Four who failed

(This post is by now retired NC journalist Bob Wilson, former editorial pages editor of the Durham Herald Sun. JinC)

In "Brodhead’s Failed" JinC goes straight to the issue with Duke's President Richard Brodhead: moral cowardice. Now, who's really in the catbird seat at Methodist Flats, Brodhead or Duke's own Red Guards, the Group of 88? For Brodhead, who quoted Shakespeare as Mike Nifong trampled the civil rights of his students, we who hold Duke degrees say: “Exit, pursued by a bear.”

Brodhead's failure is by no means the only example of moral cowardice
and corruption in the seediest rape hoax since the Scottsboro Boys
trials in the early 1930s. The Raleigh N&O, the Durham H-S, and, of course, Mike Nifong have all been weighed and found wanting:

-- Steve Ford, editorial pages editor at the N&O, could have moderated the great harms inflicted on the Duke players and their families over the past nine months. Yet, Ford was essentially silent until, like Brodhead, it was safe to come out following Nifong's decision to drop the rape charges.

Now with today's lead edit, the N&O is finally asking serious questions about the validity of Nifong's case, questions that the paper should have asked months ago. Stalin said silence gives consent. Was the nine months of editorial silence the N&O's consent?

-- Bob Ashley's H-S has been complicit in the hoax from the beginning.

Ashley made a fundamental mistake when he came to Durham in January 2005: He sided his newspaper with a powerful interest group, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Coupled with Ashley's own stated pro-prosecution views, the H-S became part of the problem. It should have been part of the solution.

Now that Nifong and the hoax are going down in flames, Ashley must find a way to save his hide. Both he and his newspaper have shredded their credibility. Moral cowardice doesn't come cheap.

-- Of the four who failed, Mike Nifong alone wielded state-sanctioned power. He used it recklessly and ruthlessly to upend the lives of the players and their families. Even with the rape charges dropped, Nifong brought up his “reserves” -- charges of kidnapping and sexual assault -- to keep the case alive. This abuse of power is Nifong's lifeline, but as events of the last week revealed, his lifeline is fraying.

If there were an award for moral corruption, Nifong would rate an Oscar. For the moment, however, disbarment and disgrace will do nicely.

--Bob Wilson

BRODHEAD'S FAILED

Back on March 25 Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, refused to meet with the parents of 46 students under investigation for multiple felonies, including gang rape. He hasn’t met with them since. He’s never said why.

On May 18 racists outside and within the Durham County Courthouse shouted threats, including death threats, at Duke sophomore Reade Seligmann.

Brodhead said nothing then and has said nothing since critical of racists threatening one of his students.

Duke News Service recently confirmed Brodhead’s silence on May 18 and since. But it said I needed to call his office to learn why he’s been silent. Calls to Brodhead’s office in which I identified myself and my purpose have not been returned.

On June 13 the Raleigh News & Observer published a letter from Duke Law School professor James Coleman in which he said Nifong had “undermined public confidence in the case” and should step aside.

For the next six months and nine days Brodhead declined to support Coleman’s request.

Instead, Brodhead urged us all to, like him, do nothing about Nifong’s conduct; and thus enable Nifong to bring David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann to trial in Durham where Brodhead said they would have their chance to be “proved innocent.”

Now, a week after a disgraced DNA expert admitted in court he teamed with Nifong to withhold evidence favorable to Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann, Brodhead announced he can support Coleman’s position after all.

What’s more, Brodhead is demanding Nifong “explain to all of us his conduct in this matter.” Excerpt from Duke News Service:

“The district attorney should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can restore confidence in the fairness of the process. Further, Mr. Nifong has an obligation to explain to all of us his conduct in this matter.”

It’s a plus for justice whenever someone goes from silence in the face of Nifong’s travesties to endorsing what Coleman and so many others have asked for.

But excepting that, I’m not cheering Brodhead’s statement. It’s too little, too late and obviously self-serving.

Brodhead’s demand that Nifong “explain to all of us his conduct in this matter” would have been very helpful last spring or even a few weeks before November’s election which Nifong won with less than 50% of the vote.

By speaking out last spring, Brodhead might very well have helped prevent a witch hunt and the massive injustices it’s spawned.

Even if Brodhead had delayed speaking out until October, he might have helped defeat Nifong at the polls. In that case, Nifong would now have just over a week left in office.

Brodhead has often said the job of president of Duke University is a very tough one. He’s right. But there are matters and events that come a Duke president’s way that are very important and not really so tough. Yet Brodhead’s managed to fail at many of them.

What was tough about condeming the "Wanted" and "Vigilante" posters that circulated on campus and in Durham last spring? But Brodhead said nothing. Those posters endangered the lacrosse players most but they also endangered the rest of us.

How tough was it back on May 18 to speak out against the racists attacking Seligmann; or to say supporting words to him and his family? And if for some reason Brodhead didn’t think May 18 was the right day to speak, why hasn’t he spoken since?

What kind of university president remains silent for seven months about events like those of May 18?

Brodhead’s failed Duke and Durham. He needs to move on. The sooner, the better.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 22, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Today I’d like to fill you in on my plans for the series during the holidays. I’ll also say a few things about series posts in 2007.

Next week’s posts will be what I’ll call “Amusing Oldies.” They’ll be posts that have appeared here before and which I hope will contribute to your enjoying the holiday season. They’ll be the sort of posts that are easily shared with family and friends.

On New Year’s Eve, I’ll have a special post on Churchill and - what else - champagne.

On Jan. 1, 2007 the “Amusing Oldies” continues until Jan. 3.

On Jan. 4, it will be “back to work” and new posts.

I’ll use some of my holiday time to plan and research new posts. I’ve promised you I’d learn more about Nazi propaganda specifically targeting Churchill. I’m planning to post on that subject in early January.

In 2007 I’ll be doing more short series similar to the ones I did this year. For instance, the one on Churchill and his brother Jack.

One of next year's short series will deal with Churchill’s automobile accident in New York in 1931, including his long and difficult recovery.

As always I’ll be keeping my eye out for the telling and/or amusing anecdotes; not such tough work when your subject is WSC.

I want to end with wishes to each of you and your families for a blessed holiday season.

John

To the three families

Friends of Duke University has posted a brief holiday message to the three falsely indicted young men – David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann – and their families.

FODU’s message says just what many of us want to say to the families. So I’ve copied it below and encourage you to comment with a few words; and then "sign it" with your name or, if you're Anon., with your street's name, hometown or other identifier.

All together, our signings will make something good and deserved for the three families. I don’t have or seek direct connections to the families, but many who stop by JinC do communicate with the families. So we can be sure our messages will get "delivered."

John
___________________________________________

To the Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann families:

Today, we share your joy and look forward for the dismissal of the remaining two charges soon.

We are absolutely confident those charges are also false and cannot wait to see them dismissed at the soonest.

You have handled these hard times graciously and won our hearts and admiration.

We wish you a very happy holiday season.
___________________________________________

I join FODU in its support, admiration and holiday wishes.

John in Carolina

Def. Attorneys' news conference: CNN 3 PM eastern

Nifong drops rape, keeps other charges: Comments

[UPDATE at 1:41 pm, 12/22/06 --- An Anon commenter noted an error in this post: "The dropping of the rape chares doesn't let Nifong off the hook on the motion to supress the identification. The issues raised therein are just as relevant to the remaining charges."

The commenter's right. Please bear that in mind when you get to the relevent portion of the post.

I'm sorry for my mistake and thank the commenter for pointing it out.

John]
____________________________________________________


This just in from WRAL TV:

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong moved Friday to drop rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players.

Nifong filed paperwork to dismiss forcible rape charges against Reade Seligmann, 20, Collin Finnerty, 20, and David Evans, 23. The players were indicted last spring after a North Carolina Central University student told police she was beaten and raped by three lacrosse players while performing as a stripper at a March 13 team party.[…]

Nifong's investigator interviewed the woman Thursday, and she told the investigator that she couldn't "testify with certainty" that she was raped.

Prosecutors said they couldn't proceed without her testimony, so they decided to dismiss the rape charges in the case.

Nifong said he plans to proceed with kidnapping and sexual assault charges against the three players.

I’ll comment in more detail later today.

For now this: While the dropping of any charge against the falsely indicted players is welcome, Nifong action is likely intended to get himself off some conflict of interest hooks, reduce the chances he and his co-conspirators will be help to account , and avoid having to face the courts all but certain dismissal of the rigged ID procedure.

Prediction: If Nifong thought his latest action would make things easier for himself and his fellow framers, he’s wrong. His action will backfire. It will only make his illegalities more searingly obvious. It will surely energize the justice seekers whose numbers grow every day.

More later. I want to get the news out now.

H-S Publishes Collins’ Letter

In this season of kindness the justice seekers who support the three young men framed by DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham Police officers will be able to say at least one nice thing about Bob Ashley’s Herald Sun. Joan Collins, who writes the outstanding Profiles in Courage series, has written a fine letter which the Durham Herald Sun published today.

The H-S has an unusual policy regarding the length of time letter remain ‘up’ at its online site, Some letters stay up only for a few days; others are there for weeks, To assure people six months down the road will have a chance to read Joan’s letter, I’m publishing it in full here.

John
__________________________________

Lacrosse case erodes trust in justice system

Recently, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting the Department of Justice review Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's actions to determine whether they constitute prosecutorial misconduct and whether the rights of Duke lacrosse players Collin Finnerty, Dave Evans and Reade Seligmann have been violated. Jones was the first congressman or senator to have the courage to do this and I commend him.

I can think of no better time for government to help three families, namely the Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans families, than right now. It does not just take a village to raise our children. It takes a nation.

What is going on in Durham is not just a North Carolina issue. It is a national issue and a national disgrace. It affects all Americans who treasure our liberties and have faith in our justice system. If we lose that, we can lose everything. What will become of our country?

In this season of peace and hope, I am praying that other political leaders will have the courage to join Jones in requesting an investigation by the Department of Justice. Our nation is watching and waiting.


Joan M. Collins
Garden City, NY
December 22, 2006

The Churchill Series – Dec. 21, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churhcill.)

Yesterday’s post described Churchill’s arrival on Dec. 22, 1941 at Washington’s National Airport (now Reagan) where he was greeted by President Roosevelt. Churchill had just flown up from Hampton Roads, VA following a stormy Atlantic crossing aboard a British warship.

Roosevelt and Churchill, together with their staffs, would in the following days and weeks engage in intense, complicated and critical war planning. But they would also take some time for Christmas.

In the 1940s the White House Christmas tree was lighted by the President on Christmas Eve. So Churchill was there late on the afternoon of Dec. 24 as Roosevelt was getting ready to make some brief remarks to the nation and light the tree. He invited Churchill to join him on the White House’s South Portico where the ceremony would take place. Roosevelt also invited Churchill to say a few words to the American people, which Churchill readily agreed to do.

This link will take you to a photo of Roosevelt standing before the microphones with Churchill standing to his right and rear at a column base. I don’t know who the third man in the photo is but assume he’s a technician.

The photo is part of a site the White House Historical Association has put together. It has many photos of Presidents and their families centered on Christmas themes. I hope you enjoy looking around the site.

Law Prof: Nifong has “conflict of interest”

In an op-ed in today’s Raleigh News & Observer UNC School of Law professor Joseph E. Kennedy explains “Why the D.A. should be off the case.”:

Whether the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case are guilty or innocent, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong should disqualify himself, or be disqualified, from the case.

On Friday, Nifong's own witness essentially accused him of breaking the law. An actual conflict of interest now exists between Nifong's need to defend himself against possible charges of misconduct and his obligation to prosecute the case fairly and effectively.

In court Friday, the head of a lab that Nifong retained to analyze DNA samples testified that he and Nifong intentionally decided to exclude from the expert's report the fact that DNA analyzed from the clothes and body of the accuser did not belong to any of the defendants but came instead from unidentified males.

N.C. General Statute 15A-903 requires that a prosecution expert provide a report of
the results of any tests performed and that the prosecutor furnish that report to the defense. Deciding to exclude these results is deciding to violate this law.

A prosecutor also has an obligation under the U.S. Constitution and under N.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 to disclose to the defense evidence which tends to suggest the innocence of a defendant -- including evidence that calls the credibility of a state witness into question.

DNA results showing the absence of DNA material from the accused and the presence of DNA material from other men goes to the credibility of the accuser's account and therefore needs to be disclosed.

In addition to these disclosure requirements, a prosecutor has an ethical obligation not to ignore evidence which suggests the innocence of the accused.

A comment to Rule 3.8 provides that "a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused." It is not clear that Nifong has ever followed up on the DNA evidence described.

North Carolina law provides for the disqualification of a prosecutor from a case only in the event of an actual -- not just potential -- conflict of interest. An actual conflict of interest appears to exist in this case because Nifong must either challenge the credibility of his own DNA expert's testimony or he must admit to intentional misconduct. […]

Kennedy makes a powerful case. You can read the rest of what he says here.

Kennedy’s brief for Nifong’s disqualification will strengthen those opposing what is clearly a frame-up of three innocent young men by Nifong and certain Durham Police officers. It will also weaken whatever public standing Nifong has left.

Those are two important consequences.

But I believe Kennedy’s speaking out in the N&O will have an even more important consequence: by tomorrow morning NC attorney general Roy Cooper will most likely have read Kennedy’s op-ed; and surely most assistant attorneys general and NC State Bar leaders will have read it, too.

They’ll recognize that what Kennedy has laid out is law and fact-based, carefully reasoned and undeniable. They very likely will not act on it soon. Many of them may not want to act against Nifong at all.

But Kennedy has just very publicly stated why NC’s elected attorney general, his office and its state bar charged with protecting the public from its members’ malfeasance must act.

Our leaders charged to protect us from district attorneys like Nifong and police officers like Sgt. Gottlieb and Inv. Himan can continue to duck their responsibilities. But after today they can't hide.

Kennedy’s op-ed gets a big Hat Tip from me and I’m sure most of you.

One other big Hat Tip is due today. That’s to historian KC Johnson who as far back as June told us Nifong’s conduct raised very troubling conflict of interest questions. Here’s part of what Johnson said then:

The appearance of a conflict of interest regarding Nifong’s electoral prospects has been well-documented: there seems to be no motive other than political for his decision to seek pre-primary indictments before the second round of DNA testing was in, given that he had earlier affirmed to the court that DNA evidence would identify the guilty parties. (The results of the second round of testing, which ultimately contained no match to the two players Nifong had earlier indicted, were not due until after the primary.)

There’s also a lesser-covered apparent conflict of interest: In the primary campaign, Nifong won the backing of an influential African-American attorney, Mark Simeon, who represents the second dancer, Kim Roberts a/k/a Pittman. Roberts a/k/a Pittman first made news in the case with an email to a New York publicity agent asking for help in how to “spin” affairs to her financial advantage, and Simeon has expressed interest in representing both Roberts a/k/a Pittman and the accuser in a civil suit.

Quite beyond the fact that Nifong’s pursuit of criminal charges seems to assist Simeon’s intended civil action, an appearance of a conflict of interest certainly exists: Roberts a/k/a Pittman told a dramatically different version of events, one favorable to Nifong’s preferred tale, shortly after the district attorney secured for her a favorable bond settlement on an unrelated arrest—and Simeon endorsed Nifong’s renomination.

In their different ways Duke President Richard Brodhead and Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley continue to prop up Nifong.

Then there are people like Professors Kennedy and Johnson trying to get Nifong off the case.

Vote Kennedy/Johnson.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 20, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Actor Robert Hardy, who memorably played Churchill in The Wilderness Years and War and Remembrance, recalled:

I was filming for the historical contributions to the series for television, "War and Remembrance," and on this day we were to shoot scenes around the meeting of Franklin D. Roosevelt and WSC aboard the British warship Duke of York. That ship, like so much of our past, has long been broken up, so the mighty USS New Jersey, a battleship of the same vintage, stood in for her, loaned by the U.S. Navy to the film company.

My make-up for WSC took anything up to five hours. It was marvelously done and once finished, perfectly comfortable, though the ordeal of such a long operation, so intimately interfering with one's concentration and relaxation, is pretty taxing. But it was done, and I was carefully padded to represent WSC's rather nobler embonpoint than my own, and then dressed in an authentic reefer jacket with Trinity House buttons and cap, and given a large cigar to put into my reconstituted face. (I have seen the stills and the makeup achievement is remarkable.)

I was ready to go, and the call came, and I was escorted to the gangway of the great ship, at the top of which stood a small party of U.S. Navy people; genuine people, not actors. A lieutenant stepped forward, saluted smartly and said "Well. sir! No need to ask who you are! Welcome aboard, Mr. Roosevelt!"

It’s an interesting recollection ending with an amusing anecdote.

A word of caution: I’m fairly sure Hardy is wrong about Churchill and Roosevelt meeting aboard HMS Duke of York. In Dec. 1941, Churchill and some of his chief war planners sailed for America on board Duke of York. They arrived off Hampton Roads, Virginia on Dec. 22. Churchill then flew on to Washington’s National Airport (now Reagan) where Roosevelt met him. (See Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. (p. 703)

Other than the Dec. 1941 crossing, I’m not aware of Churchill ever sailing on Duke of York. He returned to England in early 1942 by what in those days was called “a flying boat.”

Is WRAL mocking Brodhead?

At WRAL.com we see the headline:

DA's Handling of Duke Rape Case Attracts More Criticism

And we read:

A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor said Monday he also believes there should be an investigation of Mike Nifong's management of the Duke lacrosse rape investigation.

"I think the best course of action, at this moment, is for Mike Nifong to remove himself from this case or for him to be removed," said University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Joe Kennedy.

That’s a powerful statement. How often has a law professor in NC said a prosecutor should step aside or be removed from a case?

Kennedy’s gone further than Duke law professor James Coleman who in June called on Nifong to step aside.

WRAL next reports:

The statement comes after Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, last week, sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a federal investigation into possible prosecutorial misconduct and to determine whether the defendants' civil rights were violated.

Kennedy said that Jones' request seemed overblown to him until allegations later arose that Nifong and a lab director purposely withheld DNA results showing none of the charged players' DNA was found on or in the accuser's body.

He said the allegations create a serious conflict of interest.

"I think his actions with respect to nondisclosure of this DNA information needs to be investigated," Kennedy said.[…]

A congressman from the political right is requesting a Justice Department investigation of a DA's conduct and a law professor from the political left looks at that same conduct and says it “needs to be investigated.”

Those are powerful blows to Nifong and "his case," regardless of what Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley and community activist Victoria Peterson might tell us.

But wait, there’s more.

According to Garry Frank, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, however, other district attorneys have also expressed concerns about Nifong's conduct.

"It's premature to comment while the court is still contemplating," Frank said. "I think the conference will address this at some point."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday that a Nifong probe is possible but declined to comment any further on the matter.

Could it get any worse for a DA?

Then we read:

On Monday, Duke University President Richard Brodhead said that the case "will be on trial just as much" as the defendants.

In a statement released by the university, Brodhead said the defendants should be presumed innocent as the case pushes toward a possible spring trial date.

Yawn! Of course the defendants should be presumed innocent. We all learned that by sixth grade.

Maybe there’s a little bit of news value in Brodhead’s statement since he’s been so harsh on the players. But surely his statement is little more than a soggy noodle dropped amidst sharpened axes.

Yet WRAL goes on and characterizes Brodhead’s statement thus:

It was the latest blow to Nifong's case against Reade Seligmann, 20, Collin Finnerty, 20, and David Evans, 23.[...]

The latest blow?

Is WRAL mocking Brodhead or was "the latest blow" unintentional?

Ashley didn’t learn

Readers Note: Here’s another post by now retired NC journalist Bob Wilson. Bob was editorial pages editor of The Durham Herald Sun in the pre-Paxton/Ashley days when the H-S was a respected community newspaper.

Thank you for all the welcoming comments that followed Bob’s first post.

John
__________________________________________________

When I was a student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in the late 60s, the Sam Sheppard case was still raw enough for plenty of back-and-forth in the classroom. I wonder today how many journalism students know the difference between
Sam Shepard, the playwright, and Sam Sheppard, the Cleveland osteopath accused of killing his wife in 1954.

What the now defucnt Cleveland Press and other newspapers did to destroy Sam Sheppard’s chance for a fair trial before an impartial jury marked one of the low points of American journalism. It was screaming headlines, biased news reporting, inflammatory editorials, and facts be damned. In such circumstances, Sheppard was tried. It's little wonder he was found guilty.

But in 1966, after Sheppard had served more than a decade in prison, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the hideous newspaper coverage, overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial at which he was acquited. To see just how reckless the Cleveland
newspapers were visit here.


For America's newspapers, the Court’s decision was a stinging lesson ending with the
admonition to “go and sin no more.”

Now fast forward to The Herald-Sun and its editor, Bob Ashley.

Reading the defense motion for change of venue in the Duke lacrosse
debacle reminded me that not every editor and newspaper learned “the Sheppard lesson.”


In pages filled with vivid examples of biased coverage and
editorializing, the defense motion lays out The Herald Sun’s willfully distorted
portrayal of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann as rich, privileged white-boy miscreants who deserve a good thumping at the hands of District Attorney Mike Nifong.

KC Johnson’s outstanding “Change of Venue” post includes specific examples from the motion of The Herald Sun’s Cleveland Press style Hoax coverage. Here are a few of them:

“In its first significant editorial on these cases, the Herald-Sun stated that not only had a crime occurred, but that those present during the crime were guilty of an additional ‘outrage’ by not confessing to the crime.”
--Repeated claims “that the District Attorney must have compelling evidence that has not yet been revealed, evidence that justifies its positions.”
--A pattern of having “consistently and openly mocked any claim of innocence made by the Defendants and repeatedly claimed they are privileged persons with expensive lawyers.’
--Editorial suggestions that “it is up to the Defendants to prove their innocence.”

But the players don't have to prove their innocence. That burden rests on the prosecution, which, as most people in this part of the galaxy know, is running on fumes.

As for Ashley and some others at The Herald Sun, if Scotty beams them back to 1954 and Cleveland, they’ll feel right at home.

Bulge Remembrance – 12-20-06

Readers’ Note: This continues an occasional series meant to recall the Battle of the Bulge and honor American and other Allied forces and the local citizens who helped them. The first series post included this quote from Hugh Cole’s The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge:

The mettle of the American soldier was tested in the fires of adversity and the quality of his response earned for him the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with his forebears of Valley Forge, Fredericksburg, and the Marne.

______________________________________________________

Here’s a very useful site: --- The Battle of the Bulge
The Ardennes Offensive: Dec. 16, 1944 - Jan. 25, 1945.

The site's by an "amateur." (they often do the best work) It's almost entirely commercial free, and offers many links to unit histories and other battle information sources.

You’ll also find a reliable, compact explanation of the battle illustrated with a few maps that are among the most informative ones I’ve seen on the web.

I hope you spend some time at the site. You’ll be well-rewarded.

Hat Tip to GPrestonian for sharing some WW II and family history involving an uncle who served with the 3rd Armored Division in Normandy and the Breakout until critically wounded during a fierce tank fight.

We must never forget; and we must teach the young.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 19, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Scotland Yard’s Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Churchill’s principal bodyguard throughout WW II, described Churchill’s reactions to the news first, of Mussolini’s death, and then, Hitler’s:

Winston had just arrived at Chequers for the weekend, and as he entered the Great Hall he was informed of Mussolini’s death. He was elated and with much emphasis he said: “Ah, the bloody beast is dead.”

Three days later he received the news of Hitler’s death, but on this occasion he went to a window and looked our, remaining there for some time without any remark. …

In view of some doubt existing in people’s minds as to whether or not Hitler was dead, I asked him if he thought Hitler had committed suicide. Quietly he replied: “That is the way I should have expected him to have died. That is what I should have done under the same circumstances.”

____________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill’s Bodyguard: The Authorized Biography of Walter H. Thompson. (p. 232)

Prof “Engineers” Op-Ed Removal

Yesterday I posted “In Ashley’s H-S venue.” On Nov. 14 The Durham Herald Sun ran a column questioning the innocence of the three young men falsely indicted in the Duke Hoax case. On Dec. 1 the H-S published a letter from the columnist retracting his column because of its many errors.

But as defense attorneys noted in their change of venue motion last Friday, the H-S had continued to run the column online and without informing readers the columnist has retracted it.

Yesterday, after calls from many of us, the H-S was STILL running the column online and without notice of retraction

Well, the problem is now “fixed” but it seems it took an engineer to do it.

Michael Gustafson, a professor at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering, just sent along a copy of an email he’s received from the H-S:

"To Michael Gustafson:

Professor Crowley's article has now been removed from our Web site.

Thank you for your interest.

Ron Landfried
Editorial page editor"

Michael, a good friend of this blog, has been a voice for reason and justice within Duke and at his Blog of Convenience.

Message to Michael: Nice “engineering,” Professor. The JinC Regulars can’t wait to celebrate with you the completion of another “engineering project:” Mike Nifong’s disbarment.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 18, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The following passage is found on page 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online’s Churchill biographical entry:

A self-assurance redeemed from arrogance only by a kind of boyish charm made Churchill from the first a notable House of Commons figure, but a speech defect, which he never wholly lost, combined with a certain psychological inhibition to prevent him from immediately becoming a master of debate. He excelled in the set speech, on which he always spent enormous pains, rather than in the impromptu; Lord Balfour, the Conservative leader, said of him that he carried “heavy but not very mobile guns.”

Balfour’s metaphor is wonderful, isn’t it?

The entire Britannica Online entry is here.

In Ashley's H-S venue

Last Friday’s change of venue motion filed by defense attorneys cited as one reason they were asking a trial be moved out of Durham The Herald Sun’s coverage of the case which the attorneys noted has been grossly biased against the lacrosse players.

As one example of the H-S’s bias, the attorneys noted that the author of a November 19 op-ed critical of the players had on December 1 written a letter to the Herald Sun retracting his column because it had significant errors.

On page 24 of the change of venue motion the attorneys also said that the op-ed writer’s retraction letter had been removed from the H-S’s online site but that his op-ed was still online with no mention to readers that the author had retracted it.

Unbelievable I thought, even for the grossly biased Bob Ashley’s H-S. So I called the paper and asked when the op-ed would be taken down or readers informed the author had retracted it.

“We’ll look at that right now,” someone told me Friday afternoon.

This morning at 8 A.M. the op-ed is still at the H-S's online site.

And yes, you guessed it, there’s no notice to readers the author has retracted the op-ed.

Well, there it is: another example of The Durham Herald Sun’s kind of journalism.

A real editor for Durham

Two years ago this time the locally owned Durham Herald Sun was one of the most respected community newspapers in the South, if not the nation.

It was then purchased by the privately held Paducah, Kentucky based Paxton Media Group which immediately dismissed dozens of dedicated, talented H-S journalists and other staffers.

Paxton sent Bob Ashley (Duke ’70) to Durham to run the newspaper. “Just wait until you see what I’ll do with the paper,” Ashley told the community.

Today, anyone in Durham with at least a room temperature IQ can see what
Ashley’s done with a once fine newspaper: TRAIN WRECK!

So much for bad news.

Now the good news.

James Robert (Bob) Wilson has agreed to start posting here.

If you know Bob Wilson, I’ll bet you’re smiling already unless you’re someone who says:

“No, really, it’s all just because Mike believes in her. I’ll even tell the Feds that.”

Bob Wilson’s one of North Carolina’s most respected journalists. From 1991 until Paxton/Ashley took over, Bob was the H-S’s editorial pages editor. Like so many others, Bob was let go.

But Bob was just a few months shy of retirement; and he and his wife Betty had been savers. So they now enjoy a nice retirement here in Durham and down on North Carolina’s coast.

For the last two years, I’ve been nudging Bob to “go public.” But he’s been reluctant to get back into the tangled web of “doings in Durham.” Who can blame him?

But with the collapse of the H-S as a serious newspaper, and the silence of Duke and Durham’s leaders in the face of DA Nifong’s travesties, Bob’s no longer willing to remain silent.

He and I haven’t worked out how often he’ll post at JinC or how we’ll distinguish his posts from mine but…

[Please, John, stop talking. You and Bob can work all that out later. What we want now is to hear from Bob.]

OK, folks, sorry to hold things up.

Here’s Bob:
________________

John said, “Just start right in.” I’ll do that and hope you stay with me.

The Durham Herald-Sun, where I served as editor of the editorial pages, is trashing the canons of responsible journalism.

Under editor Bob Ashley, The Herald Sun has become not only a shill for District Attorney Mike Nifong, but also a harsh voice for the Red Guards’-style “justice” preached by Duke University’s faculty Group of 88.

The Herald-Sun has conveniently disregarded, even disparaged, the bedrock principles and rights of English and American common law, including the principle that any one of us accused by the state is innocent until proved guilty.

In The Herald-Sun's twisted interpretation of the legal principles and individual rights most Americans still hold dear, three young men – David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann -- indicted following a sham investigation, must now prove their innocence in court.

How did The Herald Sun get such important principles and rights so wrong?

Under America’s laws those three young men don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the players committed rape during a team party in March is of no consequence to Nifong, Ashley and their enablers.

Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are being persecuted -- I use that word deliberately -- not for anything they've done, but for who they are.

That’s a chilling turn of events, one that should concern every resident of Durham and anyone else who cares about justice.

What’s being done to those three young men is so chilling and so perverted that I’ll no longer be a silent witness to Mike Nifong's malicious, possibly criminal, disregard of justice and The Herald-Sun's cheerleading for him.

I appreciate you’re reading what I’ve said. I look forward to reading your comments.

Bob Wilson
_______________________________

Welcome back, Bob.

"A Song for Durham"

Jon Ham at Right Angles has given us “A Song for Durham.”

Jon explains:

Watching the Duke lacrosse story play out reminded me of a song from the musical Hair, “Easy to Be Hard.” I took the liberty of rewriting it for Durham.

Here’s part of Jon’s “A Song for Durham:”

Especially claiming
You care about strangers
You care about evil
And social injustice
But do you only
Care about minorities?
What about lacrosse team guys?
Or don’t they count?

The Nifong Enablers’ Quartet ( Duke’s President Brodhead, Durham’s Mayor Bell, Community Activist Victoria Peterson, and Herald Sun Editor Ashley) won’t be singing "A Song for Durham" at any of their holiday concerts, but you can copy the lyrics here and sing it with friends.

Thanks, Jon

Iraq SG "non-partisanship"

Remember the Iraq Study Group and its report? Weren't we told everything about the group and its report was non-partisan?

At least that what's I read inthe NY Times and my local liberal/leftist newspaper, the Raleigh N&O.

Now look at what CNN is reporting under the banner: "Clinton's defense chief warns of Iraq 'quagmire'"

Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

Perry, who led the Pentagon under President Clinton, delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address.[...]

You don't think the lib/left/Dems who dominate MSM news reporting were just trying to -- you know -- get us to buy into their partisan Democratic Party line, do you?

If we can't trust MSM news organizations, who can we trust? Mike Nifong?

You can read CNN's story here.

Battle of the Bulge Remembrance

The battle began on December 16, 1944. It would last through five weeks of the coldest winter Europe had seen in 50 years.

American forces, outnumbered, confused and overrun at first, would with incredible courage and sacriface stiffen, take the worst the Germans and the weather hit them with, and then turn the battle tide and achieve victory.

American forces suffered roughly 95% of the Allied battle casualties including almost 20,000 dead and 70,000 wounded, missing or captured.

From the forward to Hugh M. Cole’s The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge:

[U]nder the goad of Hitler's fanaticism, the German Army launched its powerful counteroffensive in the Ardennes in December 1944 with the design of knifing through the Allied armies and forcing a negotiated peace.

The mettle of the American soldier was tested in the fires of adversity and the quality of his response earned for him the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with his forebears of Valley Forge, Fredericksburg, and the Marne.

During the next five weeks I’ll be posting concerning the battle.

The following links may interest you:

The Department of Defense’s 60th Anniversary Battle of the Bulge site.

The American Experience Battle of the Bulge documentary site

Battle of the Bulge Veterans Assoication site. It includes links to fact sheets of American divisions that fought in the battle.

JinC Regular’s hearing report

JinC Regular and citizen reporter Locomotive Breath was there at yesterday’s hearing. He provides a very interesting, detailed account at Free Republic.

LB’s account includes some wonderful “color.” Here’s a bit of it:

At about this time the AP guys sees me with a notebook and asks for whom I'm reporting. I say "private citizen". I almost said "Freeper" to see if he would get it. But I was trying to remain anonymous so people might talk to me. (Sorry Dukie07 - no blue wrist band today.)

Too bad FreeRepublic can't get recognized as a media outlet and get us credentials. He then asks me to identify the defendants' lawyers for him 'cause he doesn't know who they are. (In your drive by report would you like fries with that?) I point out to him who they are to the best of my ability.

Well, OK, it's not like AP's credible anyway. He laments that someone whose name I don't know will probably do all the speaking and mess up his report.

Message to LB: Please don’t take this the wrong way but I think you should report for the Raleigh News & Observer. Nice work.

The rest of us can read LB’s report here.

Newmark: Remove Nifong now

Betsy Newmark today explains why Durham DA Mike Nifong "shouldn’t be allowed to continue doing who knows what other damage to our legal system.” Betsy’s concerned not only with the injustices Nifong’s inflicted on three innocent young men but with what he’s doing to others as well:

The question for North Carolina legal officials should be whether such a man should continue to have the power over indicting and prosecuting alleged criminals in Durham County.

If he is violating procedures and lying in court about his collusion with the DNA lab to hide evidence from the defense in a very public trial such as this one, imagine what he might be doing in all the other cases in Durham where there aren't the glare of the national press and highly paid defense lawyers to expose his malfeasance.

Yes, he won election. But whether it should be the North Carolina bar, the North Carolina Justice officials, or the United States Justice Department, this man shouldn't be allowed to continue doing who knows what other damage to our legal system.

There shouldn't be a delay to wait for the outcome of the trial. In the interests of providing a fair system to all who might be caught up in the legal system in Durham, he should be removed from all cases until he is either cleared or prosecuted himself.

Just think what would happen if he were prosecuted and disbarred a year or so from now. Everyone who had been prosecuted by his office in the interim would have grounds for appeal. Get him out of there now. (bold added)

I hope you read the entire post, “How much longer should Mike Nifong be in power as Durham's District Attorney?”

If you’re not regular Betsy Newmark reader, please take a look around her blog, Betsy’s Place. It’s one I visit daily.

Last item: Betsy’s the “unofficial winner” in Weblog Awards’ 251-500 Best blog category. Result won’t be certified until Monday but voting has ended and Betsy has a solid lead over her nearest competitor in a 10 blog field. ( unofficial count: Betsy’s Place 1353 - Flopping Aces 1040)

I’ll post separately on the Best “race” later today.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 15, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Scotland Yard’s Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Churchiill’s principal bodyguard for many years, tells us:

Mr. Churchill did not always respect the rules created for his own protection. One of my duties was to ensure that photographs were not taken of him with landmarks in the background that could be recognized

[During WW II while] he was [still] at the Admiralty, we were walking over one day to 10 Downing Street when a press photographer intercepted us. This was not a suitable place for a photograph and I waved the pressman aside.

Winston, however, had other ideas. He called to the cameraman, “Do you want to take a photograph?”

“Yes, please, sir, “was the reply.

The photograph was taken and I was not pleased. I turned to Churchill and said, “I thought that photographs were forbidden here, sir?”

“Ah, well,” came the answer, with that irresistible boyish grin. “After all, he is one of God’s children, Thompson.”

By then he saw that I was not mollified, and in the garden of No. 10 he returned to the subject. “They have to do something to get a little copy, you know.”

Yes, then as now.

I hope you all have a very nice weekend.

John
_________________________________________________
Ex-Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Beside the Bulldog:The Intimate Memoirs of Chrchil’s Bodyguard. (pg. 83)

Liestoppers' simple devastation

Remember the old adage:“Simple is best?”

Liestoppers has just produced a very simple, informative and powerful post. But don’t read it if you want to go on believing DA Mike Nifong is fair or honest.

Liestoppers’ post in full is below. My comments follow.
_________________________________________________

Flashback:

"The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant [Seligmann]," Nifong wrote in a court filing [May 18].

Today:

"Meehan struggled to say why he didn’t include the favorable evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. He cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, his discussions at several meetings with Nifong, and the fact that he didn’t know whose DNA it was.

"Under questioning by Jim Cooney, a defense attorney for Seligmann, Meehan admitted that his report violated his laboratory’s standards by not reporting results of all tests.

"Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests?" Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

“Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?” Cooney asked
I believe so,” Meehan said.

"Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney?" Cooney asked.

“Yes,” Meehan replied."

"Head of DNA lab says he and Nifong agreed not to report results" [N&O]
_______________________________________________

It’s devastating, isn’t it? And who can argue with it? It’s all “the record.”

It couldn’t have been easy for Meehan to admit he and Nifong agreed that he’d intentionally withhold exculpatory evidence from his report.

Meehan’s ruined professionally and he very likely will face civil suits. But he must have realized that awful as those consequences are, they’re preferable to a perjury conviction.

Liestoppers’ post makes it clear Nifong will now need to offer another lie(s) to explain his May 18 written statement to the court.

But "the noose" is tightening.

“O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

If I were a decision-maker at the state bar association, and I’d just read Liestoppers' post, I hope I’d be calling the other decision-makers and saying something like: “We better start moving.”

Message to Liestoppers: Congratulations on a simply devastating post.

Kim’s needed now

Like “Old Man River,” Nifong and his enablers' lies just keep rolling along.

Two of Nifong & Cos. latest lies appear at the end of this excerpt from WRAL TV’s report of this morning’s court hearing:

Brian Meehan, the director of a private lab that tested DNA samples in the case, testified Friday about the testing procedures and the report the lab delivered to Nifong's office. Defense attorneys maintain that report was incomplete.

The defense said the full report showed DNA samples from several men were found on the woman and her underwear, but none of the genetic material matched any of the players. Their motion also said that some of Meehan's own DNA contaminated the sample.

Meehan said the lab didn't try to withhold information. He said he and Nifong chose not to release the full report to protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren't implicated in the case.

Meehan didn't try to withhold information? Nifong wanted "to protect the privacy of lacrosse players who weren’t implicated in the case?"

What a crock!

Where’s Kim Roberts when we need her?

The Churchill Series – Dec. 14, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Folks, it's just fun today.

In 1944 Fitzroy MacLean, a British diplomat, was serving behind German lines in Yugoslavia as a liaison with Tito and his partisans. At one point MacLean was pulled out of Yugoslavia and brought to Algiers for intelligence debriefing. As you’re about to read, he spoke by phone with Churchill. MacLean recalled:

In the spring of 1944 the military situation in Bosnia made it feasible to land an aircraft by night in a secluded valley, and I was once again brought out to report. When I reached Algiers I received a message inviting me to call the Prime Minister in London by radio telephone via Washington.

For this purpose I was taken to an underground room in Allied headquarters and handed over to a pretty American WAC sergeant. Before putting us through, she explained that our conversation would be scrambled, and that we could speak freely without fear of being overheard by the enemy.

What was my surprise, therefore, on hearing Mr. Churchill's well-known voice come booming over the ether and [on] announcing my own identity as instructed …being told by the Prime Minister to shut up! He then asked me whether I had spoken to "Pumpkin."

Disconcerted, I asked him what he meant. "Why that great big General of mine," he said in a stage whisper. "And what," he went on, "have you done with Pippin?"

Clearly one of us was off his head! I hoped it wasn't me, but how much worse if it was the Prime Minister. In despair, I told him I had no idea of what he was talking about or how all these fruits and vegetables came in to it.

There was a pause, interrupted only by the inhuman wailing and crackling of the ether. Then, projected over the air, first of all across the Atlantic, from Downing Street to Washington, and then back to North Africa, came quite distinctly an exclamation of horror and disgust. "Good God," I heard him say, "they haven't got the code."

At this point, not a moment too soon, the technicians took over, arguing among themselves about whether we needed to use a code or not.

A few minutes later the Prime Minister was back on the air. "Shall we scramble?" he asked gaily. I replied that I thought I was scrambled. There was a rumbling noise, followed by silence, and Mr. Churchill's voice came through again. "So am I," he said.

After which, much to my relief, we were able to talk normally and very sensibly and to arrange for my onward journey to London. …

[The call ended. I] laid down the receiver with relief after this unnerving experience. I started up the stairs of our dugout but then turned back to collect something I'd forgotten. As I opened the door, I was startled to hear my own voice coming through it. "Pumpkin, Prime Minister?," I was saying, "I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean."

I looked in. The pretty American sergeant was playing our conversation back to herself, rocking with laughter. “And an English accent, too," I heard her say.

You can read more of what MacLean had to say about Churchill at a Churchill Centre page here.

I vote Betsy Newmark

Weblog Awards voting for “Best” blogs in various categories closes at 11:59 PM (US - Eastern) December 15, 2006.

There are three excellent NC blogs in the 251-500 “Best” category: Betsy’s Page, Confederate Yankee and Sister Toldjah. IMHO any one of the three will be a deserving winner. I’m not familiar with the other nominees.

That said, I just voted here for Betsy’s Page.

Betsy Newark’s a high school social studies teacher in Raleigh. She’s proud and clear for America’s creed and those who defend it. She reports and comments on the foolish and knavish (eg. Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton and NC’s own John Edwards) as well as the wise ( eg. Michael Barone, Charles Krauthammer, Heather McDonald, Thomas Sowell and Mark Steyn).

Betsy’s a Duke mom. And does she ever comment on the Hoax! Here she is on Dec. 13 with “More exonerating evidence in the Duke lacrosse case:”

Lookee, lookee here. New information about the DNA tests that were done back in the Spring. Precious, the strip dancer and alleged victim, apparently was chock full of male DNA, just none of it was from any of the lacrosse players.

That's a very good example of Betsy’s “tell it like it is” blogging. She ends her post with:

It was already quite clear that her story was a pack of lies, but every revelation turns up more lies in her story.

If Nifong really kept this information from the defense, there is even more reason to investigate Mike Nifong's conduct of this case.

You can vote here; but only until 11:59 PM (US - Eastern) December 15, 2006.

Thank you.

Adding to N&O’s "Block IDs" story

Readers’ Note: If you’ve already read the N&O's story below, you may want to skip down to my comments below the star line.

John
_______________________________________________________

The Raleigh News & Observer has posted online a story, "Lacrosse judge asked to block IDs" It begins:

Defense lawyers asked a judge today to block the accuser in the Duke University lacrosse case from identifying her alleged attackers in court at trial.

If they succeed, the lawyers for three indicted former lacrosse players would undermine the foundation of District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case and give the defense a chance to have the charges dismissed before trial. The request came in a motion in Durham County Superior Court that also asks the judge to throw out the photographic lineup procedure that became the basis for the state’s rape case.

The 43-page motion methodically recounts the day-by-day progress of the investigation and the efforts of police to get a reliable identification from the accuser, an escort service worker who said she was raped by three men at a March lacrosse team party. […]

Her descriptions of her attackers did not resemble the men eventually charged. Before picking out her attackers three weeks after the party, police told her she would be viewing photographs of all people at the party, meaning anyone she picked out could be indicted.

The document is titled, “Motion to Suppress the Alleged ‘Identification’ of the Defendants by the Accuser.’”

The motion, signed by lawyers for all three defendants, asks Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III to throw out the April 4 lineup procedure in which the accuser identified four men as her attackers. It asks the judge to bar her in-court identification and asks for an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the motion. […]

The motion highlights a further contradiction: The accuser told police that a man she later identified as Seligmann dragged her to a car after the assault. A photo taken at 12:41 a.m. shows one player helping the accuser into a car; a Wachovia ATM photographed Seligmann withdrawing cash at 12:24 a.m., about a mile from the party.

**************************************************************
The N&O’s story, detailed and coherent, looks like fine reporting under tight deadline.

The story will very likely be front-page in tomorrow’s print editions. Between now and the print deadline the story’s reporters, Ben Niolet and Joe Neff, will no doubt continue working on it.

I hope Neff and Nicolet do at least two things that will make the story more useful for readers:

1) After reporting defense attorneys are asking that the accuser be barred from IDing her alleged attackers in court at trial, explain why the attorneys made that request.

That's made clear by Duke University Law School professor James Coleman in hisJun. 12 letter to the N&O:

[The police’s telling the woman they’d be no fillers used] strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.

The prosecutor would not care if the pre-trial identification was subsequently thrown out by the court.

The accuser would identify them at trial by pointing to the three defendants seated in front of her as the three men who assaulted her.

The prosecutor would argue that she had an independent basis (independent of the identifications thrown out) for doing so.

2) Regarding the N&O's report the block motion noted an accuser contradiction: She "told police that a man she later identified as Seligmann dragged her to a car after the assault. A photo taken at 12:41 a.m. shows one player helping the accuser into a car; a Wachovia ATM photographed Seligmann withdrawing cash at 12:24 a.m., about a mile from the party."

I hope the reporters add that Moezeldin Elmostafa, the cab driver who drove Seligmann and his roommate from the party to the ATM machine, reported taking them from there further away from the house on N. Buchanan Blvd. to a Cook Out Hamburgers where the two students bought takeout; after which Mostafa drove them back to their dorm on Duke’s West campus. Mostafa’s cab record shows he dropped them off at 12:45 a. m. Duke’s electronic records show Seligmann’s key card was used at 12:46 a.m. for entry to his dorm. (Seligmann timeline data from Johnsville News post.)

It's very likely the attorneys included the Elmostafa and card swip information in their motion.

Including the Elmostafa and card swip information in the N&O story will help readers understand the improbability of the accuser's claim that Seligmann helped her into the car.

I plan to contact Niolet and Neff on the two points.

I get an N&O print edition. (The N&O prints four editions. In my area we get the West edition.)

I'll post tomorrow on whether the N&O included in the print edition either or both of the points I've raised.
________________________

A hat tip goes to an Anon who called my misspelling of Moezeldin Elmostafa's name to my attention.

Law prof: "Nifong tried to cheat"

University of Maryland Law School professor Jason Trumpbour writes (“Now we are seeing some action!” Dec. 14):

Today, the defense teams filed a motion to compel discovery which reveals even more evidence of the prosecutorial misconduct that moved Representative [Walter] Jones to write his letter [to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.]

Contained in that motion is evidence that [DA Mike]Nifong tried to cheat on discovery. The private lab hired by Nifong never reported that it had found dna from numerous males in the rape kit samples taken from the vaginal area, anus and undergarments of the alleged victim.

Nifong never turned this information over to the defense, opposed an earlier motion to compel discovery of the records containing this information and has yet to fully comply with that earlier motion.

The information is particularly relevant as evidence because it contradicts statements made by the alleged victim and also provides an explanation for the “edema” inside her vagina. Of course it would also fundamentally undermine any argument that Nifong was planning to make that the accused could have committed a gang rape, ejaculated and not left any dna on the alleged victim.

The motion also suggests that the private lab was complicit with Nifong in attempting to cheat on discovery. The lab’s owner is listed among the prosecution witnesses.

If it is true that the lab owner aided Nifong in attempting to obstruct justice, Nifong would now have to decide if he still wants to call a key expert witness who might have to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights on the stand in response to cross examination. How much more screwed up can a prosecution case get?!

Trumpbour, who also teaches in the University of Baltimore’s Legal and Ethical Studies graduate program, holds three degrees from Duke University (A.B., 1988, A.M., 1991, J.D., 1991.) as well as a doctorate from Cambridge University (Ph.D., 1996). He's been in private practice and also served in the Criminal Appeals Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office (1988-2001).

Like Duke University Law School professor James Coleman, Trumpbour has for many months been alerting the public to Nifong’s travesties. Here’s part of a letter Trumpbour wrote on Aug. 4 in response to one of the Durham Herald Sun’s “gosh, we love Mike Nifong” editorials:

In an August 1 editorial, you found District Attorney Mike Nifong "courageous" and "contrite" in his discussion of the Duke lacrosse case at a recent press conference.

Unfortunately, there is little courage to be found in a desperate appeal to sympathy by an embattled politician. And Nifong was hardly contrite as he continued to obfuscate the relevant legal standards for his conduct.

You also stated that Nifong "still believes he has a good case" and find that significant for some reason. Yet, Nifong apparently lacks the courage of those convictions. After ramrodding evidence through a hopelessly backlogged SBI crime lab and racing to get indictments before the election, Nifong is now trying to postpone the day of reckoning until next spring.

Nifong refused to even look at any of the exculpatory evidence proffered to him by the defense. This action violated North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 which prohibits a prosecutor from avoiding "pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case."

In hiding his eyes from that evidence, Nifong abdicated the responsibilities of the office to which he was appointed and should have no further claim to it. (bold added)[…]

Trumpbour identified himself as a member of Friends of Duke University. He serves as FODU's spokesperson. FODU has no formal affiliation with Duke but seeks to work with the University on a variety of issues including securing as much justice as is now possible for the three framed young men – David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

FODU welcomes the involvement of Duke and non-Duke people alike.

I included Trumpbour’s H-S letter in an Aug. 4 post: “This Duke Friend is a Durham friend, too”

The Aug. 4 post includes a link to KC Johnson's "Roy Cooper's Silence" post [Cooper's NC's Attorney General] in which KC provides a scholarly review of N. C. law and procedures relating to Nifong's misconduct as well as a link to Coleman's Jun. 12 letter in which he said of the rigged ID procedure that was the most essential part of the frame-up of Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann: "And three students would do; there could be no wrong choice."

Trumpbour continues to be a friend of Duke and Durham. He’s a friend of Justice, too.

You can read Trumpbour’s Dec. 14 column here.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 13, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Monday we read some of the logistical and strategic explanations Churchill offered for what historians generally agree was, if not the greatest blunder Hitler made during the war, certainly was of the greatest: his decision, announced to key aides in late Summre/early Fall 1940, to invade Russia the following Spring by which time Hitler knew and told his aides Germany would not yet have forced Britain out of the war.

Today let’s look at a psychological explanation for Hitler’s blunder: his pathological hatred of Bolsheviks. Hitler’s hatred of Bolshevik’s matched that of his hatred of Jews. He frequently grouped them together. In Mein Kampf he repeatedly refers to the “Judeo-Bolsheviks” and says the last phase of the great, European war he believed was inevitable must involve the destruction of the then Soviet Union.

In Their Finest Hour, volume two of his WW II history, Churchill includes a narrative of secret negotiations in late 1940 between Russia and Germany. Their stated purpose was the division of sphere’s of influence and “spoils” between the two nations as well as Hitler’s Axis partners: Italy and Japan.

For Hitler, however, the talks were really meant to lull the Russians while he prepared to annihilate them. So German offers to Russians were designed to keep Stalin talking and misguided as to German intentions. In reality, Churchill says:

Hitler’s heart was set on destroying the Bolsheviks, for whom his hatred was mortal. He believed that he had the force to gain his main life-aim. Thereafter all the rest would be added unto him. (pg. 587)

Few statesmen and few historian’s have understood Hitler as well as Churchill.

The Wikipedia Mein Kampf entry is reliable. It provides a good content summery as well as some very interesting information about the book’s publishing history.

What's up with the Saudis

Concerning the Saudis, Varifrank observes that in the last few weeks MSM have reported but not paid much attention to four important and very likely connected events:

1) VP Dick Cheney went to Saudi Arabia.

2) With no forewarning, the Saudi Ambassador to US resigne and returned home.

3) The Saudi King grantrf a press interview in which he said the ‘Arab world is ready to explode”.

4) Saudi Arabia announced it will support Sunnis in Iraq if the US leaves.

Varifrank believes the four events are connected. Why?

It has to do, Varifrank says, with Saudi:

Means, Motive, Opportunity

• Saudi Arabia has a capable US trained Military – Means.

• Saudi has the funds for a large scale military operation – Means.

• Iran is Shiite, Saudi is Sunni - Motive.

Varifrank offers a lot more by way of commentary concerning events 1 through 4 and Means, Motive [and]Opportunity.

I hope you take a look at Varifrank’s post.

No Churchill Series post - Dec. 12, 2006

Folks,

I'm sorry my work schedule has gotten in the way.

There'll be no series post today.

I'll be back at it tomorrow.

I'm sorry and thanks for your understanding.

John

Whacky in Waco and Elsewhere

Yesterday I posted “This had me LOL.” I was laughing after reading a very funny satire which included:

Scenario: Parents take cute pictures of their 2 year-old playing in the tub.

1965 Parents go to Walgreen's, get them developed, and put them in the child's picture album which is shared with friends and relatives.

2006 Parents reported by Walgreen's to the Police, arrested for child pornography, and child sent to foster care.


Scenario: Mark gets a headache and his Mother gives him some aspirin to take to school.

1965 Mark's headache persists. He goes to his locker, gets a couple of aspirin and takes them at the water fountain.

2006 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Today, I read “a real world” story that didn’t leave me laughing. The AP reports from Waco, Texas:

WACO - School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.

A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's parents said that the boy was involved in "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" after he hugged the woman and he "rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee" on Nov. 10.

DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his son doesn't understand why he was punished.

"When I got that letter, my world flipped," Blackwell said in a story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.

La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented them from commenting.

After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the district said the offense had been changed to "inappropriate physical contact" and removed references of sexual contact or sexual harassment from the boy's file.

Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a discipline referral.

The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30 miles around Waco.

We can’t be sure what the child actually did. But unless the AP got the story very wrong (yes, that happens), the school system wrote the child’s father a letter about “inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" and then backed off of the “interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment” part of the letter when the father complained.

What’s “interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment" behavior by a four year old? If you're going to use explosive, stigmatizing terms such as “sexual contact” and “sexual harassment” to describe a child’s behavior, shouldn’t you be damn sure the behavior actually involved sexual contact and sexual harassment?

If I were a parent and had gotten either version of the letter, I’d have been very upset and asked: “What did my child actually do?” I’d also want to know why the school didn’t call me before sending the letter.

I wish the story had said whether school personnel sent the first letter as a result of their professional judgment of what was the appropriate way to contact the parent; or whether they were following a school system policy that says whenever you suspend a student you must inform the parent in writing.

Most school systems have such a policy but it shouldn’t excuse school personnel from also phoning a parent to explain the reason for the letter and inviting the parent to school to discuss the child’s behavior.

Getting back to the 1965 – 2006 satire: Where’s a society headed when it has school systems in Waco and most other places in America sending home in-school suspension letters to the parents of four and five year olds while those same school systems don’t inform a parent when a school counselor contacts a social worker and other “helping persons” to discuss how they’ll “help” a fifteen year old obtain an abortion?

There’s a lot whacky in Waco and elsewhere in America.

I learned of the story from Betsy Newmark's post: "No tolerance policies run amuk." I hope you give it a look.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 11, 2006

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In response to a reader’s request, today and tomorrow’s posts will look at the question of why Hitler choose to invade Russia before he had “finished” with Britain. Most of you know historians disagree on the answer(s) to that question. So within the limits of my knowledge and the “space” of the posts, I’d be foolish to suggest that I’m offering you the answer(s).

Instead, let’s look together at some of what a great historian, Winston S. Churchill, offered as his answer(s) to the question. Today we’ll focus on some of what he saw as logistical and strategic reasons for Hitler’s decision to turn away from Britain and invade Russia. Tomorrow, well look at what Churchill and many other historians cite as a powerful psychological force influencing Hitler: his deep hatred of Bolsheviks and Slavs.

In Their Finest Hour, volume II of his WW II history, Churchill provides a very good summary of logistical and strategic factors the caused Hitler, in the late Summer and Fall of 1940, to turn his attention from West to East, and begin planning for an invasion of Russia in the Spring of 1941, with Britain to be finished off after Russia was defeated:

… Without the command of the sea or the air, it had been deemed impossible to move German armies across the Channel. Winter with its storms had closed upon the scene. …

There must be many months’ delay before “Sea Lion” [, the German invasion plan,] could be revived, and with every week that passed, the growth, ripening, and equipment of the British home armies required a larger “Sea Lion,” with aggravated difficulties of transportation. Even three-quarters of a million men with all their furnishings would not be enough in April or May, 1941.

What chance was there of finding by then the shipping, the barges, the special landing craft necessary for so vast an over sea stroke? How could they have assembled under ever-increasing British air-power? Meanwhile, this air-power, fed by busy factories in Britain and the United States and by immense training schemes for pilots in the Dominions centered in Canada would perhaps in a year or so make the British Air Force superior in numbers, as it was already in quality, to that of Germany.

Can we wonder, then, that Hitler, once convinced that Goering’s hopes and boasts had been broken, should turn his eyes to the East? Like Napoleon in 1804, he recoiled from the assault of the island until at least the Eastern danger was no more. He must, he now felt, at all costs settle with Russia before staking everything on the invasion of Britain. (pgs. 576-577)

From my readings I judge that putting aside the question of whether Hitler should have finished with Britain first, his decision to invade Russia was in any case his worst military decision of the war. What do you think?

Faculty "Honor," Puffery & Silence

KC Johnson's post today begins:

In the months since Houston Baker departed Durham for Vanderbilt, a race to the bottom has occurred among the Duke faculty to determine which ideologue can behave in the most irresponsible manner. Three finalists for this dubious honor:

• Peter Wood, who has gone out of his way to appear to slander his own students;

• Karla Holloway, who has proclaimed that “white innocence means black guilt,” while boasting she would sign the Group of 88’s statement again “in a heartbeat”;

• Wahneema Lubiano, who coordinated the Group of 88’s statement.

All three are worthy of the dubious honor but KC goes on to spotlight Lubiano’s very thin scholarly record, her questionable claims about certain of her professional accomplishments, and numerous other actions which suggest she among all Duke's faculty has acted “in the most irresponsible manner.”

KC’s post is detailed, scholarly, and stinging. Duke’s trustees, administrators and responsible faculty ought to be asking themselves very serious questions about how and why someone like Lubiano was given a position on the A&S faculty and awarded tenure.

Regardless of whether they’ll question Duke’s faculty hiring process, it appears KC will. He ends his post with:

Tomorrow: Through what kind of process do professors like Lubiano get hired?

I’m looking forward to reading it at KC’s Durham-in-Wonderland.

I’ve sent links to KC’s post to trustee board chairman Robert Steel and president Richard Brodhead. I hope you will find ways to let them and others at Duke know most people who care about Duke are very concerned by what we’ve been learning about many A&S faculty.

La Shawn Barber has put together a wonderful post whose title tells us what its about: "Duke’s Privileged Puffed Up Professors."

La Shawn starts off:

Here’s some common sense advice for everyone: Never puff up your academic and professional credentials. All it takes is one smart and motivated person to do a little digging and expose you to ridicule.

When Lubiano put her CV together and in other places told people about her professional accomplishments, why didn’t she think herself of the “common sense advice” La Shawn offers? That’s another question those responsible for faculty hiring at Duke should be asking

La Shawn observes:

Johnson examines Lubiano’s essays and teaching, highlighting such inane rhetoric as “once white working class people learn that corporate capitalism is using racism to manipulate them, they will want to join with racially oppressed people against capitalism.” The irony is lost on a tenured professor with a cushy job supplied by a capitalist system she accuses of being racist.

You can read the rest of La Shawn’s post here.

Thankfully, most A&S faculty are not like Lubiano and some others. And they're not puffed up either. But, with a few honorable exceptions, they sure are silent.

They need to get their voices back.

This had me LOL

This is "floating around the net." A friend passed it on.

John
_______________________________________

Scenario: Parents take cute pictures of their 2 year-old playing in the tub.

1965 Parents go to Walgreen's, get them developed, and put them in the child's picture album which is shared with friends and relatives.

2006 Parents reported by Walgreen's to the Police, arrested for child pornography, and child sent to foster care.

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1965 Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his own to show Jack.

2006 School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1965 Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody is arrested, nobody is expelled.

2006 Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class; disrupts other students.

1965 Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the school principal. Sits still in class from then on.

2006 Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.

1965 Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006 Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused by her Dad, and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and his Mother gives him some aspirin to take to school.

1965 Mark's headache persists. He goes to his locker, gets a couple of aspirin and takes them at the water fountain.

2006 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1965 Several high school boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

2006 Middle school counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over the border and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1965: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state Democrat party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files a class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum as a required course. Pedro is given diploma anyway, but ends up mowing lawns and washing dishes for a living because he can't speak English.

Scenario: Jimmy takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a fire-ant hill.

1965 Ants die.

2006 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism. FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.


[. . . and who among us (boys mostly) didn't have a chemistry set that was capable of making all sorts of concoctions that would land us in the hoosegow today, and we were encouraged to learn to use it.]


WHAT HAPPENED ??!

Barone on Iraq SG

I’ve a few thoughts on the Iraq Study Group’s report but first here’s some of what Michael Barone is saying about it today:

[The] 79 recommendations included some constructive suggestions for new military tactics and for reorganizing the Iraqi government. But it concentrates more on what it calls the "external approach," a "reinvigorated diplomatic effort," a (with capitals in the original) "New Diplomatic Offensive."

This New Diplomatic Offensive would not only be directed at securing Iraq's border and reducing violence within them, but would also, astonishingly, be directed at producing a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. All this because, the report says, "all key issues in the Middle East -- the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism -- are inextricably linked.

Well, everything is linked to everything, I suppose, and you could even argue that everything is "inextricably" linked to everything. But it's hard to see why, to take one of several possible examples, Iraqi Sunnis would stop shooting Shiites and American troops if the United States successfully pressured Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria. Nor is it clear that a removal of U.S. objections to Iran's nuclear program would persuade the Shiite militias to stop shooting.

Regime change has been achieved in Iraq by military action. The ISG would seek to reduce violence in Iraq by regime change in Iran and Syria -- regime change to be achieved by negotiation. But it gives no persuasive reason to believe this is possible. In its narration of the facts, the report acknowledges that Iran has been promoting violence in Iraq and that Syria is at best negligent in preventing it. Later, it asserts that reducing violence in Iraq is in Iran's and Syria's interest.

It would be nice if the leaders of Iran and Syria thought so, and I suppose it's theoretically possible that if we explain things to them in patient negotiations, they might be persuaded. But not, I think, much more possible than persuading pigs to fly.

Pigs to fly, indeed.

As many others have pointed out, none of the ISG’s 79 recommendations are new. What’s new is that they’ve been bundled into one package which much of MSM is telling us represents “realism” but which I think should carry a large warning label: NAÏVE!

Barone points out the report’s stunning naivety:

As instruments of persuasion, the ISG report presents very little in the way of sticks and some very dangerous carrots. The only stick I saw was the suggestion that, if the United States withdraws, Saudi Arabia might intervene militarily in aid of the Sunnis. That doesn't seem likely to get the mullahs quivering.

No, it doesn’t.

The report never really addresses the question of why Iran and Syria would want to give up their decades-long state sponsorship of terrorism and assassinations. Nor does it say anything realistic about how you negotiate with those states and their terrorist surrogates – Hezbollah and Hamas - whose idea of “negotiations” is to take whatever you put on the table while planning to kill you later.

The ISG report reminded me of the sort of thing British and French diplomats prepared in the 1930s before going to Berlin to meet with Hitler.

Barone’s column is here. I can’t remember a time when a Barone column wasn’t worth at least one read.

Talking to Regulars and Readers - Dec. 10, 2006

(A post in the “old” web log tradition of “notes for others familiar with what the notes are about.”)

Thanks to all of you who provide information, links and “heads ups.” I appreciate them.

A number of you sent along links to “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters’ information/comments sites. I followed them all. I learned some things I didn’t know.

BTW – In response to questions I’d asked her months ago and recently concerning the N&O’s Apr. 2 publication of a “Vigilante” poster photo, Melanie Sill emailed Thursday that she stands by everything she’s said at the Editors’ Blog concerning the poster and the N&O’s publication of it.

That sets up a situation where I’ll be reporting that as is typical of “Vigilante” posters, the “Vigilante” poster the N&O published is anonymous. No source is cited on the poster; the N&O has never identified one; and no one has thus far come forward to claim he/she/they produced the poster.

After reporting that, I’m going to have to go on and report that Melanie stands by the following on the thread at this EB post


Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
11/01/06 at 19:35
John - listen carefully. The flyers were left out in public, on people's cars. We picked one up and took a photograph of it. We identified the photograph as such. There is no "anonymous source." Clear? Melanie


I appreciated the help with the links to the post at Duke professor Michael Gustafson’s blog.

Michael has often commented here on aspects of the Hoax. Recently he’s begun commenting on it at his Blog of Convenience. If you haven’t visited his blog I hope you do. And Michael, many of us are very glad you're blogging!

“A parachute for Ashley?” has a very interesting thread. If you haven’t read it, I hope you will.

Some journalists commented offline about the post. Some of the points they made: Ashley and H-S owner Paxton have no sense of how to compete against the N&O. They have very little real understanding of the complex social, racial and political dynamics of Durham or the importance of a strong Web presence. Paxton’s reluctance to “put money” into the H-S was also mentioned as was Paxton's lack of experience running a newspaper the size of the H-S.

And there was this comment from a print journalist familiar with Duke’s PR/PI operations: "[T]he fact that Ashley has newspaper experience is of little consequence in today's information environment. In fact, it could be a detriment: Duke's public and internal information machines are Web-oriented to a fault.”

I’ve paid so much attention to the Duke Hoax that I’ve not had much time for N&O posts other than ones relating to its Hoax coverage (Of course, last Spring much of the N&O’s coverage was really Hoax creation/inflammation). I need to get back to paying more attention to the N&O.

But I also want to keep pressing on Hoax matters such as the silences of so many who should have spoken out when Reade Seligmann was subjected to racists’ verbal abuse on May 18, first outside the Durham County Courthouse, and then within a courtroom before the judge entered it.

Time to wrap up with a final item. It’s part of another comment by Melanie on the same comment thread as above (10/31 at 18:58)

John says we use anonymity "often to produce stories and earn our incomes." N&O readers know we rarely use anonymous sources.

Thanks for being part of this blog. And have a good week.