Duke's first lax suit

WRAL TV reports:

A former Duke University lacrosse player sued the university Thursday alleging that one of his professors unfairly gave him a failing grade because he was a member of the team.[…]

The 20 page complaint was filed in Durham County Superior Court on behalf of the former student, Kyle Dowd, and his parents, Patricia Dowd and Benjamin Dowd against visiting political science professor Kim F. Curtis as well as the university. You can read the complaint here. (pdf )

I was impressed when I read it; and then doubly impressed when I learned the plaintives’ attorney’s name and firm.

Since 2003, the Dowd’s attorney, Joseph E. Zeszotarski, has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America; listing being the result of peer review rankings. He’s a Past Chair of both the Criminal Law Section, North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers and the Criminal Justice Section, North Carolina Bar Association.

Zeszotarski’s law firm, Poyner & Spruill, has over 100 attorneys, and is one of the most important and respected law firms in the Southeast.

What about Professor Curtis? A search of Duke's website reveals she been a "visiting professor" since at least 1996. (Yes, 10 years is a long visit. But then leftist professors seem somehow to like Duke even though many of them say terrible things about it. At least they stay and stay and stay even when they're only "visiting.")

Curtis is a signatory of the notorious Duke Arts & Science faculty Group of 88 "listening statement."

She comments often on public issues. Here's some of what she said shortly after 9/11:

Taking another example, many feel distress over the long-time support by the U.S. of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, whose oppression of women has been brutal. The distress this knowledge engenders is useful because it reveals the current administration's effort to position the U.S. as a defender of the rights of Afghani women for what it is: a cynical effort to orchestrate support for its war. This support depends upon controlling its citizens' knowledge of and feelings about this ugly history.

We violate our students' trust in not raising critical issues such as these, and by not teaching them to let these emotions move their intellect along paths other than those the authorities wish.

KC Johnson has more on Curtis' background and the Dowd suit here.

Final item: On Oct. 26 I posted: "KC Johnson at Duke tonight." On the post's thread Locomotive Breath has just reminded me there's this comment:

Judith said...

My wonderfully politically incorrect son, who was a Duke ROTC student, an athlete and an outspoken conservative will be there.

He was also a victim of "selective" justice" in Spring 2004 when he was a student of Professor Kim Curtis, one of the Group of 88. She FAILED him for the entire course for turning in ONE paper ONE DAY late. After finals were over, and students were dismissed for the summer, she brought charges against him for Lying with the Undergraduate Judicial Board.

His hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2004 (before classes even started) and he was not even able to present any credible defense. He was found GUILTY and suspended for two semesters.

He was ordered to vacate his West Campus dorm room within 48 hours, and his Duke Card was invalidated so that he could not buy a meal or even get into his dorm room to start moving out.

I have written about him a bit on the KC Johnson's blog, Duke in Wonderland. My issue is not my son's case, it is that these 88 professors are a threat to any student who does not toe their intellectual line.

I am willing to provide documentation regarding my son's case to anyone with a credible interest.

I hadn't done anything with the comment until tonight when I emailed it with a brief cover note to attorney Zeszotarski.

I know we'll all stay tuned on this one.

This just in: The Raleigh News & Observer is reporting the Dowd suit

Sheehan column links and an "old" JinC post

Some of you have asked for Sheehan column links:

Here's a link to her Mar. 27 "Team's Silence is Sickening" column:

And here's a link to her equally awful Apr. 3 "Shut down the team" column in which she tells Duke that it should "dump" Coach Pressler, something Duke did two days later.

While researching for a post I'll put up later today, I came upon the JinC post below, "Duke lacrosse: Seeking to avoid responsibility."

I posted it on June 19. Note that I said then the players were "possibly" the victims of crimes. The "possibly" doesn't really belong in there now, does it?

Anyway, you may find the post interesting reading. And those of you who are regaular readers of Sheehan will see, I'm sorry to say, that she hasn't changed since June 19.

John
____________________________________________________

Raleigh News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan is getting kudos today for acknowledging that Durham DA Mike Nifong may not be all he should be and ought to step out of the Duke lacrosse case.

I’m glad Sheehan’s saying that but I’m very troubled by something else she does in her column.

Sheehan excuses herself and the rest of media from any responsibility for the hysterical, vigilante atmosphere that’s targeted the players and made a terrible situation worse, including more dangerous.

According to Sheehan, it’s all Nifong’s fault. She tells readers :

Say all you want about the media's rush to judgment. But the truth is we report on allegations and charges out of district attorneys' offices every single day. And when a DA, especially one with Nifong's reputation for being a quiet, behind-the-scenes guy, comes out not only saying that a rape occurred, but that it was a brutal gang rape, in which the woman was strangled and beaten, you had to figure he had incontrovertible evidence.

No you didn’t. That’s nonsense!

We’ve all heard sometimes defense attorneys spin cases; DAs do it too. Sheehan knows that.

She also knows that in recent years, we’ve had in North Carolina a number of highly publicized cases in which DAs have committed very serious wrongs, including withholding evidence that proved innocence.

Then there were all the pressures of a tough election campaign weighing on Nifong.

Most of all, Sheehan knows about presumption of innocence and due process.

What all of us had to figure out when the Duke lacrosse case broke was how to be fair and respect the rights of the accuser and the accused.

For Sheehan and the N&O that proved to be a “Mission Impossible.”

Let’s take a look at just how the McClatchy news organization’s N&O (Its motto: “Fair and Accurate”) and Sheehan went about reporting the story as it first became public.

On Mar. 24 the N&O broke the Duke lacrosse story with a report calculated to turn public sentiment against the lacrosse players.

The N&O referred seven times in that report to the accuser as either “the victim” or with the possessive “victim’s,” never once preceding them with “alleged” or “reported.”

Thus, in the first story other media and the public would read about the Duke lacrosse case, the N&O cast the accuser as the victim leaving the accused players cast as victimizers.

The next day the N&O produced a sympathetic interview with the accuser which it headlined across five columns on page one:

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

But the N&O’s Mar. 25 story was about more than a sympathetic interview with the anonymous accuser.

A police officer was quoted as saying the police would “be relentless in finding out who committed this crime." The N&O followed that with an explanation that it granted anonymity to “victims of sex crimes.”

The N&O told readers authorities had vowed to crack the players’ “wall of silence.” The N&O didn’t tell readers about the cooperation players had provided police until advised by counsels to remain silent until counsels were certain the players’ rights would be respected.

The N&O ended its Mar. 25 story with this:

[Duke’s Paul] Haagen, a law professor who specializes in sports law, said studies show that violence against women is more prevalent among male athletes than among male students in general -- and higher still among such "helmet sports" as football, hockey and lacrosse.

"These are sports of violence," he said. "This is clearly a concern."

Prosecutors try to end their jury summations with something that helps the jurors understand why the accused would have committed the crime or crimes. They call it “the clincher.”

I don’t know if N&O reporters and editors have a name for their placement of Haagen’s remarks at the end of an interview in which the accuser “told her story.” (Well, one of them.)

I also don’t know whether Professor Haagen was told his remarks would be part of the accuser interview story or how they would be used. I plan to email him and ask. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

On Mar. 26 the N&O reported on a vigil at the house on Buchanan Blvd held by supporters of the woman the N&O reported two days earlier was the “victim” of an horrendous crime.

Here’s an excerpt from the Mar. 26 report:

"This is to let her know that we're with her," Tompkins said. "If anyone could come and take a piece of her grief, we would."

Religious groups, neighborhood associations, and students and faculty from the university sang "Amazing Grace" and prayed.

Allyson Van Wyk challenged parents of the lacrosse players to talk to their children.

"The parents need to make them stand up and be men," she shouted.

The next day, Mar. 27, Sheehan followed that with her “Team's silence is sickening” column, in which she savaged the players for doing no more than following advice of counsel. She ended with:

Every member of the men's lacrosse team knows who was involved, whether it was gang rape or not.

Until the team members come forward with that information, forfeiting games isn't enough.

Shut down the team.

But what did the N&O report Nifong said as the N&O broke the story and during the next few days?

I undertook a customized search of N&O archives for the period Mar. 24 to Mar. 30 using the input word “Nifong.”

The first time an article with “Nifong” appeared in the search result was Mar. 28, after the publication of the N&O’s first three Duke lacrosse stories and Sheehan’s column.

Separate searches using the same dates and the input terms “District Attorney” and “DA” failed to turn up any archived items referencing or quoting Nifong in any capacity before Mar. 28.

On Mar. 28 Nifong appears in two N&O stories in the full Nifong mode so many of us have come to abhor.

In one story he calls the players “a bunch of hooligans” and in the other he says, "We're talking about a situation where had somebody spoken up and said, 'Wait a minute, we can't do this,' this incident might not have taken place."

I don’t question that Nifong’s remarks in the Mar. 28 articles were prejudicial to the lacrosse players. But they followed the N&O’s first three stories and Sheehan’s column.

By all means we should hold Nifong accountable for his actions.

But we must do the same with Sheehan, the N&O, and the rest of media that acted in ways that were grossly prejudicial to a group of college students who we may yet learn are the victims of a monumental injustice, and possibly, of crimes.

We must not let Sheehan, the N&O or the rest of media involved in unfairly targeting and framing the players dump what they are responsible for onto Nifong.

That shouldn’t happen because it would be unfair. And it shouldn’t happen because if they avoid acknowledging and correcting what they’ve done, it’s more likely that other individuals and groups will suffer unfair treatment from much of media just as the players have.

Media in America need to be held to a high standard; and it can’t be one it decides for itself.

Which of us would want to receive from a major news organization the kind of treatment the Duke lacrosse players received from the "Fair and Accurate" Raleigh News & Observer?
_________________________________________________
Post URLs
http://www.newsobserver.com/138/story/452286.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/742/v-print/story/421494.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/138/story/422462.html

The Churchill Series - Jan. 3, 2006

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

Readers Note: Here's the last of the "Amusing Oldies:" post that have appeared before but which I'm posting again during the holiday season in the hope they will give you smiles and perhaps a story or two to share with family and friends.

Tomorrow, new posts resume.

John
_____________________________________________________


During WW II Churchill frequently worked 18 or more hours a day. And he sometimes went days with just a few hours sleep per night. His aides were often forced to keep those same hours, much to their displeasure.

Detective- Inspector Walter Thompson, for many years Churchill’s principal bodyguard, recalled the time in June, 1940 when Churchill and his party had just arrived back in England after two exhausting days in France trying to persuade the French not to agree to an armistice with the Germans.

The party had just landed at Hendon airport near London when Churchill announced, “We will have a Cabinet meeting at 10 p. m.”

The Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, was dismayed. “Surely not tonight, Winston,” Halifax pleaded. “We have had a long day; it will make such a late night.”

Churchill paused a moment before saying, “All right, we’ll make it 9:30 instead.”
_____________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard: The Authorized Biography of Walter H. Thompson. (pgs. 117-118)

Can you believe this N&O news columnist

Folks,

I don't have time tonight to do the work I want to do on some of the very questionable statements The Raleigh News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan made in her Jan. 1 column.

But I'll be at it tomorrow.

I plan to question why Sheehan said to readers:

What kind of dimwitted fools does Nifong believe us, and the potential jurors, to be?

I ask this, of course, from some experience.

I was one of the hopelessly naive who fell -- hard -- for Nifong's original depiction of the case.

In statements the State Bar now says violated ethics rules, Nifong described in detail the horrors of the alleged gang rape, including an attempted strangulation and racial insults.

Like others, I was outraged. And I wrote about it. I make no apology for that.

If you fell -- hard -- for what Sheehan told readers, you're no doubt saying to yourself: "Gee, poor Ruthie, she was fooled by Nifong just like me. I must send her a 'Cheer up; it's not your fault' card."

Ah, but if you've keep reasonable track of things, you know Sheehan viciously attacked the Duke students for following the advice of their parents and attorneys in a column that ran in the N&O on Mar. 27, before Mike Nifong spoke publicly about the case.

Mike Nifong is an early riser, so he had plenty of time to read Sheehan's Mar. 27 column before later in the day speaking publicly for the first time about a case that Sheehan had already said involved a team's silence that was sickening.

But now she's blaming Nifong for "his oringinal depiction of the case."

I want Nifong disbarred. I think he should go to jail. But he shouldn't be Sheehan's excuse for her column unless he spoke to her before she wrote it or spoke to other N&O staffers who "fed" Sheehan what she wrote.

I'll have more to say tomorrow.

Nifong can heal?

It looks like the NC State Bar, his fellow NC DAs and possibly other legal agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice will put Nifong & Enablers out of the frame-up and conspiracy business.

Faced with that loss, MSM news organizations say Nifong’s now planning to open a healing business.

But that doesn’t make any sense. As award-winning blogger, Duke Mom and Raleigh Charter School teacher Betsy Newmark points out:

The only way he could help Durham heal is to confess his abuse of power and acknowledge that he now knows that the accuser made the story up and that the lacrosse players are guilty of no more than bad judgment.

Betsy’s right about all of that, isn't she?

Well that got me asking: Could MSM news orgs be wrong when they say Nifong’s going into the healing business?

I’m wondering if what Nifong was really telling MSM was that he was going into the heeling business.

Wordnet offers as one definition of heel someone who is reprehensible. Remember the line in the old Jimmy Cagney movie: “You dirty, rotten heel?”

Who doubts Nifong belongs in the heel business?

In fact, I'm sure many of you know Nifong’s been in the heel business for quite some time; and on the public payroll at that.

We’ll all be relieved when Nifong goes into the heel business for himself and not at the expense of innocent people and justice.

Blogging resumes tonight

Folks,

Today's a travel day but by 8 pm or so tonight I'll have a few posts up:

One will concern Nifong and reports of "healing."

Another will be a fact-based inquiry to N&O news columnist regarding some statements she made in her Jan. 1 column.

I hope you are back tonight or tomorrow.

John

The Churchill Series - Jan. 2, 2006

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

Here's another "Amusing Oldie:" a post which has run previously, but is here again during this holiday period in the hope it may give you a smile and perhaps a story to share with family and friends.

New posts begin again on Jan. 4.

John
____________________________________________________________

Today I saw one of America's finest, this one in Army uniform, enjoying a beer.

She brought to mind Ben Franklin and Winston Churchill.

It was Franklin who said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

And it was Churchill who,on October 21, 1944, flew from Cairo to Naples where he met with Allied military leaders, including General Harold Alexander, commander of British troops in Italy.

Alexander pressed Churchill with many requests. One was for more beer for British troops.

Churchill promptly sent a minute to the Secretary of State for War, saying in part:

The Americans are said to have four bottles a week, and the British rarely get one. You should make an immediate effort, and come to me for support in case other Departments are involved.

Let me have a plan with time schedule for this beer. The question of importing ingredients should also be considered.

The priority in issue is to go to the fighting troops at the front, and only work back to the rear as and when supplies open out.

I think Churchill and Franklin would have got along splendidly, at least most of the time.

And wouldn't we have loved to join them for dinner. Or even just a beer, if they were busy.
______________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Road to Victory. (p. 1036)(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Pajamas expose Nifong

Early this morning DA Mike Nifong got up, dressed, drove with his wife to the courthouse, and was sworn in in private while media and the public were locked outside.

Nifong later assured media and the public it wasn’t his fault they were locked out.

But, like so much Nifong says, that wasn’t true.

Pajama media folks quickly moved into action, and helped expose Nifong’s full-frontal, naked lie.

WRAL had reported:

District Attorney Mike Nifong, under fire for his handling of the Duke University lacrosse case and public statements he has made about the investigation, was sworn in for his first four-year term early Tuesday out of the public eye.

Nifong insisted he didn't make the call to keep out the media or the public from the ceremony, but said he scheduled it for 8 a.m. so his staff could go straight to work afterward without dealing with the media.

Durham County Sheriff Worth Hill, whose office runs the courthouse, said it wasn't his call either -- it's just that the building doesn't open to the public until 8:30 a.m.

Well, that all seemed simple enough.

But when a serial liar is involved, few things are simple.

Citizen journalist KRD Durham alerted readers at Liestoppers Forum that a Durham County Sheriff’s Captain had contradicted Nifong.

The Captain said Nifong had made the call to lock out media and the public.

LS checked KRD Durham’s report. It stood up.

So LS moved the report to its main page. KDR reported:

"Man, Tivo is one of the greatest inventions…

"When asked who made the call to keep the press out, Nifong replied, “I don’t know that there was such a call.”

Then a reporter tries to clarify, “But it wasn’t you?” Nifong replied, “There’s no reason for me to make such a call, I scheduled it at 8:00 knowing full well the courthouse opened at 8:30.”

"Then the sheriff’s deputy is interviewed, Capt. Bill Wrenn, “I went up and asked did they want to let anyone in the building, and I was told no.”

"Anthony Wilson (wtvd11 reporter) then asks, “Who told you no?”

"Capt. Wrenn replies, “I asked Mr. Nifong.”

You can check what KDR reported by viewing and listening to Carolina 14's video.

Message to KDR: Great catch.

To KDR and LS: Great teamwork.

To Mike Nifong: You shouldn't lie.

To readers: Part of the importance of KDR and LS's work has to do with the fact that many news editors now monitor "the Duke lacrosse blogs." They'll know that what KDR and LS spotlighted is somewhere in the AP story that will cross their wires tonight.

Some editors may choose to ignore what KDR and LS reported but in the morning they won't be able to tell blog-savvy readers they didn't know Nifong had told a lie about ordering the courthouse locked.

Back to KDR and LS: Your pajamas look mighty nice tonight.

Nifong’s appropriateness

Since DA Mike Nifong hid exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense and public during his election campaign, there was a shameful appropriateness to his hiding his swearing in ceremony from media and the public.

Media and the public were also given a false story as to why they couldn’t witness and record Nifong swearing to uphold the Constitution.

Given Nifong’s conduct as DA, a false story was a most appropriate beginning to Nifong’s new term.

Now at newsobserver.com we find this headline: “Nifong swearing-in becomes private.”

Since Nifong’s used the public office of DA for his private benefit, could the N&O have run a more appropriate headline?

Usually a swearing in is something the office-holder looks forward to and welcomes friends and the public to attend.

But Nifong’s swearing in confronted him with two choices:

1) Bad – Hide from the public, put out a false cover story and take a pounding for that

2) Worse than Bad – Have the cameras record and the public witness his swearing to uphold the Constitution, and then face the national scorn and anger that would follow that.

Nifong knew his Bad choice was the best he could hope for.

Don’t believe his denials. He, like us, knows “the noose is tightening.”

Nifong hides, dissembles

While campaigning for election, Durham DA Mike Nifong conspired to hide exculpatory DNA evidence from defense attorneys and the public.

Today, at the start of new term, Nifong effectively turned the Durham County Courthouse into a bunker so he could hide from the public as he swore the two oaths of office all NC judicial office holders must swear.

Both oaths required Nifong to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

No wonder he hid.

Carolina Journal publisher and blogger Jon Ham was at the Courthouse. His minute-by-minute report begins:

Durham DA Mike Nifong was indeed sworn in this morning at 8 a.m. in the Durham Judicial Building. The only problem is the building does not open to the public until 8:30 a.m. Consequently, a gaggle of upset media types were stuck outside until the ceremony was over.

At 8:03 a.m. there was a bit of excitement when a deputy opened one of the doors and said, “Come on in, cameras in hand.” But he was shouted down by two other deputies who yelled, “Don’t let them in.”

The rest of Jon’s account is here.

He says he’ll have photos and video later. I’ll keep checking in. You can to at Jon’s blog, Right Angles.

Liestoppers reports:

The excuse given at the courthouse door was that a scheduling errror prevented public access to the courthouse which does not open until 8:30AM, while the swearing-in was scheduled for 8:00AM.

Curiously, last months's swearing-in of Clerk of the Court, Archie Smith was open to the press and the public despite also taking place at 8:00AM (Monday December 4, 2006).

So there’s Listoppers acting as an alert liecatcher. The rest of LS’s report is here.

While it's revolting, it's also very fitting that Nifong began his new term hiding something important and lying.

Let’s keep working to get him out of office, disbarred and in jail.

The Churchill Series – Jan. 1, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts concerning Winston S. Churchill.)

New Year’s Day and Champagne.

In 1915 Churchill wrote his brother that he was enjoying the four essentials of daily life. Cold champagne was, of curse, one of them. The others were hot baths, new peas and old brandy.

From at least 1908 through the rest of his life, Pol Roger was his favorite champagne.

From his letters we know that Churchill began drinking champagne while still in his teens.

As WW II was ending and the Champagne region was liberated, he wrote Pol Roger and placed an order. Concerning its bubbly, he told Pol Roger: “In defeat it need it, in victory I deserve it.”

During the early 1950s when he owned a racing stable, Churchill named one of his horses Pol Roger. It won three races.

Now, here’s to you and a healthy and happy 2007.

Talking with Regulars and Readers – 12-31-06 (Part 2)

This is a continuation of today’s first “talking post” which I understand some of you missed because you spent most of the day with DA Mike Nifong helping him select his defense attorneys.

You’re just in time now to get my New Year’s wishes for all Regulars and Readers (sans trolls):

Every blessing to each of you in 2007.

Here and at other blogs, boards, etc you’ve spoken up and asked for reliable information from MSM news organizations.

You’ve examined what MSM offered and sorted “the chaff from the wheat.”

Often, most of what we’ve gotten from MSM has been “the chaff.”

But that hasn’t discouraged you.

You’ve pressed for information and called "chaff" what it is.

And together with others, you’ve made a difference.

If you doubt that, go take a look at the posts and comment threads at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog.

The N&O editors thought the EB would be the place where they could “explain journalism to our readers;” and you would just go along with what the “news professionals” fed us.

Not so!

The Editors’ Blog has become a place where you and others are demanding the N&O disclose the important information it withheld from readers and other news organizations when it ran its now infamous and discredited Mar. 25 anonymous interview story.

You are doing that and so much more at the EB. Melanie Sill and the other editors barely finish their incomplete, misleading and, in some cases, outright false statement before one of you or someone like you is posting a response. And others of you follow.

On just about every important story the N&O editors have tried to “sell readers,” you and others have put the editors in “checkmate.”

You've done all of that and I haven’t even begun to talk about the work many of you do over at Liestoppers, Free Republic, etc. as well as the support you give bloggers and pundits such as KC Johnson, Bill Anderson, Betsy Newmark, La Shawn Barber, Lori Byrd, Jason Trumpbour and many others.

Mixed in with the work are the laughs we have together.

I could go on but you know what I'm saying.

BAD NEWS ALERT FOR NIFONG, CERTAIN DURHAM POLICE OFFICERS, THE N&O, PRESIDENT BRODHEAD, THE "88," AND OTHER ENABLERS: We'll be back - stronger and more resolved - in 2007.

Folks, I’m looking forward to working with you.

I’ll make one prediction about something we’ll help make happen in ’07.

We’ll learn with reasonable certainty just what it was the false accuser said to the N&O that was so important and libelous that the N&O suppressed it; and to this day has failed to tell its trusting print readers what it did.

Every blessing,

John

Talking with Regulars and Readers - 12-31-06

(Readers Note: This is an old type web logger post. John)

Folks,

You remain, among other things, the best editors a blogger could have. A little while ago in "Singing Nifong Out," I referred to “Scotch ancestors.” One of you let me know it should have been “Scot ancestors.” Thanks, especially for "working" on New Year's Eve.

Other matters ---

Even if you believed it was going to happen to Nifong, did you believe it would happen so quickly and forcefully?

Every other DA in North Carolina is now telling him, in effect, "In the name of God, go!"

Even Duke's President, Richard H. Brodhead has jumped ship.

Sure, Nifong hasn't been disbarred yet, but do you doubt that will happen?

The "betting question" now is can Nifong avoid jail?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'll say something else.

When the Feds come in, as I think they will, and start to unravel what I believe were multiple conspiracies that led, first to the framing of the three innocent young men, and second, to actions to cover up those conspiracies, what will Nifong have to "trade" in exchange for his cooperation?

I wanted to say more but I'm "out of time now."

I'll be back this evening with more Talking.

All the best to you.

You’re a very special group. I'll say more about that tonight.

John

Contacting Wendy Murphy

Legal historian and blogger KC Johnson has just posted, “The Wendy Murphy File.”

If you’ve already read it, you might want to skip down below the star line where I begin commentary and report on action taken.

I hope the rest of you read KC’s post. Here are excerpts beginning with quotes from Wendy Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law:

"To suggest [the indicted players] were well behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?"
--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

"I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child."
--“CNN Live,” 3 May 2006

"I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth."
--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

Three elements of this case distinguish it from its high-profile criminal counterparts.

First, the behavior and statements of the students’ own professors were cited as grounds for a change of venue—an action all but unprecedented in modern American criminal law. Second, blogs have played an important (and, I would argue, helpful) role. Third, the 24-hour cable news networks seized upon the case from the start, and have continued commentary more sporadically thereafter.

Sometimes, these shows have offered quality commentary—the “Abrams Report” early on, some broadcasts of “Greta” in recent weeks. Often, however, these programs feature little more than talking heads, with one adopting a pro-prosecution slant and another praising the defense.

A frequent guest on MSNBC, FOX, and CBS has been Wendy Murphy. Usually described as a former “sex crimes prosecutor” and law professor at Boston’s New England School of Law, she’s actually an adjunct professor, an inconvenient fact she rarely, if ever, reveals.

Murphy defended Nifong in a recent USA Today op-ed—and her remarks were eviscerated by Liestoppers, which also has nominated her as a “hag of the hoax.”

Murphy’s bizarre claims to USA Today prompted me to perform a Lexis/Nexis search of her myriad case-related appearances. The results were deeply disturbing.

In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.

Given that the preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states that “a lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice,” Murphy’s behavior raises some serious questions:

• What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

• How could the Massachusetts Bar license such a figure to practice law?

• How could Dean John O’Brien of New England School of Law allow such a figure to teach future lawyers? […]

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

Most of you are familiar with the careful, extensivly documented posts KC Johnson produces on a daily basis. But I’m betting Wendy Murphy isn’t.

I doubt she’s read, for instance, “Roy Cooper’s Silence.” KC published that post back in June. Its topic? The NC laws and statues that related to DA Mike Nifong’s conduct and which would allow for his removal from what we were then calling “the Duke lacrosse case.”

In May KC posted “Gagging in Durham.” It included this:

If nothing else can be said about this case, it’s that the accuser has received the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, the state went so far in giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt that one prominent legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano, has predicted that the case could end with Nifong’s losing his license to practice law.

I doubt Murphy has read that post, either.

Advice to Wendy Murphy: Start following KC Johnson. Begin with “The Wendy Murphy File.” Then go back and read the two posts I’ve cited here and others in which for many months KC's pointed out actions of Nifong that merited NC State Bar review and action.

As I’m sure you know, our NC State Bar just announced it's been reviewing Nifong’s conduct and will take action with regard to it.

Now KC is calling attention to some of your public conduct; and how it appears to fail to conform to the standards the Massachusetts State Bar says its members must uphold.

For many months Nifong ignored, even ridiculed his critics. He should have taken them more seriously, especially KC Johnson and others like him.

Message to JinC readers: I’m sending Wendy Murphy the email below. I’ll let you know if I hear back.
_______________

Dear Professor Murphy:

I blog at www.johnincarolina.com and have posted often on what has really now become the Nifong Hoax Case.

I’ve never posted concerning your case commentary but my attention was drawn to legal historian KC Johnson’s post today: “The Wendy Murphy File.”

But Johnson’s post provides so much documentation and deals with such important matters, that I’ve posted on it.

Here’s a link to my post, “Contacting Wendy Murphy:”

I’ll publish in full a response you make to Johnson’s post. My practice is to let a respondent’s post “sit” on the main page for a day or two before responding. That gives the respondent a chance to “have a say” without my immediately jumping in. It also allows JinC readers to judge for themselves the respondent’s reply.

JinC is read often by journalists here in North Carolina and elsewhere.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
www.johnincarolina.com
____________________________

Message to KC Johnson: When I finished reading your Wendy Murphy File post, I didn’t say, “KC can't top today’s post.” That’s because every time I say you can’t top one post, you go on and produce another post that’s even better.

So I’ll just say: “Thank you for reminding Murphy she's a member of the Massachusetts State Bar; and for letting us know what we should expect from Murphy by virtue of her Bar membership.

I hope she has sense, care and character enough to respond fully and professionally to your post.

Singing Nifong out

At Christmas JinC Regular and citizen journalist Locomotive Breath gave us "Nifong Roasting," a satirical rewording of the lyrics to the Nat King Cole Christmas favorite that begins: "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire."

Now, just in time for New Year's Eve, LB offers another set of lyrics. He writes:

From constant repetition, “Auld Lang Syne” has an instantly recognizable tune and first three lines. ...

I offer my deepest apologies to my Scot forebears for this desecration of the holy writ of Robert Burns.

I’m introducing it early in the day to give plenty of time for it to be forgotten by midnight.

This is a song of commiseration, unity and eventual triumph for the Duke lacrosse team and is intended, like the original, to be sung at an annual celebration of the hoped-for and ever-more-likely complete exoneration of the entire Duke lax team and the disbarment of Mike Nifong.

I’m sorry to add to their misfortune, but this song is dedicated to Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

Auld Nifong Bind

When equal justice is forgot, and never brought to mind.
When equal justice is forgot; you get the Nifong bind.

You get the Nifong bind, my friend.
You get the Nifong bind.
When equal justice is forgot.
You get the Nifong bind

Fantastic liar finger points, DA indicts in time.
He’s won election on our backs; he used the Nifong bind.

He used the Nifong bind, my friend.
He used the Nifong bind.
He’s won election on our backs.
He used the Nifong bind.

Once we stood astride the field, we scored and won and shined.
He’s stolen all that’s dear to us, while in the Nifong bind.

While in the Nifong bind, my friend.
While in the Nifong bind.
He’s stolen all that’s dear to us.
While in the Nifong bind.

You know that I am by your side, and I know you’re by mine.
We’ll stick together to the end; we’ll break the Nifong bind.

We’ll break the Nifong bind, my friend.
We’ll break the Nifong bind.
We’ll stick together to the end.
We’ll break the Nifong bind.

The DA should have thought it through; the bar will find his crimes.
He’ll never practice law again; he’s in the Nifong bind.

He’s in the Nifong bind, my friend.
He’s in the Nifong bind.
He’ll never practice law again.
He’s in the Nifong bind.

Locomotive Breath adds:

A year from now, I hope we can change some of the future tense to past tense.

“We’ll break the Nifong bind.” becomes “We broke the Nifong bind.” and “…the bar will find his crimes.” becomes “…the bar has found his crimes”, etc.

And FWIW I wrote the lines about the bar before the recent announcement. Anyone could see that coming sooner or later.

Do I really think that I’m going to find the Duke lacrosse team singing this song next year?

Naaah – my doggerel won’t hunt.

JinC – keep up the good work.

Happy New Year everyone!
_______________________________________

Message to Locomotive Breath: We're all looking forward to that tense change. A big hat tip for your latest.

Message to everyone else: From the beginning, Locomotive Breath has been one of the justice seekers.

Put it here, LB

LB is Locomotive Breath, a JiC Regular and one of those commenters and citizen journalists who so upsets Melanie Sill, the executive editor for news at the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer.

At The McClatchy Company sponsored Editors' Blog where Sill and four other N&O editors do what they call "blogging," Sill often scolds LB and other commenters who don't fully identify themselves.

For months now, Sill's been upset with such commenters because they've raised questions about the N&O's infamous and discredited Mar. 25 interview story with the anonymous false accuser the N&O told everyone was really "the victim."

Sill gets even more upset when readers ask why the N&O published anonymously the notorious "Vigilante" poster.

Sill gets so upset at the mention of the "Vigilante" poster that she even claims the N&O actually didn't publish it anonymously.

We'll get back to all of that in 2007.

What I want to say here is: Remember "Roasting Nifong?"

LB's written another parody, this time to the tune of Auld Lang Syne.

LB needs a "drop" for the lyrics. This post is LB's drop. I'll take his comment from the thread and put it on the main page.

I'll be back in the morning with a Talking with Regulars and Readers post.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 29, 2006

Readers Note: Today you'll read another "Amusing Oldie:" a post I ran before but which is one of a series I'm running this week with the hope that they will give you smiles and perhaps stories to share with family and friends during the holidays.

John
__________________________________


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

Did you know Churchill disliked whistling? His aides did and made sure not to whistle when he was around.

But there was a London newsboy who didn’t know about Churchill’s dislike. What’s more, when he learned of it from Churchill himself, the boy didn’t care.

The incident happened one day as Churchill and his bodyguard, Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, were making the short walk from Parliament to 10 Downing Street. As Thompson tells it:

Approaching …(us) was a boy of about thirteen years of age, hands in pockets, newspapers under his arms, whistling loudly and cheerfully.

When the boy drew near, Winston hunched his shoulders, walked towards the boy and said in a stern voice: “Stop that whistling.”

The boy looked up at the Prime Minister with complete unconcern and answered: “Why should I?”

“Because I don’t like it and it’s a horrible noise,” growled Winston.

The boy moved onwards a few steps, then turned round and called out: “Well, you can shut your ears, can’t you?”

With that he walked on.

Winston was completely taken aback , and for a moment he looked furious. Then, as he crossed the road, he began to smile and quietly repeated to himself the words “You can shut your ears, can’t you?” and followed it up with a hearty chuckle.

I wonder whether Churchill chuckled because in his mind’s eye he saw something of himself in the boy.
______________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard. (pgs, 116-117)

Nifong Hoax LOLs

Blogger Jon Ham, a Durham resident and former Durham Herald Sun editor when it was a respected community newspaper, has done some fine posting on the Hoax.

Today,something different. Jon sent along a link to a brief, fun video his daughter, columnist Mary Katherine Ham, put together of various sites in Durham where certain things didn’t happen. It had me LOL. You can view it here.

Something else. I went to Jon’s blog, Right Angles, a few minutes ago and saw a photo which, like Mary Katherine’s video, had me LOL. If you’re not from this part of Carolina it might help you to know before you look at the photo that felons here wear short sleeve, orange jumpsuits.

Take a look. Is it a vision of what’s to come?

Boyd's still a favorite

I visit David Boyd's blog because he can put so much good sense and "punch" into a few words.

Here's one Boyd post:

It's the power, stupid

Sowell:

Progressives are in the business of complaining and denouncing — as a prelude to seeking sweeping powers to control other people’s lives, in the name of curing the ills of society.

_________________________________________
And here's another:

Safety nets not mattresses

Antle:

...apparently we have lost sight of the conservative, as opposed to purely libertarian, reasons for limiting government. It is exactly because the welfare state cannot replicate the benefits of organic institutions like families, neighborhoods, and congregations; it can only make it easier for atomized individuals to live without these vital institutions. Welfarism tends to crowd out civil society just as surely as public spending crowds out private investment.

The purely libertarian reasons are enough for me, however he's on to something. It's impossible to replace mothers and fathers - even if you have a seemingly infinite supply of government bureaucrats.

______________________________________________

Folks, I hope you give David a visit. I think you'll like his blog. He's a "neighbor" blogger "just down the road" near Greenboro

Klayman enters Nifong case

If Mike Nifong thought things couldn’t get worse, he’s wrong because at PRNewswire we read:

Today, Larry Klayman, former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, U.S. Senate candidate and now in private practice, filed an ethics complaint against Michael Nifong, the Durham District Attorney who has abused his official position in the investigations and indictments of certain Duke Lacrosse players.

The complaint, filed with the Grievance Committee of The North Carolina State Bar, tracks a USA Today editorial of the same date which lays out the charges against Nifong.[…]

Klayman took a special interest in this matter because he is a graduate of Duke University having received a Bachelor of Arts Degree with Honors in 1973.

Ironically, Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch in 1994 to fight against government corruption in the legal and governmental systems, and who spent years taking on wrongdoing in Washington, D.C. and around the world during the Clinton and Bush administrations, graduated on the same day as Ken Starr, who received a law degree from Duke in 1973.

During the Clinton years, Klayman was thought incorrectly to be working with Starr in the events which led up to the impeachment of then President Bill Clinton.

"The misuse of government power which the world has witnessed with Michael Nifong is part and parcel to the wrongs I have fought against throughout my legal career," stated Klayman. "When it comes to ruining the reputation of Duke, my alma mater, and harming its students, I take a special interest. I will not rest until Nifong is brought to justice," Klayman added.

At one time Klayman and Judicial Watch were pursuing more than 20 separate lawsuits against the Clinton administration. Klayman was involved in both the Paula Jones case and Pardongate. By reputation he’s a very smart, “overlook nothing/ pursue everything” attorney.

This Washington Post article tells you something about him. But you must also read the sidebar “Related articles.” That way you’ll learn even more about Klayman, and see once more how MSM news organizations slant the news, something we’ve seen so much of since Nifong started his hoax.

Message to Klayman: Welcome to Durham and Raleigh. A lot of us down here hope you bring the Feds with you.

Message to Charlotte Observer, Raleigh N&O and Durham H-S: Why are you all ignoring this important development?

When was the last time a nationally known attorney and public advocate who’s successfully sued a President of the United States got involved in an ethics case against a North Carolina DA?

Klayman makes things happen: just ask Ms. Paula Jones or former President William Jefferson Clinton.

Message to readers: I’m sending Klayman a link to this post. I’ll invite his comment and let you know what happens.

Stay free, journalists

Readers Note: Here’s another post by Bob Wilson, a well-respected and now retired Carolina journalist with thirty-plus years experience in North Carolina.

John
_____________________________________________________

The Raleigh News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer are North Carolina’s two largest papers. As journalists say, “They have the means.”

So why weren’t either one of them the first paper in the state to call for Durham DA Mike Nifong’s resignation?

That distinction – and distinction it is among NC journalists who value public service – belongs to The Wilmington Star which told readers:

[Nifong] owes an explanation to the people who elected him.

He owes it to the people of this state.

But he owes them more: his resignation.

IMHO The Star is leading the state on the resignation issue because its editorial pages staff is tough, smart and independent of interest group considerations

Which brings me to The Durham Herald-Sun and its editor, Bob Ashley.

Full disclosure: I was editor of the Herald-Sun editorial pages from 1991 to
2005, when Kentucky-based Paxton Media Group, one of the true bottom-feeders in American journalism, bought the paper at a vastly inflated price.

In the early 1970s when I was an N&O reporter, Ashley worked for the now defunct Raleigh Times. He was a personable guy who filed his stories on time.

But as an editor in Durham, Ashley has made some serious mistakes at the H-S. The paper's falling circulation is a reliable indicator of those mistakes.

Ashley came to Durham from a small-town newspaper that curries favor with local interest groups. Durham, however, is not a small town. It is a mid-size city. It's population is about half white and half black, with a growing Hispanic presence. And it is a city with raw-bone racial politics; indeed, it has been said that Durham is so tough it eats its dead.

Ashley quickly aligned the H-S with the Durham's largest and most influential political group, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

That alone was a major compromise of the H-S' independence, but Ashley also set about ingratiating himself and the paper with Durham's manifold civic clubs, charitable organizations and religious groups, and, yes, Mike Nifong. You name it, Ashley was there.

So what's wrong with that? Everything.

A newspaper that sides with interest groups, political figures and the like puts its credibility up for target practice. That's been a long-term issue with the N&O, which is still seen today by many North Carolinians as a mouthpiece for the state's Democratic Party.

I don't know if the St. Louis-Post Dispatch, once one of the country's better newspapers, still requires its editorial writers to stay free of membership in local organizations, but the idea remains sound.

I never joined any local political groups, civic clubs or other organizations in
Durham. Nor did my executive editor, Bill Hawkins, curry favor with interest groups. We let them come to us; we did not go to them.

This policy might seem exclusionary, but it had a serious purpose: The Herald-Sun's editorial independence was more important than individual participation in interest groups.

Newspaper editors and reporters cannot be cozy with the people and organizations they cover. It just doesn't work.

Alas for Bob Ashley's Herald-Sun and Durham, that cardinal rule of journalism has been ignored.

-- Bob Wilson

The Churchill Series - Dec. 28, 2006

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

Readers Note: We continue this week with "Amusing Oldies:" posts that have run before but which I hope will give you a smile and perhaps a story to share with family and friends during the holidays. John
___________________________________________________

Churchill quite often delayed leaving for the train station. Early in speaking out against communism and fascism, where trains were concerned he was a classic "last minute" traveler.

When he was a cabinet minister or PM, and later when out of office but "a great man," Churchill's delays didn't cause him any problems. Staff simply phoned ahead and the train was held; no need to race.

But when out of office, Churchill frequently had to race to catch a train. Often he lost.

Clementine once explained Churchill's "last minute" habit this way: "Winston's a sporting man. He likes to give the train a chance."
________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard. (p. 130)

NC State Bar, KC and God’s mills

The AP reports:

The N.C. bar filed an ethics complaint Thursday against the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of breaking four rules of professional conduct when speaking to reporters about the case.

The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment.

Among the rules Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of violating was a prohibition against making comments "that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public comdemnation of the accuser."

In a statement, the bar said it opened a case against Nifong on March 30, a little more than two weeks after the party at which a 28-year-old student at N.C. Central University hired to perform as a stripper said she was raped. (bold added)[...]

Legal historian and blogger KC Johnson gives his first take on the Bar’s action:

Some quick reactions, with more detailed analysis to follow.

1.) This filing is the beginning of the end of Nifong’s career as Durham D.A.

The filing focuses solely on his procedurally improper public statements, which the Bar (correctly) contends violated Rule 3.8(f) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. That provision requires prosecutors to “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

Importantly, the bar complaint also alleges that Nifong’s violations of 3.8(f) were of such magnitude that they ran afoul of Rule 8.4(c) and Rule 8.4(d), which state that prosecutors cannot “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”; or “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

2.) There is no reason to believe that the bar will not take other actions against Nifong.

The bar surely would have to consider filing an ethics complaint against Nifong for his conspiracy with Dr. Brian Meehan to hide the exculpatory evidence; given the recent nature of this revelation, no public filing on this matter could occur at this stage. […]

We’ll keep reading you, KC.

Meanwhile, who could miss that the State Bar opened the case on March 30?

That was just 5 days after the Raleigh News & Observer published across five, front page columns a story about a night it said ended in sexual violence. (I’ve used no quotes around sexual violence because the N&O editors ruled they shouldn’t be used when it reported the account of the false accuser the N&O told readers was a frightened young mother brutally gang-raped by members of the Duke lacrosse team. John)

March 30 was also just 3 days after Nifong began speaking publicly about the case. Remember “Hooligans” and “why would they need attorneys?”

Nifong was extraordinarily out of line to catch the Bar’s attention so soon, wasnt he?

But so many didn't notice or went along with Nifong anyway.

I’ll say more about what the failure of almost all of Duke and Durham's leadership, the N&O and H-S and assorted rights groups to say or do anything to check Nifong’s malfeasance tells us about those leaders and groups.

You're very likely saying some of it already.

Meanwhile, here are words the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote more than a century before Duke's "poet-president," Richard H. Brodhead, told an audience of Durham civic leaders “Whatever they did was bad enough.” From Longfellow:

Though the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.

Nifong will again swear

On Jan. 2 Durham DA Mike Nifong will be sworn for his first full term. I posted concerning the event here.

Some of you have asked who may administer the oath to Nifong and just what the oath says.

I contacted Peg Dorer, Director of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. She was very helpful and has provided the answers.

What you are about to read is copied from the State of North Carolina Judicial Branch of Government Human Resources Management Manual. The material is found under Employment and Records, Section 3E beginning on pg. 1.

Who May Administer An Oath of Office Pursuant with G.S. 11-7.1, “Except as otherwise specifically required by statute, an oath of office may be administered by:

• a justice, judge, magistrate, clerk, assistant clerk, or deputy clerk of the General Court of Justice, a retired justice or judge of the General Court of Justice, or any member of the federal judiciary; (Retired is defined as drawing benefits from the Consolidated Judicial Retirement System. The justice or judge must be retired and not just be a "former" justice or judge).

• the Secretary of State;

• a notary public;

• a register of deeds;

• a mayor of any city, town, or incorporated village;

• a chairman of the board of commissioners of any county;

• a member of the House of Representatives or Senate of the General Assembly;

• the clerk of any county, city, town or incorporated village.”

(As to the wording of the oath Nifong will take, you'll see below that he and other NC office holders actually take two oaths.

Neither Peg nor I know why that is. I hope there's someone out there who does.

As you read the oaths bear in mind they're the same oaths Nifong swore to when he was appointed to fill the remainder of the term of his predessor, Jim Hardin, when Hardin became a Superior Court Judge. John)

Pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution Article VI, Sec. 7 and G.S. 11-7, “…every person elected or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State shall, before taking office or entering upon the execution of the office, take and subscribe to the following oaths:

I, ……………, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as …………………., so help me God.”

‘I,…………………, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.’”

Those oaths are interesting reading, especially for those of us thinking about the possibilty U.S. Department of Justice officials will review DA Nifong's conduct with regard to possible violations of the constitutional rights of three clearly innocent young men.

Message to Peg Dorer: Thanks again for prompt, expert help delivered in a friendly spirt.

Swearing DA Nifong

(Readers Note: This post initially incorrectly said Nifong's predecessor as Durham DA was current Superior Court Judge Ron Stephens. Nifong's predecessor was current Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin. The post has been corrected to reflect that.

I'm sorry for my error. John)

No, I’m not talking about those times Durham DA Mike Nifong has lost his temper and screamed foul words.

I’m talking about Nifong’s swearing in when he takes his oath of office for his first full term as Durham DA.

According to Nifong’s office, the swearing in is scheduled for Jan. 2 at 8 A.M. in Courtroom #1 on the fifth floor of the Durham County Courthouse.

(Geez, John, couldn’t you have gotten us a more reliable source than Nifong’s office? Even on something like the time and place of his own swearing in, we don't trust him.)

I understand, folks, but I did my best.

Moving on.

I couldn’t find out who will swear Nifong in. “We haven’t been told that yet,” the spokesperson said.

I wonder who it will be.

Nifong was appointed by NC’s Governor Mike Easley to fill the unexpired term of his predecessor, Jim Hardin, when Hardin became a Superior Court Judge.

Superior Court Judge Ron Stephens, under whom Nifong had served as an Assistant DA swore Nifong in to fill what remained of Hardin's term.

Stephens later signed the order for DNA testing and photographing the 46 white Duke students. Stephens also initially sealed the indictments of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann until they were attested and handcuffed.

I don't think Stephens will swear Nifong in this time.

Too many memories.

It will be interesting to see who shows up and who stays away from Courtroom #1 next Tuesday.

For those of you who appreciate irony and what time's passing reveals there's this: The Durham Herald Sun is running a Top Ten Stories of 2006 series. It's one story each day counting down to number one.

Today the H-S offered story number four: "District attorney race hotly contested." There's a color photo above the headline. It shows a smiling Mike Nifong on election night, Nov. 7, hugging a supporter.

The story carries reporter John "Anything for Mike" Stevenson's byline. The story's very brief and interesting for all it leaves out. Take a look.

Back to Nifong’s Jan. 2 swearing in

Anyone want to bet on his chances of finishing out the full four years of his term?

My opinion: He won't make it. His malfeasance will force him from office. I just can't say the particular form his leaving will take.

I feel about Nifong the way I felt about Nixon in 1973 and 74: "He's going. It’s just a question of how."

The Churchill Series - Dec. 27, 2006

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

This week it's a series of "Amusing Oldies:" posts that have run before but which I hope will give you a smile, and perhaps a story to share with family and friends during the holidays.

The post below ran on Mar. 23, 2006. Twenty-eight Hyde Park Gate was the Churchill's London home from after the war until his death. G.H.Q. stands for General Headquarters. The note’s punctuation is as it appears in a published copy.

John
____________________

15 June 1948

Darling

You did promise Sept 12 1908 ‘To Love, Honour, & Obey.”

NOW herewith are Orders

5:15 You come up here to rest. E.Y.H. [car registration letters] will bring you & is waiting

7:30 Dinner

8:30 Journey to 28 [Hyde Park Gate]

9:40 Bed & a read

Given at Chartwell G.H.Q.

The Tyrant
___________________________

Clementine and Churchill had pet names for each other. Hers were Cat and Kit; his were Pug and Pig.

The Tyrant sketched a pig below his Orders.

The note can be found on page 549 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston And Clementine Churchill, which their daughter, Lady Mary Soames, edited.

Taylor & Johnson’s WSJ op-ed

In today’s Wall Street Journal National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor and historian KC Johnson (Durham-in-Wonderland) offer readers a concise, fact-filled account of rogue DA Mike Nifong’s repeated violations of standard investigative procedures, State Bar Association ethics and possibly laws as he prosecuted three clearly innocent young men; a prosecution he hoped would assure his election to a full term as Durham DA. (A Dirty Game, Dec. 27 – subscription req’d)

Besides a superb case summary, Taylor and Johnson provide very informed commentary regarding possible case outcomes besides those most of us are expecting: dismissals of the remaining fraudulent charges. For example, they think Nifong will be disbarred unless the State Bar wishes to make a parody of itself.

The op-ed’s so well done, let’s look at it in its entirety:

It's no secret that hugely disproportionate numbers of the innocent people oppressed by abusive prosecutors and police in this country are African-Americans. Now one of the most outrageous cases of law-enforcement abuse is unfolding in Durham, N.C., home of the Duke lacrosse case. And African-Americans are leading the cheers for the oppressors. Why?

The poison of identity politics, plus class hatred of the prosecutor's three main victims, well-off white men falsely accused of rape by an unstable black "exotic dancer," and a deeply dishonest district attorney.

Last spring, Durham D.A. Michael Nifong, who is white, was facing a primary in a racially divided electorate. He was badly behind and out of campaign money, excepting almost $30,000 in loans from his personal funds. Then came the accuser's allegations.

Mr. Nifong responded by assuming control of the police investigation and making racially inflammatory statements pronouncing the Duke lacrosse players guilty of rape. Even as evidence of their innocence accumulated, he brought rape, sexual assault and kidnapping charges that fed the racial resentments he had stoked. The black vote put him over the top in both the May 2 primary and the Nov. 7 general election.

Black leaders -- including Durham Mayor Bill Bell, the appallingly demagogic North Carolina NAACP and others -- should know better. So should the powerful, identity-politics-obsessed hard left of Duke's own faculty, 88 of whom issued a statement in April saying "thank you" to protesters who had branded the players rapists. And so should the media, most of which gleefully joined the clamor last spring.

Concise and fact-filled so far, isn’t it. Something else. I’ll bet many of you appreciate Taylor and Johnson giving due attention to Nifong’s enablers.

But then where's Duke's President Brodhead, you may be asking? Keep reading. They didn’t forget him.

It has been clear for many months that the rape claim is almost surely a lie. But not until the DA's dramatic dismissal last Friday of the rape (but not the sexual assault and kidnapping) charges did Mr. Nifong enablers such as the New York Times and Duke President Richard Brodhead begin distancing themselves from his oppression of three innocent young men.

How can we be confident that the charges are false?

Let us count the ways: The police who interviewed the accuser after she left the March 13-14 lacrosse team party where she and another woman had performed as strippers found her rape charge incredible, and for good reason. She said nothing about rape to three cops and two others during the first 90 minutes after the party. Only when being involuntarily confined in a mental health facility did she mention rape. This predictably got her released to the Duke emergency room for a rape workup, whereupon she recanted the rape charge.

Then she re-recanted, offering a ludicrous parade of wildly implausible and mutually contradictory stories of being gang-raped by 20, five, four, three or two lacrosse players, with the other stripper assisting the rapists in some versions.

After settling on three rapists, the accuser gave police vague descriptions and could not identify as a rapist any of the 36 lacrosse players whose photos she viewed on March 16 and 21. These included two eventual defendants: Dave Evans, whom she did not recognize at all, and Reade Seligmann, whom she was "70%" sure she had seen at the party, but not as a rapist.

All of the 40-odd other people at the party have contradicted every important part of the accuser's various accounts. The second stripper called the rape claim a "crock" and said they had been apart less than five minutes. The accuser told doctors she was drunk and on the muscle relaxant Flexeril, whose side effects include badly impaired judgment when taken with alcohol. She has a history of narcotic abuse and bipolar disorder, a mental illness marked by wild mood swings from mania to depression, and spent a week in a mental hospital in 2005.

In court filings last week, even Mr. Nifong conceded that, contrary to his claims since March, medical records show no physical evidence of rape -- let alone injuries consistent with the accuser's April claim of being beaten, kicked, strangled and raped anally, orally and vaginally by three men in a small bathroom for 30 minutes.

Above all, DNA tests by state and private labs, which Mr. Nifong's office had said would "immediately rule out any innocent persons," did just that. They found no lacrosse player's DNA anywhere on or in the accuser and none of her DNA in the bathroom.

Yet two weeks ago we learned -- only because dogged defense lawyers cracked a prosecutorial conspiracy to hide evidence of innocence -- that the private lab did find the DNA of "multiple males" in swabs of the accuser's pubic hair, panties, and rear after the supposed rape. None of this DNA matched any lacrosse player.

After the first two photo sessions, it was clear that the accuser had no idea what her rapists (if any) looked like. By the end of March, it should have been clear to any prosecutor that there probably had been no rape at all. But Mr. Nifong had driven the black community into a rage with dozens of guilt-presuming, race-baiting attacks on the lacrosse players like this one, on March 27: "The contempt that was shown for the victim, based on her race, was totally abhorrent."

By Mar. 27 the public should have been asking why two weeks after the alleged incident there weren’t any detailed descriptions, drawings or computer generated composite "pictures" of the alleged perpetrators circulating.

But few citizens questioned why they weren't circulating. Media hadn't reported on the absense of descriptions, so the public wasn't alert to the issue.

Media’s failure to ask and report on the absence of detailed, reliable descriptions was a very important enablement of the witch hunt and Nifong's rogue conduct.

Back to Taylor and Johnson:

Such statements flagrantly violated North Carolina ethical rules requiring prosecutors to "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." They also poured gasoline on the flames of racial rage.

Black leaders and voters made it clear that Mr. Nifong's only chance of winning the primary was to put his money where his mouth was by indicting the lacrosse players. He closed his door to defense lawyers offering evidence of innocence and rigged a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers. On March 31, he instructed police to conduct a third photo ID lineup, and to show the accuser (and tell her that she was being shown) photos of only the 46 white lacrosse players.

On April 4, when this third photo-ID process took place, the message to the accuser was, effectively: Pick three, any three. At random, if you like. You can't go wrong. This setup trashed the defendants' constitutional due process rights and specific Durham, state, and federal principles for identification procedures. To test the reliability of often-mistaken eyewitness ID's, these principles require showing at least five "fillers" (non-suspects) with each suspect and telling the witness that the lineup may or may not include a suspect. Mr. Nifong recently defended his procedure through word games, asking, "What is a lineup?"

I hope the feds come in and say to Nifong: “No ‘word games’ now. We’re here to talk about due process violations and possibly conspiracy.”

Taylor and Johnson are saying the feds have reason to come to Durham. I think they're right.

Moving on:

The accuser's responses demonstrated her unreliability in ways too numerous to detail here. For one, she picked four as rapists. For another, the only player she twice identified with 100% certainty as attending the party could prove he was in Raleigh that night. But the accuser gave Mr. Nifong enough to obtain three indictments from a rubber-stamp grand jury.

When he went to the grand jury, Mr. Nifong knew that the DNA results were inconsistent with the rape allegation. But he pressed ahead with the charge until the defense exposed his efforts to conceal the forensic evidence. Then he abruptly changed his theory of the crime.

The case is now unraveling so rapidly as to be ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live."

True enough. And here’s a prediction: If the NC State Bar doesn’t disbar Nifong, its failure to do so will be the material for another SNL spoof.

Taylor and Johnson conclude:

Mr. Nifong is on his way to being disbarred, unless North Carolina's legal establishment wants to be held up to national scorn. He faces lawsuits and at least a remote risk of federal criminal investigation. As for Durham's black leaders, and many in the media, and much of Duke's faculty, history will mark them down as enablers of abusive, dishonest law enforcement tactics. They will share responsibility for the continued use of such tactics, mainly against black people, after the Duke lacrosse players' innocence has become manifest to all serious people and the spotlight has moved on.

Amen!

I look forward to your comments.

Hat tip: Liestoppers.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 26, 2006

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

We continue this week "Amusing Oldies:" posts I've run before but which I hope will give you a smile, and maybe a story to share with family and friends during the holiday's.

John
_____________________________

On the night of October 14, 1940 Churchill was dining at 10 Downing Street when a German bombing raid began.

A part of the Treasury Building, not fifty yards from Number 10, suffered a direct hit before Churchill and aides could get to a shelter.

Churchill refused to remain for long in the shelter. He soon went to the roof of the building that housed the shelter, and there witnessed the raid. He later wrote:

The night was clear and there was a wide view of London. It seemed the greater part of Pall Mall was in flames. (There were) fierce fires...in St. James Street and Piccadilly. Farther back over the river in the opposite direction there were many conflagrations. But Pall Mall was the vivid flame-picture

Pall Mall was then as now the location of many of London's private clubs , including the prestigious The Carleton Club, whose membership has traditionally included the leaders and other important members of Churchill's Conservative Party. To this day it refers to itself as "The Conservative Club."

Churchill was given an eye-witness account of the club's destruction by a Member of Parliament:

He was in the club with about two hundred and fifty members and staff.
...
The whole of the facade and the massive coping on the Pall Mall side (fell into) the street obliterating his motor-car.
...
The smoking-room had been full of members, and the whole ceiling had come down upon them.
,,,
However, by what seemed a miracle, they had all crawled out of the dust, smoke, and rubble, and thought many were injured not a single life was lost.

While to Churchill the survival of his Conservative Party colleagues "seemed a miracle," Laborites had another explanation, which Churchill duly recorded:

(In) Cabinet, our Labour colleagues facetiously remarked, "The Devil looks after his own."

_______________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 346-348)

Video of KC Johnson

If you've not had a chance to see and hear KC Johnson in person or on TV, this may do it for you.

Below is a URL to an ABC News program video. There's an ad first. Then a news segement on the Nifong Hoax story begins; and KC comes on just over two minutes into it. He's on for quite a while.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2748001

Stunning admission at N&O

Some of you know that shortly before the late Ed Bradley’s 60 Minutes episode the Raleigh News & Observer, aware that Bradley would be interviewing the second dancer, Kim Roberts, admitted for the first time that in its infamous and discredited Mar. 25 “crying young mother brutally gang-raped” anonymous interview story, the women identified Roberts and made statements about her.

At the time the N&O decided to suppress the news that Precious had ID’ed Roberts and what she said.

The N&O made the admission at the Editors’ Blog. As far as I know the N&O’s never informed it’s print readers that it withheld part of the interview.

Ever since it made its admission, three N&O editors have been dissing off readers demanding to know more about the interview.

The editors have repeatedly said what the paper withheld wasn’t really important to the interview story.

The N&O has also refused demands from readers that it release a transcript of the interview.

Then on Christmas Eve, Asst. Mgr. Editor Linda Williams posted on a thread at the Editors’ Blog a jaw-dropping post in which she now makes a stunning claim:

If we had printed that utterance- an admitted speculation without the slightest foundation to suggest the possibility of truth-- it would have been a conscious act of libel.

Can you believe that?

I’ll have more to say tonight.

Meanwhile, go take a look at the post and thread. Williams’ comment post appears at 17:17 pm on 12/24.

Brodhead note – 12-26-06

In comments here, offline and in phone calls many of you have expressed disagreement with Friends of Duke University’s response to Duke President Brodhead’s press release issued following the dropping of the rape charges last Friday, Dec. 22, against three innocent young men – one a recent Duke grad; the other two Duke students still under suspension by the university following their indictments on multiple felony charges.

You can read both Brodhead’s comment and FODU’s response to it here at FODU.

I’ll comment on both statements late this afternoon.

For now I’ll just call attention to a few things I said in my Dec. 23 post, BRODHEAD’S FAILED. (If you haven’t already done so, please read the entire post.)

[…]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. […]

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. 25, 2006

(This week I'm running "Amusing Oldies;" posts that have been "up" before but which may still make you smile, and give you a story or two to share with family and friends this holiday season. I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas. John)

Most people know horses were an important part of Churchill's life. He rode pony's as a child; trained in horsemanship at Sandhurst; was commissioned as a cavalry officer; rode as a lancer in the famous charge at Omdurman; played polo into his fifties; and kept and bred horses at Chartwell and other properties.

But most people don't know that for many years Churchill owned a racing stable. And he wasn't one of those celebrity owners who preen and eye the cameras while putting their feet in - oops - the wrong places. As with everything else he cared about, Churchill the race horse owner was informed and "hands on."

Churchill's most successful horse was a grey, Colonist II. He bought him against the advice of many racing experts. Churchill thought he saw something - a special determination - in Colonist that would make the horse "a winner."

Colonist proved Churchill right. "This tough and indomitable grey horse has performed miracles," said one racing writer in 1950. "No horse in living memory has put up such a sequence of wins in good-class races in one season." Among the prestigious races Colonist won were The Winston Churchill Stakes and The Jockey Club Stakes.

As Colonist's racing days came to a close, his trainer reminded Churchill that Colonist would be very valuable as a stud horse. The trainer offered to arrange matters.

Churchill pondered a moment, then laughed and replied,

"To stud? And have it said that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is living on the immoral earnings of a horse?"

Churchill's official biographer, Martin Gilbert, does not say what ultimately happened to Colonist. We can wish the horse had a green old age.

I wasn't able to learn what Churchill’s racing colors were. Can anyone help with that?

[Update 12-26-06: Churchill's father had owned race horses. Lord Randolph's colors were pink and chocolate and pink; and Churchill selected those as his own.]
____________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Never Despair. (pgs. 488, 522, 524, 528, 563)

Talking with JinC Regulars and Readers – 12-24-06

(A post in the “old” web log tradition: “notes at the end of the day” for others who know “what they’re about.” Don’t look for many hyperlinks; expect “shorthand.” JinC)

It’s Christmas Eve. So this will be short and in haste. Much more in a Talking on Tuesday.

I always with "thanks" to you who point out errors, say nice words and give “heads up.”

Tonight an Anon. gave a “heads up” saying go to N&O’s Editors’ Blog and look at what editor Linda Williams just said about the N&O’s decision to withhold some of what the false accuser said in the now discredited N&O’s interview.

Take a look when you have time. Williams' statement is on the thread at 17:17 pm 12-24 at this post.

I’ve printed a face copy and will save it. I hope many of you do too.

Williams says what the N&O withheld from its Mar. 25 story reporting what the false accuser said (Williams herself doesn’t use the FA term) wasn’t really important.

Then Williams goes on to say if the N&O had printed what Precious said instead of withholding it, it might have been a libel for the N&O to print it.

No kidding. That's what editor Williams said.

Take a look for yourself.

Then please do what I did: Print out a face copy. Somebody at the N&O might get to Linda and suggest that it would be better to …..

After Williams' comments, I hope you read some of the following reader comments. You’ll see those citizen journalists - God bless them – are at work even on Christmas Eve holding the N&O to account.

Another but related matter ---

The question of whether N&O libeled the Duke students when it published the “Vigilante” poster is discussed on the JinC thread of the Four Who Failed post.

Take a look at it. It’s a very “informed conversation.”

The question of N&O liability is a very complex one. I’ll post on it after Christmas.

Another item ---

Did I see what Friends of Duke University said following Brodhead’s “Coleman and I agree and Nifong owes us an explanation” press release?

Yes, I did.

Does FODU’s embrace of Brodhead post press release change my mind regarding my post welcoming Brodhead’s statement but saying he needed to move on in view of all he didn’t do that he so easily could have done; and that IMHO is was a Duke president’s duty to do?

No.

I ask myself: “Do I want to say more about all of that tonight?”

Heavens, no.

I want to get back to my family and Christmas.

But before doing that I want to say “Thank you” for what you do to make this blog better and for what you are doing at other places in the blogoshere to speak up for justice and the things it depends on – honest police officers, fair prosecutors and media committed to reporting truth.

I wish every one of you a blessed holiday.

Best,

John

Nifong Hoax items 12 – 24 -06

Johnsville News leads a post with a headline from the New York Post: “Rape Rap KO’d”

That’s great headline writing.

BTW – JN remains one of my “visit daily” blogs. More about JN after the holiday’s
__________________

In yesterday’s Raleigh N&O editorial editor Steve Ford said [excerpts]

Then it turned out, as The News & Observer reported, that the D.A. had never interviewed the dancer about the events of that March evening, a puzzling fact given the certainty with which Nifong seemed to vouch for her truthfulness.

The photo lineup in which the woman identified her alleged attackers included photographs only of lacrosse team members, a violation of Durham's photo ID policy and clearly skewed against the players.

Hold on, Steve!

Actually, it was disclosed in open court Nifong said he’d tried to interview Precious but found her “too traumatized.” when they met

Give credit to the discovery process and the defense attorneys who forced the disclosure. Your paper just reported on what happened.

And, Steve, how about a little skepticism about what happened When Mickey met Precious.

So far we have only Nifong’s word for what happened. But he’s as reliable as Precious. Isn’t it possible Precious said some things Nifong didn’t want known before the election, and may never want known?

I’d be interested to hear what Precius says about the meeting even as I keep the salt sharer handy when she speaks. We may hear Precious’ account of their meeting as part of her testimony in an investigation into violations of the falsely indicted young men’s civil rights, or a State Bar hearing, or as part of a civil suit brought against Nifong.

Ford goes on to assert:

The accuser, if she can offer a coherent account and stand by it, deserves to have her allegations heard in court.

What?

As KC Johnson says:

This assertion is absurd: police and prosecutors are supposed to exercise discretion, rather than pass on any and all non-credible accusations for a jury to decide. In this case, the accuser/Nifong have presented at least 10 versions of events, with the two most recent changes (a shortening of the timeline, elimination of the rape charge) blatant manipulations of the story to fit new, exculpatory evidence.

KC’s Durham-in-Wonderland is another of my Hoax “visit daily” blogs.
______________________________

Chicago Sun Times columnist Gregg Couch today:

It's over now, no matter what happens in court. At one time, the stripper in the Duke lacrosse case accused three players of raping her vaginally, anally and orally. Now, she says she can't say for sure if there was any actual sexual intercourse.

What? I understand that moment in the bathroom at the team party could have been hell for her, if it happened at all. So maybe her head was spinning, the world was rushing. But that's an awfully powerful, heinous and specific accusation, if true. You can't come back from that and say you're not so sure.

This is a betrayal. If this rape allegation was false, then it is the lowest thing a woman can do to other women.

I don’t agree with everything Couch says but the column is worth a read.

One of the things Couch says I very strongly disagree with is that a false rape allegation is “the lowest thing a woman can do to other women.”

Much lower on my “lowest” scale are those things other woman do to “support their sisters’” false rape accusations. Those women (and men who go right along with them) encourage the false accusations thereby making other false rape accusations more likely. They put innocent people at great jeopardy. Victims of false rape claims face public censure, great costs to defend themselves, and are often jailed and sent to prison.

Don’t get me started, folks. I’ll be saying more about this subject soon.

A hat tip goes to Liestoppers where I found the link to Couch’s column. LS is my third hoax “visit daily” blog.

More after Christmas. A blessed holiday to you all.

Nifong Hoax items later today

Wow! There sure is a lot of news out there about the Nifong Hoax implosion.

I want to make a few brief comments on some of the news items before going into lite blogging mode for Christmas.

But family and friends will here at noon for a brunch.

So its dust those counter tops and slice that ham.

I’ll be back with a few comments and some holiday wishes by mid-afternoon.

John