Saturday, March 03, 2007

No blogging March 5 & 6

Most of Monday and Tuesday, March 5 & 6, will be spent flying to Australia and hugging grandchildren.

So no blogging either day.

But Wednesday, March 7, I'll be back posting.

I hope to do some light posting Sunday, March 4, but that depands how things work out at LA airport.

Keep your fingers crossed.


Truth, Readers & The N & O

Raleigh News & Observer managing editor John Drescher recently said:

[In] the first week of the [Duke lacrosse] story, our reporting was hampered by the unwillingness of the Duke players, their parents and their lawyers to speak to us.
But Drescher’s never explained just why he thinks the players, their parents and the defense attorneys are responsible for the N&O’s decision to repeatedly tell readers Crystal Mangum was the victim. Or why they’re responsible for the N&O’s decision to withhold news of the players’ extensive cooperation with police and instead promulgate the “wall of solidarity” falsehood?

Drescher needs to explain all that. I’ve been asking him to do it for months and I’ll stay at it.

Meanwhile, Drescher had just posted at the Editors’ Blog “N&O readership up.” It’s includes this:
Our readership isn’t declining. It’s growing nicely.

N&O daily and Sunday circulation have risen each of the last 11 years. Some of those gains were modest.
I've just left the following comment on the thread at the Editors' Blog:

Please, Editor Drescher, tell us what those gains were in raw numbers and percentage terms.

How do year over year N&O circulation percentage increases compare with year over year population percentage increases for the N&O's circulation area.

Two years ago the Durham Herald Sun’s weekday and Sunday circulations were in the low 50Ks. Now they’re in the mid-30Ks.

The N&O has made a big effort to pick up those 15K or so former H-S readers. What do your circulation growth numbers suggest about whether your effort has paid off yet?

Now that McClatchy owns both you and the Charlotte Observer, I hear the Charlotte paper has been told to back away from your circulation area so one McClatchy paper isn’t competing against another McClatchy paper in the same circulation area. Can you say more about that?

You go on to say:
But online growth has been robust – page views are up more than 40 percent since 2003. In January, 2 million different users came to our Web sites (, and our community sites).

The marketplace is speaking. And it’s saying that more and more readers turn to us for revealing reporting on the speaker of the House, for perspective on the Monet exhibit, for scoops on ACC basketball, and, increasingly, for the multimedia report on our Web sites (check out some of the photo galleries from our superb photography staff).

Are we changing? Yes. More people want to read us online. But they still want to read us.
A lot of those online readers who leave comments are demanding you release the whole story of the “anonymous interview.” They say you’re like Nixon at Watergate only releasing parts of tapes.

Why not give readers the full story you withheld from them last March? Who would be hurt if you did that?

When did the N&O first learn of the players' cooperation? When and in what detail did the N&O first report that cooperation to readers?

Those players, parents and attorneys you've been bashing want to know the answers to those questions.

So do your readers.

Why can't you answer those questions, Editor Drescher?

Duke Prof Wiegman loses

{Correction: This post initially said Duke's Women's Studies Director and professor Robyn Wiegman was a Group of 88 signer. The Johnsville News tells me she's not.

I've made the corrections.

I'm sorry for my error and grateful to TJN for pointing it out.


Readers Note: I've an independent minded friend who's a professor at a university with an arts & humanities faculty that tips Left. He often contends with individual members, who typically respond with rudeness and vitriol.

How does he stand it, I asked my friend?

"Well, I have my wins and they sustain me."

What's a "win" from those folks? Do they ever admit they're wrong? Write you a letter back saying, "Sorry?"

"Oh, no," my friend said. "Nothing like that. I know I've won when they're silent. No letter denouncing me in the student newspaper. No phone call to my department chair. Just silence.

I don't complain. I know I made my point and they can't refute it. So silence is all I get; and I count that a win"

By my friend's standards, I've won a few rounds with Duke's Director of Women's Studies professor Robyn Wiegman.

Wiegman, who usually is very quick to give her opinions and correct others, has twice said nothing in response to email inquiries and information I sent her, first in October and then in a copy in November.

I think Wiegman's silence means, like my friend says, I've made my points and silence is all I'll get. So I've won.

Below is the email I twice sent Wiegman. Think about my email the next time one of the 88 talk about all the threatening emails they get from "blog hooligans."

You don't see any reason why the Director of Women's Studies at Duke would find ol' JinC's email threatening, do you?

If you do, please don't report me to one of those new Hate Speech Commissars the CCI is planning to turn loose at Duke.


Robyn Wiegman
Margaret Taylor Smith Director Women's Studies
Professor, Women's Studies and Literature

Dear Professor Wiegman:

I hold two degrees from the university and blog as

In your Chronicle letter of Oct. 25 you write:

“[M]y colleague Steven Baldwin …finds the faculty response to the Duke lacrosse scandal one that warrants their being ‘tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy.’”(bold mine)
But that’s not true, Professor Wiegman.

Baldwin didn’t say anything about "the faculty response." He spoke about responses by some individual faculty members who engaged in certain despicable conduct which he described.

Read Baldwin’s words:

I do not believe that a faculty member publicly describing any student in pejorative terms is ever justified. To do so is mean-spirited, petty and unprofessional, at the very least. The faculty who publicly savaged the character and reputations of specific men's lacrosse players last spring should be ashamed of themselves.

They should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy. Their comments were despicable. I suspect they were also slanderous, but we'll hear more about that later.
Surely you didn't miss the fact that Baldwin's remarks concerned only certain faculty whose conduct he described. Not all faculty, thankfully, engaged in such despicable conduct.

Why did you fail to acknowledge that, and instead say: "Baldwin ...finds the faculty response ...?"

You'll find enlightening the following information from The American Heritage Dictionary of Idions:

"tar and feather"

Criticize severely, punish, as in The traditionalists often want to tar and feather those who don't conform. This expression alludes to a former brutal punishment in which a person was smeared with tar and covered with feathers, which then stuck. It was first used as a punishment for theft in the English navy, recorded in the Ordinance of Richard I in 1189, and by the mid-1700s had become mob practice. The figurative usage dates from the mid-1800s.

On another matter, I'm told that Women's Studies has made no statement condemning the threats of physical violence and death threats hurled by racists on May 18 at Reade Seligmann, both outside the courthouse and within the courtroom before the judge entered.

Is that true?

I'm also told Women's Studies has no plans to honor a group of outstanding women who constitute the only large Duke group who to date publicly acknowledge it was a hoax and have spoken out on behalf of the three wrongly indicted innocent students.

Is it true Women's Studies has no plans to honor the Women's lacrosse team and its coaches?

I look forward to hearing from you.


John in Carolina

Friday, March 02, 2007

The Churchill Series – Mar. 2, 2007

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

In this post I’ll just say a few things concerning posts earlier this week.

We had the incident Inspector Thompson related of Churchill refusing to let the insurance company pay for damage he knew wasn’t covered by his policy even though the company had already cut a check for the damage.

That story put me in mind of something few historians note: In Chruchill’s a long political career spanning almost 60 years there’s, no evidence of Churchill ever using public office or connections for improper financial gain.

A questioner asks whether Churchill ever took his nurse and nanny, Mrs Ann Everest, to Harrow. I don’t know about that but here’s something about his treatment of her which gets most things right:

Mrs. Ann Everest, Winston Churchill's nanny. He addressed her as "Woom", which was the nearest he could get to saying "Woman." She was born in Chatham in Kent.

So far as is known, she was never married, so the "Mrs." may well have been an honorary title. Churchill wrote in his autobiography, "My Early Life" : "I loved my mother dearly - but at a distance. My nurse was my confidante. Mrs. Everest it was who looked after me and tended all my wants. It was to her I poured out all my many troubles. Before she came to us, she had brought up for twelve years a little girl called Ella, the daughter of a clergyman who lived in Cumberland." She went into service with the Churchill family in early 1895, a few months after Winston's birth, and remained with the family until 1893

. When she died (at her sister's house, 15 Crouch Hill in North London), Churchill telegraphed to the clergyman, the Venerable Thompson Phillips, in Barrow-in-Furness. Churchill wrote, "He had a long memory for faithful service. We met at the graveside. He had become an Archdeacon. He did not bring little Ella with him."

Churchill paid for the headstone. His son, Randolph, wrote in the first volume of the biography of his father, "For many years afterwards he paid an annual sum to the local florist for the upkeep of the grave." The same book states that the headstone bears Churchill's name along with that of his brother, Jack
Mrs. Everest never married. It was common for nannies who did not to be accorded what was seen in those days as the more honored address of “Mrs.” instead of merely “Miss.”

The information about Mrs. Everest is here.

There will be no Churchull posts next Monday and Tuesday, Mar. 5 & 6. My wife and I will be traveling to Australia visiting our grandkids.

On Wed. Mar. 7 the Churchill Series will resume.

I hope you each have a wonderful weekend.

Addison Series #4 - "They call it 'squeezing'"

Readers Note: For general background on the Addison Series posts see “The Cpl. Addison Series.” Cpl. David Addison is a veteran Durham police officer whose regular assignment is Coordinator for Durham CrimeStoppers, described as an independent nonprofit organization.

To understand this current post readers should be familiar with the contents of “Addison Series #1" - "This horrific crime,” and "Addison Series #2" - "CrimeStoppers will pay cash,"and "Addison Series #3" - "Not my poster."

Those posts provide the data base for this post and the next and last in the series – “Sue who?” I’ve reversed the order of the last two posts because as I worked on them I realized this “Squeezing” post ought to come before "Sue who?”


On Jan. 12 of this year the Raleigh N&O reported DA Mike Nifong’s office had again said the false accuser had changed her story of what happened the night of March 13/14:

Critics, such as Duke law professor James Coleman, said the new document was a blatant attempt to fix a flawed case and called for a criminal investigation of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his staff.

"Who would believe that a witness, nine months later, suddenly recalls facts that coincidentally negate evidence produced by the defense?" said Coleman, who led a Duke committee that investigated the lacrosse team's culture and has criticized Nifong's handling of the case for months.
Coleman’s call for a criminal investigation of DA Nifong and his staff has so far received little attention. I think that’s because so much attention is being paid to State Bar action against Nifong which will likely lead to his disbarment. Also, the special prosecutors are reviewing the original “case” (really a frame-up) and the public is waiting on that review.

But I expect an outcome from both the Bar’s work and the special prosecutors’ work will be a push for a criminal investigation of Nifong and his staff, with staff broadly defined to include any who helped with the “the case” in any official way.

Very soon thereafter, others will become involved in the investigation; for example, reporters and medical personal who talked to Crystal Mangum and/or police.

The investigators – I’m going to call them Feds because so many of the actions committed against the players and others involve due process and civil rights issues – will have a list of people they want to talk to.

That list will grow and the order of names on it will change as the Feds develop new information and leads. But initially near the top of the list of people the Feds want to talk to you’ll find Durham Police Cpl. David Addison’s name.

That because when the Feds come on a case and they see that a police spokesperson repeatedly gave the public false information about what they’re investigating, the Feds always want to know why the officer did that.

“Let’s give him a little squeeze and see what he tells us.”

So Addison will be asked, for example, why he told the public the players weren’t cooperating with police when they were. Addison will be talking to people, almost all of whom have police and/or criminal investigative backgrounds. They know how exceptionally cooperative the players were compared to most suspects they’ve dealt with. They know Addison knows. He’s a veteran officer, after all.

And worst of all for Addison, he knows they know he knew.

That will set up a moment of truth or perjury for Addison, recently selected by Durham Jaycees as their Outstanding Young Public Servant of the Year (That information provided by Addison’s DPD supervisor, Maj. Lee Russ, during a 12/06 interview).

If Addison maintains he just decided on his own the players were uncooperative and it didn’t happen that way – someone else tells the Feds “how we told David his main job was to convince the public that the players were these horrible guys who were all covering up. We all knew that was false but we went over and over the stuff with David so he’d get it right when they interviewed him. And boy, he was good.” – Addison’s in big trouble.

And he’s only answered one question so far.

I’m sure all of you who’ve read the Addison Series can think of a dozen questions to ask Addison which he’ll have to answer either by incriminating himself, but telling the truth or by incriminating himself even more deeply by perjuring.

Addison has far more to tell the Feds than the public realizes. Most citizens can’t even recall his name from last March. Many of those who do recall his name dismiss him as a “mouthpiece” who got carried away with the case.

They’re wrong.

As I said before if Addison had ever gone off-message last March he would have been quickly corrected by someone involved in the case. That he wasn’t corrected as he talked of “this brutal rape” and “this horrific crime” tells you he was very much on-message.

The Feds will know that, so they'll ask questions like: “Tell us, David, which people gave you which messages? Was there a lot of revising of how you’d word the message? Who’d you practice with? What were you told to say if someone in the press learned DPD had talked to Kim Roberts?”

Think of Addison as an actor and some of the other conspirators as scriptwriters and directors. If all Addison was going to do was deliver the Gettysburg Address you don’t need scriptwriters and all the director need do is spend a little time helping Addison with his delivery.

But when you’re building a frame-up from next to nothing, it takes a lot of time and work. Addison’s role as the police spokesperson those first critical days was a key to the success of the frame-up.

So the conspirators spent a lot of time with Addison “going over the lines.” Addison was present at the creation. He has a lot to tell.

And what he has to tell concerns not just his spokesperson falsehoods, but his writing and distributing the infamous CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster. Did Addison do that on his own or was he directed to do it?

What Addison has to tell will surely be of interest to the Feds in the first stage of their investigation. Later in the investigation, the Feds may have heard it all from others so what Addison says then won’t be worth much, especially to him.

Addison’s in a terrible tight spot right now. He authored and distributed the CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster which DPD and Durham City both say they had nothing to do with. CS, according to Addison’s supervisor, Maj. Russ, gave Addison a blanket authority to issue CS posters at his discretion. CS board members can’t be found, at least by me.

The “Wanted” poster, in the opinion of every attorney I’ve spoken with, libeled 46 Duke students who played lacrosse for the school.

There will almost certainly be some civil action concerning the poster with Addison in the center of that action.

He’s not a wealthy man. He will have considerable difficulty paying for adequate legal representation during a Federal investigation. If a perjury charge were to come out of that investigation, Addison will be in an extraordinarily difficult situation with few friends and few resources.

For his sake and justice’s sake I hope Addison cooperates fully and promptly with the Feds. He may lose his badge and his job in the process; and he’ll be left with a lot of legal bills.

But the alternative for Addison of trying to “stonewall” the Feds will be much, much worse. I hope he has friends to tell him that.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

The Churchill Series – Mar. 1, 2007

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

In Winston Churchill and His Inner Circle, Sir John (“Jock”) Colville, who for most of WWII served as Churchill private secretary and later became a close personal friend of both Winston and Clementine, tells us:

Churchill trusted all who worked for and with him, and in those whom he grew to know well he was prepared to confide even his innermost thoughts.

Some of his private secretaries became his lifelong friends and all of them formed part of that secret circle to which he would often refer, glaring round the dining room at wartime meals, when he was about to launch into a confidential discussion of military operations or foreign policy.

They never let him down: there were sometimes leakages from the Cabinet, but never from the officials whose duties, on social as well as on ordinary working occasions, gave them access to views, information and items of gossip for which the press would have been willing to pay a small fortune and the enemy a vast one. (pg. 86)
It is remarkable how many people Churchill trusted and confided in and how few could be considered to have violated his trust.

What Coleville means by “glaring round the dining room at wartime meals” has to do with Churchill’s frequent practice during the war of reminding those around the table, after the meal was finished, of their secrecy oaths; and then presenting them with some critical issue to hash over. He would sometimes assign people roles to play. So he would tell the group he was going to tell Stalin there would be no invasion of France in 1943 to take some pressure off the Russian army.

Stalin would naturally be angry. What could Britain do to mollify him? “You, Coleville, you’re Stalin. Start thinking about what you’d demand from us when I give you the news. “Prof, (his science adviser, F.A. Lindemann), do we have the shipping to deliver more aide to Russia?” “Hastings (Gen. Hastings Ismay, his military aide), what sort of equipment does the Russian army most need and can we spare any if the Prof says we have the ships?”

So it would go, often for hours.

And Colville was right about their keeping Churchill’s confidences. I can’t think of a single instance during the war where a member of his staff did that. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance of an unintentional leak although I don’t doubt they occurred. from time to time.

For The N&O: Player cooperation questions

I just sent the following email to Raleigh News & Observer executive editor for news Melanie Sill.

Dear Melanie:

In your March 25 story headlined,

Dancer gives details of ordeal

A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence
the N&O reported:
Duke officials briefed university staff Friday on the allegations, and authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.

"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."
Nowhere in your story do you report the extensive cooperation the players had been providing police since police first contacted them on March 16.

Your story referenced “Duke officials” and quoted two, Academic Council chair and Law professor Paul Haagen and sports information director Art Chase.

But the N&O made no mention that Duke had said the previous day that the players were cooperating.

Here’s the text of a March 24 news release from John F. Burness, Duke's senior vice president for public affairs and government relations. I’m sure you know of it but I’m placing it here so JinC readers and others can read it.
Yesterday, 46 Duke University undergraduates who are members of the men’s lacrosse team responded to a legal order from Durham authorities and traveled downtown to be photographed and provide identifying information. The authorities made the request in connection with an investigation of an alleged incident on March 14 at 610 Buchanan St. in Durham. Duke University is monitoring the situation and cooperating with officials, as are the students. (emphasis added)
I’ve three questions I’d like to ask you, Melanie. I’ll publish your answers in full at JinC.

1) Why did The N&O decide to make no mention of Burness’ statement saying the players were cooperating with officials?

2) Why did The N&O decide to say nothing at all about the extensive cooperation the players were providing and instead promulgate the “wall of solidarity” falsehood?

3) Did all of the reporters and editors working on the March 25 story agree that withholding news of the players’ cooperation was the right thing for journalists to do?

Thank you for your attention to my request.

John in Carolina

Conspiracy “solo auditions”

AMac a JinC Regular who occasionally guest blogs at other sites notes concerning Nifong’s filing yesterday:

”Of note is that this defense is the first time that Nifong has clearly signaled that he's going to throw Gottlieb and Himan under the bus--after all, anything that went wrong (if anything did) is wholly their fault.

Now that Gottlieb and Himan know what's in store for them, how will they respond? […]
The conspiracy “solo auditions” may already be underway in various attorneys’ offices.

“I mean I’m a police investigator. I naturally respect the DA. So when he tells me …..”

“How does this sound? I say to the jury, 'I don’t know why but I always get nervous when a nurse starts talking about rectal exams. So when the SANE nurse at Duke ….’ “

“What if I told the jury none of this would have happened if Chief Chalmers had been around to tell me what to do?”

Don’t you wish you could be in the attorneys’ offices for the “solo auditions?”

I hope someone posts a schedule.

Meanwhile, Nifong will also be going over his “solos.”

“I trusted Gottlieb at first because he had such a good memory but this latest stuff. ….”

“”At first I had my doubts. But when I read those Raleigh News & Observer stories on March 24 and 25 I naturally said to myself what ten of thousands of other N&O readers said to themselves, “The players must be guilty.

Then with Ruth Sheehan’s March 27 column about how disgusting the players' silence was and all, I just started saying that stuff when I began talking to the public later on March 27.

When I think back on it all, I know I should never have believed what I read in the N&O.

It was like I was brainwashed by the N&O. I didn’t mean to do anything wrong. I'm not a crook!

And do you think it would be OK for me to tell the jury that I think the N&O should disclose the parts of the anonymous interview it’s still withholding from the rest of media and the public?

Or will that just get us all in more trouble?”

For Nifong: tough times ahead

I spent most of today traveling from North Carolina to San Diego on two delayed flights.

Not good. But I’m in San Diego now. Things worked out fine.

But things aren’t going to work out fine for Nifong.

His attorneys, after one delay, today laid out their defense for him agaisnt ethich charges brough by the NC State Bar.

To this layman, it looks like the best defense Nifong’s attorneys could come up with.

I find no fault with them.

But their work doesn’t look good enough to prevent Nifong’s disbarment. I think he's a gone goose.

I mean, if on opening day in a Bar Ethics proceeding you have to concede straight away you said many things you shouldn’t have said, and you claim it was because you didn’t realize the national implications of what you were saying on national news networks; and you concede you were misled or maybe misunderstood what police investigators told you and that’s why things got to the point that ….. and then as far as withholding exculpatory evidence goes, well the explanation for that is you didn’t really withhold it as the Bar Ethics Committee charges you did…. and another thing: “I am not a crook.”

Well, Nifong didn’t actually come right out and say he wasn’t a crook the way Nixon did as Watergate was unraveling, did he?

So let’s give Nifong a point for that.

But otherwise what happened today was we saw how indefensible Nifong’s conduct has been: His own attorneys really can’t make much of a case for him based on what’s “on the record.”

Nifong’s attorneys are in the same position Nixon’s defenders were as the Watergate cover-up unraveled: They have an obviously guilty client.

And, folks, when you think about today, “on the record” is the phrase to keep in mind. Everything the State Bar’s Ethics Committee is charging Nifong with is what we already know was “on the record” and in effect “handed” to the Bar.

Can you imagine what Nifong’s attorney’s are going to have to prepare to respond to once we learn a more about some critical things that haven’t yet been investigated?

For instance, during their auto trip from Durham to Burlington where they met with Brian Meehan , what did Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan talk about? Only the weather? Only how much they appreciated the Raleigh News & Observer’s “fair and balanced” coverage?

Or were they talking about aspects of a criminal conspiracy to frame three innocent citizens?

What did Gottlieb and Himan say and hear when they were with Meehan and Nifong?

And what did Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan talk about on the trip back from Burlington to Durham?

The Feds need to come to Durham and ask Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan about their conversations as they traveled between Durham and Burlington. And a lot more.

Here’s a safe prediction: Six months from now, we’ll look back on Feb. 28 and say: “That was one of the best days Nifong’s had so far in ’07.”

That tells us how bad Nifong’s conduct has been, and how bad things are about to get for him.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Churchill Series – Feb. 28, 2007

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

Churchill’s principal bodyguard for many years, Scotland Yard Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, offers this revealing anecdote in Beside the Bulldog: The Intimate Memoirs of Churchill’s Bodyguard:

A housemaid once burnt out the element of an electric kettle, belonging to my wife, while we were at Chartwell.

Mrs. Hill, the principal private secretary, put in a claim against the insurance company for the damage. In due course a cheque arrived in settlement.

When my wife took the cheque to Mr. Churchill to be endorsed, he looked at it carefully and then said, “I don’t see that the insurance company is liable for this. Your kettle is not covered by my policy. That cheque must go back.”

He then drew an equivalent cheque on his own, personal account and handed it to her. He was quite prepared to ensure that she should not be the loser, but he was equally determined that nothing was to be obtained from the insurance company to which he was not legally and morally entitled.(pg. 124)

Traveling today.


Look for posting to resume around 8 pm Eastern tonight.


Prof. Wood, Attention Seeker


Back on April 2, 2006 I posted the following: "One Duke professor 'saw signs.'"

Read it and think about it as you listen to Professor Peter Wood's statements in the next few days cluck-clucking about the CCI.


A Duke Professor has come forward into the media glare surrounding an exotic dancer’s charge she was raped at a party hosted by 3 members of the university’s lacrosse team.

We read in today's Durham Herald-Sun:

History professor Peter Wood said Saturday he complained to athletic department representatives after it seemed to him a group of half a dozen or so men's lacrosse players didn't take one of his classes seriously in the spring semester of 2004.

The course was a survey of Native American history that Wood said has been popular among lacrosse players because of the sport's roots in American Indian culture.

Wood's unhappiness with what happened in the spring 2004 class focused on what he termed the players' "lack of engagement in classroom activities and discussions, and giving priority to unnecessary athletic commitments created by the coaching staff, such as a practice called during class time at 10 a.m. on a Friday."

The professor didn't put his concerns in writing and now wishes he had done more at the time.

"I feel badly that I didn't follow up on it more directly because I think all of us, many of us, realize we saw signs of a developing problem," Wood said.
Imagine that.

Somehow I’d convinced myself that most students at one time or another do the sorts of things professor Wood's talking about.

I even did some of them when I was in school. What about you?

Did you realize before today that what we thought were common, largely innocent student behaviors were really early “signs” of the “developing problem” professor Wood has in mind?

What will happen now? It might be something like this ----
“Our guest this morning is Duke’s Peter Wood. I understand, professor, you saw early signs of what was going to happen; and you we’re one of the first to warn the university. But it took no action. Is that true?”

“Yes, it is, Katie. As I told Brian Williams last night …(click)
It’s sad that a professor would take common student behaviors evidenced two years ago, and package and label them in a way he must have known would get him media attention.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The Churchill Series – Feb. 27, 2007

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

Most Americans who know of Chequers think of it as a kind of Camp David for British Prime Ministers. And that’s pretty close to the mark as to its purpose, but it has a much richer history and architecture than Camp David. Chequers is a large Elizabethan house with marbled and richly paneled rooms.

As you would guess, Churchill loved the place. He was one of the first quests after its last private owners gave it to the nation as a country place of rest and enjoyment for Prime Ministers.

The first Prime Minister to use it as an official residence was Lloyd George beginning in January, 1921. A few weeks thereafter, he invited Churchill to stay as his weekend guest. Clementine did not accompany Churchill so we find him on Feb. 6, 1921 writing Clementine:

My darling,

Here I am. You would like to see this place – Perhaps you will some day!

It is just the kind of house you admire – a paneled museum, full of history, full of treasures – but insufficiently warmed – Anyhow a wonderful possession. […]
”Perhaps you will some day!”

Churchill saw to it that she would.

BTW – “insufficiently warmed” was an understatement. The house had no central heating when Churchill was PM, and I’m mot certain it does now.

Eisenhower often refered to Chequers as “that damned icebox.”
Churchill’s letter to Clementine is found on pg. 225 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, edited by their daughter, Mary Soames. She also provided background on Chequers.

Nifong must go! Now!

This afternoon I asked retired NC journalist Bob Wilson if he'd be willing to write "an editorial for tomorrow's paper." He agreed. Here it is.

Nifong must go! Now!

For a hoax with more distortion than a house of mirrors, the Duke lacrosse case probably stands without equal in modern legal history.

Not since the Scottsboro Boys frame-up in the early 1930s has prosecutorial misconduct been so brazenly evident as it is in District Attorney Mike Nifong's attempt to convict three Duke University students, first of rape, and when those charges evaporated, of sexual assault and kidnapping.

Now the case is in the hands of the North Carolina attorney general's office, and if justice lives in this state, there it will die.

But Nifong's record of malfeasance will not die. On Tuesday, more evidence pointing to his misconduct surfaced in a defense motion stating that the players' lawyers still hadn't received results of 11 of 22 DNA samples taken almost a year ago from the false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum.

This latest news comes just weeks after the NC State Bar’s Ethics Committee accused Nifong of teaming with Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security in Burlington, to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense.

Now we learn there’s even more to the story of Nifong's failure to provide critical evidence, as he was required to by state law.

It is virtually certain that more exculpatory evidence lies in those 11 DNA tests. There's every reason to believe that's true because not one chromosome has ever linked the accused Duke players - David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty – or any other Duke lacrosse player to DNA found in or on the false accuser's body.

What did show up during Meehan’s testing was DNA from a multitude of other men.

Why didn't Nifong give the results of those 11 tests to the defense? He knows. We know he knows: exculpability.

Nifong's recusal shouldn't save his hide from this latest revelation of hide and seek. His credibility as a prosecutor is in tatters. His willful, perhaps criminal, abuse of the law has brought ridicule upon Durham County, indeed all of North Carolina. As Joseph Welch famously asked Sen. Joe McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

If Mike Nifong has any decency left, he will write his resignation, turn out the lights in his office and walk into the twilight.

Nifong must go! Now!

New DNA’s not laxers'. Now what?

ABC’s Eyewitness 11 News is reporting:

Defense attorneys for Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans filed the 39-page motion at the Durham Courthouse Tuesday morning.

In it defense attorneys for the three former Duke Lacrosse players say the prosecution is still holding out on potentially-explosive DNA evidence.

The DNA was taken in a rape kit the morning after the now-infamous lacrosse party on March 13, 2006 where the accuser says she was gang raped.

This new filing says they've not been given all the DNA evidence that excludes their clients but includes more unrelated male DNA. […]
KC Johnson at Durham-in-Wonderland has more:
[…] Defense attorneys have continued to scrutinize Dr. Brian Meehan’s data, however, and today’s motion reveals that they have uncovered even more DNA—from additional unidentified males—that Meehan’s amended report failed to include. According to the motion,

DNA Security discovered the DNA of at least two males in the accuser’s rectum that did not match the Defendants, their lacrosse teammates, or anyone else who provided a reference DNA sample.

Mike Nifong obtained the indictments of three people on a charge of rape, in which the accuser’s then-present version (her April 6 statement) claimed that the crime had included anal rape.

Even if North Carolina did not possess an Open Discovery law (which required turning over of all material to the defense), and even if North Carolina law did not require turning over of all test results obtained from a non-testimonial order to the defense, how would it not be exculpatory to have “discovered the DNA of at least two males in the accuser’s rectum that did not match the Defendants, their lacrosse teammates, or anyone else who provided a reference DNA sample”?

After all, this is the same Mike Nifong who in a 2000 case dismissed an indictment on rape because “results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime.”

Today’s defense motion also provides a statistical summary of the Meehan test results:
A collective review of all materials provided to the Defendants and information obtained by the Defendants about [Meehan's] DNA Security’s work shows that at least 12 of the 22 rape kit DNA extractions—in other words, over half of them—contained male DNA that did not match the Defendants. [emphasis in original]
How is it possible that this case is still ongoing, and that a criminal investigation of Nifong has not been opened in its stead?
Good question, KC.

It led me to leave the following comment at DiW:
Dear KC,

Great post!

You ask: "How is it possible that this case is still ongoing, and that a criminal investigation of Nifong has not been opened in its stead?"

Please take a crack at answering that question.

Is Nifong's office responsible for "investigating" the man his staff just spent a week "honoring?"

Is the latest DNA evidence supposed to be turned over to Gottlieb and Hyman for their DPD investigation?

Do the NC state attorney general appointed special prosecutors have any duty here to investigate?

Is this evidence that should be called to the Feds attention? Does it make it more likely they'll finally come in?

John in Carolina
Three quick comments:

One: Why are investigators and other authorities not showing any interest in finding out whose DNA Crystal Mangum was loaded with on March 13/14?

Two: More cover-up by Dr. Meehan tells us again what's been known to us for months: We're dealing in the Hoax with a whole series of many conspiracies.

Three: I think if the Feds come in and put the pressure on Meehan, he'll reveal quite a bit and his testimony will likely send Nifong to prison.

Monday, February 26, 2007

The Churchill Series – Feb. 26, 2007

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

During “the miracle of Dunkirk” in late May and early June, 1940 more than 300, 000 British soldiers escaped to England. But almost all of them were forced to leave behind their weapons .

With France now out of the war and British and Commonwealth land forces largely unarmed, Churchill issued the following minute:

July 7, 1940.

Prime Minister to Secretary of State for War,

I have asked the Admiralty to make very special arrangements for bringing in your rifle convoys [from America]. They are sending four destroyers far out to meet them, and all should arrive during the 9th.

You can ascertain the hour from the Admiralty.

I was so glad to hear that you were making all preparations for the unloading, reception, and distribution of these rifles. At least one hundred thousand ought to reach the troops that very might, or in the small hours of the following morning.

Special trains should be used to distribute them and the ammunition according to a plan worked out beforehand exactly, and directed from the landing-port by some high officer thoroughly acquainted with it. It would seem likely that you would emphasise early distribution to the coastal districts, so that all the Home Guard in the danger areas should be the first served.

Perhaps you would be good enough to let me know beforehand what you decide.
Anthony Eden was then SoS for War.

Churchill didn’t leave much to Eden’s discretion, did he?

Notice Churchill’s last sentence telling Eden to let him know what he decides.

Eden, an experienced Cabinet officer (he’d served as Foreign Secretary under Chamberlain but resigned in protest) and a Churchill ally in opposing appeasement, knew what that sentence really meant: “Let me know, Anthony, that everything will be done just as I’ve directed.”

The minute is an excellent example of Churchill’s attention to detail and the scope and power of his leadership during the first months of his premiership.
The minute is found on pg 271 of Churchill’s Their Finest Hour.

Brit peer says religion’s the cure

JinC Regulars know I’ve a lot of respect for former Times of London editor William Rees-Mogg, now a life peer and occasional Times columnist.

Today Rees-Mogg writes a column I want to share with you in full because I think it’s very important (that’s not to say I agree with everything Rees-Mogg writes). I know that many of you can’t access the Times of London site.

I’ll be traveling for some hours. I look forward to your comments when I return, after which I’ll add my own.

Under the head, “Religion isn’ t the sickness. It’s the cure,” Rees-Mogg begins:

From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery. In his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: “As many of you that have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. We were all one in Jesus Christ.”

Undoubtedly Christians have compromised with slavery — as with other social evils — in the course of history, but the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and equality.

The Christian belief was the inspiration in William Wilberforce’s long campaign to end the slave trade. His Bill received the Royal Assent on March 25, 1807, 200 years ago.

That was the most important of all the great reforms of the 19th century; essentially it was a Christian reform, inspired by the Protestant conversion of Wilberforce himself. March 25 was the old New Year’s Day; it is also the feast of the Annunciation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something approaching panic. It is like the Devil’s attitude to Holy Water. There was a comic example of Christianophobia in The Sunday Times yesterday. Michael Portillo, who used himself to be seen in Brompton Oratory, was hyperventilating at the idea of David Cameron going to church.

“I worry,” he wrote, “because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics . . . I would be more reassured to hear that the Tory leader goes to church because that is what it takes to get a child into the best of state schools, not because he is a believer.”

Perhaps this neurotic response to Mr Cameron’s habit of going to church reflects Mr Portillo’s recognition that religion is again becoming an important influence on society. Many of the current news stories show that religion is back in public consciousness; for those who feel uneasy about religion, that is unwelcome.

Islam is, of course, the alarming religious issue that will not go away. In the 20th century the world failed to adjust to two major belief systems, nationalism and Marxism. Now we face a similar global challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America and modernism in the whole advanced world. We certainly cannot say that all religious influences are benign; al-Qaeda is a religious cult, but a perverted one.

Religion turned William Wilberforce into a Protestant saint, but Wahhabism has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil.

The rise of militant Islam in the 21st century is, however, part of a much broader phenomenon. In the United States there has been the extraordinary resurgence of fundamentalist Protestantism, sufficiently strong to win two presidential elections for the Republican Party. In Britain, an inflow of Catholics from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, has revitalised the Roman Catholic Church, which now has the largest Christian congregation in the country. The worldwide Church of England has been divided by a battle of moral convictions.

All of these religious movements challenge modernism, that popular mix of materialism, scientism and political correctness that had seemed to be carrying all before it.

The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science, and particularly of neo-Darwinism. Yet science was open to the same challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world.

The scientists, or some of them, sneered at religion for being unable to explain the developments of nature. Yet science itself was unable to produce a science-based morality for society.

Marxism attempted to create a scientific social order that ended in monstrous and bloodthirsty tyranny. Social Darwinism either meant eugenics and the slaughter of babies who were not thought fit to survive, or it meant nothing. The Social Darwinism of George Bernard Shaw, or indeed that of Adolf Hitler, has been rejected by mankind.

The world needs religion to address the moral issues. In the advanced societies it is these moral issues that now mock us. Europe and North America are hugely wealthy regions, but they are morally impoverished. Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-city slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society in decline.

Societies can be judged by their care for children. Social education must start in the family and must have a moral basis. Children need to be taught to distinguish between right and wrong. A recent report by Unicef showed Britain as 21st out of 21 advanced countries in the welfare of children; our national failure is a shame and a disgrace.

In 19th century England, the revival of Christianity provided the basis for a century of social reform. The religious revival spread across all the Christian churches; in the Church of England there was the Evangelical movement as well as the High Church movement. The Roman Catholic Church attracted thousands of new converts. The Methodists and other Nonconformists devoted themselves to the welfare of the poor and the working class. The Salvation Army took its trumpets into the pubs and slums and offered a new hope.

The 19th century was an age of social reform based on religious revival and the Christian faith. The 20th century was an age of religious decline and of accelerating decline in social cohesion as well as in faith. “Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey/ When wealth accumulates and men decay.”

These are lines from Oliver Goldsmith’s moving poem, The Deserted Village in the 18th century. If they seem to apply to our modern societies, religion is not the problem; it is the only possible remedy.

An Anon. and “arm"

In response to the Addison Series, I’ve received many comments. I appreciate them all.

The following comment piqued my interest.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, John. I look forward to more exposure of this arm of the conspiracy.

With the work being done by Liestoppers members on other arms, it should be a nice tidy package when it's all wrapped.

The overriding question is who wanted this case enough to guarantee Nifong the election (while underestimating the defense team).

That's the strongest arm.



Most people now assume that the “arm” that propelled the frame-up of three innocent young men was Mike Nifong’s desire to win election to a full-term as DA.

You seem to maybe be suggesting there was another, second “arm” that wanted Nifong elected.

I’m assuming that you see as part of the first "arm" organizations like the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, the People’s Alliance, the Democratic Party as well as many at Duke, the potbangers and other such people, “rights activists,” etc.

Do you think a possible second “arm” was at work? And if yes, would you say more about it?

Others are welcome to weigh in.

The Chronicle’s “rape scandal”

On Friday, Feb. 23, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, ran an editorial that began:

This Saturday, the Duke men's lacrosse team will retake the field and play for the first time since the advent of the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.
I decided to send the following electronic letter to The Chronicle’s editor-in-chief, Ryan McCartney.


Dear Editor McCartney:

Re: Your Feb. 12 editorial beginning: “This Saturday, the Duke men's lacrosse team will retake the field and play for the first time since the advent of the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.”

”Notorious rape scandal?”


What “notorious rape scandal?”

Sure, some of Duke’s Arts & Sciences professors who fill the University’s most highly endowed chairs were loud last Spring in their demands for the expulsion of students those professors and others said were involved in the “notorious rape scandal.”

We all remember then Professor Houston Baker telling us about “male athletes, veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain.”

Durham DA Mike Nifong agreed with the faculty about the “notorious rape scandal.”

But sensible people last Spring were turned off by Nifong and those Duke faculty members. The agreed with the Women’s lacrosse team: Innocent. Or they suspended judgment.

Even President Brodhead, for so many months Nifong’s most prominent enabler, doesn’t talk about the “notorious rape scandal.”

Brodhead now tells people he’s “one of the biggest critics of the way the players have been treated.”

But The Chronicle is still telling the Duke community and everyone else about “the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.”


Editor McCartney, you owe your readers an explanation.


John in Carolina

Poetic talent? Then you want Joan Foster

Some people, like Joan Foster, have talent. Then there’s JinC.

I worked from New Year’s Day until the eve of Valentine’s to got something just right to send to Duke University’s President, Richard H. Brodhead.

I wanted it to be real good, you know, because President Brodhead’s a genuine poet.

You and me, we just end our poems with something like:

And you disappointed me, you ass.
But President Brodhead, he can end his poems with:
And you disappointed me, alas.
Now, that’s better, isn’t it?

Don’t we wish we could do that?

Anyway, I worked seven weeks on my Velentine’s Day poem for President Brodhead and the best I could come up with was:
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Nifong let us down,
And so did you.
Now, let’s go to where the talent is: Joan Foster:
The crowd roared with the band!
And YOUR team took the field again
With Brodhead smiling in the stands.
They cheered, not JUST Lacrosse,
They cheered because they understood
What those "fantastic lies" have cost.
They cheered your team ... who stood with you,
Though hounded to the ground,
While Durham offered "cash rewards"
On...vigilante posters throughout town;
Who stood with you while the media
Had their love affair with Mike,
And potbangers demanded "Castrate Them,"
And Crystal worked the pole at night;
The rest is here.

Joan’s great. Don’t miss her.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Addison Series #3 – “Not my poster”

Readers Note: For general background on the Addison Series posts see “The Cpl. Addison Series.” Cpl. David Addison is a veteran Durham police officer whose regular assignment is Coordinator for Durham CrimeStoppers, described as an independent nonprofit organization.

To understand this current post readers should be familiar with the contents of “Addison Series #1" - "This horrific crime,” and "Addison Series #2" - "CrimeStoppers will pay cash."

"Addison Series #2" – “CrimeStoppers will pay cash” reported on Addison’s production and distribution on March 28 to media, DPD substations and others the text of a Durham CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster which told the community, among other things:

The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.
For the next thirteen days, until April 10, the CS “Wanted” poster circulated on Duke’s campus and in the Durham community.

During that time no member of Duke University’s “leadership team,” including a single one of its trustees, its President, Richard H. Brodhead, or any senior Arts & Sciences faculty member questioned the truthfulness or appropriateness of the CS “Wanted” poster, even as it inflamed unstable individuals and hate groups targeting the players.

Reviews of the achives of The Raleigh News & Observer and The Durham Herald Sun for the period March 28 to April 10 reveal no instance of either newspaper’s editorialists or a single news columnist with either paper questioning the truthfulness or appropriateness of the CS “Wanted” poster telling the community:
The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.
Then, on April 10, someone finally spoke up and said the CS “Wanted” poster should be changed.

But it wasn’t Duke’s Dick Brodhead who requested the change, although friends say he now assures people: “I’m one of the biggest critics of how the players were treated.”

Was it a Duke trustee? A senior Duke A & S faculty member? An MSM journalist at the N&O or H-S?


On April 10 DPD Major Lee Russ, Addison’s supervisor, told him to change the “Wanted” poster.

You can read about what Russ directed Addison to do here in this N&O story.

But please note: The N&O story is wrong when it says the “Wanted” poster was first distributed on April 3. The first distribution occurred on March 28, as documents I’ve reviewed reveal, and as Russ confirmed in an interview. The N&O story is also wrong as regards the number of emails Russ sent Addison requesting corrections. Russ sent him three, not two.

The N&O’s story is reliable as regards this :
Tuesday [April 11] at 11:16 a.m., Addison e-mailed the same release, but modified the first sentence to read: "The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed."

The second sentence calling the incident a "horrific crime" was deleted.

Eighteen minutes later, an amended CrimeStoppers release was sent. The only change was that "the victim" was now referred to as "the complainant."

Addison did not return calls inquiring about the change.
And, of course, as readers of the Addison Series know, Addison’s never returned my calls either.

Maj. Russ recently told me Addison will have no comments to make on the Duke lacrosse case or the “Wanted” poster.

April 10, the date on which Russ directed Addison to change the “Wanted” poster, may spark a memory with you.

Wasn’t April 10 the day the defense attorneys learned the first round of DNA sample testing done at the “state lab” in Raleigh had all come back negative?

Wasn’t April 10 the day the defense attorneys scheduled a press conference and released that news to the community?

You’re right on both counts.

Now to two other dates: May 18 and June 13, 2006.

On each of those dates Durham attorney Alex Charns, acting on behalf of an unindicted Duke lacrosse player, made email requests of Durham’s city manager and DPD’s Chief Stephen Chalmers. [Excerpt from Charns’ June 13 email]:
Dear City Manager Baker and Chief Chalmers:

This is a follow-up Public Records Act (N.C.G.S Sec. 132-1 et seq.) request as well as my second request for an Internal Affairs or city manager investigation of the libelous posters that you admitted in the letter to me signed by Major Lee Russ, dated May 26, 2006, "was copied by a member of our agency using a Durham Police Department header". […]

In response to my initial request for certified copies of all city of Durham and Durham Police Department press releases or posters concerning the Duke lacrosse alleged rape investigation, some records were released to me.

I do not believe all records concerning these posters were given to me because I received a certified copy of the poster that I provided to the city as proof instead of copies of the poster from police department files or computers. (bold mine)

[I also have a copy of the poster Charns describes. The full text is in this post, as is a description of the poster's DPD header. Despite a lot of help from tech savvy friends, I’m unable to reproduce the header because the document came in pdf form. ]

If records have been destroyed or deleted, I request records concerning the destruction of the records including but not limited to authorizations for their destruction and the date of their destruction.
Russ’ May 26 letter was in response to Charns’ initial request for an an offical DPD investigation into the production and distribution of the "Wanted" poster and a fulll public apology by DPD and Durham City to the lacrosse player for the poster which Charns says libeled them.

Also, bear in mind that Russ explained in Addison Series #2 that DPD had no responsibility for Addison’s production of the CS “Wanted” poster (Baker’s office has confirmed to me that Russ’ position is also the position of the Durham City government. Both agencies say they have no responsibility for Addison’s “Wanted” poster.

And recall that I can’t locate anyone at any place who’ll answer for Durham CrimeStoppers.

With all that in mind, read the following email Addison sent on June 2 to media, police substations, news organizations and others on the CS distribution list. [I obtained a hard copy of the email and have it at hand.]

Addison alerted recipients his email’s importance was “High.”

His subject head: Durham CrimeStoppers Posters ????
On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, Durham CrimeStoppers sent an email asking for information regarding the events which occurred at 610 North Buchanan Street. (sic) On Monday, April 10, 2006, at the request of Durham Police Department, changes were made to the original email dated Tuesday, March 28, 2006 and sent to the media and all other recipients of Durham CrimeStoppers emails. This revised email was sent three times to the media and recipients of Durham CrimeStoppers emails. This revised email was sent three times to the media and recipients.

Durham CrimeStoppers never generated/produced any posters for this case. Customarily, posters are created for every case however Durham CrimeStoppers never created any posters for this case. Several posters have surfaced and again none were made by Durham CrimeStoppers.

I hope this information clarifies any misunderstanding. Durham CrimeStoppers is committed to being a medium between the law enforcement communities and the citizens they serve and protect. We will continue to seek information to assist in solving crimes in our community. Thank you for all of your support.

Together, we are making Durham a safer community.
It’s an interesting email, isn’t it?

To sum up:

Addison, acting as Coordinator for Durham CS, produced and distributed on March 28, 2006, the text of a CS “Wanted” poster. That text then appeared in poster form under a DPD header.

The “Wanted” poster circulated for 13 days before Russ directed that it be substantially changed the day the public would learn the DNA testing at the state lab had come back negative.

I can locate no one with Durham CrimeStoppers nor can Maj. Russ help me locate anyone with the organization.

DPD and Durham City both say they have no responsibility for the “Wanted” poster.

And DPD Cpl. David Addison wants the community to know:
Customarily, posters are created for every case however Durham CrimeStoppers never created any posters for this case. Several posters have surfaced and again none were made by Durham CrimeStoppers.
Tomorrow’s Addison Series post is titled: “Sue who?”

That will be followed by the final series post: “It’s called ‘squeezing'”

Note to helpful reader who suggested I check to see if as a non-profit engaged in fund-raising, Durham CS had filed anything with the state.

I did. I checked with the office on the NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall. Two very helpful public information officers checked records and legislation.

Several factors determine whether a non-profit must file a report with the state. Most CS organizations in the state don’t file and it’s not certain they have to. No records of filing by Durham CS could be found.