyed a sense that the severity of the situation is lost on them.

Regardless of guilt, there is a degree of gravity that is not met by simply closing facebook profiles to the public. This is not about hazing or underage drinking or even cheating. And this cannot be contained inside the proverbial Duke bubble or under a blanket of silence. …

It would seem a simple matter for us to agree on all of the above.

What KC Johnson’s Doing Now

2009-07-17T11:54:00.004-04:00

Readers Note: For background to the post below you should be familiar with the following posts and their threads:

KC Johnson Now

Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax

Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax?

John
___________________________________________

Folks, I want to respond to a few parts of a comment KC Johnson left this morning on the thread of Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax?

KC’s in italics; I’m in plain.

KC begins - - -

This is the oddest post I have read in the long line of quixotic posts demonizing those who do not share the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina's overwhelmingly negative appraisal of the N&O’s overall role in the case.

KC, you frequently say you don’t get into name-calling and ridicule..

But you're doing that now.

You used to call me simply John or John in Carolina or JinC.

Now in post after post I’m “the blogger whose (sic) publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina.”

What caused the change? What’s your purpose?

As those who have either read UPI or followed DIW know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident or the article in question. I have only responded to unfounded allegations on the point from the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina.

What “unfounded allegations” with regard to the Charlie's hoax are you talking about?

I have already noted his move into outright factual inaccuracies on matters substantial (the alleged banning of infrequent DIW commenter Joan Foster, the alleged insertion of something “new” into an April post) to minor (the claim that I “sent” him an “email”). These errors have either remained uncorrected or acknowledged in an ungenerous fashion.

KC, I’ll get back to the above paragraph this weekend.

Right now I think most people reading this want to focus on the Charlie’s hoax or what you call “the incident.”

“Hundreds” of members of the media were in Durham? The blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina doesn’t specify, but “hundreds” presumes at least 200. Really? Take the three local papers (N&O, H-S, Chron.) and the four local TV stations. Generously, in late March 2006, they might have had 35 reporters on the case. Add to that five cable networks (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and CourtTV), the NYT, the AP, the LAT, USA Today, and Newsweek, all of which had a reporter or at most two reporters in Durham. Perhaps 20 total reporters there? Add in, to be on the high side, 10 reporters from other media sources who occasionally sent in a reporter for a story. That’s 65, total—a lot of reporters, but not 200 or more. So where are the other 135+ reporters of which the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina wrote?

KC, you’re providing a significant underestimate.

You mention only “three local papers (N&O, H-S, Chron.).” Did you consider in your estimate The Independent and NCCU’s student newspaper, The Campus Echo? Both gave considerable coverage to the DL case during Spring ’06.

So did North Carolina’s very active African-American news organizations which you also don’t mention

You make no mention of the great many “freelancers,” “stringers,” and independent photographers who rushed to this city hoping to take a photo or pick up “a story angle” they could peddle to the MSMs.

Any one of those folks who could have corroborated Hopman’s story would have had at payday and big-time notice by a possible future employer. The person would very likely have been on a few cable “news” shows, too.

Remember hearing about all the satellite trucks surrounding Duke and the Durham County Courthouse?

Most of those vehicles are owned by independent contractors who sign on with a news organization for a particular story. The trucks usually have a crew of two or three. Some crew members have journalism backgrounds; others come from tech backgrounds.

I talked to many of them at the time of the Charlie’s hoax. All said they and members of other crews as well as many news organizations had tried to confirm Hopman’s story but couldn’t. All those I talked with rightly concluded it was a hoax.

KC, if you had been in Durham the week The Chronicle published Hopman’s hoax story, I hope you’d now agree: “Hundreds of members of media were in Durham covering it. They scrambled hard to confirm Hopman’s story but soon concluded it was a hoax.”

A lot of people are asking: Does KC Johnson really believe there’s any chance what Hopman described in The Chronicle actually happened?

I don’t blame them; in fact, I’m one of them.

Based on your assertion you have two witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story, what else is a person to believe than that you think her false witness might be true?

Why haven't you said you talked to two people about "the incident" in Charlie’s the night of March 25, 2006 who agreed with Hopman's story, but that based on all the other evidence available, you don’t believe what your "witnesses" are saying?

Many of us did something like that very early in the Duke lacrosse case as regards statements by another false witness, Crystal Mangum.

Your saying you have no reason to challenge the falseness of what Hopman claims reminds me of those people who were saying – and in some cases continue to say – they “can’t be sure what happened in the bathroom” because they weren’t in there at the time.

Only in your case, KC, you claim you can’t say Hopman’s story's a hoax because you have two "witnesses" who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” what the woman said.

I don’t believe the KC Johnson of 2006 and into 2007 would have put himself in such a position.

John

Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie’s Hoax?

2009-07-16T11:25:00.014-04:00

On May 24 of this year I said in KC Johnson Now:

On [Apr. 1, 2006] the N&O published under [reporters] Anne Blythe’s and Jane Stancill’s bylines a story which began:
A woman who wrote about seeing lacrosse players slamming down shots of alcohol and shouting "Duke Lacrosse" at a bar two days after they submitted DNA samples in a rape case said Friday that she is no longer welcome in the popular watering hole and has been kicked off the bar's softball team.

The reaction is one more example of flaring tensions from the investigation into whether a woman was raped at a Duke University lacrosse team party. …
I went on to say:
By the time Blythe and Stancill wrote that story, days had passed since the woman first peddled it in a Chronicle op-ed in which she said it “pained” her to write the op-ed because the lacrosse players were her “best friends.”

No one in the bar [, Charlie’s,] at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story.

People who were at the bar at the time in question and who have spoken publicly have said what the woman claimed was false; and that's why she was barred from the bar and thrown off the softball team.

Blythe & Stancill reported nothing from witnesses who denied what the woman said.

The two reporters & the N&O just went with a smear story they knew would add to the community’s “flaring tensions.”
I thought when I published KC Johnson Now that the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax was “a dead one.”

After all, it had been so quickly and fully discredited back in March 2006 that not even Mike Nifong had used it against the lacrosse players.

But no matter.

Just a few hours after I posted KC Johnson Now, KC himself commented on the post thread at 8:57 PM:
I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article. Two strongly dissented from it.

The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was [to avoid doing a post] on an article that could have been correct. (bolds added)
If you read further down the thread you’ll see where I repeatedly show what KC was doing was, IMO, giving life to a vicious hoax the was all but dead until he said he had found two witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms.”

You’ll also see on that thread this from another commenter who said in part :
… There was absolutely no scene of lacrosse players at "Charlies" yelling "Duke lacrosse" after the false allegations.

My daughter was actually at the bar that night with Steph Sparks-Bob Exstrand's sister in law-and 2 lacrosse players-one of whom is my son.(bold added) …
I hoped KC would think about what S. Fogerty had said and that he might stop hyping what sensible people recognize was a hoax.

That was on May 25.

From that date until yesterday, despite a number of provocations on- and offline, I published nothing about KC Johnson’s “witnesses” who, if they’ve given him the same or a very similar account of what Hopman said, are false witnesses, as KC must surely know.

"False witness" is our term for a person who’s given witness that contradicts irrefutable facts or the truth of a situation. The false witness doesn’t have to be perjuring; he or she can be merely deluded

On July 6 UNC-Wilmigton professor Chris Halkides, a frequent commenter at KC’s DIW blog, returned to his own blog from what he said was “a hiatus.”

Halkides chose to reopen his blog with a post titled “John in Carolina’a Post, ‘KC Johnson Now.'” Halkides said:
... I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006. I will treat the second, more serious matter first.

On July 8 KC Johnson posted praising Halkides post and linking to it

Beyond pointing out in response to professor Halkides that expressing skepticism about what someome says is not the same as saying they are lying, I said nothing the Charlie's hoax and KC's false "witnesses" after Halkides' and Johnson's published their posts until yesterday when I posted Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax.

I waited until yesterday before posting in order to see if what's sometimes termed "the corrective power of the blogosphere" would show itself on Halkides' thread and at DIW.

There's been some of that, but there's also been a lot cheering for what Haldides and Johnson are doing along with a lot of distortion - some no doubt deliberate - of what I've said and posted.

I decided yesterday for reasons you can easily guess at and which I'll soon discuss in detail, that the time had come to set the record straight on the Charlie's Hoax and KC Johnson's false "witnesses."

I also hope many of you will consider and discuss why KC brought up his false "witnesses" in the first place; and why he and Halkides decided to promulgate the falsehood that the Charlie's events as described be Jill Hopman might really have happened.

I have the same feeling typing this now as I had when I first challenged the N&O for promulgating what the paper knew was the "wall of solidarity" falsehood which almost immediately morphed into the "wall of solidarity" falsehood.

I'm eager to hear what you think.

Hopman’s Charlie’s Shot Slamming Hoax

2009-07-15T13:23:00.004-04:00

March 28, 2006 was a very difficult day for the members of Duke University’s Men’s lacrosse team and their families. And for the players themselves it was also a dangerous day.

Since March 24 the Raleigh News & Observer had been running a series of biased, racially inflammatory and, in some instances, fraudulent stories casting the players as a bunch of drunken, out-of-control rich white boys, three of whom had beaten, strangled and gang-raped a frightened young black mother while their teammates stood by and did nothing.

The N&O’s March 28 front page carried a story in which Mike Nifong, then DA, called the players “hooligans.”

The front page also contained “the priors” story about previous misdemeanor charges such as underage drinking and public urination brought against 16 of the players, all of whom the N&O named, including one who’d been found innocent of the charge against him.

The N&O’s editorial that day called the accuser “the victim.” It praised her “courage” in coming forward to make her charges. The editorial also demanded suspension of the team’s season until the case was resolved.

On that same March 28 Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published a guest op-ed, “Acute embarrassment,” in which Jill Hopman, a first-year law student at UNC-Chapel Hill and an ’05 Duke grad, claimed that on the preceding Saturday, March 25, the day the N&O ran its now discredited story about what it said was a night ending in “sexual violence,” about 20 Duke lacrosse players entered Charlie’s Pub in Durham and:

“ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why." . . .

By March 28 the Duke lacrosse story had drawn national and international attention. Hundreds of members of media were in Durham covering it. They scrambled hard to confirm Hopman’s story but soon concluded it was a hoax.

Hopman’s allegations were so quickly and fully discredited that not even Mike Nifong or the Durham Police investigators working the case used it when trashing the players.

On May 24 of this year I said in the post KC Johnson Now:

…"no one in the bar at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and [N&O reporters] Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story."…

Some hours later KC Johnson responded on the post thread at 8:57 PM:

That statement actually is untrue. I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article. Two strongly dissented from it. (bold added)

The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was not because of a partiality to the N&O but because I had no clear grounds for attacking the article. My general approach, given that there were so many articles worth criticizing in the case, was not to do posts on an article that could have been correct.(bold added) …

Folks, here’s part of Hopman’s op-ed:

This past Saturday night, days after the lacrosse story appeared in newspapers, I was at Charlie's having a drink with my local softball team when about 20 lacrosse players arrived.

Some were my close friends at Duke. Some are absolutely amazing athletes that shouldn't be tainted by the unfortunate and extremely sad events of this month. Most should not be guilty by association.

Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers."

Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."

The players had no idea who was intensely analyzing them, nor did they really seem to care. While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.

Needless to say, it was hard to stomach how their actions conveyed a sense that the severity of the situation is lost on them. Regardless of guilt, there is a degree of gravity that is not met by simply closing facebook profiles to the public. This is not about hazing or underage drinking or even cheating. And this cannot be contained inside the proverbial Duke bubble or under a blanket of silence. …

Folks, in any of you agree with KC Johnson that what Hopman alleged "could have been correct," how do you explain the fact that none of the hundreds of media then in Durham who tried to confirm Hopman's allegations could find any corroborating witnesses?

How come they couldn’t find any corroborating witnesses after Hopman alleged a cop who played on her softball team pointed out three others in Charlie's he told her were also cops?

Hopman alleged a press photographer friend pointed out three members of the press who witnessed the alleged shot slamming, shouting and the other patrons' reactions of disgust and openly expressed criticism.

If that was actually the case, why didn’t any of those press members report what they witnessed? Why didn’t their fellow members of media interview them as corroborating witnesses?

Folks, you can’t really substantiate or corroborate something that didn’t happen, can you?

Sure, a second witness may agree in no uncertain terms with what the first witness said.

But if the first witness’ statements are false, then the agreeing second witness is also a false witness.

I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Chalie’s Pub the night of March 25, 2006 and witnessed the events Hopman described.

But I find it both hard to believe and very sad that KC Johnson now gives any credence to people parroting the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax or to the hoax itself.

Welcome Back, Ken From Dallas

2009-07-13T22:07:00.002-04:00

Ken,

I'm very glad you're once more around and commenting.

Best,

John

I Owe Sceptical

2009-07-13T21:55:00.004-04:00

Many of you know sceptical blogs at Liestoppers Meeting.

I've twice in recent days said I'd respond to comments sceptical's made.

I've not done that yet.

I want sceptical to know I'm sorry for my delay but I've not forgotten and will comment soon.

Sceptical also knows something I don't know and don't need to know if sceptical will help me.

Sceptical, will you please contact JSwift and let JSwift know I still intend to respond to the comment JSwift left here?

Thanks,

John

Cks’ Final Comment From England

2009-07-13T21:49:00.002-04:00

A number of you have said on- and offline how much you’ve enjoyed cks’ comments from London where she’s been studying as part of a National Endowment for the Humanities grant which also includes study in the Netherlands.

Here’s her final comment before leaving England after which I add a few comments below the star line.

Cks said - - -

I just want to say that my time in London ends early tomorrow and I am off to the Netherlands. Thank you again for directing me to the Churchill War Rooms Museum as well as to choral evensong at Westminster Abbey.

While I never made it to the Grenadier Pub, I did find several (some near where I stayed and others where I happened to be at mealtimes) that served delicious food. The English, I believe, get a bum rap for their cuisine.

Today I just walked in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. A lovely day to reflect on how much the United States and Great Britain owe to each other and to be thankful that their enduring alliance has so far managed to keep the world a better place to live.

******************************************

Cks,

We owe you thanks for sharing your experiences.

You're right about America and Great Britain (by which I’m sure you mean the Commonwealth countries as well) managing “to keep the world a better place to live.”

Have we and they ever; and at what great sacrifice.

John

KC Johnson Sends A Comment

2009-07-13T18:40:00.003-04:00

Readers Note: Earlier today I posted KC Johnson Sends An Email.

I urge you to read it for the background information it provides for the post which follows.

John

__________________________________

A short while ago I received via email the following comment:

KC Johnson has left a new comment on your post "KC Johnson Sends An Email":

It is unclear to me what "email" the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina" refers: I did not send him an email yesterday, nor did I send one to him today.

I did submit a comment yesterday, and, when that comment wasn't cleared, I took the liberty of resubmitting the comment--noting, as is clear from my wording, that I was sure there was a technical problem with its lack of posting.

I offer this comment merely to correct the factual error in this post regarding my having allegedly sent an email. But, as we all have learned over the course of this bizarre string of posts, it is no longer reasonable to expect factual accuracy from the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina."

Posted by KC Johnson to John In Carolina at 2:51 PM

*********************************************

Folks, this from Blogger’s How do I moderate comments at my blog? page:

Enabling comment moderation then drops down an email form.

This lets you moderate comments via email without affecting your regular comment notification setting. It is optional, since you can always moderate comments through the Blogger interface. (bold added)

Because I travel a fair amount I use Blogger’s email option which lets me moderate comments “on the fly” using a laptop in airports, hotel lobbies, etc.

So KC’s comment, like all reader comments, came to me in email form.

KC Johnson’s obviously very angry but I don’t see that in calling what he sent an “email” I did anything terribly wrong, much less “bizarre.”

If in the future I receive in email form a comment from KC, I’ll try to remember when referring to it to say “comment,” not “email.”

As for his sending me his comment twice, as I said in KC Johnson Sends An Email I received it only once.

KC recently explained his posting an horrendous comment attacking Joan Foster for which he was sharply criticized by saying he'd accidentally hit the Send button when he meant to hit the Delete button for the comment authored by Debrah.

As regards what he says is the first comment he sent me, perhaps he accidentally hit the Delete button when he thought he was hitting the Send button.

I Hope You All Read This

2009-07-13T16:38:00.003-04:00

Readers Note: I’ve received both considerable support and criticism for posting KC Johnson Now.

With some exceptions the sources of support and criticism that I can identify have been as I expected. The same holds for the ways in which the support and criticism have been expressed.

That said, I’m republishing below an excerpt from KC Johnson Now for three reasons:

1) - - - So everyone can see that despite claims KC Johnson Now concerns matters I brought up only “at the last minute,” major portions of it deal with matters years old. What you’ll read below, for example, concerns matters which occurred no later than December, 2007. You can confirm that by reading the email to which I link, which is addressed to KC.

2) - - - So people who think KC Johnson Now is about “small potatoes” can consider again whether, to take one example, Ruth Sheehan’s statements that Nifong was the anonymous source for her “Team’s silence is sickening” column is “small potatoes.”

3) - - - I hope the excerpt will encourage people who haven’t read KC Johnson Now to read it. I also hope those who haven’t read it in a while will reread it.

John

_________________________________________

EXCERPT FROM KC JOHNSON NOW - - -

Nifong & the N&O worked together. (All bolds in this excerpt are in the original.)

Besides serving as [Sheehan's anonymous] source, it's reasonable to believe, as many journalists I've talked with do, that Nifong, members of his staff and certain DPD officers "assisted" the N&O by, among other things, tipping the N&O when and where the players would show for DNA testing and helping "arrange" the interview with Mangum.

That arrangement almost certainly involving an assurance to Mangum it would be what journalists call "a friendly" that would serve her goal at the time of shaking down the players for a big cash settlement.

I'm sure that during the civil suits discovery we'll learn Nifong and others aiding him were an important reason why the N&O’s Mar. 24 to 27 coverage presented in detail the same false story of a drunken party, gang-rape of a “frightened young mother,” and stonewalling by racist DL players who were covering up for three of their teammates who committed the rapes which Nifong began telling in public for the first time on the afternoon of Mar. 27.

Sheehan’s disclosure also raises questions about Nifong’s June 2007 State Bar trial testimony during which he said he only learned of the case late on the afternoon of Mar. 23 [I believe he knew about it days before.]; that he talked briefly with Durham police on Mar.24; and that he then met with DPD investigators on Mar. 27.

Nifong said nothing in his testimony about serving as an anonymous N&O source by at least Mar.26 and very possibly before.

The State Bar's attorneys quite properly didn’t ask him, Sheehan or others about it. The Bar trial’s purpose was to judge Nifong on other matters.

But we can be certain of this: if, as seems likely, we get to discovery in the civil rights violations suits in which Nifong is a defendant, the plaintiffs' attorneys will want to learn all they can about Sheehan’s claim Nifong was an N&O news source before he ever started speaking publicly about the DL case on Mar. 27.

Now what about KC’s interest in what Sheehan said about Nifong?

This Q&A is part of a Dec. 2007 email in which KC responded to some of the questions I posted at JinC, including one asking why UPI said nothing about Sheehan’s revelation:

Q: It’s Not About The Truth goes into considerable detail quoting Ruth Sheehan’s claims that Mike Nifong was the anonymous source for her notorious 3/27/06 “Team’s Silence Is Sickening” column.

According to Sheehan, Nifong’s source information was passed on to her by someone(s) in the N&O’s newsroom when she phoned in on 3/26/06 with a column she’d already written for the next day on another matter.

But, according to Sheehan, the information the newsroom fed her was so strong she dropped the column she’d already written and started to work on “Team’s Silence Is Sickening.”

UPI doesn’t mention any of that. Why not?

A: UPI and It's Not About the Truth are different books with different areas of focus.

INAT is, in large part, Mike Pressler's story; Pressler and Yaeger argue that Sheehan's column played a key role in Brodhead's decision to fire Pressler. It's unsurprising, therefore, they spend a good deal of time on the piece.

Pressler's dismissal is not the central (or a central) story of UPI. It therefore is unsurprising Stuart and I spent less time on the column. We mentioned the column, and mentioned the key line and how it captured the rush-to-judgment mood--as Sheehan herself conceded when she apologized.

As you can see, KC’s answer is mostly red herrings that don’t address my question.

The only part of his answer that does - - “UPI and It's Not About the Truth are different books with different areas of focus” – - is, at best, a very weak rationalization for ignoring such an important matter.

It appears even weaker when you read his June 2007 review of INAT at DIW.

KC's review covers many matters including anecdotes from INAT that reveal Nifong’s personality – Nifong gets angry with a person who interrupts him at lunch; he refuses to shake an intern’s hand because “I don’t shake hands with interns.”

But KC tells DIW readers nothing about Sheehan’s disclosure.

Even if you agree KC and Taylor should have ignored in UPI Sheehan’s disclosure because UPI had a different focus than INAT, can you explain KC’s not mentioning it in his DIW review?

I can’t. …

KC Johnson Sends An Email

2009-07-13T11:35:00.007-04:00

Readers Note: For background to this post you should be familiar with the following posts and their threads:

KC Johnson's "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center,"

Chris Halkides' "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'"

and my posts:

KC Johnson's Response To ":ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:"

and

Something New At KC Johnson's DIW.

John

___________________________________

This morning when I started checking email I found the following had arrived during the night.

KC Johnson said...

I had previously submitted this comment, but somehow it did not appear. Knowing the high ethics of the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina," I'm sure it was accidentally deleted, and that he did not follow a policy of attacking someone in a post and then refusing to allow the attacked party to respond. I therefore took the liberty of reposting it. [KC didn't repost his comment; at least not at JinC. - - JinC]

--

To the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina:"

The item to which you refer is an automatically generated message from the blogger software, which appears whenever anyone attempts to comment in a closed thread (as, I assume, you know from your own experience with blogger software).

It was not written by me, nor is it anything "new." In contrast to the erroneous statement in your post, it does not appear now, nor has it ever appeared, when a reader goes to the following URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html. Nor does it appear at the URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html#comments.

It only appears when a reader tries to comment, as any reader--including Ms. Foster or, indeed, you--would have discovered anytime after April 27, 2009, at 3.05pm. That is why there were no more comments in the thread.

I would have been delighted to have provided you with this information via email before you wrote your post--but, as we know, your habit on this matter has not been to verify facts before posting.

2:47 AM

***********************************************

Folks, this is the first email I’ve received from KC concerning the Blogger closing message which I first saw only yesterday morning, and which Blogger message professor Halkides first mentioned only yesterday morning.

Had I received KC’s “previously submitted” email, I would have posted it on the comment thread of Something New At KC Johnson's DIW which is what I did a short while ago with KC's email you see above.

I would also have moved the comment he says he "previously submitted" to the main page to increase the chances of people seeing what KC wrote and my response to it.

On the chance that I might have accidentally deleted an email KC sent, I checked under “Recently Deleted” and found no such email.

Early yesterday morning I sent a comment to professor Halkides for posting. You can find it on the thread of "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'". I said in part:

…There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."

But this morning is the first time I saw it.

And you only mentioned it just now.

When did you first see it?

I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.

Almost all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.

But NOT ONE of those comments mentions the notice you and I found there at DIW this morning.

Folks, I use two computers at home. A number of times before my wife and I left for a trip last Wednesday I used both computers to read the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center," thread where Joan’s final comment ends with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” and KC responds "To Joan."

I never at any time saw the Blogger notice at the end of the thread before leaving home last Wednesday after shutting down both computers.

When my wife and I got home yesterday afternoon I turned on the computers. It was then that for the first time I saw on both screens the Blogger notice.

Does anyone know why the Blogger notice didn't show on either screen before we left home last Wednesday, but did show on both screen yesterday, Sunday?

Back on May 24 I posted KC Johnson Now in which I said:

“I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice.”

KC responded @ 8:59 PM:

I didn't "bar" Ms. Foster; I closed down the thread.

But KC made no mention then of a Blogger notice stating new comments had been disabled.

In the 7 weeks since KC Johnson Now was posted, no one submitting comments here has mentioned the Blogger notice. Even professor Halkides doesn't mention it in his July 6 "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" post.

Strange.

KC wanted his comment posted. I've obliged and provided some context.

To JinC Regulars

2009-07-12T20:56:00.002-04:00

I was traveling for 5 hours today.

When I got home this afternoon, there were emails and VM requiring responses.

I commented on a few threads and will say more tomorrow.

Now I'm heading to Mystery Theater and bed.

But not before I say "thank you" to so many of you who've expressed support.

I've not posted your comments because, IMO, it made more sense to let others have their say first.

I'll say more tomorrow.

In the meantime, did anyone find a posted statement about the "closure" notice at KC Johnson's blog before professor Halkides found it there this morning?

See you in the AM.

John

Something New At KC Johnson's DIW

2009-07-12T10:26:00.010-04:00

This morning I left two comments on the thread of professor Halkides' "John in Carolina' post, 'KC Johnson Now" post.

Here's the first - - -

Anonymous said...

Here’s the full text of KC Johnson’s comment on the thread of http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html.

It's the last comment of the thread and he makes it immediately following Joan Foster ending her comment with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

_______________________________

KC Johnson @3:05 AM 4/27/09

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

____________________________

Folks, notice KC comments directly “To Joan” and only “To Joan.”

And notice that, despite subsequent claims by KC and others that he was announcing the closing of the thread, in his actual comment KC says NOTHING about closing the thread.

John in Carolina

July 12, 2009 9:07 AM

*******************************************************

Now my second comment which responds to a comment by Halkides in which he says he's satisfied KC meant to close the thread because there's now an announcement at the end of it that says that. My comment has not yet been cleared.

Professor Halkides,

I don't know anyone who disputes KC said AFTER I posted "KC Johnson Now" that he had shut down the thread.

There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."

But this morning is the first time I saw it.

And you only mentioned it just now.

When did you first see it?

I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.

Almost all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.

But NOT ONE of those comments mentions the notice you and I found there at DIW this morning.

Why do you think that is?

Have you asked KC when he posted it?

John in Carolina

Professor Halkides Explains Why He Posted

2009-07-11T20:59:00.010-04:00

Readers Note: For background to this post, read UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides' "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" and my first response to that: Professor Halkides’ Unintentional Self-Parody.

John
_________________________________________________

I spent hours yesterday and today responding to people, including some directly involved in the Duke lacrosse case, who've asked why UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides posted "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now."

I listened sympathetically. I agreed what Halkides posted was, at best, irresponsible.

But I told everyone who asked I didn’t know why Halkides posted what he did.

Now, however, Halkides himself has answered that question.

On his "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" thread Halkides says at 7/9/09 @ 11:12 PM:

… I posted something because I wanted to discuss JinC’s post without rancor but with the hope that he would retract some of the things he said.

Ah, yes! Halkides "without rancor." He begins his post:

In his post “KC Johnson Now” on 24 May 2009 (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/05/kc-johnson-now.html), John in Carolina (JinC) attacked fellow Duke Lacrosse (DL) blogger KC Johnson.

I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006.

I will treat the second, more serious matter first. (Note: I never said Johnson was untruthful. I did express considerable skepticism about what Johnson said. The distinction between skepticism and untruthful was either lost on Halkides or he chose to ignore it. - - JinC)

Now look at what Halkides says in his Concluding Remarks:

In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog.

He failed to edit obvious errors (attributing “It’s Not About the Truth” to Chuck Yeager, not Don Yaeger*).

He published a rumor as if it were fact. He failed to check with Professor Johnson about either the non-banning or the story about the bar.

He apparently did not ask Joan Foster directly about her supposed banning, either.

He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo.

Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources,

John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.

When called on some of these matters, he either ignored them or brushed them aside.

In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.
(Folks, I did say “Chuck” when I should have said “Don.” I’ve corrected at the post and thanked Halkides for pointing out my error.

But everything else he says in this portion of his concluding remarks quoted here is at least wrong to a significant degree and, in some cases, outright false.

I’ll post on all of that in the coming days. - - JinC)

Folks, I'm confident most of you will know what I'm doing when I give the last words in this post to professor Halkides once again explaining the "purpose" of his post:

… I posted something because I wanted to discuss JinC’s post without rancor but with the hope that he would retract some of the things he said.

Two Posts’ Comments Closed

2009-07-11T16:20:00.005-04:00

I’ve just closed the comment threads of Professor Halkides' Unintential Self-Parody and KC Johnson’s Response To “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

While some of the comments at each post are worthwhile, others are error-filled or off topic or contain gratuitous personal attacks or some combination of the three.

Of necessity, a good deal of what this blog is about is controversial. But that doesn’t mean what people say in comments has to be either false or ad hominems.

Everyone, for example, should be able to agree that in the last comment on the thread of his post, "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center," KC Johnson @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM wrote:

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

Everyone should also be able to agree:

1) - - KC addressed his comment ONLY "To Joan:"

2) - - KC said NOTHING in his comment about closing down the thread.

But while those two points are obvious to most people, there are other people who get upset and lash out if you don't agree with them that KC's comment really told his readers he was closing down the thread.

JinC is not meant for such upset and lashing out people, but there are blogs out there which are.

KC Johnson’s Response To “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

2009-07-10T12:53:00.008-04:00

In April of this year at his Durham in Wonderland blog, KC Johnson said on the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center" thread @ 4/26/09 10:06 AM:

To the 9.55, et al:

POLITICO reports, "Prejean has taken full advantage of her newfound stardom, becoming an almost hourly fixture on cable news," where, of course, she is being asked on same-sex marriage.

It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not.

One of those who responded to KC was Bobo1949 @ 4/26/09 12:51 PM:

to 10:06AM

As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech.

More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.

Among the many commenting on the thread critical of KC, Joan Foster was, IMO, one of the most effective in countering what KC's critics saw as the “cheap shot” he’d taken at Carrie Prejean.

The thread moved along until in the next to last comment Joan complained KC wasn’t clearing her comments. She ended her 4/27/09 2:56 PM comment with this:

:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:

Nine minutes later KC Johnson responded @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM:

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

KC Johnson now insists he never banned Joan Foster. Many of his supporters say he was only trying to shut down an already lengthy thread.

But on a thread where many were critical of him, KC addressed his comment ONLY to Joan.

He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment, but “[a]mong those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.”

He posted that just nine minutes after she'd ended her comment with ":ban;ban;ban;ban;ban:"

And he never said he was shutting down the thread.

KC's now insisting he didn't ban Joan. He's posted saying I slimed him when I said he did.

But the first instance I can find where KC posted claiming he had not banned Joan didn't occur until AFTER I called him on it in KC Johnson Now.

If KC didn’t ban Joan, why didn’t he say so in the weeks BEFORE I called him on it?

Did KC Johnson really not know reasonable people would conclude from his “To Joan” comment immediately following her comment ending with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” that he'd banned her?

Professor Halkides’ Unintentional Self-Parody

2009-07-09T14:52:00.006-04:00

Unintentional self -parody is one of my favorite forms of humor.

That’s why, for all its very serious errors and its ad himinems directed at me, when I got to the end of UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides’ "John in Carolina’s post, ‘KC Johnson Now'” post I had to laugh.

In his Concluding Remarks Halkides tells readers:

”In his post ‘KC Johnson Now’ John has given a clinic in how not to blog.”

He goes on to say I’ve made it harder:

“for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

Now look back at the head of his post where you’ll see:

“(Update 7/8/2009: This post has been edited since it was first uploaded. Three paragraphs have been removed.)”

Helkides says I’ve “given a clinic in how not to blog” and preens that I’ve made it “harder” for those like him “who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

But he begins his post with an “Update“ that doesn’t give his readers even a hint of why he removed three paragraphs from his post.

I'll bet many of you are at least smiling now, if not LOL.

Halkides says:

John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.

Joan Foster is very capable of speaking for herself, so I’ll respond only for myself.

Halkides seriously distorts and misleads his readers when he tells them I “claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.”

I admire some of what KC’s done in the DL case and have said so often.

But I've also questioned publicly since late 2007 some of what he’s done and not done in relation to the case. What's more, I'm disgusted by other things he’s done and not done in relation to it.

Here’s some of what I said in KC Johnson Now:

KC Johnson's made extremely important contributions to the struggle for truth and justice in the Duke lacrosse (DL) case. When the lacrosse players who’d just been declared “innocent” by NC’s attorney general on Apr. 11, 2007 singled KC out for praise, he deserved their tribute.

I owe KC my own thanks. During the first year or so of the case he helped me to understand the DL case much better than I would have without his writings and our phone talks. It’s no exaggeration to say that during that time his DL posts were not only informative, but inspirational. I urged JinC readers to visit KC's Durham-in-Wonderland (DIW) blog daily.

The outstanding work KC’s done will always be to his credit.(bold in original)

But it needs to also be said that KC's ignored very significant matters related to the case which by any reasonable standard he should address. What’s more, he’s written things and offered judgments that are at best highly questionable and, in some instances, absurd.

I want to give you examples of what I’m talking about.

I’ve two reasons for doing so.The first is to inform you. The second is to make clear why I read KC now with a good deal of skepticism, often discounting what he says because it’s biased or factually wrong or petty or some combination of the three. . . .

Can anyone explain why Halkides distorted what I actually said into his unqualified statement that I “claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case?”

He was at best sloppy with the information that was right there for him in KC Johnson Now. (At this time I’m willing to grant that Halkides’ distortion was not deliberate.)

By being at best sloppy with the information he had, Halkides invites laughter given that he scolded me for making things harder for him and others “who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

I’ll comment in the next few days on some of the much more serious problems with professor Halkides' post.

UPDATE @ 7:15 pm on 7/10: Professor Halkides has now added a second update to his post explaining the deletion of the three paragraphs and apologizing for any confusion he may have caused. I commend him for doing that.

Another Inconvenient Truth

2009-07-05T23:14:00.003-04:00

This one’s from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

… DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...

HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR [NEW YORK CITY'S] 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD.

THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...

3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...

WHICH ALSO OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...

WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS 67.2 DEGREES. …

The rest of the story’s here.

I bet it makes Al Gore hot and leaves most of you smiling.

H/t: Drudge Report

Examiner.com’s Lombard Story Provides Research Data

2009-07-05T13:53:00.003-04:00

Examiner.com National has just posted a story which is sure to upset many gays and lesbians.

The story concerns Duke University health administrator Frank Lombard.

While much of the story simply restates already published allegations that Lombard sexually abused and drugged a child, now 5, whom he and his partner adopted shortly after the child’s birth, the story also reports research findings of the respected California School of Professional Psychology. The findings are not included in any other news story Ive read concerning Lombard and the charges against him:

In a study by the California School of Professional Psychology, the research with 942 adult participants revealed that gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women.

Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.

Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

The Examiner’s publication of those research findings will surely anger many gays and lesbians who are no doubt pleased with the minimizing and “sweep it under the rug” treatments most MSM has so far given the Lombard story.

The Examiner’s report is here. Be sure to read the background tag of its author, Jim Kouri.

Sill, N&O Owe Retraction & Apologies To Players, Families, Readers

2009-07-05T11:29:00.006-04:00

In Mar. 2006 the N&O first “broke” the Duke lacrosse case with a guilt-presuming front page story in which, without once ever using the standard qualifier “alleged,” the N&O seven times referred to the accuser as either “the victim” or with the possessive “victim's”

Melanie Sill was N&O executive editor then. She remained executive editor through all the months three innocent young men remained under indictment until Apr. 11, 2007 when the NC AG declared them innocent and called Mike Nifong a “rogue” prosecutor.

In Oct. 2007 the McClatchy Company, which owns the N&O, moved Sill to the executive editor’s chair at what has been traditionally viewed as McClatchy’s flagship paper, The Sacramento Bee.

Just as she did at the N&O, Sill publishes in Sacbee’s print and online editions a Sunday column. They usually read like infomercials, all with the same working title.

The title: “At Sacbee all things would be bright and beautiful but for revenue and circulation declines and those pesky readers who tell lies about us. But we’re made of stern stuff and you can’t do without us.”

This week Melanie looks back at Sacbee editions from the 1930s Great Depression and other tough times to find inspiration and assure readers Sacbee will always be there for them. ( Many Sacramentans fear she may be right. - JinC.)

I just left the following comment on Sill’s column thread:

jwmakm wrote on 07/05/2009 07:19:30 AM:

Dear Melanie,

Concerning a 1933 Sacbee front page you say: "the paper reported on President Franklin D. Roosevelt in London working to stabilize currency[.]

FDR wasn't in London in 1933; he was never in Great Britain whilst President.

His last visit there was in 1918 in connection with his duties as Asst. Sec. of the Navy in the Wilson cabinet.

It was at a London banquet on that trip the he first met Winston Churchill.

While on the topic of accuracy in newspapers - - -

As executive editor of the N&O you refused to identify the "police documents" you say you relied on for the deliberately fraudulent 3/25/06 Duke lacrosse frame the N&O told readers was about a night which ended in "sexual violence."

Why do you refuse to identify those documents?

Since the Mar. 25 story is now so discredited, will you support its retraction and an apology to the players, their families and N&O readers?

Both are long overdue.

John in Carolina

INDEPENDENCE DAY TRIBUTE

2009-07-04T06:39:00.006-04:00

Hat tips to Blackfive for the pictures.

NY Dems Won't Stand For Pledge: Who's Surprised

2009-07-03T22:59:00.001-04:00

Hat tip: Drudge Report:

Pelosi & The Dems Have A Car For You

2009-07-03T10:21:00.002-04:00

DPD & The Non-Lacrosse Students At The Party

2009-07-02T12:13:00.004-04:00

Readers Note: On the thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie there are six comments – three each from cks and skeptical – concerning the actions and inactions of DPD Duke lacrosse investigators in the first days and weeks of the hoax and frame attempt.

I’ve combined cks and sceptical’s three comments each on the thread into two comments each here on the main page.

Combining their comments that way sets up a Q&A which is very informative as to what DPD was and was not doing in Mar. and Apr. 2006 regarding the non-lacrosse students who were at the party.

The exchange between cks and skeptical will also no doubt lead many of you to ask probing questions which ought to have been asked in 2006 by media and answered then by DPD.

Keeping in mind the wise admonition: “Don’t get in the way of a good thing,” I’ll say nothing more in this post except "thank you" to cks and sceptical.

John

_____________________________________________

cks asks - - -

If, as the news reports indicated, there were both students and non-students in attendance at the party, why were only lacrosse members' (who of course had to be students at Duke)pictures shown to Crystal Mangum? I think that this also goes to the heart of the frame. . . .

sceptical responds - - -

There were at least 2 students at the party who were not members of the lacrosse team-- Brent Saeli and Blake Boehimler (see Himan's case notes).

That prompts cks to ask - - -

This raises the question as to why those two students pictures were not a part of the photo array shown to Crystal?

Who made the decision not to include them?

Would their inclusion (in the photo line-up)have made the frame more difficult to maintain?

sceptical answers - - -

cks asks why pictures of [the two students] who were not lacrosse players were not shown to Mangum.

The answer is that the police were not really sure of who was at the party, even among the lacrosse players. Duke Police gave them pictures of the lacrosse team which is what were used in the March 14 and 21 ID sessions with Mangum.

The April 4 session used the pictures taken pursuant to the NTO on March 23.

However, by then Himan had contacted and interviewed Brent and Blake.

From his notes:

** 3/28/06 1720hrs - Went to the apartment of William Blake Boehmler ---/---/---- /7/84, he agreed to come to the station to talk about what happened on 3/13/06. Mr. Boehmler signed a non-custodial form and was advised that the meeting was voluntarily and he was free to go at any time and that he was not in custody. He stated that he was invited by some of the lacrosse players to the party, he stated that he came over. The girls started to dance he stated that none of them looked impaired and that he stated that there was an argument and someone mentioned something about a pimp. Mr. Bohemler stated he got scared and decided to leave (due to him being on probation) and that he left with Brent Saili back to 1107 Urban Ave. He gave name of friend that he was with at the time of the party and who he was during the night Brent Saeli... **

So pictures of Brent and Blake could have and should have been used in the April 4 session-- they were not. . . .

Five News Stories Before Nifong’s Copier “Discovery”

2009-07-01T21:46:00.003-04:00

On Apr. 14, 2007, three days after NC AG Roy Cooper declared three Duke students innocent of charges brought against them by then Durham DA Mike Nifong, Raleigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joe Neff told readers:

Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order.

The Durham district attorney's reaction, he later told lawyer Jim Cooney: "Holy crap, what is going on?"…

I've used a series of posts to tell readers why Neff’s copier "discovery" story is false. See for example - - Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie - - and the posts to which it links.

There are many reasons why we can be sure Neff’s story is false.

One is that before Nifong's alleged copier “discovey,” Neff’s own N&O published two stories on the alleged rapes, the Durham Herald Sun published one story and Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published two.

On the thread of Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie sceptical, who posts at Liestoppers Meeting posted part or all of four of those news stories.

I’ve included here some text sceptical snipped. I've also included here the full text of a Mar. 18 Durham Herald Sun story not included in sceptical’s comment.

But what follows is otherwise the result of sceptical’s care and effort for which we can all say, "Thanks."

SATURDAY MARCH 18: N&O and H-S publish first articles about the case:

The N&O's story ran with - - -

Woman reports sexual assault

Police were investigating a report of a rape on Buchanan Boulevard near the Duke University campus Friday. .. A young woman told police she visited 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. Monday and was assaulted by three men, according to police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb... Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator B.W. Himan at 560-4582, ext. 229

The Herald Sun's story ran with - - -

Woman says 3 men raped her

Police are investigating the rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan St. on Tuesday.

The woman told police that she arrived at the house for a party on Monday night and did not leave the house until after midnight Tuesday.

Police are asking any potential witnesses to call Investigator Himan at 560-4582 or CrimeStoppers at 683-1200.

CrimeStoppers pays cash rewards for tips leading to an arrest and callers do not have to identify themselves.

Compiled by staff writer BriAnne Dopart, bdopart@heraldsun.com; 419-6684.

SUNDAY MARCH 19: Second N&0 article on the case:

Alleged rape was at party, police said

Police offered more details Saturday in the investigation of a young woman's report she was raped by three men at a party Monday near the Duke University campus. The woman told police early Tuesday morning that she had gone to a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. the night before for a party, said Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. While at the party, she was raped by three men, she reported to police.

Gottlieb described the party as a mix of college students and non-students. In total, there were about 30 people there at the time, he said. "It was an act where alcohol was involved," Gottlieb said. (snip)

MONDAY MARCH 20: The Duke Chronicle publishes its first article on the case:

Off-East house site of reported rape

By: Staff Reports Issue date: 3/20/06 Section: News Last update: 3/20/06 at 6:23 AM EST

Durham Police Department is investigating an alleged rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. over Spring Break.

Duke recently purchased the rented residence from a local landlord.

The alleged assault was reported early in the morning of Tuesday, March 14.

The young woman arrived at the house for a party at around 11:30 p.m. Monday, March 13 and reportedly left after midnight, Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations wrote in an e-mail to a community listserv.

He encouraged individuals in the area at the time to report to DPD if they "saw or heard anything unusual."

Gottlieb could not be reached for comment.

The house at 610 N. Buchanan is one of 12 in the Trinity Park neighborhood that Duke purchased from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, in early March.

The University bought, in total, 15 properties near East Campus for approximately $3.7 million.

The purchased homes are mostly student-occupied, and many are the frequent subjects of noise, trash and partying complaints filed by Trinity Park residents.

Duke plans to turn the houses into single-occupancy residences.

TUESDAY,= MARCH 21: The Duke Chronicle publishes its second article on the case:

Suspects in alleged rape unidentified

One week after a young woman was allegedly raped at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the Durham Police Department is still investigating the situation, saying "the suspects have not been clearly identified."

The house, which was recently purchased by University subsidiary Durham Realty, was the site of a party that involved both Duke students and non-students, said Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb of Durham Police District 2 Investigations.

Sue Wasiolek, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students, said the University will not take action until the police department's investigation is finished.

"From what I understand, the situation is under investigation by the Durham Police Department, and we will await that investigation," she said.

Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, added that the University would take appropriate measures, pending the police investigation.

Gottlieb said any man that attended the party March 13 would be a viable suspect but refused to go into further detail.

The residents of the house have been cooperative with DPD in locating any suspects, he added.

The residence was one of 15 properties-three lots and 12 houses-Duke bought from Trinity Properties, a local real estate firm, earlier this month. The University paid approximately $3.7 million in the deal.

The houses, located in the Trinity Park neighborhood near East Campus, have mostly been rented by students in the past, but Duke hopes to turn them into single-occupancy residences in the future.

Many local residents in the Trinity Park area have long complained about noise and litter associated with parties at several of the houses.

*** END OF SECOND CHRONICLE STORY *******

Sceptical ended the comment with - - -

It should be noted that none of the early newspaper reports stated that the 610 N. Buchanan tenants were lacrosse team members or that the accuser was black.

However, John is correct in inferring that Nifong, who regularly read the newspapers, is likely to have seen one of these articles between March 18 and 21.

This argument is in addition to the one that I have made that Nifong was likley involved in the March 22 deal between Kim (Roberts) Pittman and Durham PD officers Gottlieb and Himan for changes in her statement in exchange for staying out of jail for parole violations.

DPD Deputy Chief Hodge On Mar. 14, 2006 & Thereafter

2009-06-28T18:27:00.009-04:00

Readers Note: If you're not familiar with the contents of:

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-nifong-knew-on-mar-14.html

Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14"

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/scepticals-response-to-why-nifong-knew.html

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/sceptical-says-nifong-knew-before-mar.html

Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/nifong-copier-discovery-story-fantastic.html

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one which follows below the star line because that post presumes you’re very familiar with the contents of the four posts I’ve just cited and linked to.

John

******************************************************

The entire thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie is well worth reading.

In the coming days I’ll respond to part or all of each of the 15 comments presently there.

I’ll begin here with an interlinear response to part of one of sceptical’s thread comments.

Sceptical’s in italics; I’m in plain.

Sceptical said in part - - -

… I do not think to start with that there was an overall conspiracy (that happened later).

I agree although I think we should allow that one or more officials who were on the case very early (Mar. 14, 15 & 16) already had, at least in his/her or their minds, the idea/wish to “get something on these guys no matter.”

That said, in those first days it was right for officials to respond to Mangum’s charges with a full, fair investigation.

There’s no doubt that by Mar. 23 when Nifong’s chief ADA David Saacks agreed to “walk” the “mammothly unconstitutional” NTO “through the court” conspirators were already involved in a frame-up attempt.

But there's a great deal we don't know about the actions between Mar. 14 and 23 of power figures connected to the DL frame.

We'll have a much better understanding of how and why the frame was attempted when we know, for example, what DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge and some of the other key figures did between Mar. 14 and 23 as well as what they did after that timeframe.

I believe there was a convergence of interests, the combination of which was quite unlucky for the team.

You’re right about that.

1) A mentally-ill prostitute who did not want to be incarcerated, for whom a rape claim was the way out;

And whom, as she rested all snug in her bed,
Saw visions of $ $ $ $ dance in her head.

2) A Duke-hating cop who wanted revenge for being transferred;

Gottlieb’s a very complex guy whose role in the frame attempt and the ongoing cover-up has been largely misconstrued because of all the “Duke-hating cop” talk.

It’s a given Gottlieb’s a “Dukie hater;”

and he certainly had a central and odious role in the frame-up attempt;

and there’s no doubt he produced bogus “notes” to support both the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up;

but with all of that,

if we want to understand how the frame developed we must acknowledge the truth of what a very wise person told me as the frame-up began to unravel:

“Gottlieb wouldn’t have been in there for a heartbeat unless the top commend wanted him there; the city, too.”

Gottlieb no doubt had his own internal motives for much of what he did.

But during Mar. 2006 Gottlieb wasn't some kind of off-the-range freelancer; he was the dutiful agent of DPD's top command.

3) A wannabe SANE rookie whose feminist ideology outweighed professional ethics;

Sceptical, the concision and truth in that sentence made me want to cheer.

It’s a sentence Churchill would’ve loved; and one Strunk and White would score “A” for its omitting “needless words” and making “every word tell.”

4) A cowardly university administration who wanted to teach the athletes a lesson and wanted to curry favor with the city;

Faced with the obvious lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong, Duke was indeed “cowardly.” Dishonest, too.

5) A politically desperate prosecutor who needed a big case to ensure his salary and pension;

It’s not important to the injustices of the case; or to the struggle to discover as much of the truth as we can; or to hold to some account those responsible for the wrongs; or to acknowledge those who in tough circumstances did right;

but just for the record I’d like to say:

I’ve never bought in to the “ensure his salary and pension” explanation.

and

6) News media looking for a hot story with "Sex, lies and Duke."

That’s true as regards much of media that came on “the story” after Mar. 25, 2006 when the Raleigh N&O sent across the nation and the world a story its headlines told readers without any qualification suggesting doubt was about “a night” which ended in “sexual violence.”

You take away any of these 6 factors and there might not have been a "Duke Lacrosse Scandal."

Later on, there was a more organized conspiracy between Duke, the Durham police, and the Durham administration. See Ekstrand's civil suit.

But at the beginning it appears there was an unfortunate combination of circumstances leading to a disaster.

Sceptical, you’re doing here what few people following the DL case do: you’re looking forward from “the beginning” (Mar 13/14) and asking questions.

Let’s imagine we’re in Durham early on the morning of Mar.14, 2006. We’ve just heard about Mangum’s false charges made at Duke’s ER.

At that moment we know nothing else about what would become the DL case.

But we are safe in assuming that however flimsy the woman's charges, they’ll be some kind of police investigation which, when any rape charges are made, is the proper police response.

Given the explosive nature of the most serious crimes alleged - - a black woman accusing white Duke students of gang-raping and beating her - - we would reasonably think that police command will make sure the investigation is headed by a top investigator known for empathy, investigative skill and fairness.

But on Mar. 16 we learn Gottlieb’s been put in charge of the investigation.

Gotttlieb’s record suggested he wasn’t likely to lead a fair investigation; yet he was put in charge of it.

Looking forward from Mar. 14 we can say with certainty the decision to put Gottlieb in charge, made in the first days of the case, was made with knowing disregard of the need for an empathic, skilled and fair investigator leading such a sensitive and potentially explosive investigation.

What we knew by Mar. 16 gave us strong reason to doubt DPD top command wanted a fair and full investigation of Mangum's charges

Who put Gottlieb in charge of the investigation? And why?

I'd like to ask DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge those questions.

Recall that Hodge was in day-to-day charge of the department during most of the “investigation” while the since retired Chief, Steve Chalmers, was, we were told, taking care of his mother who was ill and residing in Durham.

In this post I provided a link to an April 12, 2006 MSNBC story which included this from Hodge:

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC )(bold added).

Nine months later in January 2007 when Nifong stepped aside and turned the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office, Hodge assured the Raleigh News & Observer DPD had collected evidence and that the case would go forward. I posted on the story here. The post contains a link to the N&O story which included:

Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred. (bold added)

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

Why did Hodge say in April, 2006 DPD had a strong case when, as we now know, it never had any credible evidence?

Hodge must have known that then.

Why did Hodge claim in January, 2007 that DPD had collected evidence which would enable a prosecutor to go forward with the case when, as the Attorney General said just three months later, there was no credible evidence any crime had been committed?

What was Hodge doing?

What has Hodge done in connection with the DL case starting on Mar. 14, 2006 and going forward from there?

The Duke lacrosse victims and their families deserve to know. So does the public.

An Essential Duke Frame Cover Story

2009-06-25T21:47:00.003-04:00

Readers Note: If you haven’t read Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie posted this past Sunday and the posts to which it links, I strongly encourage you to read those posts.

The post which follows this note presumes you know their contents.

Therefore, it contains no introductory background information or citations of sources and explanations of inferential reasoning which can be found in Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie and the posts to which it links.

John

___________________________________

On the thread of Nifong Copier "Discovery" Story: A Fantastic Lie Jim in San Diego asks in part:

…[W]hy is it essential to any issue whether Nifong knew on Mar 14th, or March 22nd?

It is a prosecutor's continuing duty to indict and try only those who are guilty. Once N knew these boys were not guilty, whether the 14th, 22nd, or some much later date, he was still obligated to drop the case.

In response to Jim and others who no doubt agree with him, I offer the following:

Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 copier “discovery” story – the same story Nifong testified to at his State Bar trial in June 2007 - has Nifong first learning of the DL case AFTER the “toxic” NTO was signed on Mar. 23.

If the Neff-Nifong story were true, it would mean Nifong knowingly had nothing to do with the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

That would be huge because the documentation presented to the court to justify its issuance of the NTO is indisputably a frame-up document.

That being the case, if we believed the copier "discovery" story, we’d have to agree the frame-up was well underway BEFORE Nifong was ever knowingly involved in it.

Think about the implications of that.

Who would have the authority and drive to knowingly push through the court a “manmouthly unconstitutional” NTO request based on documents attested to by police investigators which were laced with fraud?

Why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with the NTO request?

Especially why would anyone in the DA’s office go along with such a request without first “checking with the boss?”

The same people who pump the Neff-Nifong “discovery” story say the answer to those two questions is: because a Durham Police Sargeant and a rookie investigator asked the DA’s office to go along with it.

That's unbelievable!

Certainly others were involved in the frame-up attempt besides Nifong; and some of them may very well have engaged in framing activities before Nifong did.

But to claim as Neff and Nifong have that Nifong wasn't aware of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed is an absurdity for the reasons I've cited in previous posts along with others I've no doubt overlooked or failed to mention.

On the other hand, if Nifong knew about the NTO at any time BEFORE it was signed, that’s huge for a number of reasons.

Here are two of them:

1) It means not only is Neff’s Apr. 2007 story bunk, but Nifong’s June 2007 testimony at his State Bar trial is false.

2) Since Neff cited Nifong's chief ADA David Saacks as a source for his copier “discovery” story;

and since Saacks has never as far as I know publicly disputed what Neff reported,

we have to ask whether Saacks in fact witnessed Nfiong’s “discovery” which Nifong may have staged to deceive Saacks as to his prior knowledge of the DL case;

or whether Saacks in fact told Neff a falsehood in order to cover-up the fact Nifong knew of the DL case BEFORE the NTO was signed.

As I’ve said now in a number of posts, I have no doubt the copier “discovery” story is a cover story which at present is essential to helping sustain the ongoing cover-up of the frame-up attempt.

I'll soon post again on this very important aspect of DL case.

Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie

2009-06-21T17:35:00.004-04:00

Readers Note: If you are not familiar with the contents of

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-nifong-knew-on-mar-14.html

Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14"

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/scepticals-response-to-why-nifong-knew.html

and

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/sceptical-says-nifong-knew-before-mar.html

I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one below because it presumes readers are very familiar with the contents of the three posts I just cited and linked to.

John
________________________________________________

On June 15 Sceptical posted "WITNESS TAMPERING, KIM (ROBERTS) PITTMAN & MIKE NIFONG" at Liestoppers Meeting.

The essential element of that post was sceptical’s carefully reasoned conclusion Nifong knew about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case by Mar. 22, 2006.

Since skeptical posted, no one among the disparate group which posts at LM has questioned sceptical’s conclusion; while a number have put up posts based, at least in part, on sceptical’s conclusion Nifong knew on Mar. 22 of the DL case.

As regards my certainty Nifong first learned of what became the DL case on Mar. 14, the same day Crystal Mangum made her false charges, skeptical and others remain - well – skeptical to say the least since I’ve not offered “proof” for my certainty.

I’m confident that “proof” will emerge.

And there I’m content to leave the matter for now.

I appreciate the time and attention skeptical and others spent reading my posts.

I’ve profited from reading sceptical’s posts and those of others as well as the comments here at JinC.

And we’ve all now seen how the Nifong copier “discovery” story implodes under the weight of the evidence of its utter absurdity.

What intelligent person with a reasonable amount of knowledge of the many means by which information and misinformation about the DL case was widely and publicly disseminated throughout Durham between Mar. 14 and Mar. 23, 2006 ( for example, in 2 news stories in the N&O and 2 news stories in The Chronicle) believes - -

Mike Nifong, a DA who had reason to be informed of the case by virtue of his office and a need to be informed because he was locked in a tough primary election battle, went those entire 10 days without ever learning anything about the case until he “discovered” the signed NTO sitting on his office copier?

The Duke undergrads were all reading about the case on Mar. 20 in The Chronicle. But Nifong didn't know?

Back in May 2006 outside the Durham County Courthouse, David Evans warned us we’d all been told “some fantastic lies.” He was right then.

If Evans came back to the courthouse today and said, “You’re all still being told some fantastic lies,” he’d be right now, too.

Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23

2009-06-17T09:31:00.004-04:00

On Apr. 11, 2007 NC AG Roy Cooper declared innocent three young man indicted in the Duke lacrosse frame-up attempt led by rogue DA Mike Nifong.

On Apr. 14, 2007 Releigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joseph Neff told readers Nifong first learned of the case on Mar. 23, 2006 when he “discovered” a copy of an NTO sitting on his office copier.

Three months after Neff’s story appeared, Nifong told essentially the same copier “discovery” atory when testifying under oath in June at his State Bar trial which led to his disbarment.

You can read posts explaining why Neff's story and Nifong's testimony are false here, here , and here.

This post here explains why I’m certain Nifong knew of the Duke lacrosse case on Mar. 14.

Sceptical, who blogs at Liestoppers Meeting, agrees the copier “discovery” story is false but is not convinced Nifong knew on Mar. 14.

But skeptical has put up a very impressive, heavily documented post arguing Nifong knew of the case at least by Mar. 22.

I hope you give sceptical’s post “Witness Tampering, Kim Roberts, and Mike Nifong; The ‘Deal’ With Kim Occurred March 22” a look.

Sceptical's Response To “Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14”

2009-06-15T13:48:00.002-04:00

Readers Note: If you haven’t read Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14 and Liestoppers Meeting posts here and here, I encourage you to take a look at them before reading further.

Tomorrow, with one exception, I’ll post on the main page responding to parts of all comments made on the Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14 thread except for sceptical’s comment.

As most of you know, the Nifong Knew on Mar 14 post was addressed to skeptical.

That’s the reason I’m responding to sceptical’s comment in full, before I respond to any other comment.

You’ll see following this note sceptical’s comment in full in plain text.

After it, you’ll see a double star line.

Below that you’ll again see sceptical’s comment.

But this time it will be in italics with my responses interspersed in plain text.

I’m posting sceptical’s comment first and without any response by me so you’ll all have a chance to read sceptical’s comment as written and without interruption.

John

________________________________________

Sceptical responded - - -

John,

Your contention that courthouse buzz insured that Nifong would have known about Mangum's charges is logical but not entirely persuasive.

In the first few days of the incident there was a lot of confusion about who lived at 610 N. Buchanan, whether they were Duke students, what Duke sports team was involved, etc. In retrospect everything is clear, but at the time there was the law enforcement equivalent of the "fog of battle."

Furthermore, B. Jones and John Shelton of the Durham Police, Chris Day of the Duke Police, and others at the scene had concluded that there was no evidence to proceed on Mangum's charges. Jones had planned to close the file.

At the Duke ER, Mangum was left to lie on a gurney for hours until the day shift arrived-- no one there took her seriously (seven nurses and physicians) until ultra-feminist Tara Levicy R.N. got involved.

Now remember I am just talking about the first two to three days after the party. Once Sgt. Mark Gottlieb became engaged with the case on March 16, the situation changed.

But before then, I doubt there was much "buzz" because of the skepticism concerning Mangum's claims by Duke ER staff and by the Durham and Duke Police who responded. There was also the initial confusion as to who held the party and whether they had a connection to Duke, let alone represented a Duke sports team.

Your information about the Durham courthouse crowd is important and interesting. But the incestuous connections between police, prosecutors, and attorneys do not prove that Mangum's charges were a topic of conversation early on.

The first mention of the case in the press was the brief notice in the N&O on March 18. There is no mention of any connection between the incident and Duke students other than to say it happened near the campus.

The N&O's second report on March 19 quotes Gottlieb and says it happened at a party involving both Duke students and non-students. Again the explosive racial connotation and athlete connection were not mentioned.

Even the Trinity Park listserv sent out by Gottlieb would not necessarily raise eyebrows:

"Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:15 am

"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours."

In retrospect, the Mangum's charges were a big deal, but just after the incident Mangum's claims were not unlike dozens of other claims of sexual assault the police deal with all the time.

So, while your conjectures concerning courthouse buzz and Cy's connection are plausible, I still do not think they PROVE that Nifong knew about the case before March 23 (when he claims he saw the NTIO application) and March 24 (when he talked to Capt. Lamb about taking it over).

Teaser: I am working on a post that will show he knew about the case at least by March 22-- stay tuned.

sceptical

*******************************************************
*******************************************************

Dear sceptical:

Thank you for your detailed response which adds to the “conversation” here.

Thanks also for initiating a post and thread at Liestoppers Meeting which gives more people a chance to contribute to a consideration of when Nifong first learned of the Duke lacrosse (DL)case.

Before going further I want to make two things clear I should have made clear the first time you commented on the bogus Mar. 24 copier “discovery” story:

1) - - The times when Nifong first learned of the DL case and when he first started framing activities don’t have to be simultaneous.

He could have learned of the case, thought to himself something like “I should be able to at least use this in my campaign,” but done nothing initially that was part of a frame-up attempt.

Even if he said to DPD something like “I hope you do whatever it takes to fully investigate her charges,” that’s just what any DA learning of the case on Mar. 14 would say.

No one should think that because I’m certain Nifong learned of the DL case on Mar. 14, I believe that’s when he began framing activities.

I don’t know when he started them or even whether he was the first one to start DL framing activities.

2) - - We all look at the DL case now with 20-20 hindsight. That can usually be helpful.

But there are times when it’s better to put what we know now aside; and instead look at things as they appeared to the participants in the case on Mar. 14, 15, 16, etc.

With hindsight we now see important reasons why Nifong and others would want to concoct the copier “discovery” story.

It clears Nifong of any connection with the development and approval by his office of the “mammothly unconstitutional” “toxic” NTO.

It’s a cover story that’s a critical part of the ongoing Duke/Durham frame cover-up.

But on Mar. 14, 2006 did Nifong have any reason for not wanting to know about the charges false accuser Crystal Mangum made early that morning at Duke Hospital’s ER?

Of course not!

As I reported in Nifong Knew on Mar. 14 there were many legitimate and important reasons why Nifong should have known on Mar. 14 of Mangum’s charges and many important reasons why he’d have wanted to know and been very upset if he didn’t.

Only later when the frame-up was unraveling did it become necessary for Nifong and others involved in it to concoct the bogus copier “discovery” story.

Now skeptical, to your comments in italics and my responses in plain

Your contention that courthouse buzz insured that Nifong would have known about Mangum's charges is logical but not entirely persuasive.

I cite courthouse buzz as one of a number of factors which taken together leave no doubt Nifong knew on Mar. 14. Those factors include, to cite just one example, the fact DPD routinely lets the DA and his office know of criminal allegations likely to generate strong media and public interest.

In the first few days of the incident there was a lot of confusion about who lived at 610 N. Buchanan, whether they were Duke students, what Duke sports team was involved, etc. In retrospect everything is clear, but at the time there was the law enforcement equivalent of the "fog of battle."

There was certainly some fog, but the police reports make clear charges of robbery, beating and gang rape had been made by an alleged victim who said her victimizes were Duke students.

Sgt. Shelton had been to the N. Buchanan house in response to the “first 911 call” and he responded to the second 911 call from Kroger.

By 2 AM Shelton knew Kim Roberts, the second dancer, had made “the first 911 call.” He knew she and Mangum had been performing at a party hosted by Duke students; and I can’t believe that among all those officers involved in the case that morning at Duke’s ER there was not a single one who knew the house was owned by Duke. On the contrary, it was pertinent information police officers routinely share with each other.

The officers knew Mangum was black and that she'd said her attackers were white.

I was impressed by Chatham’s post at LM. It contains many factual and reasoned statements that cut through a lot of the “fog.”

Furthermore, B. Jones and John Shelton of the Durham Police, Chris Day of the Duke Police, and others at the scene had concluded that there was no evidence to proceed on Mangum's charges. Jones had planned to close the file.

When Shelton told his watch commander “I don’t believe her,” the watch commander said “investigate” which on Mar. 14 DPD was doing.

The Cooper complaint filing does speak of DPD Inv. Jones’ intent to close the case but it doesn’t say she did.

I’m not sure there was ever a time in Mar. 2006 when DPD actually closed the case on all of Mangum’s charges and then reopened it.

It’s certainly reasonable to think every officer and commander in DPD who heard of Mangum’s charges would know they were mostly or entirely bunk.

But that’s not the same as believing they would have or should have treated them as such on Mar.14.

Any Durham cop would know how explosive Mangum’s charges were in this PC culture of ours.

They’d also know that even if they’d given Mangum’s charges a full, fair investigation and then closed the case, they’d still be subject to criticism for “not believing the woman.”

On Mar. 14 DPD had sound reasons for undertaking a fair, thorough investigation of everything Mangum said, despite her statements being for the most part wildly improbable and on their face false.

The outcome of such an investigation would have allowed DPD to say “case closed” and left it in the best possible position to answer those who, then as now, would insist “something happened there” and claim race, class and gender had played a role in DPD’s case closing.

Of course, no fair, thorough investigation of the type needed happened, which leaves us to reasonably infer that there were one or some in DPD on Mar. 14 who wanted the department to conduct something other then a fair and thorough investigation.

To sum up: I can agree that on Mar. 14 no one in DPD believed most or all of Mangum’s charges.

But that’s not the same as agreeing DPD didn’t see the need to conduct a fair, thorough investigation.

Or that it didn’t let Nifong and his office know of such an explosive case with, among other things, enormous implications for the primary election he was then fighting.

At the Duke ER, Mangum was left to lie on a gurney for hours until the day shift arrived-- no one there took her seriously (seven nurses and physicians) until ultra-feminist Tara Levicy R.N. got involved.

Now remember I am just talking about the first two to three days after the party. Once Sgt. Mark Gottlieb became engaged with the case on March 16, the situation changed.

But before then, I doubt there was much "buzz" because of the skepticism concerning Mangum's claims by Duke ER staff and by the Durham and Duke Police who responded. There was also the initial confusion as to who held the party and whether they had a connection to Duke, let alone represented a Duke sports team.

I think what I’ve already said responds to this part of your comment.

Your information about the Durham courthouse crowd is important and interesting. But the incestuous connections between police, prosecutors, and attorneys do not prove that Mangum's charges were a topic of conversation early on.

The Ex-prosector said those charges would have moved through any courthouse “like wildfire.” I agree.

The first mention of the case in the press was the brief notice in the N&O on March 18. There is no mention of any connection between the incident and Duke students other than to say it happened near the campus.

You’re right, sceptical. But that doesn’t negate anything I said about all those people and what they knew or thought they knew on Mar. 14.

The N&O's second report on March 19 quotes Gottlieb and say it happened at a party involving both Duke students and non-students. Again the explosive racial connotation and athlete connection were not mentioned.

True enough as far as the N&O story on the 19th goes.

But I posted on why Nifong had to know on Mar. 14.

Even the Trinity Park listserv sent out by Gottlieb would not necessarily raise eyebrows:

"Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:15 am

"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours."

Gottlieb’s email might not have raised the eyebrows of those who already knew something of the case on the 17th.

Now, skeptical, I’ve had an opportunity to respond to your comment.

So I’ll close with another expression of thanks for your willingness to consider what I’ve been saying and for what you’ve contributed to “the conversation.”

It seems only right to give you the last word. I’m looking forward to reading your post about when Nifong learned of the DL case.

In retrospect, the Mangum's charges were a big deal, but just after the incident Mangum's claims were not unlike dozens of other claims of sexual assault the police deal with all the time.

So, while your conjectures concerning courthouse buzz and Cy's connection are plausible, I still do not think they PROVE that Nifong knew about the case before March 23 (when he claims he saw the NTIO application) and March 24 (when he talked to Capt. Lamb about taking it over).

Teaser: I am working on a post that will show he knew about the case at least by March 22-- stay tuned.

Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14

2009-06-14T14:22:00.000-04:00

(First posted on 6/13/09)

In Apr. 2007 a Raleigh N&O story by investigative reporter Joe Neff told readers it wasn’t until Mar. 24, 2006 that then Durham DA Mike Nifong learned about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case.

In June 2007 at the State Bar trial which led to his disbarment, Nifong testified to the same preposterous story the N&O had published a few months before.

Neff’s & Nifong’s stories have to be false. I’ve explained why in a number of posts. See, for examples, here and here.

If Nifong didn’t learn of the DL case until after his close friend, mentor and predecessor in the DA’s office Judge Ronald Stephens had already signed the “toxic” DL NTO that’s been described an “mammothly unconstitutional,” when did he learn of it?

I’m certain Nifong learned of it on Mar. 14, 2006, just hours after false accuser Crystal Mangum made a series of unbelievable, self-contradicting charges that she’d been robbed, beaten, strangled and gang raped at a party hosted by members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Here are some of the reasons why I’m certain:

As a matter of routine, the Durham Police Department (DPD) quite properly keeps the DA’s office current on cases that may make considerable demands on the time and expertise of the DA office and/or will garner heavy media attention.

The DL case was such a case.

It’s impossible to believe DPD didn’t on Mar. 14 directly inform Nifong and/or a member(s) of his office staff about the charges Mangum made in the early morning hours of that day at Duke Hospital’s ER.

It’s also impossible to believe any member of Nifong’s staff (it then consisted of about 20+ ADAs and 25+ other staffers) who knew about Mangum’s charges, would not have made sure “the boss” knew about them ASAP.

Any DA would want to be informed of such explosive charges that has already led to a police investigation, in response to which he might have to take certain immediate actions if arrests were made that day and about which he might have to respond at immediately if asked about the charges by a member of the press or by a citizen at a public event.

Would any Nifong staffer want “the boss” returning upset on Mar. 14 from a Kiwanis luncheon where he’d just spoken and had to tell the guy who asked during Q&A about “what they say happened last night at Duke Hospital” that he didn’t know what the guy was talking about?

For that matter, would anyone supporting Nifong in the tough primary election battle he was then fighting for the Democratic Party’s DA nomination, considered a sure lock on election in November, not want Nifnong to know ASAP about Mangum’s charges so he’d be prepared for questions?

No, they’d all want Nifong to be able to say to anyone something like:

“If you’re referring to charges a woman made about crimes she alleges happened at a party last night in Trinity Park, there’s obviously a lot I can’t tell you at this time. But I can say I spoke with the police this morning and they’re right now in the process of conducting a full investigation. My office is ready to provide the police any assistance they ask for.”

Given he was the DA, it was right and important that Nifong should learn about the DL case on Mar. 14. His campaign situation also made it essential he know then.

What I’ve just said about why Nifong knew about the DL case on Mar. 14 can be classified as some of “the formal reasons” why Nifong knew then.

I want to now lay out some of what can be classified as “informal reasons” why Nifong knew of the case on Mar. 14.

But first, there's a question many of you may be asking right now:

“Why are you so sure he learned of the case on the 14th? Maybe he was out of town then and didn’t learn about it until the 15th or thereafter.”

Nifong may have been out of town on the 14th. I don’t know.

But in our world of email, pagers and cells, he was connected.

DAs, like the rest of us, sometimes want to get away from the job. But they know the nature of their work means they can’t be completely out of touch.

And Nifong had added reason for being reachable on Mar. 14: his tough primary battle.

Now to some of the “informal reasons” why I’m sure Nifong knew about the case on Mar. 14.

By about 7 AM that morning at least a few hundred people in Durham already knew something about Mangum’s extraordinarily explosive charges, with most of them not knowing they were false.

Those people included, of course, the officers directly working the case and Duke ER personnel. They also included brother and sister police officers on duty who learned by various means something of the case as well as non-ER hospital personnel who, for example, would’ve entered the ER area for any of a number of reasons, such as to transport a patient up to a floor.

Around 7 AM shift changes were occurring at Duke Hospital and DPD. Hundreds more began learning from those they were relieving something of what Mangum had said. It was part of their jobs to know what had happened on the shifts they were relieving.

At 8:15 AM the doors of the Durham County Courthouse (pictured here) opened. The Durham Sheriff’s Department has administrative responsibility for the building, including security.

Most court sessions wouldn’t begin before 10 AM. But by 8:30 ADAs, attorneys, courthouse staffers such as bailiffs and secretaries, jurors and prospective jurors were already entering the courthouse.

It’s safe to say most prospective jurors were hoping they’d be in the building just a few hours and wouldn’t be picked for a jury.

It’s also safe to say that by 8:30 the “courthouse regulars” – ADAs, attorneys, DPD and Sheriff officers and others – had started that day’s “buzz.”

The “buzz” in Durham’s courthouse is like the “buzz” in most other county courthouse across America: some of it relates to bond hearings, trials, witness testimony, court calendar scheduling.

A lot of the buzz has to do with seeking and granting small favors: “Will you agree to a trial postponement. I’m just not ready?” and “Judge, can you be sure to hear my client’s bail bond reduction plea before lunchtime? I need to be in Charlotte by 5:30 for dinner and a Hornets game.”

And some of the “buzz” has to do with what’s happened at the Duke ER where many crime victims are taken and where most gunshot wound victims in Durham County are taken.

It’s by keeping up with what’s happened at Duke’s ER that ADAs and criminal defense attorneys often first learn of events involving someone they’ve prosecuted or defended; and whom they might soon be professionally involved with again.

Anything that happened in Duke’s ER involving Crystal Mangum would have gotten lots of “buzz” at the courthouse on Mar. 14.

If Tiger Woods drops in quietly to play a round at a county club near you or Coach K has dinner in a restaurant when a friend of your is eating there, the chances are very good you’re going to hear about both events.

That’s because Woods and Coach K have “star” status.

At the Durham County Courthouse Crystal Mangum’s had “star” status since June 2002.

That’s when she stole a car, drove at high speeds with the car lights off and sometimes in the oncoming lane into the next county to escape a Durham deputy pursuing her; and finally, after he’d cornered her, tried to run the deputy down, in the process damaging his vehicle.

You know the Durham Sheriff’s deputies and DPD officers deal with lots of criminals. But only a very few try to run any of them down.

Here are some things that would have added to the Mar. 14 courthouse “buzz” about Mangum:

The deputy she tried to run down, John Carroll, is still a Durham deputy. He’s sometimes assigned to security at the courthouse and is there at other times to testify.

So most regulars know Carroll as do a great many DPD officers; and among those groups, many also know Carroll as a friend and neighbor.

The attorney who represented Mangum in the car jacking and attempt to run down Carroll is Woody Vann.

Like his criminal defense attorney father Art Vann before him, Woody Vann is a courthouse regular who in Mar. 2006 was long-time friend of Mike Nifong’s. ( I don’t know anything about their current relationship)

But with all the buzzing about Mangum going on at the courthouse, none of it reached Nifong’s ears.

And what about Nifong’s wife Cy Gurney? She’s regional coordinator for NC’s Guardian Ad Litem program. Her office is right across the street from the courthouse. She’s often in the courthouse in connection with her job.

Most courthouse regulars know Cy Gurney. So do many Durham police officers and sheriff’s deputies.

But if we believe the stories Neff and Nifong have told about Nifong only learning of the DL case on Mar. 24 after the NTO had been signed, we have to believe that not only did Cy Gurney not learn about the case on Mar. 14; she didn’t learn about until after Nifong learned about it with his copier “discovery.”

It’s either that, or Gurney did know about the case before Nifong’s copier “discovery,” but somehow didn’t tell her DA husband.

Unbelievable!

Something else is unbelievable.

It’s that among all the literally hundreds of people including DPD members, his staff, his friends, campaign supporters and members of the courthouse crowd wanting to stay in good favor with him who should have told Nifong or would want to tell Nifong about the case on Mar. 14, not a single one did.

Folks, if we ever learn the full truth of what happened in Durham on Mar. 14, one of the things we’ll learn is that friends, campaign supporters, Trinity Park and Durham “activists” and others who called Nifong’s office on the afternoon of Mar. 14 to “let Mike know about this” were told something like:

“Yes, it is shocking. And he’s known about it since this morning. You know how Mr. Nifong keeps up with things. But I’ll be sure to tell him you called. I know he’ll appreciate it.

Note to skeptical: Thanks for posting about and linking at Liestoppers Meeting to my recent posts demonstrating the absurdity of the copier “discovery” story.

I’ll have another post up in a day or two explaining why the copier “discovery” falsehood was created.

I’ll bet you and many others can already guess what I’m going to say: you can’t sustain a complex cover-up involving many people without having lots of cover stories.

After that post I plan to post concerning others involved in the DL case you said I should have commented on before closing down JinC.

I hope you'll continue to comment.

Note to JinC readers: I’ll post again tomorrow afternoon.

The Duke Lax Frame: Like "The Mighty River"

2009-06-14T14:20:00.000-04:00

(First posted 6/10/09)

Folks,

If you’re above New Orleans standing on a levee beside “the mighty river,” and you say you’re looking at the Mississippi, no one will dispute you.

But if you say, “Imagine all this water coming from one lake in Minnesota,” most people will dispute you.

Sure, the Mississippi’s source is Minnesota’s Lake Itasca, but the Ohio joins it at Cairo, Illinois and the Missouri at St. Louis.

They’re just two of the Mississippi’s many great tributary rivers whose waters all pass the levees above New Orleans and flow on to the Gulf of Mexico.

I offer the foregoing, folks, because the Mississippi and its tributaries can serve us as a very useful metaphor when we think about and discuss the motivations or driving force behind what we’ve come to call the Duke lacrosse case.

Some people say the motivation or driving force for the trashing, endangerment and lying about the lacrosse team and the attempt to frame three of its members came from Mike Nifong, a rogue DA who had help from two rogue cops, DPD officers Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Inv. Ben Himan.

That’s too simple.

Other people agree the motivation or driving force for the frame-up attempt – which required so much lying and violating of procedures and laws for which the framers knew they could be punished, as Nifong’s been somewhat - - came primarily from Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan.

But then they quickly add something like: “Of course, there were lots more helping them.”

Well, OK, but who? And when and why did they provide motivational force for the trashing and frame-up attempt?

For the most part I’m with those who say a great many contributed to the force for the trashing and frame-up attempt.

But just offering a list of names and saying, “Here, these,” doesn’t contribute much to our understanding of how and why certain individuals, acting for themselves, and in some circumstances acting on behalf of institutions of government, media and education, took part in a vicious trashing and frame-up attempt.

The metaphor of the Mississippi and its tributaries can help us avoid the overly simple “Nifong did it all” explanation and the overly broad “all of the above”

Think in your mind’s eye of the Mississippi River basin and consider where it’s many tributary rivers have their sources.

Examine where and how some of those rivers contribute to “the mighty river” which flows by the levees above New Orleans.

Then think about the Duke lacrosse case.

We know Nifong was a mighty contributor to it. But was he it’s source as Lake Itaska is the Mississippi’s?

Or did Nifong perhaps not begin making his contribution until the trashing and frame-up attempt were “down river?”

A “yes” answer to that question will tempt many people to think the source of the frame-up must then be DPD.

Perhaps it is; perhaps it’s not.

If you buy Joe Neff and the Raleigh N&O’s Apr. 2007 story that Nifong only learned of the lacrosse case on Mar. 23, 2006 after the NTO was signed;

and you agree that a reading of the NTO leaves no doubt a frame-up attempt was underway by Mar. 23– something I believe;

then you have to say Nifong isn’t the source of the frame-up attempt;

and that he is instead a very powerful tributary to it.

If not Nifong as the frame-up source, then who?

Here once more the Mississippi River metaphor is useful.

Waters that have their sources in both the Rockies and the Appalachians flow into the Mississippi.

Thinking about that helps me keep in mind that the force for the trashing and frame-up could have come simultaneously from different individuals and organizations.

I won’t say more because I’m confident the great majority of you see the usefulness of a metaphor like the Mississippi and its tributaries for considering how individuals and organizations came to engage in investigative travesties and, I believe, a good deal of criminal conduct in the Duke lacrosse case.

Hat tips to all the recent commenters whose informed and questioning commentaries were "the source" of my motivation for writing this post.

Best,

John

Background Re: Nifong Knew Before Mar. 24 Post

2009-06-14T14:19:00.000-04:00

(First posted 6/10/09)

Folks,

If you’ve read Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 24 and Nifong & Circumstantial Evidence & "He Knew. No Question" and both post’s threads (the threads are very worthwhile reads), you know I’ve promised a post explaining why I’m certain Mike Nifong learned about Crystal Mangum’s false charges the same day she made them: Mar. 14, 2006 and not on Mar. 24 as the Raeligh N&O reported and as Nifong subsequently testified at the State Bar trial which resulted in his disbarment.

I still plan to do that post but there’s been some very perceptive and probing commentary made on the threads I just mentioned.

I want to respond to to some of that commentary here on the main page tonight in two posts.

As a result, I’m delaying the post I promised.

The delay may be “all to the good” because I think the two posts I’m working on for tonight will be useful background for the post explaining why I’m certain Nifong knew on Mar. 14 of what became the Duke lacrosse case.

There are three other posts that will be useful to read as we consider a number of important questions surrounding the NTO directing 46 white Duke lacrosse players to provide DNA evidence and submit to police photographing of them.

I’ve pasted one of those three - - Durham ADA Changes NTO Story, published Feb. 2, 2008 - - here in this post. It links at its end to the two other posts.

I hope you’re back tonight.

John

___________________________

The Durham Herald Sun reports today Freda Black's announcement she'll be a candidate for DA in this year’s primary scheduled for May 6. Black was the disgraced Mike Nifong’s major opponent in the 2006 Democratic DA primary race.

A former Durham ADA, Black was dismissed by Nifong when he was appointed DA by the governor to fill the unexpired term of his predecessor who’d been made a judge. Black is now in private practice.

The H-S story also mentions current Durham ADA Tracey Cline who has told friends and supporters she’ll be a candidate in the May primary.

The story includes this:

Cline defended her role in getting a court order for DNA evidence from 46 lacrosse players "as a regular routine that any assistant district attorney or district attorney would give police advice to do everyday."

What the H-S reports today Cline is now saying represents a major change from what on Jan. 9 the H-S reported Cline said:

From the Jan. 9 Durham H-S - - -

[…] At the heart of the matter is material taken from the notes of lacrosse case lead detective Ben Himan, and notes and a deposition from Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

They referred to Cline's role in the creation of a non-testimonial order, or NTO, that allowed police to take photographs of and collect DNA evidence from 46 of the 47 members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Cline denied that she had any role in writing the order.

"The record will indicate that David Saacks did it," she said. Saacks is the interim district attorney but was an assistant DA at that time. "I didn't prepare any paperwork on that case. Nothing at all. I've never even seen or laid hands on a non-testimonial order."

She said, "I remember Gottlieb asked me about a non-testimonial order, and I told him I was not available."

But when asked by The Herald-Sun whether she'd asked police to draft the non-testimonial order, Cline responded, "I don't recall."

Himan's notes and Gottlieb's deposition indicate that police consulted Cline on March 22, 2006, after they learned players, on the advice of attorneys, wouldn't show up that day for a scheduled meeting with investigators.

How about that?

In less than a month Cline has gone from saying she was unable to “recall” whether she’d directed police to prepare the NTO to defending her role in getting the NTO as just “a regular routine that any assistant district attorney or district attorney would give police advice to do everyday."

Quite a change, isn’t it?

Did Cline have “a recovered memory” experience all by herself. Or did someone(s) remind her that she did have a role in securing the NTO?

If someone(s) did, who was that someone(s)? What was said to Cline that improved her memory?

Now that her memory’s improved, does Cline agree with what Gottlieb and Himan have been saying: that she directed them to prepare the NTO?

That question needs to be answered. We shouldn’t have to wait for discovery to get Cline’s answer. She should give it now.

Cline should also tell us on what basis she at least supported and perhaps ordered the preparation of an NTO request which was anything but routine. In fact, it’s been called "mammothly unconstitutional" and a "dragnet fishing expedition."

Readers following the case, especially those with questions concerning the who, why, when and how of the securing of the NTO, may be interested to read:

Who “Owns” that “Toxic” NTO? (1/13/08)

NTO Battle – Durham DA v. Police (1/17/08)

Today's entire H-S story is here.

Nifong & Circumstantial Evidence & "He Knew. No Question"

2009-06-14T14:17:00.000-04:00

(First posted 6/8/09)

Sunday I posted Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23.

That post was the first of a two post response to Liestoppers Meeting blogger sceptical’s request that I explain why I’m certain Raleigh News & Observer investigative reporter Joe Neff’s Apr. 2007 Nifong copier “discovery” story reporting Mike Nifong didn’t learn about the Duke lacrosse (DL) case until the afternoon of Mar. 23, 2006 is false.

In the second post I’ll explain why I’m certain Nifong learned of the DL false accuser Crystal Mangum’s charges on Mar. 14, 2006, the same day she made them; and not on Mar. 23 as Neff and the N&O reported and as Nifong subsequently testified in June 2007 at his State Bar trial which led to his disbarment.

Before reading further, please read Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23 and the posts to which it links if you've not already done so.

Moving on - - -

Skeptical, commenting in response to the Nifong Knew post, correctly noted [excerpt]:

John, you make a strong case that Nifong knew about the lacrosse party incident before March 23, but your argument is largely circumstantial, based on what was in the papers and being discussed in Durham at the time.

I look forward to your second post in which I hope you will show specific information that Nifong knew about the incident before the copy machine story.

I want to respond to sceptical’s excerpted comment before publishing my second post explaining why I’m certain Nifong knew of the case on Mar. 14.

Sceptical's right; my first post relies heavily on circumstantial evidence and the conclusion we can reach from such evidence that Nifong knew about the case before Mar. 23.

The circumstantial evidence I relied on is indisputable.

For example, no one disputes the Raleigh N&O published two stories on the case before the 23rd and The Chronicle published one.

Circumstantial evidence is often viewed as less reliable than direct eyewitness statements and testimony under oath.

But eyewitness statements and even direct testimony under oath often turn out to be flat out false, something we've seen repeatedly in the DL case, while circumstantial evidence has often led us to the truth.

That's why in our justice system we're asked to weigh both circumstantial and direct evidence; and that's why in criminal cases circumstantial evidence can by itself be sufficient for conviction or a verdict of "not guilty."

I want to share with you two other items:

First, this Anon comment from the Nifong Knew thread -

During the late 1990's I was the Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor in a small county in Washington State.

Every morning upon arrival at work, I checked with the jail to see who had been booked in the last 24 hours and checked with my counterparts in law enforcement about active investigations. My boss, the Elected Prosecutor, was briefed on everything before noon.

Nifong knew about this investigation within two days of the allegations! I'd bet my house on it.

Moreover, considering he was running for office, he would have been even more involved in the day-to-day activities because of the danger of something politically harmful blowing up during the election. He knew. No question.

Second, this from The Chronicle's web site - - -

With a circulation of about 15,000 and distribution throughout the University, Health System and parts of Durham, The Chronicle has a print readership of about 30,000. The Chronicle Online, established in 1995, gets an average of more than 70,000 hits every day.

Folks, even if we allow that in March 2006 TC had a run of say 10,000 with circulation of 20,000 and say 40,000 hits a day online, don't you find it impossible to believe that with TC's story reporting the rape allegations and Dean Wasilick quoted and Sgt. Gottlieb referenced as reporting the residents in the house were cooperating - - -

and with everything else I mentioned in Nifong Knew plus more some of you could have mentioned - - -

that somehow Mike Nifong didn't know before Mar. 23 and if his wife, Cy Gurney knew, she didn't tell Mike?

Anon has it right: "He knew. No question."

Wishing CKS Well On Her Way To London

2009-06-14T14:16:00.000-04:00

(First posted 6/7/09)

Most of you know in the last year or so cks has added to JinC with many thoughtful comments.

An educator from Ohio, she recently was awarded a highly competitive National Endowment for the Humanities teacher fellows grant for summer study in London and the Netherlands. You can read more about her NEH award program here and here.

I’ve posted a few times with “current tips” for cks about London which she'll be visiting this summer for the first time in 35 years.

In this post, I wish her well and add a few more tips.

I know she and I will both be happy for you to read along.

John

__________________________________________

Dear cks,

Thank you for your contributions to JinC which hasn’t quite shut down yet because there’s a need for me to explain some things to thoughtful, fair people.

I hope you keep looking in at JinC until I finally “turn off the lights;” and perhaps you’ll comment.

Good luck in London.

I see by your NEH itinerary you’ll travel down the Thames to Greenwich, where you'll have time to visit the Royal Observatory.

The Observatory’s strong, commanding beauty atop the hill always inspires me.

Something else there does too. Fittingly enough, it concerns time-keeping.

You’ll notice people from all over the world standing before the time-recording computer that flashes the official GMT to the second, and then further to the right flashes it in fractional seconds at a recording speed that’s blurred to the naked eye.

Standing in front of the hermetically sealed computer you’ll see people from all over the world who on impulse look down and begin resetting their watches to as close an approximation of GMT as they can manage.

I’m use to that scene now, but the first time I witnessed it my eyes misted.

There they were before the GMT-recording computer – people of every race, nation, and belief, some who in their own countries would actively support murderous actions against people standing just a few yards from them – and they were all agreed at least on the time.

It’s a start.

Back in London, I know you’ll visit Westminster Abbey, perhaps on a pre-arranged VIP tour for you and your colleagues.

You don’t need me to tell you such tours – even the regular tours – are never to be forgotten.

I hope you also have time to go back on your own to the Abbey for choral evensong.

Even in the busy summertime, if you get there 30 minutes before service, you’ll likely get a seat in the choir where you’ll be but a few feet behind the choiristers when the service begins.

It’s truly magisterial.

Every good wish,

John

Why Nifong Knew About The Case Before Mar. 23

2009-06-14T14:15:00.000-04:00

(First posted 6/7/09)

ERROR ALERT: As first published this post incorrectly stated attorney Jim Cooney "is now part of the legal team defending Duke in a suit brought by unindicted players and family members."

The post has now been corrected.

I apologize for my error and thank the two readers who promptly called it to my attention. I'll also thank them on this post's thread for their "editor's" work.

John
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Readers Note: A few days ago sceptical, an astute Duke lacrosse case commenter who blogs at Liestoppers Meeting, asked me to explain something.

It's why I'm certain Mike Nifong did not first learn about the case on Mar. 23, 2006 as the Raleigh N&O reported in Apr. 2007 and as Nifong himself testified in June, 2007 at the State Bar trial which led to his disbarment; but instead learned about Crystal Mangum's false charges the same day she made them: Mar. 14, 2006.

I'm responding to sceptical in two posts.

Today's post is meant to leave sceptical and others reading it in no doubt that Nifong knew about the case well before Mar. 23.

A second post explains why I'm certain Nifong learned of the case on Mar. 14.

The first thing you'll read following this note is a post I published on Jan. 11, 2008: Nifong's Copier "Discovery" Is A False Story.

Following that, I make some further comments.

I'll be interested in your feedback.

John
___________________________________

I’d like you to read an extract from a Apr. 25, 2007 post, Nifong & The Copier Discovery. Be Careful. I’m very confident the incident recounted in that extract is false regarding a very important claim.

The claim is that then Durham DA Mike Nifong first learned about what became “the Duke lacrosse rape case” on Mar. 23, 2006 after his Chief Assistant DA, David Saacks, had made an unprecedented and very likely unconstitutional request that a judge issue a nontestimonial order directing all 46 white members of the 2006 Duke Men’s lacrosse team to submit to police DNA testing and face and torso photographing.

In this post I want to tell you why the claim is false and suggest at least one reason why it was created.

Let’s start with the Apr. 25 post extract. The post began:

On April 14, 2007, Raleigh News & Observer reporter Joseph Neff began a five part series on Nifong & the Duke Hoax case. Neff’s first series article begins:

Mike Nifong found out about the case that now threatens his career March 23, 2006, when he stopped by the office copier and found a court order demanding DNA samples from 46 Duke lacrosse players. An escort service dancer told police that three men at a team party had dragged her into a bathroom and raped her anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes, according to the order.

The Durham district attorney's reaction, he later told lawyer Jim Cooney: "Holy crap, what is going on?"

In his source notes, Neff cites two people as sources for his report Nifong only learned about the nontestimonial court order (NTO) on 3/23/06 when he discovered it at his office copier.

One is Jim Cooney, an attorney for Reade Seligmann. As Neff noted in another series article, Cooney first met Nifong in December, 2006, nine months after Nifong’s “copier discovery.”

Neff’s use of Cooney’s “Holy crap, what is going on?” account of Nifong’s reaction gives a seeming “You are there” dimension to the “discovery” story but, as Neff makes clear, what Cooney says is based not on Cooney’s observation of Nifong’s “discovery,” but on what Nifong told Cooney.

And we know about the reliability of what Nifong tells attorneys, judges, and all of us.

Neff’s only other source for his “copier discovery” report is David Saacks, Nifong’s chief assistant district attorney. It was Saacks who signed the NTO request.

Saacks certainly could have been standing right by the copier when Nifong made his “discovery.” Or he could have been down the hall in his office and heard Nifong exclaim, “Holy crap, what is going on?”

Maybe “the discovery” happened just the way Neff reports it.

But that means Saacks went ahead and got the NTO order without ever discussing it and the hugely troubled and hugely politically significant “Duke gang-rape” case with Nifong, who was then in a hotly contested primary race for the Democratic nomination for DA.

Did Saacks go ahead without saying anything to Nifong? Did Nifong really know nothing about the case until he made his “Holy crap” “copier discovery?"

Color me very skeptical of what Joe Neff reports. […]

END OF APR. 27, 2007 POST EXTRACT
******************************************************

In his testimony during the State Bar trial which resulted in his disbarment, Nifong testified he “discovered” the NTO just as Neff reported. Nifong estimated his Mar. 23 “discovery” occurred sometime around 4 pm.

But he had to know about the case before then.

Here’s why:

By the morning of Mar. 14 a lot of people in Trinity Park (TP) already knew police had been to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. and that something "had happened" there.

"Did you see the two police cars there? Do you know what happened? Are you on the listserv?"

Trinity Park residents include Duke administrators, faculty, medical center personnel and other University staffers. It's home to a number of Raleigh N&O staffers, attorneys and others with regular business at the Durham County courthouse a mile or so away where the Durham DA and his staff also have offices.

So there was buzzing on Mar. 14 not only in TP but at Duke, the courthouse, other places and on the Net.

The buzz grew on Mar. 15 and got louder still on Mar. 16 when six or seven DPD cruisers were parked outside the house for hours and DPD Sgt. Mark Gottlieb subsequently emailed on a TP listserv seeking information from anyone who could help with the "investigation."

On Mar. 18 the N&O ran a story of a reported rape at the house; it ran a second story concerning it on the 19th.

Both stories ran in a part of the N&O's "B" section where local crimes are regularly reported. Many people involved in the criminal justice system routinely check that part of the paper.

I'd think a DA, especially one running for office, would check that part of the paper daily unless the DA wanted to be in a position where a citizen could ask about a reported crime in his or her neighborhood and the DA didn't mind having to say, "Gee, I don't know a thing about it. Why don't you give the police a call?"

On Mar. 19th adults at churches in TP were talking about the "horrible crimes" in their Sunday School classes.

A friend who teaches one of those classes later told me when his class met, it ignored the lesson for the day and "got right to talking about the case." My friend said there were "a few cool heads but most people were on fire."

With about five minutes of class time left, the class realized it should at least give the lesson a glance and did so. It then adjourned for coffee and to meet people from the other classes and those just arriving for the 11 o'clock service.

Do you know what my friend told me happened then?

He learned that in all the other adult classes folks had done just what they'd done in his class.

"Everyone" went to work on Monday, Mar. 20, at DU, DUMC, the courthouse, etc. and had lunch on 9th Street, Whole Foods, etc. Talk, talk, and more talk.

It had been a week since the party. During that week Nifong and his wife, Cy Gurney, had been campaigning for his nomination as the Democratic Party's DA candidate in the November election.

While we do newspaper ads and some TV spots and interest group endorsements count for a lot, campaigning in Durham still involves plenty of "retail" work: getting friends to host "deserts" and invite the neighbors in to meet you; getting out to service and fraternal club luncheons to be introduced and shake some hands afterward; asking people what's on their minds and do they have anything they want to ask you.

But with all of that, Nifong, if we believe the "Holy crap" copier discovery story, knew absolutely nothing about the case on Mar. 20.

With his office only a mile from the house; with many supporters in TP; and getting out and about in the TP neighborhood and nearby as part of his campaign and talking regularly to "the courthouse crowd" he'd known for almost 30 years, he had no idea there was anything going on that would later be called "the Duke lacrosse case."

And if his wife, Cy Gurney, well connected to many in TP, active in his campaign, a "partner" of many Durham activists and "victim’s advocacy" groups, and herself a courthouse regular by virtue of heading up the Guardian ad Litem regional program knew about the case, then we have to believe she didn't tell her husband Mike, the DA.

It's unbelievable, isn't it?

And folks, I've only taken the narrative up to Monday, Mar. 20.

If you believe the copier "discovery" story, you still have to get to about 4 o'clock on Thursday, Mar. 23, before Nifong learns anything about the case.

That's Mission Impossible.

On Tuesday, Mar. 21, The Chronicle published a story on the alleged crimes. It noted Duke was the owner of the house, quoted Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek as saying the University was awaiting the results of the police investigation. It mentioned Gottlieb had said the residents of the house had been cooperative. There was more to the story. Literally many thousands of people at Duke now knew something about the case.

Even Duke President Richard Brodhead has acknowledged he knew about the case by Mar. 21. (I'm not sure he didn't know before then, but that's for another post.)

Brodhead and thousands of others at Duke knew but Nifong didn't?

If you believe that, you must be a life member of MoveOn.Duke.

If you aren't convinced by now the copier "discovery" story is false, there's more I could say but I don't think I'd convince you.

Now to the question of why create the falsehood of Nifong only learning about the case on the afternoon of Mar. 23, after the NTO had been signed by his dear friend, mentor and predecessor as DA, Judge Ron Stephens?

This from my Apr. 25, 2007 Nifong & The Copier Discovery. Be Careful post:

There’s one thing we can all be sure about: It’s greatly to both Saacks' and Nifong’s advantage to be able to say they never spoke about the NTO before 3/23/06.

If they didn’t speak about it, there’s no need to ask sticky questions such as:

Before seeking an unprecedented NTO to obtain DNA and mug and torso photos from 46 citizens based solely on their race and membership on a sports team, what did Durham’s District Attorney and its Chief Assistant District Attorney say to each other about the accuser’s failure to ID any of the alleged rapists?

Did they say to each other anything about police officers’ and the second dancer’s statements that the accuser’s story was a “crock?”

What did they say about hospital records from Duke and the accuser's many conflicting stories?

Folks, there are other reasons why I think the falsehood was created.

In a few days I'll post concerning them.

Right now I'm interested to hear what you think.

And I'm sorry this post got long

**************************************************
**************************************************

Concluding comments made on June 7, 2009:

Folks,

The sentence "Did they say to each other anything about police officers’ and the second dancer’s statements that the accuser’s story was a 'crock?'" is awkward as it could reasonably be construed to mean I was saying both police officers and the second dancer said Mangum's story was a "crock."

The second dancer did say the story was a "crock;" but, while a number of officers, most notably DPD Sgt. (now Lt.) John Shelton, didn't believe Mangum's charges, I know of none who called them a "crock."

On the comment thread of the Jan. 11, 2006 post kbp, a fine Duke lacrosse commenter, notes correctly Nifong is the signatory on the request to DUMC for release of Mangum's medical records. That request was made before Mar. 23.

I did not mention the records release form in Nifong's Copier "Discovery" Is A False Story or in any other post in which I've challenged the veracity of Neff & Nifong's copier "discovery" stories because it's very possible Nifong did not actually sign the request form

In many offices what are viewed as routine request forms are signed by others on behalf of the person in whose name the request is made and who is not available at the time of the request.

Also, some officials who signatures are required on certain form requests and other documents sign blank copies in anticipation of the documents needing to be used in their absence.

Mind you, I'm not say Nifong didn't actually sign the request for Mangum's medical records. I'm just not sure he did.

But I am sure he knew about the Duke lacrosse case well before Mar. 23, 2006; and I hope you're sure too.

Thanks for reading.

Look for the second post in a day or two.

John

A D-Day Tribute

2009-06-06T12:34:00.003-04:00

Readers Note: My tribute below was first published June 6, 2007.

One of the most outstanding military bloggers, Blackfive, has posted a great D- Day tribute here.

I hope you visit it and I thank Blackfive for linking in his post to one of my previous D-Day tribute posts.

John
______________________________________

The story of June 6, 1944 is familiar one which 63 years on still interests, awes and inspires.

We hear the date and can immediately say, "Sure, Normandy. They touched down around 6 or 7 AM, didn't they?"

We wonder at the courage it took to get to the waterline and then storm the beaches.

This tribute is in impressionist form: three brief "brush strokes" meant to suggest the whole.

The first tells about the Allied Supreme Commander; in the second we follow a correspondent who sailed for Normandy not with troops, but with doctors, nurses and corpsmen; and finally a correspondent walks along Omaha Beach after the battle and tells us why we must remember it.

On June 5 when General Eisenhower knew the invasion could fail. He prepared a message to be released in the event he had to order a withdrawal.

Eisenhower's penciled message on plain paper contains errors, including a dating of "July 5." Historians agree the errors suggest fatigue. In the months before D-Day, Eisenhower slept only 3 or 4 hours a night. But the quality of the man shines in his message:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.

My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do.

If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

July 5.

The men and women of D-Day had a commander worthy of them.

With June 5 giving way to June 6, correspondent Martha Gellhorn prepared to sail for France on a hospital ship. She described for readers what she saw.

Here's some of what she wrote which appeared in Aug.'44 in Collier's. (I couldn't find a net link. - JinC):

There was nothing to do now but wait. The big ship felt empty and strange.

There were 422 beds covered with new blankets; and a bright, clean, well-equipped operation room, never before used; great cans marked “Whole Blood” stood on the decks; plasma bottles and supplies of drugs and bales of bandages were stored in handy places. Everything was ready, and any moment we would be leaving for France.

Our ship was snowy white with a green line running along the sides below the deck rail, and with many bright new red crosses painted on the hull and painted flat on the boat deck.

Pulling out of the harbor that night we passed a Liberty ship, going the same way.

The ship was gray against the gray water and the gray sky, and standing on her decks, packed solidly together, khaki, silent and unmoving, were American troops. No one waved and no one called. The crowded gray ship and the empty white ship sailed slowly out of the harbor toward France.

And on the day following D-Day correspondent Ernie Pyle walked along Omaha Beach. Here's part of what he told Americans back home:

You can still see the foxholes they dug at the very edge of the water, in the sand and the small, jumbled rocks that form part of the beach.

Medical corpsmen attended the wounded as best they could. Men were killed as they stepped out of landing craft. An officer whom I knew got a bullet through the head just as the door of his landing craft was let down. Some men were drowned.

Our men were pinned down for a while, but finally they stood up and want through, and so we took that beach and accomplished our landing. We did it with every advantage on the enemy's side and every disadvantage on ours.

Pyle titled his account "A Pure Miracle" , and explained why he wrote it:

In this column I want to tell you what the opening of the second front in this one sector entailed, so that you can know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful to those both dead and alive who did it for you.

Know, appreciate, and forever be humbly grateful.
_______________________________________________________

A Note To Sceptical

2009-06-06T12:24:00.003-04:00

Dear sceptical:

I'll post tonight concerning why I'm sure Nifong knew of the DL case well before Mar. 23, 2006.

I'll post tomorrow or Monday explaining why I feel certain he learned of the case on Mar. 14.

Thank you for reading and commenting.

Best,

John

A Letter To Sarah

2009-06-05T19:11:00.004-04:00

Readers Note: After publishing KC Johnson Slimed Prof. Lubiano I received in letter form a comment from Sarah which I posted on the Lubiano thread.

While Sarah’s comment was critical of me for my Lubiano post, she closed saying her letter was written with “respect and regret.”

Its quality left no doubt of that.

We subsequently had useful exchanges on the thread which you can read here.

Sarah’s comments revealed her to be a person of grace and generous instincts.

I asked her to read Senator Taft’s Lesson For Us All, which contains a JinC post published Apr. 8, 2006.

I’ve used that 2006 post as a guide and standard for my Duke lacrosse postings.

I promised Sarah I’d post her letter on the main page and reply to it there.

I said I wanted my reply to be a thoughtful, detailed and respectful one which, if it didn’t change her opinions, would at least give Sarah and others like her a better understanding of why I wrote the Lubiano post

Before reading further, I urge any of you not familiar with the posts I’ve just mentioned and their comment threads as well as KC Johnson Now and its comment thread to please give them all a look before reading Sarah’s letter and my response.

Now to the letters.

John

_______________________________

Hi John

You have been a valiant fighter for the victims of the Duke lacrosse travesty, and I respect you a lot for that.

I am also sure you feel you have your reasons for writing what you did.

However I know how these divisions and squabbles are used by those who still seek every possible opportunity to hurt the victims, in order to mock and undermine them and their supporters.

You, KC Johnson and Liestoppers did great things in exposing the hatred, dishonesty and duplicity behind the hoax. By now turning on each other over what amounts to trivia, you are giving weapons and a great deal of comfort to deeply unsavory and twisted people.

To do so in support of someone as vile, dishonest and devoid of humanity as Lubiano, defies comprehension.

You are worth far more than those who are exploiting your words, but you are wrong over this issue.

Written with regret and respect,

Sarah

_____________________________

Dear Sarah,

I hope you’ve seen A Brief Note To Sarah in which I explained my delay responding to you and expressed my appreciation for your comment on Tribute To My Wife thread.

Before going further, and for the benefit of those who may not have read the Lubiano post thread, I to repeat a few of the things I said on the thread in response to you:

I was never valiant; the players and their families were.

During 2006 and into 2007 KC, LS and The Johnsville News all did great DL blogging.

That’s why back then I’d often urge people to read those blogs before deciding whether they’d time to also read JinC.

My DL blogging represented my best effort so I’m proud of it. But it was never great.

Your comments just noted reflect your generous instincts, remarkable for appearing in a letter in which you take me to task for a post you believe has done and will continue to do more harm to innocent people who’ve already endured grave harm, including many great injustices.

My goals in this letter are to:

1) - - state why the Lubiano post was necessary;

2) - - explain to you and others like you why the Lubiano post might also be in the interests of those whose well-being are your primary concern.

With those goals in mind we can agree, Sarah, that all and everything I said in KC Johnson Now about Lubiano and KC is this:

I wish KC hadn't made that remark about what he termed Professor Lubiano's "drinking habits." It wasn't fair to her and reflected very poorly on him.

At that point KC could’ve said he was sorry he’d carelessly used the “drinking habits” term. He could have updated at the start of the post in which he made his "drinking habits" remark.

If that had happened, I'm sure most fair-minded people would have said something like: “Good for KC.”

Instead, in his response on the thread of KC Johnson Now, he elaborated on his initial slime which was based solely on an innocent remark of the kind most adults over 40 have made.

Lubiano simply said she couldn’t recall specific stories from evenings 20 years past in which she shared “food and drink” with colleagues while discussing academic issues.

Such evenings occur at every university and at academic conferences. Lubiano’s mention of “food and drink” in that context tells us nothing about her “drinking habits.”

When good parents teach their children not to slime people they often illustrate what they mean by telling their children the old joke about the politician who promised “a high road campaign in which I won’t mention my opponents drinking habits.”

I had a friend whose professional colleagues always told me she was an outstanding surgical nurse. But it was only in the last weeks of her life and a losing battle with breast cancer that she disclosed to me she’d been a recovering alcoholic for 28 years.

She disclosed because she was proud of her years recovering and wanted that mentioned at her funeral.

She had previously disclosed to very few because she feared people might use her early active alcoholism to slime with innuendo about her “drinking habits” the surgical teams on which she served.

Lubiano’s conduct has certainly been vile and dishonest. Among many awful things she's done, her lead role in publishing the “listening statement” helped make an already dangerous situation more dangerous not just for the lacrosse players, but for anyone else who might have been unintended victims of physical attacks meant to target the players.

Her educational and socio-political philosophies are inimical to America’s ideals of fair treatment and equal justice for all.

It’s those ideals which require we treat Lubiano fairly, just as they required the authorities to treat Crystal Mangum and the Duke students fairly.

Sarah, I doubt my Lubiano post will be much help to “. . . those who still seek every possible opportunity to hurt the victims[.]”

I think those odious people would have preferred I endorsed what KC did.

That way they could say: “See, here’s JinC agreeing with what KC did. That’s more material we can use.”

I’ve only a very limited understanding of the hard journey the players and their families have traveled; and only a very limited understanding of what lies ahead for them.

But of this I feel certain: sometime years from now there'll come to the victims an opportunity resulting from the suits.

The opportunity will come in the form of one or very possibly more than one settlement offers from the defendants.

The settlement(s) offered might be one(s) the victims would turn down now; but which at some future time they’ll view as acceptable for the settlement(s) granting some admission of wrong and apology, proper compensation for injuries and the unfair stigma and attendant risks the players will always bear, and other considerations.

Those who would make the offer(s) will be likely to do so sooner rather than later, and more full than otherwise, if they believe certain things.

One of the most important of those things will be the belief of those making the offer(s) that among their primary constituencies – the Duke and Durham communities – there will be sizable numbers of people who will at least accept, if not support, the making of such offer or offers.

To the extent all of us can avoid outright slimes and are willing to call out those advocating for the victims who do, we make a contribution to helping people who don’t agree with us to perhaps become, if not more agreeing, at least less strong in their resistance to what we say and the interests of those we support.

That’s why, Sarah, I think my “Lubiano post might also be in the interests of those whose well-being are your primary concern.”

What do you think?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

John

A Brief Note To Sarah

2009-06-04T16:14:00.006-04:00

Readers Note: Sarah responded to KC Johnson Slimed Prof. Lubiano sharply critical of what I wrote in that post.

Sarah said she took me to task with “respect and regret.” The quality of her comment, made in letter form, left no doubt about that.

We’ve since had a few email exchanges, in one of which I asked her to read a post from Apr. 8, 2006 - - Senator Taft's Lesson For Us All.

That post helps explain a lot of my Duke lacrosse work, including KC Johnson Slimed Prof. Johnson.

I’m now getting back to Sarah. You’ll understand everything in the note below as soon as you read it.

John

____________________________________________

Dear Sarah,

Thank you very much for your comment on the A Tribute To My Wife post thread.

I’m sorry not to have been back to you yesterday as I promised.

As you know doubt know a large bank of severe thunderstorms moved West to East yesterday across the upper South yesterday, grounding for many hours flights from Northeast airports bound for, among other airports our home airport, RDU.

Our son was on one of those delayed airplanes and our daughter-in-law was on another flight at another Northeastern airport.

And here my wife and I were with three young grandchildren to look after while standing by to pick their parents up when they finally got here.

There’s more to the story but I know you understand it wasn’t the dog who ate my blog post to you.

Tomorrow for sure.

Thank you for your understanding.

If you leave me a note saying you've seen this, I'll feel better.

Sincerely,

John

Response To Sceptical (Post 1)

2009-06-04T14:43:00.005-04:00

Readers Note: Liestoppers Meeting blogger skeptical has criticized me for posting KC Johnson Now as I was attempting to close down JinC.

Sceptical and others say I shouldn't have waited until the last minute to criticize Johnson.

In that, they are wrong.

A fair reading of KC Johnson Now leaves no doubt much of the post documents questions I asked KC and criticisms I made of his work as early as Dec. 2007.

I’ve ignored most of the "last minute" criticisms based on the wise adage: “Consider the source.”

But sceptical and a few others making that criticism are people whose past thoughtful Duke lacrosse commentary entitles them to considered responses.

I told sceptical that on the thread of KC Johnson Now.

My first response begins now. There’ll be other responses in subsequent posts.

John
______________________________________________

Dear Sceptical,

There should be no misunderstanding between us that I waited until "the last minute" before calling attention to some of the important errors and omissions KC Johnson’s Duke lacrosse work.

The KC Johnson Now post includes extensive paste-ins from a Dec. 2007 post to which I twice link and which I cite once by month and year.

As for those who say I tried to have “the ‘last word’ and run,” I ask that you please gently remind them there’s no “last word” in the blogosphere.

KC and anyone else is free to comment and attack as they choose “‘til Kingdom come.” They started doing that as soon as the post went up.

My being “shut down” simply means I’m less likely to see what they put out or care about it.

Mind you, I’m not saying I wouldn’t respond in certain circumstances.

In your first comment you said in part:

I believe [KC Johnson Now] was a petty choice on your part, when there are so many others still in power who promoted the hoax: Ron Hodge, David Addison, Kammie Michael, Patrick Baker, Bill Bell, Dick Brodhead, Sue Wasiolek, Theresa Arico, most of the Group of 88, and many others.

In a subsequent comment you said in part:

In my quick list, I left out the initial cause-- Crystal Mangum. She should not get a pass despite her history of mental illness.

I also left out the N&O hierarchy, who you have so rightly criticized, including Linda Williams, Ted Vaden, Melanie Sill, etc.

They poured gasoline on a fire and then refused to take responsibility for their mistakes.

Furthermore, they reined in Joe Neff after Nifong was ousted, not allowing him to investigate the police misconduct and malfeasance.

Those parts of your comments helped me realize I should have, in the closing weeks, made at least a few “summing up” comments about those you mentioned, among whom are some of those who did the greatest harm to the individual victims and to Duke and Durham.

I’ll begin with false accuser Gail Crystal Mangum.

I said often in Spring 2006 that she was entitled to a full, fair investigation of her charges.

In hindsight it appears she got that or most of that even before the Raleigh N&O “broke” the case on Mar. 24 in a shamelessly biased story which repeatedly called her “the victim,” thereby casting the innocent lacrosse players as her victimizers.

I’m very glad I supported full, fair treatment of her claims. If that had been all that happened, it would have been “case closed” and no Duke lacrosse frame-up attempt.

I knew who she was from day one but didn’t name her until late December 2006 after Professor Coleman’s comment that it seemed she and Nifong were almost “mooning the system” after she “revised” her story yet again.

This time it was so that her story would comport at least somewhat with the latest revelations in a Dec. 15 court hearing that Nifong and DSI’s Brian Meehan had conspired to withhold DNA evidence exculpatory for the players.

Right after Mangum’s “revision” and Coleman’s comment I named her.

I don’t regret not naming her at the outset because, while I knew the story of the 30 minutes of beating, chocking and rape in the bathroom was absurd, I couldn’t be sure in Mar. and early Apr. that something didn’t happen at the party that sexaully victimized her.

But I do regret not naming Mangum by no later than the beginning of May.

Had I done that, I’d have better served JinC readers and made a contribution to those struggling at the time to defend the victims.

The Johnsville News was right to criticize me in Spring ’06 for not naming Mangum. I thanked TJN for the criticism when I finally named Mangum; I repeat that thanks here.

As to what should happen now to Mangum, given the current circumstances, I think this:

NC attorney general Roy Cooper is someone I grew to respect while watching him as a young, new member of our state legislature.

I respect the full, fair investigation his office conducted of all the case evidence which led to the only honest conclusion possible: “Innocent.”

Cooper thought it best not to prosecute Mangum.

The players and their families seem resigned, at this point at least, to leave matters where Cooper left them, even as they carry heavy scares Mangum inflicted and has never had the sense or decency to ask forgiveness for.

To the extent I think of punishment for Mangum, Cooper and the victims’ actions weigh heavy with me.

Any mention of Mangum always brings Nifong to mind.

Was there ever a false accuser and DA more suited for each other?

There are many DA’s in America who I’ve no doubt are fine upholders of justice, just as there are many who aren’t what they should be.

From among all of America’s venal DA’s, it was geography that brought together the irresponsible, disingenuous, at least episodically addled, and always money-seeking accuser Crystal Mangum and Durham County DA Mike Nifong, an ethic-less, conceited, corruptible and blindly-ambitious man.

Nifong may have been the only one among all of America’s venal DAs dumb enough to seize on her wildly improbable, self- contradicting stories and attempt to turn them into a credible felony frame-up and his ticket to election to a full term as DA.

For want of a nail the kingdom was lost; and from a geographical coincidence the tragedies and injustices of the Duke lacrosse case were born.

Sceptical, as I look back over my work regarding Nifong I think it all stands up pretty well; and I see no place where I treated him unfairly.

I continue to believe he knew of the case well before what Joe Neff reported in Apr. 2007 without a hint of skepticism and which account Nifong related in June 2007 at the State Bar trial which resulted in his disbarment: that Nifong first learned about the case late on the afternoon of Mar. 23 when he allegedly “discovered” a signed copy of the NTO sitting on his office copier and exclaimed: “Holy crap! What is going on?”

That story is baloney.

I’ve no doubt Nifong knew about the case well before Mar. 23 and strong reason to believe he knew of it on Mar. 14.

I've no doubt discovery will confirm what I've just said.

Ruth Sheehan’s statements in It’s Not About The Truth naming Nifong as the anonymous source for her May 27 column will stand up during discovery as well.

I want to end this post because it’s gotten awfully long.

So I’ll just say this about Nifong and come back in a day or so saying more about the others you said I should have commented on.

Nifong has lost a lot already: his office, his law license, considerable income and the respect of most decent people.

He has been found in open court to be a liar and served a day in jail.

He must now arrange for his own defense in suits I believe will go forward and cost him greatly in time and money to defend himself.

But for all of that I believe he should be tried for the very serious crimes he has committed.

Those crimes targeted three young men Nifong knew were innocent but indicted anyway to serve his and others’ malicious purposes.

In doing that he committed wrongs of the most grievous and dangerous kind.

He struck at the Constitutional foundation stones of America criminal law. His actions were those common in every police state that’s every inflicted itself on honest citizens.

He should go to prison for all of that and as a lesson to others.

If in the passage of time during a lengthy prison sentence he genuinely begins a process of redeeming himself, he’ll have my admiration and support for that if I'm still around.

Sincerely,

John

About inmyhumbleopinion’s Comment

2009-06-02T19:40:00.002-04:00

Readers Note: The brief note below explains itself.

John
_______________________________________________

Dear inmyhumbleopinion:

Under other circumstances I’d publish your comment. It’s fact-based and raises issues worthy of serious discussion.

But I want to shut this blog down just as soon as I respond to certain criticisms I’ve received from some people whose opinions I value.

I want nothing to distract from that goal.

I hope you understand what I’m doing and why.

Thank you.

John

To Liestoppers' Truth Detector: There Is No Mystery

2009-06-02T14:05:00.005-04:00

Readers Note: Most of you know I’ve received both support and criticism for two recent posts: “KC Johnson Now” and “KC Johnson Slimed Prof. Lubiano.”

I’m very appreciative for the support. Almost all of it's come from sources I expected with a few pleasant surprises added.

On the criticism side, it’s been pretty much the same: those I can identify who are critical and the type and content of their criticisms have been pretty much what I expected except for a few instances.

If you’ve been reading here this past week you know one of those few is sceptical, who blogs at Liestoppers Meeting. Because of my respect for the good judgment sceptical has shown in the past, I’m putting together a few posts so I can feel I’ve done all I reasonably can to explain myself to skeptical and some other such people.

Those posts will be appearing very soon.

This post here is a response to another Liestoppers Meeting blogger, Truth Detector.

I hope you’ll read along to see why I’m responding to Truth Detector whose proper understanding of what I’ve done I value.

I’ll be sending this post to LM and asking that it be posted there.

John

______________________________________

Dear Truth Detector:

I notice in a May 29 post @ 5:24 PM on this thread you said in part:

At issue of course was the post by JinC about KC which I am surprised by. If John waited this long to express his thoughts, he probably could have shut down the site having said nothing. That will always be a mystery. I really have enjoyed John's site, both for his analysis of the hoax and particularly the Churchill Series. I will particularly miss those.

Thank you for you nice words about my blogging. I’m delighted to learn that, among other things, you appreciated The Churchill Series.

I also want to speak to what you call “a mystery.”

I didn’t wait until I was shutting down to express almost all of what was in “KC Johnson Now”
If you will reread it, you’ll see it includes extensive extracts to portions of a Q&A from Dec. 2007 with me the “Q” and KC the “A.”

I twice linked to the Dec. 2007 in “KC Johnson Now.”

In the first instance I clearly said I was extracting from and linking to a JinC post from Dec. 2007.

In the second instance I said clearly I was linking to the same post I’d previously linked to.

I want to you and everyone else to also know that many of the issues and matters discussed in “KC Johnson Now” go back to well before Dec. 2007. For that reason I’m providing you a paste in of the following posts.

Since LM posting won’t leave the links “active” visit JinC to check any link you care to.

Thank you for reading all this which should clear up any concern you or other reasonable person has about whether I waited to the last minute.

Best,

John

***************************************************

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Nifong an N&O anonymous source (Post 1)

The Raleigh News & Observer’s repeatedly said it didn't use anonymous sources when reporting the Duke lacrosse story. I know that’s preposterous but it has. (See, for example, here, here and here. )

Now there's strong evidence that one of the anonymous sources the N&O used last March to publicly frame the lacrosse players was then DA Mike Nifong.

Recall that in front-page stories on March 24, 25, 26 and in a March 27 news column by Ruth Sheehan, the N&O laid out its deliberately fictional Duke lacrosse script about a frightened young black woman brutally beaten and gang-raped by privileged white male Duke lacrosse players whose racist teammates had formed "a wall of solidarity" to prevent the police from identifying their gang-rapist buddies.

Nifong’s never mentioned in any of those stories or Sheehan’s column.

But when Nifong first began speaking publicly about the case on the afternoon of March 27, he followed exactly the fictional script the N&O had been shilling to the public and the rest of the media for four days.

Now Sheehan admits that a major portion of the N&O's fictional script was provided to N&O journalists by Mike Nifong.

In fact, Sheehan says Nifong and “people” at the N&O who were in touch with him were the actual sources for her March 27 column attacking the players and demanding the lacrosse team be "shut down" until the players cooperated with police.

Don Yeager, in his recently released It's Not About the Truth (Threshold Editions, 2007), quotes Sheehan:

"I think on Saturday [March 25] we had the interview with the alleged victim. It was on Sunday I called into the office. I already had a column in the can because I run on Mondays.

But I called in about this story and they told me that there was another story with Nifong talking about how there was this wall of silence.

That's when I decided on that Sunday to write my first column about the case. [...]

I have to write a column about what people are talking about. And everybody was talking about it. It was so outrageous, the stuff that was in the paper. Her story, Nifong's recounting of it. Oh, my God. It was just like , . , you couldn't even believe it." (ellipses in Yeager) (pg. 154)

A little further on Yeager writes:

As she wrote, Sheehan made clear that in her mind the stories bubbling up from Nifong's office and the Durham Police Department were true. She was not alone. (pg. 155)

Yeager then tells readers Sheehan added:

"Back during that period, no one was telling us that the players had been cooperative," she said in a January 2007 interview. "I know now that was not true. If I had known that then, I would have never written what I did. I would have thought what is Nifong talking about? That's not a wall of silence then. How is that a wall of silence?"(pg. 155)

The N&O’s March 25 "anonymous interview" story refers to “authorities [who’ve] vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.”

It then continues: "We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward," Durham police Cpl. David Addison said. "We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime."

But neither that March 25 story nor any N&O Duke lacrosse story that appeared before March 28 mentions Nifong or some variant such as “the DA’s office said” as a news source.

No one at the N&O has challenged Sheehan's account of calling the paper on Sunday, March 26, and being told by journalists there details of what Nifong was providing the N&O.

In the N&O's recent report of Yeager’s book, staff writer Jim Nesbitt didn't even mention Sheehan’s account.

I posted on Nesbitt’s story here. I raised questions about why the N&O’s story said nothing about Yeager's reporting on Sheehan’s column or any other part of the N&O’s framing of the lacrosse players last March.

I emailed Nesbitt and asked why that was the case. I offered to publish his response in full.

I received no reply to my email or to phone messages I left for Nesbitt and other N&O staffers.

Sheehan’s disclosures to Yeager are, as far as I know, her most detailed public statements identifying Nifong as a source for her March 27 column.

I'm not aware of Sheehan ever before publicly disclosing Nifong spoke to journalists at the N&O by at least Sunday, March 26, and perhaps earlier. Or that journalists at the N&O used what Nifong told them to convince Sheehan to write her column viciously and falsely attacking the players. (Sheehan has since apologized for the column. - JinC).

But Sheehan's statements to Yeager are not the first time she's blamed Nifong for her May 27 column.

Last June 19 she wrote a column saying she'd been wrong to base her March 27 column on what Nifong had said.

I posted on her column the same day asking among other things how Sheehan could blame Nifong for her column when he didn’t begin speaking publicly about the case until AFTER her column had run.

I sent Sheehan an email asking that question but never heard back.

Well, we finally have the answer.

And that leads to a new question: Does the Pulitzer Committee award a prize to an anonymous source and a newspaper for working together to produce stories that led to monumetal injustices, harmed innocent people and damaged race relations in a community where most people were trying to improve them?

Senator Taft's Lesson For Us All

2009-05-31T20:34:00.005-04:00

Readers Note: You'll see the post below was first published on Saturday, April 8, 2006.

That week began on Sunday, April 2, with the Raleigh N&O's publication of the VIGILANTE poster photo and prof. Tim Tyson's hateful screed telling readers what he and the N&O certainly knew was a lie: that the "law of the lynch mob" ruled at the lacrosse team party.

On that same Sunday, the dean of Duke Chapel, the Reverend Canon Dr. Sam Wells, delivered what he called "reflections" from the steps of the Chapel's alter.

Whatever Wells' actual intentions, his reflections comforted the vicious frame-up attempters and their enablers while afflicting innocent Duke students whose care was his charge.

What is worse, Wells knew by then the students were at grave risk of physical harm.

All that was just some of what was going on Sunday, April 2, 2006 here in Durham.

And as the week progressed things got much, much worse for common sense and justice at Duke and in Durham.

I'm republishing the post now as one effort to explain myself to those people I respect who've criticized me for saying in "KC Johnson Now" things I posted as early as Dec. 2007; and for speaking up for fair treatment of Duke professor Wahneema Lubiano.

No one should doubt I deplore Lubiano's conduct in the Duke lacrosse case.

To say her role in the case was and remains mendacious and pernicious is, IMO, to greatly understate what she did and continues to do to enable the ongoing cover-up of the Duke-Durham frame-up attempt.

I also deplore her educational philosophy, not least because it would destroy the constitutional principles for which Senator Robert A. Taft stood.

I'll say more tomorrow.

John
___________________________________

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Rape allegation, Duke lacrosse players and "Profiles in Courage"

At News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan’s blog a reader made a comment that began:

The book "Profiles in Courage" doesn't include a chapter about men refusing to speak out about behavior that is unfit for a university student, an NCAA athlete, and a honorable person in general.

The person is right. There’s no such chapter in then Senator John F. Kennedy’s book, a tribute to U. S. Senators who’d shown extraordinary political courage by facing public wrath in order to uphold vital principles.

But there is in Kennedy's book Chapter 9, which begins:

The late Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio was never President of the United States. Therein lies his personal tragedy. And therein lies his national greatness.

For the Presidency was a goal that Bob Taft pursued throughout his career in the Senate, an ambition that this son of a former President always dreamed of realizing.

As the leading exponent of the Republican philosophy for more than a decade, "Mr. Republican" was bitterly disappointed by his failure on three different occasions even to receive the nomination.

But Robert A. Taft was also a man who stuck fast to the basic principles in which he believed--and when fundamental principles were at issue, not even the lure of the White House, or the possibilities of injuring his candidacy, could deter him from speaking out.

He was an able politician, but on more than one occasion chose to speak out in defense of a position no politician with like ambitions would have endorsed.

Kennedy went on to tell readers Taft was a warm, friendly man whose word was his bond. He cited many instances of Taft’s political courage before coming to the one he said:

“did not change history (but) as a piece of sheer candor in a period when candor was out of favor, as a bold plea for justice in a time of intolerance and hostility,(is) worth remembering here.”

The future President was talking about an event in October 1946 when, with congressional elections just weeks away and hoping to win his party’s 1948 presidential nomination, Taft took the hugely unpopular step of speaking out against the Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazi leaders and the impending trials of Japanese leaders.

To help his readers understand why Taft did that, Kennedy first quoted a Supreme Court justice, and then explained what the Constitution meant to Taft:

"No matter how many books are written or briefs filed," Supreme Court justice William 0. Douglas has recently written, "no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al. deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."…

The Constitution of the United States was the gospel which guided the policy decisions of the Senator from Ohio. It was his source, his weapon and his salvation. And when the Constitution commanded no "ex post facto laws," Bob Taft accepted this precept as permanently wise and universally applicable.

The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice.

Taft favored exiling the Axis war leaders as was done with Napoleon.

Kennedy reminded his readers that in 1942 Taft was the only Senator to speak out against the internment Japanese citizens and Americans of Japanese descent. Taft insisted they were entitled to presumption of innocence and due process.

There are many people here in Durham who will tell you they believe in presumption of innocence and due process, but they also want to know why Duke lacrosse players aren’t “sitting in jail right now.”

What’s more, they say by exercising their right to remain silent, the players are “telling us they’re guilty or know who are.”

A attorney friend calls such people “occasional constitutionalists.”

Senator Taft was never one of them. Neither was President Kennedy.

Remember all those times when anger and violence flared during the civil rights struggles?

President Kennedy told us the Constitution was meant to guard us all and that could best happen if we let the law take its course.

Profiles in Courage is available in many book stores, most libraries and online.

KC Johnson Slimed Prof. Lubiano

2009-05-29T11:04:00.007-04:00

Brooklyn College professor Robert KC Johnson, a hero to many for his Duke lacrosse case writings, recently published at his Durham-in-Wonderland blog a post concerning Duke University professor Wahneema Lubiano.

KC began the post:

A reader tracked down for me what Group of 88 leader Wahneema Lubiano lists on her Duke webpage as her most recent scholarly “publication”—an interview in an obscure journal called e3w.

And what is it that passes for “scholarship” among this Group of 88’er?

Information about Lubiano’s drinking habits, among other items: “There are so many half-remembered stories and pieces of stories that they jostle each other in my mind into a kind of rich but incoherent mass that’s hard to untangle—late night discussions at each others’ houses over food and drink.” …

On May 24 I published KC Johnson Now. I made a number of criticisms of KC’s work, including matters I posted on as far back as 2007. (See, as an example, here.)

KC Johnson Now included this:

I wish KC hadn't made that remark about what he termed Professor Lubiano's “drinking habits.” It wasn't fair to her and reflected very poorly on him.

In his lengthy, off-the-mark response KC said concerning Lubiano: (On comment thread of KC Johnson Now)

The incident was actually described by Prof. Lubiano, who discussed, as a scholarly matter, evenings of "food and drink."

I'll try to keep in mind in the future that JinC might believe that it reflects poorly on me to mention embarrassing events about her personal life described as of scholarly significance in her own writings by Prof. Lubiano.

I’ve just sent KC the following email contained in a link to this post:

Dear KC,

As you know and as anyone who reads the article here will know, professor Lubiano was being interviewed and had been asked if she could recall interesting stories from a time 20 years ago, when she and colleagues would get together to talk about professional matters.

Here’s the entire sentence from the interview:
There are so many half-remembered stories and pieces of stories that they jostle each other in my mind into a kind of rich but incoherent mass that’s hard to untangle—late night discussions at each others’ houses over food and drink, different kinds of formal discussion fora on campus especially during the time of the shantytown, continual considerations over what to call the program until finally we had worn ourselves out over various permutations of what came to be Ethnic and Third World Literature program..
Most adults over 40 have half-remembered memories of evenings of food and drink with friends.

And when any of them say what Lubiano said, we don’t even know whether the drink they're talking about is alcoholic, non-alcoholic, or a mix of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, do we?

You took an innocent remark by Lubiano and used it to slime her at the outset of your post.

A thoughtful person wouldn’t do such a thing.

A self-aware scholar, having had what you did called in a public way to her or his attention, would’ve quickly retracted and apologized.

You did neither

Instead, you responded by elaborating your original distortion:
I'll try to keep in mind in the future that JinC might believe that it reflects poorly on me to mention embarrassing events about her personal life described as of scholarly significance in her own writings by Prof. Lubiano.
The following is a close paraphrase of something Gordon Allport once said:
When we speak of others, we may or may not be revealing anything about them, but we are always revealing something about ourselves.
You didn’t reveal anything about professor Lubiano’s drinking habits; just some things about yourself.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina