Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Thursday, June 07, 2007

DPD Deals in Bad Faith

Craig Henry offers a nice follow up to Momtothree's latest Our Collective Voice submission at his Lead and Gold Blog. Henry, citing an excerpt from Don Yaeger and Mike Pressler's "It's Not About Truth," notes that the Durham Police Department leaked news of the Nontestimonial Identification Order to the News & Observer in violation of an agreement made with an attorney representing the framed Duke Innocents and their teammates.

The News and Observer also comes off poorly in the LieStoppers article which shows that they have lied repeatedly about the 24 March interview with Precious. Nor have they ever come clean about the contacts between their reporters and the DPD. LieStoppers dissects both points with great skill.

Yaeger’s book adds one other crucial piece of information on this score.

"On 23 March the subpoena for the DNA dragnet was issued. The players decided not to fight the broad (overly broad?) request. They even decided to make it easy on the police and go immediately to the crime lab.

"[Attorney Wes] Covington telephoned investigators and informed them that the players would arrive voluntarily as a group if it was promised the news would not be leaked to the media. Covington was assured the media would be kept unaware."

It was a lie. When the players arrived at the lab, they found the reporters waiting and the doors locked. The DPD had arranged the perfect perp walk for their media friends. The tabloid frenzy was about to begin.

The next day the story was on the front page of the News and Observer. The day after that came the notorious interview with the accuser. The N&O was leading the pack in pursuit of a story that was really a red herring.

The N&O has done a great job following up on Nifong’s mistakes and ethical lapses. They have shown no such interest in examining the actions of the DPD in the first 10 days of the hoax.

Is it because their reporters and editors were too eager to play the role they were assigned by the rogue cops?

Sunday, April 15, 2007

News & Observer Calls for Nifong To Resign

The News & Observer has joined the Herald Sun in calling for Durham County District Attorney to resign immediately. Citing rogue prosecutor Nifong's excuse-studded "apology" to the victim's of his Hoax, his failure to assess the credibility of Crystal Mangum, and the turmoil that undermines the effectiveness of an office that has fallen into extreme disrepute, the N&O meekly suggests that Nifong's resignation would serve the public interest. Earlier this week, the Herald Sun cited State Attorney General Roy Cooper's assessment of the rouge prosecutors misconduct in support of their far more forceful call for his resignation.

News & Observer:
In Nifong's excuse-studded "apology" to the former Duke athletes on Thursday, he declared that Cooper's staff had access to important evidence that he had not. We hope Nifong wasn't suggesting that the details of Mangum's rocky history were among that evidence. A cursory look -- the minimum requirement when such serious allegations are made -- should have turned up enough information to cause Nifong and investigators to view Mangum's account with an appropriate degree of skepticism.

Of course, someone with a troubled past and several brushes with the law can still be the victim of a crime. A district attorney has to seek justice in every instance, and in this case Nifong may have felt special sympathy for Mangum's situation. But available facts should have given him pause before he proceeded to have the three students charged. Combined with all the inconsistencies in her accounts and the lack of physical evidence, Mangum's background at least should have given the district attorney reason to question how credible she would appear to a jury.

If he was aware of all this, he seems to have disregarded the facts in a rush to take the case to court.

Nifong might have shed valuable light on this sorry episode had he addressed in his apology why he believed Mangum. Or if he had explored whether he had been too caught up in the community feeling against Duke students' off-campus parties and athletes' alcohol-related arrests. Too late, though. Now, his future as a lawyer lies with the State Bar, which has accused him of ethics violations that could cost him his law license.

That could turn into a long, grueling fight. Nifong will be preoccupied, and the DA's office could be in turmoil for the duration. Regardless of the outcome, his credibility as Durham's top justice official will have been undermined.

Under the circumstances, Nifong ought to consider whether to remain in the office to which he was elected last fall for a four-year term. If the State Bar relieves him of his license, that obviously will become a moot point. But even if any disciplinary steps fall well short of that penalty, it's hard to see how the district attorney can continue to function effectively. His resignation now would serve the public interest.

Herald Sun
Attorney General Roy Cooper didn't mince words Wednesday when he described his investigation into the Duke lacrosse case.
"We believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges," he said.

With that, Cooper cleared former Duke lacrosse players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann of charges of sexual assault and kidnapping stemming from a party on Buchanan Boulevard in March 2006.

"Innocent" was a strong word, one we're sure Cooper chose carefully. It meant, as Duke University President Richard Brodhead pointed out, that this wasn't just a technicality -- this was exoneration. After three months of investigation, state attorneys Jim Coman and Mary Winstead found that Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were innocent of any crime. The dark cloud of the past 13 months was lifted.

The defendants and their families must feel a tremendous sense of relief. There will be no trial, no possibility of prison. The three young men can get on with their lives, although this incident is sure to be with them in one way or another as long as they live.

As unequivocally as Cooper cleared the players, he was equally blunt in criticizing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Cooper's words were simple and to the point, and could hardly have been more damning.

"With the weight of the state behind him, the Durham district attorney pushed forward unchecked," Cooper said. "There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado. And in the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly. .... We need to learn from this and keep it from happening again to anybody."

"This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor."

We have questioned Nifong's actions throughout this case, including a stacked photo lineup using only pictures of lacrosse players, when standard procedure is to include unrelated faces as a control. Nifong is also facing ethics charges from the State Bar for statements he made to the media when the case first broke and for withholding DNA evidence beneficial to the defendants.

But Cooper's simple statement cut to the heart of prosecutorial misconduct. Nifong, he said, pressed on with the case without a credible witness or credible evidence. To hear that about a prosecutor with 28 years of experience was shocking.

It is bound to raise questions about what other cases have been pursued improperly by the Durham DA's office. How many defendants without the resources to hire energetic attorneys have been sent quietly off to prison?

Nifong has been seriously damaged by his own actions, by the charges from the State Bar and now from Cooper's report. His problems could cause ripples through other cases being handled by the Durham DA's office. As a result, we think it will be impossible for Nifong to continue as Durham district attorney.

It's time for him to resign.
Last week, Defendant Nifong's attorney, David Freedman suggested that the disgraced prosecutor had no intention of resigning from the office he sold his soul to occupy for the next four years. With the area's two major dailies and a growing number of community leaders calling for his resignation, Nifong's refusal to step down is a repeat of the arrogant insistence that defined his blatant attempt to send innocent men to jail with his Hoax. Both the Herald Sun and the News & Observer fail to note that disbarment will not remove Nifong from office. Rather, the loss of his law license will only prohibit him from functioning as District Attorney leave Durham County without a functional top prosecutor.

Nifong's refusal to do the right thing to serve justice and his community magnifies Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson's failure to comply with the statutory directives of NCGS 7A-66. Had Hudson adhered to the letter of the statute by acting in February, Durham County might already be rid of the rogue prosecutor. Instead, Durham County remains saddled with the stigma of a District Attorney who has come to personify prosecutorial misconduct. If Judge Hudson continues to ignore State Law, Durham County will remain at the mercy of rogue prosecutor unwilling to serve the public interest by stepping down and allowing himself to be replaced by an ethical District Attorney.

LS In The News

LieStoppers Pictured on ABC Affiliate WTVD

"Media Faulted in Duke Case" -- Nick Madigan, Baltimore Sun, April 12, 2007
"A lot of the commentary has been uninformed and underinformed," said Philip Wood, a marketing executive in Raleigh who last summer started a blog, LieStoppers (liestoppers.blogspot.com), to try to poke holes in the case being developed by Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong, who later removed himself from the case and is being investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.

"The lack of accurate information has highlighted the condemnation of the accused players," Wood said yesterday. In particular, The New York Times "seemed to use their stories as editorials."

After the Times ran a front-page article about the case Aug. 25, Wood and fellow writers on the LieStoppers blog "pulled an all-nighter," he said, to refute some of its points.

The Times "corrected a few facts, but nothing significant," Wood said. He said the paper's coverage improved once David Barstow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, began covering the case late last year.
...
Wood reserved particular opprobrium for The Herald-Sun in Durham, whose articles, he said, were often "thinly veiled" in their support for Nifong. "It was consistent in nearly every piece," the LieStoppers blogger said. "They've attempted to downplay the charges against Nifong."

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Peabody For Bradley

George Foster Peabody Awards
"Over the past six months, 60 Minutes has examined nearly the entire case file, more than 2,000 documents, including police reports, witness statements and medical records. The evidence 60 Minutes has seen reveals disturbing facts about the conduct of the police and the district attorney, and raises serious concerns about whether or not a rape even occurred."
-- Ed Bradley, 60 Minutes: The Duke Rape Case CBS

The Hoax busting efforts of veteran 60 Minutes correspondent, Ed Bradley, were honored today with the announcement that his exposé of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's hijacking of the Hoax has earned a prestigious Peabody Award.

Describing Mr. Bradley's final work, the Peabody Board noted:
"A "60 Minutes" team led by correspondent Ed Bradley delved into the allegations of rape against Duke University lacrosse players and stopped a prosecutorial rush to judgment in its tracks."
The Peabody Awards, the oldest honor in electronic media, recognize "distinguished achievement and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, producing organizations, cable television organizations and individuals." Today's honor is the second Peabody Award for Mr. Bradley's work with 60 Minutes - the first was for "Big Man, Big Voice," the story of a German singer who became successful despite birth defects.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Obama statement fuels debate

Last week, we broke the news that presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) had lent his voice to the call made by Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) for a federal inquiry into the Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s hijacking of the Hoax.

In response to a letter from an industrious Blog Hooligan, Senator Barack Obama, a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, has indicated that he supports the call for a US Department of Justice inquiry into allegations of civil rights violations committed by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in his persecution of the three innocent victims of his hijacked Hoax.

Senator Obama:

"Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective on the Duke Rape Case and ongoing investigations of District Attorney Michael Nifong's handling of the case."

"Congressman Walter Jones has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to initiate a federal inquiry into Mr. Nifong's prosecution of three Duke University student athletes accused of an alleged sexual attack on a woman at a party earlier this year. Specifically, Rep. Jones asked the Attorney General to review new evidence that Mr. Nifong withehld exculpatory DNA results from the defendants in order to determine if his conduct has illegally denied the students their civil rights as U.S. citizens under federal law. This independent inquiry is needed, and I will be following its progress closely."

Obama Supports Call For Inquiry

Immediately, the story was picked up ABC News.

Another voice has joined the call for a federal investigation into the handling of the Duke Lacrosse case — this one with the punch of presidential politics.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a written response to a constituent, said that an "independent inquiry is needed" into the conduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Nifong prosecuted and led the investigation into the alleged sexual assault of an exotic dancer at a lacrosse team party in March 2006.Obama cited the fact that Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has already asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a federal investigation into Nifong's conduct.

ABC News has learned that similar requests have been made by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.

According to Obama's letter, Jones asked Gonzales to "review new evidence that Mr. Nifong withheld exculpatory DNA results from the defendants in order to determine if his conduct has illegally denied the students their civil rights as U.S. citizens under federal law."Obama said of the call for a federal investigation that he "will be following its progress closely."
ABC News

News of Obama’s support for Walter Jones quickly moved across the country and throughout the blogosphere as the Associated Press and several bloggers picked up the story.

March 26, 2007 -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has reportedly
called for a federal investigation of the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse rape case.

"Independent inquiry is needed" into whether Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong withheld DNA evidence that might have cleared the players, Obama wrote in a letter obtained by ABC News. AP

Barack Obama has said that an "independent inquiry" into the conduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is "needed." Nifong is the prosecutor whose mishandling of the case against the three Duke lacrosse players may have been criminal.Obama reportedly made that statement in response to a letter from a constituent. Obama noted that Rep. Walter Jones has already requested such an inquiry and that he "will be following its progress closely." Power Line

In an item first reported at Liestoppers, ABC News Law & Justice Unit has confirmed that Illinois senator Barack Obama has joined the chorus of lawmakers demanding a Justice Department inquiry into Mike Nifong’s misconduct. The story subsequently has been picked up by the AP and by Drudge, and represents the most media attention to the issue since North Carolina congressman Walter Jones became the first Member of Congress to issue such a plea in December.

The Democratic presidential candidate is the first member of the Senate to publicly endorse such a call. As a former adjunct at the University of Chicago Law School, he has impeccable legal credentials. And as a man with a strong following in the African-American community, he has impeccable political credentials to issue such a plea.The Law & Justice Unit also reports that at least two more members of the House, Representatives Trent Franks (R-Arizona) and Tom Feeney (R-Florida) have also called on the Justice department to do something. They join Long Island Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and New York Republican Peter King. Durham congressman David (“States’ Rights Democrat”) Price is the only member of the House to explicitly oppose a DOJ inquiry. Durham in Wonderland

Not surprisingly, many of Obama’s detractors took advantage of his statement made in a private letter by questioning or impugning his motives as political pandering. Obama critics quickly misrepresented the nature of his statement by twisting it from a response to a concerned constituent into a public grandstanding effort.
.
FOX News abandoned it’s continued call for justice in favor of taking shots at Obama.

Barack Obama announced that he plans to investigate Mike Nifong's prosecution of the Duke students which is something Gibson should be applauding since he's been after Nifong all along. However Obama got no points from Gibson who speculated that it was "political posturing". Each segment got one of Gibson's full screen graphics that spoon feed the main idea so viewers don't need to worry about what to think. This one showed Obama next to the scales of justice with the question, " Is Barack Obama serious or is it political posturing?"News Hounds

Several misguided conservative bloggers also took similar tracts by misconstruing, to their advantage, Obama‘s private assurance as a public stand.

Bad Move for Obama

Apparently Sen. Barack Obama has jumped into the fray of politicians and media hacks to call for an investigation of North Carolina DA Mike Nifong because of allegations that he improperly handled the prosecution of Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a woman. To be honest, I haven't really followed the case, as I don't watch Nancy Grace or any of those other tabloid shows masquerading as "news" programs. But why is a Senator from Illinois involving himself in this matter?

The judicial system shouldn't be used for political gamesmanship. Just as it is wrong for Lincoln Davis to involve himself in the case of Ramos and Compean based on the accounts of some rednecks he meets at events in his district; so is it wrong for Barack Obama to get his name in the papers by jumping onto the indignation express. Let the North Carolina Bar do their examination before jumping into the fray due to a few media reports about what Nifong may or may not have done. Sean Braisted

Presidential candidate and Senator, Barack Obama (D-IL), has the Liberal notion that the Federal government should place itself into a state judiciary problem.In a written response to a constituent, Obama said that an “independent inquiry is needed” into the conduct of Durham [North Carolina] District Attorney Mike Nifong.Nifong prosecuted and led the investigation into the alleged sexual assault of an exotic dancer at a Duke University lacrosse team party in March 2006.Obama cited the fact that Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has already asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a federal investigation into Nifong’s conduct.

I would suggest all Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress deal with important issues in the realm of their responsibility and worry about their state and Federal matters.

I would also agree with Nifong’s defense attorney, David Freedman, in this case when he states:

“The state bar is conducting a very thorough investigation into all aspects of Mr. Nifong’s handling of the case. It’s appropriate for this to be dealt with by a North Carolina agency, not by someone from another state. I do not see the need for any other agency becoming involved at this point.”

Mr. Obama has little experience in the Beltway and was a state legislator in Illinois. What makes him think he should have any involvement in North Carolina issues?This is a telling tale concerning Obama’s views about the rights of individual states and the Liberal view of big Federal government.

Other than fishing for votes, Mr. Obama should spend some time reading the U.S. Constitution. Liberally Conservative

Thankfully, not all conservatives abandoned the call for justice in favor of political expediency. Conservative columnist and attorney Michael Gaynor demonstrated his honor by applauding Obama’s call despite his political differences.

Fervently anti-Communist Winston Churchill found some good words for Stalin after he joined the war against Hitler, so I'll give leftist Senator Barack Obama (D.- Ill.) full credit for combining a sensible position on the Duke case and smart politics)

Credit should be given when credit is due.

Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), where were you?

The so-called Duke case is a Democrat scandal, but it's not Democrat presidential aspirant Obama's scandal.

Recently, Senator Obama quietly, but clearly, supported the calls for a federal investigation of possible violation of the constitutional rights of the Duke Three (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnety and David Evans).

Not quite a Sister Souljah moment, but a step in that direction.

Michael Gaynor

As expected, the Black Press answered the question of whether Obama was “black enough” with a resounding “NO” by taking the opportunity to undercut Obama’s presidential bid despite his recent endorsement from Jesse Jackson. Pinch hitting for regular contributor and Tawana Brawley enabler Alton Maddox, Cash Michaels declared in The Amsterdam News:

“Obama blasted for backing fed Duke case
.
“Is presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama’s backing for a federal “independent inquiry” into the Duke alleged sexual assault case a genuine concern that the civil rights of the defendants may have been violated or just simple political pandering to secure more broad-based support for his campaign?
.
“At least one legal expert has chastised the Black Illinois Democrat, saying, “Having a federal civil rights investigation [in this case] is such a joke.”Another legal scholar added that Obama’s statement “doesn’t mean much” if he’s “stating a position without a valid examination.” Amsterdam News
Maddox found an alternative venue to spew his venom. Declaring Obama a “Wolf in sheep’s clothing”, Maddox turned to the Black Star News to publish his op-ed criticizing the first viable African American candidate for president.

Senator Barack Obama has joined right-wing forces in Congress in demanding a federal probe of Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong for allegedly withholding DNA evidence from the defense in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

Since Obama is in the business of demanding federal probes in racially-motivated cases, he should investigate New York for defaming Tawana Brawley and railroading me. I can show him reams of evidence proving my innocence and the involvement of Steven Pagones, a former assistant district attorney, in the kidnapping and rape of Tawana Brawley.

This was followed by cover-ups by former State Attorney General Robert Abrams and Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Abrams rigged the grand jury process and Spitzer suppressed exculpatory evidence, the same charge filed against Nifong. With respect to Abrams, state-sponsored defamation, without due process, is a constitutional violation. This was retaliation for my fingering Pagones.

Obama is demanding that Nifong be prosecuted for civil rights violations. Thus, he would face imprisonment. It is curious that this is only happening to a white prosecutor who filed criminal charges against privileged, white males for raping a Black woman. This entire situation is unprecedented.I am simply requesting that Obama's letter be circulated to the Black media and the public. He has circulated it widely in the white media. This is evidence of double talk. Black Star News

Foremost Nifong apologist, The Herald Sun, did not miss the opportunity to serve the interests of its master.

Nifong's lawyer, David Freedman of Winston-Salem, said Monday he thought the State Bar probe of Nifong was sufficient. He indicated that, in his opinion, a federal inquiry would be going too far. "The State Bar is doing a very thorough investigation into the matter," said Freedman. "That's all that needs to be done."
…
Meanwhile, local university educators said not too much should be made of Obama's involvement.

"I have no idea what to think of it," said John Transue, a Duke political science professor.

...

Ferrel Guillory, director of UNC's Program on Southern Politics, predicted Obama's position wouldn't cause much of a ripple. "I can't pretend to know anything special about the Duke lacrosse case except what I've read in the newspapers," he said.

"Clearly, it's gotten national attention, but it doesn't rank up there with the real presidential issues. Unless there is a story behind the story that we don't know about, I doubt Obama's statements will have a big effect on the case or on national
politics."

…

Nifong has denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-833278.cfm

While it should be expected that every breath a presidential candidate takes will be put under a political microscope, the criticism of Obama’s statement reveals as much about his detractors as his statement reveals about him and his candidacy. For extremists in the Black Press, it’s clear that Obama is not “black enough” and that the perpetuation of the Hoax holds more value than the promotion of the first viable African American candidate for president. For some ultra-conservatives, taking shots at a Democrat candidate outweighs calling for justice. For the Snooze Room, any opportunity to carry water for Nifong shall not pass unnoted. For Barack Obama, however, it appears that standing up for justice is worth exposing himself to the venom spewed by his critics.

Correction: In fairness it should be noted that the Black Star News appears to have removed the Maddox article referenced above. Curiously, the Maddox op-ed has now been replaced with a reprint of the ABC News article that first commented on the news reported here. A Google cached version of the Maddox article, "Obama; Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" can be viewed by clicking here.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

The Great Unraveler Strikes Again

Crystal Mangum, March 16, 2006

.

Last month, Chicago Sports Review dubbed Professor KC Johnson, “The Great Unraveler” in an article featuring his diligent efforts to expose Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s hijacked Hoax.

"The Great Unraveler

"KC Johnson is a 38-year-old bowtie-wearing Brooklyn College professor with a Harvard degree. He has a passion for American history, and he enjoys the classroom. And due to his own peculiar mixture of annoyance and curiosity, he might be the most oft-cited source for those looking for coverage of what could formerly be called "The Duke Rape Case."

"That it was ever dubbed "The Duke Rape Case" as opposed to "The Duke Investigation" or "Allegations in Durham" is part of why he exists as we know him. He's a common story in New York and Durham. Kurt Andersen has written about Johnson's work in New York Magazine, and calls him "heroic." The exceptional legal writer Stuart Taylor Jr. has written about him in Slate. Many others have, and some will surely follow.

"And yes, old-media lovers, he's a mere blogger; a word that our Microsoft Word still holds in contempt, an underlined outsider. He's also further evidence of how, even inside a newsroom, it's long not been a debate whether the "web logger" has changed modern journalism for the better, no matter how much it can sting us in the old school…To. Print. That.

"The some 1,000 words a day that Johnson has pumped into DurhamWonderland.blogspot.com since last March-and the countless hours of research it has taken-was all spawned by a beef with his peers in the business of educating. The issue was this: he couldn't understand why a massive group of Duke professors, now dubbed "The Group of 88," would come out with an ad in the student paper proclaiming their solidarity with the apparent victim of a rape by members of the Duke lacrosse team, when not only had little evidence been collected, and few articles written, but the accused athletes had yet to state anything in their own defense. Johnson couldn't believe that professors would condemn their own before anyone really knew the truth. And as the truth has come out, and the espisode has thus become a case study in recent legal travesties, Johnson has continued to discuss it all. Mostly on his blog, and seen, in a book."

Today, The Great Unraveler strikes again by producing one of the photographs of hoax-tress Crystal Mangum taken by Durham Police Officer R.A. Reid on March 16, two days after the invented brutal 30 minute "rape". Professor Johnson’s publication of the police photograph further puts to rest malicious misrepresentations put forth by ESPN, The New York Times, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Nancy Grace, Travis Mangum, the Snooze Room, and others.

ESPN, April 11, 2006:

A source has provided ESPN with a detailed account of the exotic dancer's arrival at the hospital the night of the alleged sexual assault at a party thrown by members of the Duke men's lacrosse team.

...

The source says the woman entered the hospital well after midnight March 13 wearing a red nightgown and nothing on her feet. She was walking on her own, but there were bruises on her face, neck, and arms.

Duff Wilson, New York Times, August 25, 2006:

Defense lawyers have argued that the written medical reports do not support the charge of rape. But in addition to the nurse's oral description of injuries consistent with the allegation, Sergeant Gottlieb writes that the accuser appeared to be in extreme pain when he interviewed her two and a half days after the incident, and that signs of bruises emerged then as well.

...

During that interview, the woman, who is dark skinned, said bruises were beginning to show from the attack. A female officer took photographs and confirmed that ''she had the onset of new bruises present,'' Sergeant Gottlieb wrote.

Nancy Grace with Travis Mangum, CNN, June 15, 2006:

NANCY GRACE, HOST: You said you saw bruises on her face. Where were they?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right up on the eyes and the jaw (INAUDIBLE)

Sergeant Mark Gottlieb, Filling in the Blanks July 2006:

"Tears ran down her face freely and her nose began to run." Gottlieb noted that "the victim stated she had bruising that was beginning to show up from the assault," 60 hours after the party. He ordered Investigator R.A. Reid to take photographs, and noted that "Reid stated she had the onset of new bruises present."

Travis Mangum, repeatedly:

"Well, she (INAUDIBLE) like she was in a lot of pain, and her face was swolled up. She had bruises on her eyes. And she just looked awful, and you look at her, you could tell she had been beaten up." MSNBC

"The father went home and waited for word from his daughter. Later that morning, she came to her parents' house with her boyfriend….After she came home, that's when I knew she had been beaten up," her father said."

Gambling 911

The father of the woman who said she was raped at a party near the Duke University campus said in an interview Tuesday that when he saw her the day after the party, her eyes and face were swollen, her arms were scratched, and she was complaining about her leg. She told him she thought some part of her leg had slipped out of joint, he said. The woman told her father that she had been dancing at a party and that someone had hit her. It wasn't until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped, he said. "I think she was ashamed. ... I just felt numb, angry," the father said. N&O

Brianne Dopart, The Snooze Room, Yesterday:

"While he still believes wholeheartedly his daughter was brutally raped and assaulted on the night of March 13, 2006 -- he recalls in vivid detail his daughter's swollen eyes and cut arms...Something like that, you just can't forget."

Cash Michaels, National Public Radio, April 26, 2006

“Her jaw was swollen. She clearly wasn’t moving properly. She had a problem with
her leg.”

Today’s revelation by Professor Johnson further demonstrates the powerful role blogs have assumed as watchdogs of the old media and public officials.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

FOX News: Charges to be Dismissed, Civil Suits to Follow

FOX News is reporting that all remaining charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans will be dismissed, possibly as early as tomorrow. Paul Caulfield of Inside Lacrosse magazine, citing multiple sources, made the revelation in an interview with Megyn Kelly this morning. As additional information becomes available, this post will be updated. For more immediate updates and discussion, visit the LS Forum.

Update:

FOX News now has an article available at their website reaffirming their televised report that charges may be dismissed as early as Friday. The article also indicates that civil lawsuits are expected to quickly follow formal the announcement of the end of the Hoax.

Report: All Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Players to Be Dropped Soon

"The remaining charges against three Duke University lacrosse players originally indicted for rape may be dropped sometime within the next few days, according to a report.

Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield told FOX News on Thursday that several sources have revealed to him that the assault and attempted kidnapping charges still pending against Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J., will soon be dropped.

Caulfield said his sources include more than just attorneys for the defense.

"There is no case here and they will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days," Caulfield told FOX News.

There have been rumors that the families of Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans may be considering civil lawsuits against Nifong, Duke or the state if it turns out the accuser's story doesn't pan out and Nifong is found to be guilty of mishandling the case.

"This is something that will wait in the wings. Once the criminal case is dropped, we are going to see this and I believe we'll see it quite quickly," said Caulfield, a former prosecutor.

Update:

An untitled, and apparently unfinished, article appearing on the News & Observer website indicates, or at least anticipates, that charges have been dropped.
XXXXX, From Staff Reports

"The move ends the criminal case against three former Duke University lacrosse players who were accused of a sexual assault on an escort service dancer at a lacrosse team party in March.

"While today’s dismissal marks the end of the criminal case, the legal actions are far from over. Nifong will face disciplinary action at the State Bar, which is likely to file extra charges related to the withheld DNA evidence. The three accused players could sue Nifong, the accuser and the Durham Police Department for violating their civil rights. Duke University and others could be named in lawsuits.

"Future legal actions will center on a trio of questions: What did Nifong know? When did he know it? And why did he take the case get as far as he did?"
Update:

The News & Observer has published an explanation for the premature posting of its unfinished article prepared in anticipation of charges being dropped.
An unpublished draft of a News & Observer story about the case against three former Duke University lacrosse players appeared on at least one Web site Thursday after it was picked up in Internet searches.

The N&O began preparing the draft after Fox News reported that the state Attorney General’s Office intended to dismiss charges of assault and attempted kidnapping against the three former players.

Editors instructed a reporter for newsobserver.com to prepare a story to be published if the charges were dropped. The reporter filed a draft with “XXXXX” in place of a headline. The draft began: “DURHAM — news in a sentence here. The second sentence should say whether the case is totally over now, The move ends the criminal case...”

The draft was filed in the publishing system of newsobserver.com under an embargo, meaning it could not appear on the paper’s Web site until a staffer attached a time and date for publication. But that action gave the story an Internet address, allowing it to appear in Internet searches.

Although the N&O states that the "unpublished" article did not appear on its website and was not given a time and date for publication, a review of a mirrored page created by an industrious blog hooligan appears to indicate otherwise.

"Published: Mar 22, 2007 11:20 AM"
Click to view the "unpublished" article as it appeared originally.

Update:
.
WTVD is reporting that Attorney General Roy Cooper's office is denying the claims that resolution of the Hoax is imminent.
Heightened Anticipation of Duke LAX Decision

"
From anonymous tips phoned into Triangle newsrooms to website postings, the public anticipation of a decision on the Duke Lacrosse case appears to have reached a fever pitch. The Attorney General's Office has confirmed its investigation would wrap up soon.

"Today FOX News is reporting sources close to the case say an announcement to dismiss charges against all three former players will be made Friday. However, Attorney General Roy Cooper's office is refuting that claim.

"We don't expect to make an announcement tomorrow," said Spokeswoman Noelle Talley. "Our review of the case, including reviewing documents and conducting interviews, is continuing."

"There has been wide speculation about the future of the case since Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong asked the Attorney General's Office to step in. Special prosecutors James Coman and Mary Winstead have spent weeks pouring over thousands of pages of legal documents. They've met with defense attorneys, District Attorney Mike Nifong and key witnesses including the alleged victim and the defendants."

Update:
.
FOX News is reporting that Crystal Mangum has been summoned today to meet with Roy Cooper's special prosecutors (LS Forum .) Megyn Kelly is also reporting that member's of the accuser's family are anticipating dismissal of the charges (LS Forum).
.
Update:
.
Defendant Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, appeared on Court TV with Catherine Crier. Continuing his public relations effort on behalf of his client, Freedman laid blame for the decision to withhold exonerating DNA evidence at the feet of co-conspirator Dr. Brian Meehan. Pointing to Meehan's '60 Minutes' interview, Freedman claimed that there was no agreement between the DA and the DNA expert to hide the evidence of actual innocence from the victims of Nifong's hijacked Hoax. Under oath, however, Dr. Meehan testified to the contrary at the December 15, 2006 Hoax hearing. For more details on Crier's coverage, please visit the LS Forum.

Setrakian Stands By Claim, Accuser Not Cooperating

Amid rampant rumors that the special prosecutors from the North Carolina Attorney General's office concluded their investigation prior to meeting with defense attorneys again yesterday, Lara Setrakian of ABC News reaffirmed her sourced claim that Crystal Mangum has refused to detail her story for the prosecutors who replaced Defendant Nifong in January. In advance of an announcement expected this week or next from NC Attorney General Roy Cooper, Setrakian offers additional clues to what direction Cooper's decision may take.
.
Last week, Setrakian broke an exclusive story revealing that Crystal Mangum was not cooperating with the North Carolina Attorney General’s special prosecutors.

“The woman who accused three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of sexual assault is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors, law enforcement sources close to the case tell ABC News.

“The accuser has met at least twice with prosecutors from the North Carolina attorney general's office, which took over the case from Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in January.

“In those interviews, she gave incomplete answers when asked about the alleged assault and the events surrounding it, according to sources.”
NC Attorney General Roy Cooper was quick to issue a denial of Setrakian’s initial claims. At the time we noted:

The Attorney General’s office initially declined official comment on the accuser’s lack of cooperation:

“A spokeswoman for the office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper would not comment on the accuser's participation with the investigation.”

Curiously, and in direct contradiction to the leak, Roy Cooper was quick to deny the assertion that the accuser was evading key questions. Within an hour of its original posting, the ABC article was amended to include:

“AG Denies Accuser's Lack of Cooperation

The attorney general's office issued the following statement to ABC News:

"In discussions with our attorneys, the accuser has been cooperative in answering questions and providing information. More discussions are scheduled."

In an article published late yesterday, Setrakian stood by those initial claims, despite Roy Cooper’s quick denial.

“As of March 16, she had not yet told that story to special prosecutors investigating the case. Law enforcement sources told ABC News that in at least two initial meetings with those officials, the accuser was not forthcoming and hesitated to answer investigators' questions.”

“Multiple sources close to the investigation confirmed that she was reluctant to answer questions in those interviews, though further meetings were scheduled in which she might become more forthcoming.”

Setrakian’s initial offering was met with harsh criticism for investing three quarters of its length to a one-sided examination of the reason for Mangum's newfound reticence. Victim advocates offered farfetched explanations of how Mangum’s current silence, in stark contrast to her previous wildly contradictory tales, was somehow indicative that “something happened.” Left unexamined was even the possibility that her silence might be due to her familiarity with the words "Anything you say can and will be used against you." We described the article's shortcomings as follows:

“Further detracting from the reliability of the article, the final three of its four pages attempt to downplay Mangum's reported, then denied, uncooperativeness by suggesting that the false accuser’s reticence is an indication that she was assaulted. Without offering the more obvious conclusion that Ms. Mangum, faced with the prospect of having to reconcile her mutually exclusive alternate versions with equally contradictory physical, scientific, and medical evidence, as well as numerous credible witness statements, has decided to remain silent rather than further incriminate herself, Setrakian parades Leah Oettinger, a victim’s advocate formerly employed with the Durham Crisis Response Center, to ensure her readers that just because everything points to "nothing happened" it doesn't mean that nothing happened.”

The latest ABC article attempts to erase the false impression created by the first offering, as Setrakian turns to Linda Fairstein, who ABC dubs “America's Top Sex Crimes Expert.” Fairstein puts the accuser’s failure to cooperate into proper perspective by noting:

"Her reluctance at this stage isn't a sign that she's not sure what happened — it's a red flag that there are things wrong with the story."

Ms. Fairstein, who for over two decades headed the Manhattan District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, overseeing an estimated 4,000 rape accusations per year, is widely recognized as a pioneer in the field of sex crimes prosecution. Ms. Fairstein has been critical of the Hoax for some time now. In October, she responded to the revelation that Defendant Nifong had not yet interviewed the accuser by decrying his abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

“It belies anything a prosecutor would do before making charges. There was no need to rush to the charging judgment in this case. … This whole train should have been slowed down and everybody interviewed before charging decisions. To have witnesses appear on a media program revealing information that the prosecutor doesn't know is stunningly inappropriate.”

In her effort to make amends for her previous article, Setrakian turns nearly the entire piece over to Fairstein, who rips Nifong’s misdeeds, while questioning his motives and challenging the veracity of the accuser.

"For Fairstein, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's biggest mistake in his handling of the case was a lack of tough questions — and a lack of effort to ask them. Nifong's first known meeting with the accuser was at least nine months after her initial accusations.

"There's no excuse for the way this prosecution has proceeded," she said. "The shocking aspect of that to me is that Nifong only met with her once or twice. He himself had not done a sit down interview once he learned that the initial allegations seemed to be inconsistent."

"Trust, but Verify

"Fairstein said a prosecutor should take the accuser's story seriously but view it with a critical eye.

"You have to take that story, prove it occurred, and prove that it's these men who did it," she said.

"Building a case, said Fairstein, means considering the accuser's story in light of the evidence at hand. That, she said, did not happen here.

"It seems to me that she was embraced by the prosecutor and his team immediately. They coddled her and took her side in this," Fairstein said.

"Fairstein also criticized Nifong for his apparent unwillingness to meet with defense attorneys early on in the case. Lawyers for Seligmann said that Nifong refused their offers to discuss evidence of an alibi — materials including ATM photos, phone records and testimonial evidence.

"You don't turn anybody away who's offering you information," Fairstein stressed.

"Fairstein was also surprised that Nifong was not alarmed by the lack of physical evidence, given the graphic nature of the accuser's charges. She describes being violently raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral sex. She told investigators that her alleged assailants did not wear condoms.

"While having DNA evidence is a luxury, no such evidence was found linking lacrosse players to the accuser's body or clothing. "It's a contact crime — not a stabbing or a drive-by shooting. You'd expect something to be left by the contact between two bodies," said Fairstein.

"Rape kit samples did, however, show traces of DNA from five to nine unidentified men — facts that were not revealed to the defense when they were first discovered and that Fairstein said should have slowed down the case.

Setrakian concludes her article with Fairstein, “a pioneer in the field and an advocate of victims' rights,” noting the damage done to future genuine victims by Nifong’s hijacking of the Hoax.

"Whatever the outcome, Fairstein worries about the impact of the Duke lacrosse case on rape prosecutions around the country. Her concern is that the high-profile investigation will inhibit aggressive prosecution of sexual assault cases.
.
"If there is a dismissal there will be many more people who encounter rape in the future with greater skepticism. It will reinforce the stereotype that many of these rapes are false reports."
.
"As a prosecutor, Fairstein said, "you have to acknowledge that [false] accusations do happen — though they are less than 10 percent of reported rapes.
.
"That, said Fairstein, is why you need to figure out the true story early on, asking tough questions and figuring out what reasons, if any, explain the missing or inconsistent evidence.
.
"You're looking to do justice before you go to court — and certainly before you get an indictment."
.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Blog Hooligans Making A Difference

On Friday, a thoughtful LieStoppers reader forwarded a note that he had received from a colleague. The note described an incident involving a rock thrown at a motorist traveling the Durham Freeway and suggested that this was one in a series of similar incidents that had yet to be reported by the Snooze Room and Durham Police.

"Below is a note I received from a colleague today. It is yet another instance of the local news media ignoring issues that reflect badly on Durham, yet would be of high interest to people living in the area. The "Snooze Room" and DPD are on the job again. Thought you would want to know."

"I just wanted to make everyone aware of something that is happening and has not been in the news. My daughter was going out of town lastnight and driving down the Durham Freeway and a big rock was thrown at their vehicle. Luckily they are ok it hit the dash when it came through. The cops told them this has been going on for ten days but we have seen nothing on the news about it. This is happening around the Alston Ave exit. In fact while the cops were with them writingthe report three more vehicles were hit within a quarter of a mile. Seven vehicles in all last night. Just wanted to make everyone aware so you can be very careful going that way."

Concerned for our local readers, we posted the notice from our kind reader at the LS Forum . An industrious Blog Hooligan, Onlyfactsmatter, forwarded the note to WRAL and WTVD to help further publicize the dangerous crime spree. Within minutes, WRAL’s Julia Lewis had made an inquiry with Durham Police and responded to the inquiry. Incredibly, the Durham Police spokesperson contacted by Ms. Lewis initially denied that any such incidents had occurred. Unwilling to accept the DPD denial, or perhaps trusting the report of a Blog Hooligan more, Ms. Lewis indicated that she would head to Durham to investigate further. By Friday evening, both WRAL and WTVD reported that, despite the initial denial of the Durham Police, the reported incidents had indeed occurred.

“Police in Durham are looking for the person who is dropping objects onto cars driving on the Durham Freeway.

“The latest incident happened Thursday night when someone dropped rocks off the old pedestrian bridge between Alston and Briggs Avenues.

“At Durham's 911 Call Center, four calls came in within 20 minutes as four cars were hit from above.

“Police say while no one was hurt in this latest incident, but they want the rock throwing to stop. So far police have made no arrest, but one officer told Eyewitness News that he's been chasing rock throwing teenagers off the overpass all month.

“Durham police are asking anyone who may have seen something suspicious to call them.

"We encourage you to call 911 regardless of where you are. Not just in Durham but any city. Especially if you're going in the opposite direction because a lot of times you'll be able to see them when they're lining up to catch cars coming under the bridge," Corp. David Addison said.” WTVD

Video of WTVD’s report can be viewed here: WTVD Video.

The recent rash of rock throwing appears to be a repeat of incidents that stretch back several years.

On January 27, 2003 WRAL reported that at least five similar crimes were being investigated.

“Durham police are investigating five incidents in which rocks were thrown off overpasses and caused damage to fast-moving vehicles on the interstate.

“The attacks happened at the Broad Street and Duke Street overpasses in the last week. Police believe someone is using rocks from a construction site as a dangerous weapon. Sunday night, rocks thrown off an overpass above I-85 damaged two vehicles and injured one person.

“A Triad woman was injured when a rock crashed through her window and cut her hand. She was a passenger in a car being driven by her husband.

“None of the other victims was seriously injured.

“The first two attacks in the last week happened on Broad Street, on the same night at the same time. The last two happened on Duke Street, again on the same night at the same time.

“Police say the suspects are probably juveniles playing a prank.

"If I had to give a professional opinion, I'd say it's kids being stupid," said Durham police Capt. C.D. Clark.

"But it can resuilt in a death, and there's nothing stupid about that. That's serious."

“Rocks also were thrown through the windows of a piece of construction equipment parked nearby in the 1700 block of N. Buchanan Blvd.

“It is not known if the same people are responsible for all the incidents.

“Witnesses reported seeing juveniles running from the overpass toward Ruby Street after two of the incidents.

“This is not the first rash of rock-throwing incidents on Durham overpasses. In 1999, a woman was killed when a boulder was dropped onto her car from an overpass.” WRAL

On March 14, 2001, WRAL reported that a man was injured in a rock-throwing incident while also noting a 1991 occurrence that left a Chapel Hill woman dead and a Cumberland County crime that left a teenager permanently disabled.

"Highway accidents happen all the time. You can try to be a safe driver by not tailgating or driving the speed limit, but sometimes there is nothing you can do when someone tries to cause an accident.

"Rakim Wynn was driving home from work late Tuesday night on Highway 70 East, about to cross under the Cheek Road overpass when someone heaved a rock over the side of the bridge.

"It crashed through the windshield, hitting Wynn's arm, the back seat and the roof before coming to a stop.

"I just heard this boom, and I saw a flash of light. At first, I didn't know what it was," he says. "I thought my tire had gone flat or something. I didn't even see the hole at first."

"Lt. Sarvis of the Durham Police Department says the rock probably came from a pile next to the overpass where construction is going on. He does not think this was child's play. Whoever did it will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

"We're very fortunate we're not investigating a murder here," he says. "No one's going to convince me they did not know the inherent danger of throwing a 40-pound rock that size off of a bridge."

"I guess God was with me that night. Basically, I didn't crash, and I didn't get killed. I just got a graze on the arm," Wynn says.

"Almost two years ago to the day, a rock changed a Canadian teenager's life forever. In March 1999, Michael Vytlingam suffered permanent brain damage when a rock crashed through the windshield of his SUV.

"Doctors say he can now walk and talk but will be disabled for life. Police arrested two teenagers almost a year later for throwing the rock from an I-95 overpass in Cumberland County.

"A Chapel Hill woman also died in 1991 when a 60-pound boulder was dropped from a Durham freeway overpass." WRAL

On March 25, 1999, WRAL reported on another series of Durham rock throwing incidents.

"Someone who likes to throw rocks at cars and trucks is targeting drivers in Durham. Six vehicles were hit in 45 minutes Friday night on the Durham Freeway.

"Windshields were damaged, but no one was injured.

"Most people probably do not think about it as they are driving along the highway. But, there is a chance that someone could throw a rock off of an overpass and hit a car.

"Boom! That's exactly what it sounded like, and it hit with a loud impact," said truck
driver Marvin McCaden.

"McCaden was driving along the Durham Freeway Thursday night. When he passed under the railroad crossing near Duke University Medical Center, a rock slammed into his passenger door. The damage does not look that bad, but it could have been much worse.

"About 12 inches higher. If it came through that window, that window doesn't shatter like a windshield. That window would actually just break like a house pane, and I'm sure I would have been hurt," said McCaden.

"Durham police think the situation is serious. They showed WRAL reports of six drivers, all hit in the same area, within 45 minutes, most likely with rocks like the ones that cover the railroad overpass.

"I really feel this is some young people who have too much time on their hands and, evidently, not enough supervision, and if they need to occupy their time, we'll occupy their time," said Cpl. Fran Borden.

"It's a serious situation and we need to get whoever is responsible out of the picture, because we don't need that kind of problem here in Durham," said McCaden.

Despite initially denying record of the rock throwing incidents, despite the WTVD and WRAL reports of multiple recent incidents, and despite a long-running history of similar crimes, the Durham Police would later admit to a single occurrence. Not surprisingly, the Snooze Room willingly passed along the apparent misinformation.

“Durham police are investigating rock-throwing incidents that damaged several vehicles on the Durham Freeway late Thursday, according to Durham police spokesman Cpl. David Addison.

“Three vehicles were struck by falling projectiles around 6:30 p.m. on N.C. 147 after traveling under the Briggs Avenue overpass. Only one of the three vehicles suffered damage serious enough to result in a documented police report, Addison said.

“The single reported rock-throwing incident was the first of its kind Addison could find in Durham police reports filed in the past week. Addison said there have been
rumors of a growing trend of similar incidents here.” Snooze Room Crime Log

It is difficult to understand why Durham Police would initially deny and then downplay the reports.

The dangerous rock throwing is not a circumstance unique to Durham. Similar reports can be found across the country. The most disturbing is a rash of 1992 incidents along a ten mile stretch of Jacksonville's I-295, described by Tom Brokaw as the "highway from hell." Starting in June of 1992, the rock throwing escalated into sniper and vehicle to vehicle shootings over the next few months. In total, the Florida incidents, which appear to remain unsolved, resulted in 36 confirmed crimes and 120 unverified incidents that left one person dead, another permanently disfigured, and at least two others injured.

While it is disappointing that Durham Police, rather than informing the public of the dangerous situation, initially denied the reports before eventually appearing to downplay the dangers, it is heartening to witness citizen journalists again making a difference.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Citizen Journalist Reports on IWF Forum

One of the most rewarding aspects of watching the LieStoppers community grow over the past several months has been witnessing the emergence of several citizen journalists who have taken it upon themselves to attend and report on Hoax hearings, press conferences, community meetings, panel discussions, and similar events. The willingness of LS Forum members to not only attend these events but also to share their observations with the balance of the LS community allows the LS sites to offer comprehensive, first person commentary in near real time while helping define the LS sites as the vehicle of collective empowerment they were intended to be.
.
Previously, we have been enlightened by Locomotive Breath's detailed account of the Shut Up and Teach forum, Kemp's Happy Hour Updates, and his description of the Charlotte stop of President Brodhead's "conversation" tour. Details of several other similar ventures can be found throughout the LS Forum. The most recent example of our merry band of citizen journalists going out of their way to provide timely comprehensive reports on current events is brought to us by MomToThree.
.
On Thursday, the Independent Women’s Forum hosted a discussion exploring the legal, academic, and media conduct that helped fuel the Hoax. Panelists included Stuart Taylor Jr., senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine, Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War against Boys, and IWF's Allison Kasic, who was featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine in May 2003 as one of the top student activists in the country. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin moderated the panel which was titled, "What Went Wrong at Duke?".
.
LS Forum member and occasional LS Blog contributor, MomToThree (A Duke Mom Responds to Stuart Rojstaczer, Our Collective Voice #2 ), had the opportunity to attend the forum and offered the following observations at the LS Forum:
  • A very team-friendly crowd of about sixty people.
  • No enablers or dissenters, at least none who made themselves known.
  • Also several Duke moms spoke up from the audience.
  • All the panelists were great - no real news (except one possible comment by Stuart Taylor, which I'll describe tomorrow), but the two lawyers, Toobin and Taylor, were very upbeat about the charges being dropped. (No mention of the photo op today, though).
  • Taylor was the most specifically knowledgeable about the case.
  • Toobin was pretty knowledgeable.
  • Sommers and Kasic stayed focused on the administration/faculty/academic issues.
  • All the panelists used very strong language in everything they said - I mean didn't mince words. The case just brings out superlatives in trying to express the outrage.
  • The crowd cheered when Liestoppers and Durham in Wonderland were mentioned!!!

Supplementing her initial report, MomToThree also gave LS Forum members additional insight by sharing her well written and easy to follow notes taken at the IWF event:

  • There were about sixty people present, about an even mix of men and women. Some journalists.
  • Michele Bernard, President of IWF, introduced the program and the panel. She started out with rape is a serious crime, rape allegations are serious, and false accusations of rape are serious – they hurt actual rape victims and especially they hurt the falsely accused who could carry the taint of these accusations for years. She then introduced the panel.
  • The format used was that Jeff Toobin stood at the podium and asked specific questions of the panelist. They gave five to ten minute answers. Then Toobin solicited questions from the audience.
  • [JT] Quotes a law school professor to the effect that “some crimes are so important that even innocence is no defense.” From the beginning this case has been seen as a metaphor for something else, e.g., for 19th century race relations. As more came out, other metaphors applied, seen as metaphor for – gender relations, university life, law enforcement. Stuart Taylor was one of the only journalists who actually took an independent look at the evidence. Asks ST how he became interested in the case.
  • [ST] Mentions that a friend of his has a son on the Duke lacrosse team. When the case broke, his friend called him and asked him to look into it. Said there had been no rape and no sex of any kind. ST said he would look at it. Became clear to him early that there was low probability that a rape had happened. Accuser had low credibility to begin with. Then there were the DNA tests. Mike Nifong specifically said that the DNA test would identify the guilty and rule out the innocent. March 28, Nifong got DNA test results and on April 10, the defense announced that the results are negative for any lacrosse players. But Mike Nifong didn’t want it to be over. Besides the negative DNA, there were also photos from the party that supported the players’ story. One of the accused also had an airtight alibi. All together, this evidence suggested to ST that the players were “very probably innocent.” At that point, ST was not ready to say that there was “certainty” that the accused were innocent. This was because Nifong had characterized the medical evidence as *showing* that a rape had occurred. When the medical evidence finally got to the Defense in May [and it did not show what Nifong claimed], that clinched it for ST.
  • [JT] What’s happening now with the case is that Mike Nifong is out – there is a top to bottom review by the Attorney General of North Carolina. JT expect dismissal of the charges soon.
  • JT asks AK: As a much younger person and more recent student, what do you think of the role of Duke and its response? What about Duke culture?
  • [AK] The mistakes that Duke made, not surprisingly, point to larger flaws in the academic system. “Duke” encompasses a lot of people, but let’s start with the administration and trustees. They adopted a “guilty until proven innocent attitude.” They did not stand up for the students as Mike Nifong trampled all over their due process rights. They ended the season, they suspended the players, fired the coach. They played it safe to the extreme. They hung the students out to dry. Yes, they were placed in a tough position. No school wants this situation, but they “had the opportunity to enforce the basic values of our justice system” Instead, they let the New Black Panther Party on campus. They allowed a chaotic environment to just thrive until December. Anyone could see that the prosecutor’s office had made mistakes – that there were problems in the process, whether the accused were guilty or innocent. The administration’s response was to form a bunch of committees which called for such irrelevant things as more minority professors and minority scholarships, more room on campus for student activities.
  • [JT] Asks CHS what she thinks the case tells us about feminism?
  • [CHS] It tells us there is a serious problem with hard line feminism on our campuses – there is a steady diet of anti-male hatred, compares it to hatred being taught in madrassas – it’s propaganda. She briefly reads from a text used in a women’s studies class. Text is called “Sexual Terrorism.” Says all women are targets and live under a system in which men scare and control females through violence. These [women’s studies] classes use an egregiously false body of information, myths and false statistics, such as the claim, reprinted in the New York Times, that on Super Bowl Sunday, battery against women increases 40%.. There was never a source found for this statistic, it was manufactured, but the media loved it. – example of “too good to check.” This type of feminism built on “hate statistics.” Some 10-15% of women exposed to this on campus get carried away with it, they get “intoxicated by hatred.”She is not sure what to make of Mike Nifong, some kind of mysterious, confused character, but would he have done this without support from Duke faculty, from the Group of 88 types. Mentions Kim Curtis who gave a lacrosse player in her class an ‘F’. There is a climate of anger, in which men exist in a milieu of disapproval – in which the worst case male is treated as the norm. The case was a trifecta of race, class, gender. The Duke three walked into a trap. Need to address this climate of hatred that is thriving on campus. This case was “manna from heaven” for certain people. Even now they don’t want to give it up.
  • [JT] Asks ST, what is the relationship between Mike Nifong’s reelection and the case? What pushed him forward? JT mentions that, in his own reporting, he found people saying Mike Nifong was a normal guy.
  • [ST] Yes, but he does have screaming mad fits to people he can intimidate. Nifong was on his way to losing to Freda Black. Had told the Governor who appointed him that he would not run. Freda Black better known candidate because of Petersen case. You could tell the lawyers were betting on Black, because she was getting their contributions. Biggest concern for Nifong was actually his pension. The case was like “manna from heaven.” It instantly made him famous…got him the black vote.
  • [JT] Asks AK to discuss the Group of 88’s Listening Statement.
  • [AK] The Ad was a “template for attitudes.” Ad asserted “something happened.” …grand statements followed by over-the-top conclusions. One of the protests was organized by a visiting member of the English department… so some activists not that close to Duke. Not surprisingly, the ad has since been removed from the Duke server, though still can be found on the internet. The Group signed on to the ad, but when questioned later, said things like…”if you think we were saying the players were guilty, that is your prejudice.” Mentions Lubiano’s comment that the ad was intended to be “a stake through the heart of the lacrosse team.”
  • [ST] Said he agrees with what AK just said, but thinks it is “understated.” “Many of these people are haters…they are not making a mistake.”
  • [JT] Asks CHS: Where does the demand for this [radical feminism] come from? Parents are not looking for it….attitudes well outside the mainstream…How does it get so entrenched?
  • [CHS] Faculties are “way to the left” of society. Faculties “don’t see themselves as accountable.”…world unto themselves….there was a generational shift…the old liberals died out…the new generation are “more radical, more hard core left.” Duke is “notorious for its strangely left-wing English department” and ethnic studies. CHS told this anecdote. At the University of MD, some women were inspired by a class they took to paper the school with posters which used random photos of male students from the directory and the words “This man is a potential rapist.” They were very satisfied with their work.
  • [JT] Asks ST about media coverage.
  • [ST] cites ones that were a “disgrace”: Raleigh New & Observer, Herald-Sun, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, lots of others….jumped on the “presumption of guilt” bandwagon. Examples: N&O March 25 interview with the accuser [ST read excerpts from the article, highlighting extremely biased wording]. New York Times, Salina Roberts, sports columnist, March 31st, “Bonded on Barbarity,” which compared the players and their supposed “wall of silence” to drug dealers and gang members engaged in anti-snitch campaigns.. Dan Abrams was an “honorable exception.” Also mentions Chris Cuomo. Otherwise, a “complete indifference to the evidence.”
  • [CHS] Recalls reading the Duff Wilson article from August. Before reading the article, CHS says she had dismissed the case entirely, but after reading Wilson, she wondered whether there maybe was something there.
  • [ST] Jumps in to say that Liestoppers, within a few hours, had “shredded” the Wilson article “from top to bottom.”…”an amazing performance of journalism on the fly.”
  • [AK] Brings up 60 Minutes. Says it seems to have been “the tipping point” for many, because could hear the kids’ side of the story in their own words. Mentions K.C, Johnson…really a problem [for the media] that the best reporting is from him. Also mentions Charlotte Allen’s piece in the Weekly Standard.

To read the balance of MomToThree's report, which includes a very detailed description of the Q&A that concluded the forum, please visit the LS Fourm. Approximately twenty four hours after MomToThree’s offering, IWF now has a video available if you'd like to view the forum in full.

Lara Loves the Hoax


It's a challenge I'll admit it!
She's tough to canonize!
What a pity ALL that DNA
Is from ALL those other guys!
.
But it's the duty of the media
To let agenda obscure fact!
Despite all the hideous challenges...
We must keep Crystal's victim hood intact!
.
Sister Samiha set the course for us.
Strippings a "performance obligation."
And Crystal's comments ripping Kim
Were suppressed to advance creation
.
Of a shy-new-dancer, sweet persona
That was Oh, so far from fact!
But we were committed from the beginning
To keep Crystal's victim hood intact.
.
When the neighbors tried to tell the truth
Our little college friend did a save,
Wouldn't report the "unsavory" details
Of the wayward pole-dancing maid.
.
Suppression, omission of all we've learned
Need to keep "Our Agenda" clear.
Do you like my one sided propaganda piece?
Keeping Crystal's victim hood revered?
.
We don't care too much for truth.
We don't need to state the facts
All that exculpatory evidence
Just takes OUR storyline off track.
.
Boo! Hoo! Pole dancer's traumatized!
Strangers scare her so!
Don't MENTION she handled strangers well...
Up on motel row,
.
So if she can't express herself
Maybe the surroundings don't suit her vibe!
Send the SP's to the Platinum Club!
Help us keep Crystal's victim hood ALIVE!
Joan Foster
.
Related:
The Uncooperative Accuser Durham in Wonderland

Friday, March 16, 2007

Hoax-tress Exercising Her Fifth Amendment Rights? Or not...

Despite having met twice with the special prosecutors who have replaced Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong at the helm of the Hoax, Crystal Mangum remains uncooperative while evasively answering questions about the imagined assault that has been through several rewrites since its inception, according to an exclusive report from Lara Setrakian of ABC News’ Law and Justice Unit. The office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, however, quickly denied Setrakian's report, three quarters of which was contorted to give a Nifongian impression that lack of cooperation by the complaining witness was indicative of continued trauma.
.
The ABC exclusive began:

Duke Lacrosse Accuser Not Answering Investigators' Key Questions

“The woman who accused three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of sexual assault is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors, law enforcement sources close to the case tell ABC News.

“The accuser has met at least twice with prosecutors from the North Carolina attorney general's office, which took over the case from Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in January.

“In those interviews, she gave incomplete answers when asked about the alleged assault and the events surrounding it, according to sources.”

In contrast to the reticence employed by the hoax-tress, John Stevenson of the Herald Sun and ABC are reporting that several lacrosse players, and other knowledgeable witnesses, have been interviewed by the special prosecutors.

“[S]everal [defense attorneys] acknowledged they were impressed with the thoroughness of the attorney general's investigation, noting that the special prosecutors had interviewed numerous lacrosse players and others with knowledge of the case.” John Stevenson, Herald Sun

“According to sources close to the team, the prosecution has questioned at least eight members of the lacrosse team to date -- students who attended the party but were not among those accused." ABC News
The Attorney General’s office initially declined official comment on the accuser’s lack of cooperation:

“A spokeswoman for the office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper would not comment on the accuser's participation with the investigation.”

Curiously, and in direct contradiction to the leak, Roy Cooper was quick to deny the assertion that the accuser was evading key questions. Within an hour of its original posting, the ABC article was amended to include:

“AG Denies Accuser's Lack of Cooperation

The attorney general's office issued the following statement to ABC News:

"In discussions with our attorneys, the accuser has been cooperative in answering questions and providing information. More discussions are scheduled."

Despite the denial issued by the AG’s office, the ABC article continues by reaffirming the information revealed by its source:

“The same law enforcement sources also said, however, that Kim Roberts, the second dancer who attended the March 2006 party, had also refused to speak with investigators and had said she would do so only if subpoenaed.

“Roberts has spoken to the media about the case, including doing an interview with ABC News' "Good Morning America."

“Although neither woman has been forthcoming up to this point, the sources stressed that this could change and that the accuser might still fully participate with investigators.

"In the coming weeks prosecutors will conduct further interviews with those involved in the case, leaving open the possibility that the accuser might say more about what she remembers from that night.”

In December, Defendant Nifong dropped the top count of the original indictments when the accuser expressed doubt as to whether she was actually raped. In doing so he noted that, beyond Mangum's statements, there was no additional evidence to support the charges.

“Nifong filed court papers saying that without "scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony" to corroborate that aspect of the case, "the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense."
Washington Post

With the remaining charges based solely on the pseudo-victim’s continually changing stories, it would appear impossible for the Attorney General’s office to continue this farce if the accuser indeed refuses to cooperate. The conflict between ABC’s source and the AG’s immediate denial only serves to confuse the situation giving rise to the question of whether Setrakian’s piece was an irresponsible offering.
.
Further detracting from the reliability of the article, the final three of its four pages attempt to downplay Mangum's reported, then denied, uncooperativeness by suggesting that the false accuser’s reticence is an indication that she was assaulted. Without offering the more obvious conclusion that Ms. Mangum, faced with the prospect of having to reconcile her mutually exclusive alternate versions with equally contradictory physical, scientific, and medical evidence, as well as numerous credible witness statements, has decided to remain silent rather than further incriminate herself, Setrakian parades Leah Oettinger, a victim’s advocate formerly employed with the Durham Crisis Response Center, to ensure her readers that just because everything points to "nothing happened" it doesn't mean that nothing happened.

“Victims’ rights advocates told ABC News that it could take the accuser time to get comfortable with the new prosecutors, stressing that her level of participation could change. They also say it could be part of a fairly normal reaction to what’s been a highly abnormal case.

“She probably feels very beat up by the system. If you don’t have a sense of trust in the system, then you’re certainly not going to be forthcoming,” said Leah Oettinger, an advocate most recently with the Durham Crisis Response Center.

“Even just with the vicious attacks on the Web and her picture on TV. … The trauma, the lack of trust that anyone’s going to be there for you, fear of being alone — all of that could contribute to someone’s reluctance to talk.”

Oettinger, the victims’ rights advocate, said the mix of the media glare, which included attacks on the accuser’s credibility, could contribute to her reluctance to talk about an alleged crime.

“Oettinger said that the accuser’s changing recollection of that night did not necessarily make it less likely that an assault had taken place.

“[Assault victims] don’t clearly remember the event right away. It’s not unusual and it doesn’t mean they are lying,” Oettinger said.

“When people have been through a trauma — a car crash is a good analogy — it can take them time to reconstruct the facts in their minds. Plus, sexual assault is uncomfortable for anyone to talk about.”

Former prosecutor Bull Dog Pundit reminds Ms. Oettinger that effective victim’s advocacy, while extremely valuable, requires having an actual victim.

I’ve got to tread lightly here. As a prosecutor I’ve worked with a number of advocates for the rights of crime victims, battered women, and other people who have had to live the horror of being the victim of crime. When the crime committed is rape or any other sexual assault, the victim advocates and counselors are often the ones who help the person make it through the rigors of the trial, and seeing that there is follow-up counseling.

In short they are invaluable resources not only to prosecutors and police, but most importantly, to the actual victims of the crime. I cannot imagine how tough it is to do that job, and how hard it is not to take your job home with you.

However, when I hear the comments of Leah Oettinger, an advocate most recently with the Durham Crisis Response Center, speaking about the Duke Lacrosse case, I often wonder if some of them don’t let their mission blind them to reality.

As pointed out in this story, the accuser in the case is not speaking to the new investigators assigned to look into the case. According to reports, she has given incomplete answers about what allegedly happened, and the events surrounding the night. The article does mention that some of the hesitation may be because she is uncomfortable with the new investigators, which could absolutely be true given the relationship that develops between an alleged victim and their advocates.

However, in this case, Ms. Oettinger refuses to concede that the reason the alleged victim may be uncooperative, and giving incomplete details is because of “the system”.
…
Ms. Oettinger, perhaps the first thing you should remember in being a victim’s rights advocate is to ensure that the person making the accusations is indeed a “victim” in the first place, and not just a flat out liar.

Ms. Oettinger may not be the only one in need of a reminder. Perhaps someone should also remind Ms. Setrakian that effective journalism may require having an actual story.