Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duke's Rush To Judgment (Durham, The Massachusetts Of North Carolina Rape Injustice Case Alert) ^ | 11/16/2006 | Jamie Glazov

Posted on 11/16/2006 1:39:09 AM PST by goldstategop

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last
To: Ken H; All

[More commentary and letters by Duke Engineering Professor Gustafson: credit via FODU site.]

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Dear Mr. Saunders

Gotta love freedom of speech, and the xanga site that allows me to have it. Here's a letter I wrote to News and Observer editorialist Barry Saunders regarding his recent editorial, "He's here to stay, so get used to it":

Mr. Saunders-
Having read your recent editorial in The Durham News section of the News & Observer, I have to say that I'm truly disturbed by the way you decided to use stereotypes of Duke students to further the divide between the overlapping Duke and Durham communities. The mock sendoff speech you attribute to potential Duke parents is simply a shameful way of reinforcing the negative, and largely untrue, stereotypes that the media continues to use in order to gain the favor of the ill-informed. Even the subtle jab at Duke's Northern population, "...Duke parents send their kids off to college *down here*" (emphasis mine, but I suspect also yours) continues the sad history of some Durham residents trying to make Duke "The Other" for their own gain, rather than a part of the Durham community for all of our good. Through your editorial, you have contributed to a strengthening of prejudice rather than using your talents, position, and judgment to effect some positive change.
Beyond that, I would like you to consider, for a moment, that some of the votes cast against Mr. Nifong, or in favor of Mr. Cheek or Mr. Monks, came about as a result of Professor James Coleman's very public statement that he believes Mr. Nifong has engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. I would like for you to consider that none of us in the community would appreciate the kind of treatment Mr. Moezeldin Elmostafa has received at the end of the blunt instrument that has been Mr. Nifong's investigation.

Michael Gustafson

Posted 11/12/2006 at 10:45 PM

Tuesday, November 07, 2006


Outrageous is a word describing something that causes outrage. The following quote from District Attorney Mike Nifong did just that to me this morning (from WRAL):

"The majority have been very friendly. There have been a few people who have not," a cheerful Nifong said later as he greeted voters in the parking lot of Temple Baptist Church. "There was one guy who came by with a lacrosse T-shirt. I didn't talk to him. I might have prejudged him _ I'm not sure."

This is a man who, my colleague James Coleman has said, has practiced prosecutorial misconduct in railroading three Duke students for a rape, kidnapping, and strangulation charges. This is a man who holds the lives of these three men in his hand, as well as twisted this community around his finger so he could become the elected, versus appointed, district attorney. This is a man who knows that death threats were shouted at these men as they were in court. This is a man who hasn't met with the accuser NOR the attorneys for the accused.

AND he has the arrogance to make a JOKE about that - about prejudgment? The chasm into which Mr. Nifong's professionalism continues to sink apparently knows know bounds. I am outraged.

Posted 11/7/2006 at 11:45 AM

[For the record]

101 posted on 11/22/2006 9:19:28 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

No surprise: Judge's study links school dropouts, criminal activity

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Nov 22, 2006 : 10:01 pm ET

DURHAM -- Saddened by a reported high school dropout rate of 43 percent in Durham, District Judge Craig Brown recently took it upon himself to study the correlation between education and criminal activity in the Bull City.

The results didn't surprise him.

According to the informal survey, more than half of the criminal suspects who appeared before Brown during a three-day period this month had dropped out of school between the 8th and 11th grades.

"Surprise, surprise," Brown said in an interview. "That's what I thought my study would show, but I had no data to back it up before. There's a great difference between thinking something and knowing it."

Brown conceded his survey was unscientific. He merely polled 103 criminal defendants to determine their level of education.

The numbers weren't as far apart as the judge had envisioned.

Fifty-four of the respondents turned out to be school dropouts, while 49 got into legal trouble despite graduating from high school. Sixteen in the latter category had attended college, Brown's survey indicated.

The majority of respondents -- 57 of 103 -- were misdemeanor rather than felony suspects.

Only one was charged with anything as high as a Class B felony, the second most serious level of crime on the books in North Carolina. That person had dropped out of high school in the 11th grade.

Class B offenses include first-degree rape and second-degree murder.

The bulk of Brown's felony respondents -- 32 -- fell within the much lower Class H category that takes in crimes like arranging dogfights, domestic abuse and possession of stolen goods.

Brown said he believed gang recruitment had much to do with the local high school dropout rate -- 43 percent -- which is 3 points higher than the state's rate of 40 percent.

"Dropping out of school leads to gang, drug and overall crime problems," the judge added.

"The powers that be need to put their money where their mouth is," he said. "There has been a lot of talk about the gang problem here, but not enough resources have been applied to it."

However, Brown said he was encouraged by an imminent program to vastly expand truancy courts in Durham. The expansion will be made possible by allowing two dozen or more regular lawyers to preside over the special courts in addition to district-level judges, of which Durham has only six, with another on the way in January.

102 posted on 11/22/2006 11:04:07 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Lawyers say condemned man delusional

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Nov 22, 2006 : 11:31 pm ET

DURHAM -- Death row inmate Guy Tobias LeGrande apparently couldn't care less about the efforts of two Durham lawyers working feverishly to save his life, which the state plans to snuff out by lethal injection Dec. 1.

The attorneys, Jay Ferguson and Duke University law professor Jim Coleman, say LeGrande is so delusional that he expects an automatic pardon from his 1996 murder-for-hire conviction in Stanly County.

He also believes he is due money -- and lots of it -- because state officials falsely imprisoned him, according to Ferguson and Coleman.

Ferguson, who has done appellate work for years, said he has never before encountered such a situation.

"He won't talk to me," the veteran attorney said of LeGrande. "He doesn't think he needs me. He thinks he is either being pardoned or has already been pardoned. It's too bad. There are a lot of facts in his case that point to innocence. But it's hard to investigate them without his cooperation."

Coleman said that he, too, was shunned when he last met with LeGrande.

"He decided I was working for the prosecutor, and he went berserk," said Coleman. "He wanted me out of there. He was banging on the walls. The suddenness and violence of his reaction was startling."

The way Ferguson and Coleman see it, such delusional behavior is evidence of a mental illness that should suffice to gain gubernatorial clemency or a judicial stay of execution for LeGrande. They say the illness was present during LeGrande's trial a decade ago, prompting him to fire his lawyers and represent himself with unparalleled amateurishness.

For weeks, the Durham attorneys have scurried around the state in their bid to save LeGrande, remaining motivated despite their client's lack of helpfulness.

A clemency petition was presented to the governor on Nov. 14. New legal documents have been filed. Now, Ferguson and Coleman are prepared to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Someone's got to stand up for people like Guy LeGrande," said Ferguson. "He doesn't understand he is going to be executed, but I do. He fully believes he has been pardoned, is going to be released and will receive a large sum of money from the government."

According to Ferguson, LeGrande already has written his family with the news, "I'm getting out soon."

Ferguson and Coleman received court appointments for their work on behalf of LeGrande, who has been diagnosed as psychotic, reportedly suffering from a "delusional disorder with grandiose and persecutory delusions."

Another last-ditch mental evaluation is now in progress.

LeGrande was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to die for the slaying of Ellen Munford -- a killing that was arranged by the woman's estranged husband, Tommy Munford.

Evidence indicated that Tommy Munford plotted to kill his spouse for insurance money and hired LeGrande to pull the trigger.

The husband was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder and is eligible for parole next year.

Although he fired his lawyers and represented himself at trial, LeGrande had standby counselors in the courtroom. But he ignored them and didn't let them participate in the proceedings, saying he received his guidance from Oprah Winfrey and Dan Rather.

When the standby lawyers filed a written motion suggesting LeGrande was mentally ill and legally incompetent, LeGrande tore up the paperwork.

A judge allowed the case to go forward anyway.

LeGrande wore a Superman T-shirt on most days and verbally harassed jurors, telling them to kiss his behind and calling them the anti-Christ, according to Ferguson, who was not one of the standby attorneys.

There was no physical evidence to link LeGrande to the murder.

"Nothing," said Ferguson. "Not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a drop of blood. Absolutely nothing."

Ferguson said only two witnesses were able to incriminate LeGrande.

One was Tommy Munford, the estranged husband who plotted his wife's murder and later received a generous plea bargain.

"He's certainly biased," Ferguson said.

The other witness was a woman named Barbara Taylor, who testified that LeGrande had confessed to her. She reportedly received $3,500 in reward money.

Racial issues play a center-stage role in the clemency efforts being mounted by Ferguson and Coleman.

LeGrande is black but had an all-white jury. The Munfords were white.

The prosecution of LeGrande was spearheaded by District Attorney Ken Honeycutt, who succeeded in getting at least three other black men sentenced to death by all-white juries in the 1990s.

Honeycutt gained notoriety for wearing a gold lapel pin shaped like a noose, and for awarding such pins to assistant prosecutors who won death-penalty cases.

However, two of Honeycutt's death verdicts were overturned because he allegedly withheld critical evidence.

All of which leads Coleman, the Duke law professor, to think LeGrande might not be a killer.

"His claim of innocence is not frivolous," Coleman said in an interview. "It is possible he really is innocent."

It is true that LeGrande knew about the plot to murder Ellen Munford, Coleman acknowledged.

But that was only because Tommy Munford "shopped around" the idea to various people -- including LeGrande -- as he sought a triggerman, the professor said.

So LeGrande's knowledge of the scheme was not conclusive evidence of guilt, Coleman added.

At one point, LeGrande offered to tell a Stanly County newspaper who murdered Ellen Munford if the paper would pay him $50,000, reports indicated.

"He clearly was trying to make money for what he knew," said Coleman. "But is that plausible behavior for a person who actually did the killing? It doesn't prove he didn't do it, but it does raise questions. Those questions should have been investigated."

103 posted on 11/22/2006 11:15:31 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

**The Durham hoax, fraud, extortion scam was nailed by these folks within 7 days.

Eight months later, an election fraud has been perpetrated upon the citizens of Durham County.

The citizens continue to be lied to, misled, and purposely confused by the local hierarchy.

Was is all a setup would now be better asked, who is guiding the ongoing conspiracy?

'Scarborough Country' for March 30 MSNBC TV
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET March 31, 2006

Guests: Eddie Thompson, Michael Cardoza, Nicole Deborde, Stacey Honowitz, Melissa Caldwell, Jack Benza, Butch Williams, Kerry Sutton, Stacey Honowitz, John Patrick Dolan, Steve Sax, General Wayne Downing

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, duped at Duke. Suggestions that that college gang rape was all a hoax. Lawyers for two university Duke lacrosse players, at the center of horrific allegations mount a furious counterattack. They say no rape. They say no sex. They say no crime. Was it all a setup? - cut-

But first the investigation of a possible gang rape involving the Duke University lacrosse team. It‘s split that campus and the community in two bitter camps. Police say an exotic dancer was raped, but the players continue to deny the allegations. Did members of the lacrosse team rape and brutalize a young, exotic dancer, or was it all, as their lawyers are suggesting tonight, an elaborate hoax? We‘re going to hear from two of the attorneys from the players in a minute. But first, with us live from the campus of Duke is NBC‘s Michelle Hofland. What‘s the latest there?

MICHELLE HOFLAND, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, tonight it appears that the district attorney here is backpedaling a little bit. When I spoke with him late today, he says that he still is confident that the woman was raped, and that she was raped at that off-campus apartment.

But now he says that he‘s not so sure that it was a lacrosse player after all, that he‘s really not sure. He‘s waiting for the DNA results. Now, I said how can that be, when you told me that everyone inside that party was a lacrosse player? And this is what he said, is that all he knows about who was inside that apartment came from the lacrosse players, and maybe all of them omitted three other people who could have been at that party. A little bit confusing and we‘re waiting now.

Interestingly this all comes the same time that the attorneys for the lacrosse players are coming out and saying, hey, these people, they did not do anything wrong.

They did not touch these women. There was no sexual contact. We want these DNA test results to be done. We want them to come out, because it will prove our innocence. That‘s what the attorneys are saying. So it‘s a very interesting time. Things are shifting a little bit here, and we‘re waiting for the test results, expected to be out sometime next week.

SCARBOROUGH: You know Michelle, over the past 24 hours, the dynamics of this case seem to have changed so much. Twenty-four hours ago anger was growing on that campus. I know it still is in some quarters. Then everybody in the media and in the D.A.‘s office was suggesting this was an open-and-shut case. Now the D.A., like you said, is backing off. Plus we hear that he‘s saying, even if these DNA tests come back, and all the lacrosse players are cleared, there‘s a possibility that maybe they didn‘t leave any evidence on them, because they were wearing condoms. Is this a D.A., and is this a department, that‘s furiously backpedaling tonight?

HOFLAND: You know that‘s what it appears. I have not heard actually about the condoms. That I have not heard in this case. It may be that that‘s just what hasn‘t been—what we haven‘t heard here at the scene. But, yes, it does appear that there is some backpedaling going on.

Something else also is that he is saying, oh well, you know what? What I don‘t understand here, according to the district attorney, is that these guys just haven‘t been very cooperative. None of these lacrosse players are being cooperative. And their attorneys are saying, hey wait a minute, all these guys, they gave them their DNA evidence.

And the district attorney says, yes, but they‘re not being cooperative, because none of them are coming forward and saying this is what happened inside the party. This is what these men did to this poor girl. But the attorneys are saying, hey, these guys can‘t come forward and say that, because it didn‘t happen. So a lot of interesting things, and shuffling, and interesting facts that are happening here in Duke right now.

SCARBOROUGH: It is fascinating, and it‘s a fast-moving story. NBC‘s Michelle Hofland, as always thanks a lot for being with us. We really appreciate it.

Now earlier today, I spoke with attorneys for the two captains of the lacrosse team. And what they told me may surprise anybody who‘s been following this story. And I want to underline this. This is so important. And we see this time and time again, where you have a group of people or you have a person who is accused by the media, because they‘re in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know, maybe there are three people on this team that are guilty of brutalizing this young poor lady. We don‘t know.

But at the same time maybe you have an entire team that‘s being slimed, because somebody else committed the crime. You remember the runaway bride? You remember how everybody, when she disappeared, everybody was looking at the husband? We were all sure he was guilty of something. Well, we found out later on, that wasn‘t the case at all.

So we just have to be careful, we have to slow down and just like we don‘t want to jump to the other side and say, hey this thing definitely is a hoax, you certainly have to remember in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We forget that sometimes in the media. Well I started my interview when I was talking to these lacrosse players‘ attorneys by asking Butch Williams what his client is saying happened on the night in question. Take a listen to what he told me.


BUTCH WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSED DUKE PLAYER: Well he‘s categorically denied, both in writing as well as to anyone that will listen that nothing occurred of a sexual nature that night.

SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what the police report says about the victim. It says the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Can you tell us what your clients have told you, or what other people on the lacrosse team are saying, about the police suggesting that in fact she was raped that night?

WILLIAMS: Once again, we can‘t. I can speak for my client. And I‘m sure Kerry feels the same way. I can‘t speak on whatever my client has told me, because that‘s privileged information. But, as an overview, I can speak of what some of the outside investigators are bringing up there. I think the police report states that there may have been sex that night, but it doesn‘t necessarily mean—and that‘s where the DNA, to us, is going to prove substantial, as to who she might have had sex with that night.

SCARBOROUGH: So your suggestion, or at least the suggestion of your client and others on the team, is if she had sex, it wasn‘t with anybody on the Duke lacrosse team.

WILLIAMS: Correct.


SCARBOROUGH: Kerry Sutton, let me bring you in here. Is your client telling you the same thing as Mr. Williams‘ client is telling him, that nobody inside that home had any sexual contact with this exotic dancer?

SUTTON: That‘s what‘s telling me, and that‘s what he told the police when he gave them a voluntary statement in writing and orally. And that‘s what he and teammates have said from the beginning.

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Williams, I want to play you a 911 call that I suggest many Americans are going to be paying a lot closer attention to in the coming days. Take a listen.

911 CALL AUDIO: It‘s right in front of 610 Buchanan Street. And I saw them all come out like a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend are walking by, and they called us n-----s. They didn‘t harm me in any way, but I just felt so completely offended, I can‘t even believe it.

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Williams, talk about some of the inconsistencies in this 911 tape and the other one that occurred about 30 minutes later.

WILLIAMS: Well, if you listen to it in the tapes, first, they say I‘m riding by, then they say we were walking. And then they called out the actual address, 610. There are no numbers on that house. You cannot see that number. You cannot depict the address in the daytime, more less at night. So, you know, that right there was one of the first things glaringly that stepped out to me, that it couldn‘t have been anyone just riding by and randomly getting singled out. The other thing is, you know, for something—I mean if a person calls you a name, you dial a 911, and not being attacked or anything like that. That all too also stuck out in my mind as, you know, being almost contrived.

SCARBOROUGH: So are you suggesting that this may be a hoax? That possibly this exotic dancer and her friend may have set this—may have tried to set the Duke lacrosse team up?

WILLIAMS: I‘m not going to say it‘s a hoax, and I‘m not going to get into setups at this particular point, because we‘re still working on each and every angle of the case. The only thing I say it‘s just mighty coincidental that these calls came in, citing the address, in close proximity in time to the allegations being made.

SCARBOROUGH: And Kerry Sutton, apparently the second call that came reporting the rape 30 minutes later, was at a Kroger grocery store several miles away, when they had opportunities to make calls right there in that neighborhood, correct?

SUTTON: Correct. And the Durham Police Department headquarters is much closer than that Kroger store two and a half miles away.

SCARBOROUGH: What‘s the D.A. doing though—again, talking about getting out in front of this story. Now he‘s even assuming that the DNA evidence may come back and may let both of your clients off the hook, but then says, hey, I still got them.

WILLIAMS: Because quite frankly, if the DNA doesn‘t come back, it‘s definitely not in their favor when they have told everybody in the press, and now it seems like around the world, that all we want to get the DNA, and the DNA is going to show us x, y, and z. This is all what we call premature.

SCARBOROUGH: Butch, make a prediction for us. Do you think your client and the rest of the team is going to be cleared? And if so, how long is it going to take to get all the facts out on the table and get this part of their lives behind them?

WILLIAMS: It‘s not just these young men that are on the front. Duke University, a very fine prestigious university, is being drug through the mud across the United States, as well as these young men. All of them have families, you know, in different parts of the country, that have had to answer questions on this. Just think, if in fact they have been wrongly accused, as we believe that they have, how do you get your life back? How do your family get their name back? So that‘s what we‘re working for. It‘s not just about this rape. It‘s about total vindication for these young men.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Butch Williams, Kerry Sutton, thank you so much for being with us. And this is a story obviously that‘s going to continue. And like I said before, I think we‘re going to be—everybody‘s going to be looking a lot more closely at these 911 tapes in the coming days. Thank you so much for being with us and good luck.

WILLIAMS: Thank you Joe.

SUTTON: Thanks Joe.


SCARBOROUGH: And let‘s bring our legal expert. Stacey Honowitz is a prosecutor, and John Patrick Dolan, a criminal defense attorney. Stacey, of course, whenever you have a possible victim like this you have to bend over backwards. I think we‘ve been doing that the past couple nights. But isn‘t it time to stop and say, hey wait a second, if this DNA evidence comes back and it doesn‘t pinpoint any lacrosse player, the D.A. has got to drop the case against them, right?

STACEY HONOWITZ, PROSECUTOR: Listen, Joe, the bottom line is, you know, you don‘t always need DNA to prove a rape case. Everybody knows that. Sometimes you‘re not going to have biological evidence.

SCARBOROUGH: But the D.A. didn‘t know that Stacey. Just a couple of days ago he was saying this DNA evidence is going to prove this case. And now he‘s saying, well, maybe I was wrong.

HONOWITZ: I think what the D.A. was saying was we can definitely say by the credible—we thought that this victim was credible and we saw bruising, we saw vaginal injuries, anal injuries, everything to say to lead to the fact that this was nonconsensual sex. And I think everybody else was bringing up the D.A. It was the defense attorneys that kept saying the D.A. is going to prove it...

SCARBOROUGH: But the D.A. has to prove though...

HONOWITZ: The D.A.‘s going to prove that—the DNA is going to prove that our clients aren‘t guilty, When in fact the DNA wouldn‘t.

SCARBOROUGH: Okay, Stacey, hold on a second though. I mean, there are a lot of people there. They‘re going to have to actually prove that a Duke lacrosse player was responsible for this. The lady could have had sex with somebody else that night, couldn‘t she have?

HONOWITZ: Yes, well we have to wait and see if she made an identification. Certainly the investigation has to move forward. Can she identify the perpetrators that were in the room with her that night? Certainly if she can, and there‘s no DNA, it doesn‘t mean that the D.A. can‘t prove the case. If there‘s DNA, and she picks them out of a lineup, well certainly there‘s a great case there. So the DNA is not going to be dispositive as to whether or not she had nonconsensual sex with any of the lacrosse players in the house that night. And that‘s what we‘re waiting to see.

SCARBOROUGH: John, could this all have been a hoax?

JOHN PATRICK DOLAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It could have been a hoax. It could have been an ill-conceived hoax. And I have to say I disagree with Stacey. If the DNA doesn‘t match one of these players, with the background of these ladies who are credible, exotic dancers, I don‘t think the D.A.‘s going to bring a prosecution. Because there‘s no way that they would get a conviction, unless they had the slam-dunk of the DNA plus the identification. That‘s the only way it‘s going to work for the prosecution.

HONOWITZ: That‘ not right. That‘s not correct.

SCARBOROUGH: John, the D.A. screwed up. He‘s already overpromised, hasn‘t he?

DOLAN: Oh, yes. They‘re way out in front of this case too soon. This is what happens again and again in state prosecutions. They arrest people or they accuse people first and worry about evidence later. They don‘t do that in the federal government by the way.

SCARBOROUGH: Well John, what do you think about them leaking this document to the press a couple days ago about how this lady was sexually abused?

DOLAN: Well, that happens all the time. The prosecution leaks evidence all the time. And by the way, you never hear them prosecuted for doing that. And they get the spin out there early, and then people make all kinds of derogatory comments about the defense lawyers when they come on in...

SCARBOROUGH: ... It‘s going to blow up in their face.

DOLAN: It is.

SCARBOROUGH: John, thank you for being with us. Stacey. Stick around. We‘ll be right back with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.


[For the record]

104 posted on 11/23/2006 1:02:50 AM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Thanks for posting about the 911 tape.

That's about the only record we're going to get of what's on it, because it has now been 'erased'.

I hope somebody can get a transcription of the entire thing,
from a broadcast. And also of the police calls.

105 posted on 11/23/2006 5:01:03 AM PST by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight


Audio clip:

Security guard at Kroger on Hillsborough Road calls 911 at 1:22 a.m. on March 14 about a distraught woman. This is not the voice of the alleged victim.

Audio clip:

A woman calls 911 at 12:53 a.m. on March 14 about someone shouting a racial slur in front of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. This is not the voice of the alleged victim.

Audio: Radio Traffic Recording

The conversation between the officer and a police dispatcher took place about 1:30 a.m. March 14, about five minutes after a grocery store security guard called 911 to report a woman in the parking lot who would not get out of someone else's car.

The officer gave the dispatcher the police code for an intoxicated person. When asked whether the woman needed medical help, the officer said: "She's breathing and appears to be fine. She's not in distress. She's just passed out drunk."


More here:

106 posted on 11/23/2006 6:02:31 AM PST by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

I don't think it is the 911 tapes that were erased. I think it was the tapes of the police chatter on their radios that night. That is the chatter where various police officers would have been expressing their view that Mangum was lying, changing her story, had a history of lying, was an informer, is a hooker etc.

It would have been powerful evidence of reasonable doubt in this case. You can imagine what that chatter was like because the police knew Mangum and the police behaved that early morning like they did not believe her. If the police can not produce this evidence, these charges should be tossed for this single reason.

107 posted on 11/23/2006 10:50:04 AM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

NCCU review not getting to right desks

By Gregory Phillips : The Herald-Sun, Nov 23, 2006

DURHAM -- If any agencies decide to press criminal charges against the nine N.C. Central University employees found working with fake Social Security numbers, the suspects will have had plenty of time to disappear. This week, law enforcement still hadn't received the audit published last month that uncovered what was going on.

The review found nine NCCU employees who used fraudulent Social Security numbers -- seven that had never been issued and two that belonged to dead people. The five workers the auditors managed to find admitted they'd bought their cards illegally. The report, issued by state Auditor Les Merritt's office in October, stated the findings would be sent to Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, state Attorney General Roy Cooper and U.S. Attorney Anna Mills Wagoner to determine which prosecutor, if any, should investigate.

Wagoner said Monday the report hadn't crossed her desk.

"If it went to me, I didn't get it," she said.

Follow-up enquiries with the auditor's office revealed it hadn't been sent. Chris Mears, Merritt's director of public affairs, said the mistake was discovered Monday after The Herald-Sun asked about it.

The failure occurred because the audit that uncovered the problems at NCCU was a new kind of review, according to Mears. He said that led to some administrative confusion as to whether it should be sent to law enforcement.

Most audits the office conducts are either information system reviews, which Mears called "performance checks on the way information is handled," or investigative reviews, which are usually spawned by specific complaints about state agencies from the public. The results of the first kind of review rarely uncover illegalities and aren't sent to law enforcement, while those from investigative reviews usually are, he said.

The NCCU report resulted from a new strategic review. Auditors used computerized "data mining" of the state payroll system to find employees with Social Security numbers that hadn't been issued or belonged to dead people.

"We just followed the trail to N.C. Central," Mears said. -cut-

* Follow the trail . . .

108 posted on 11/23/2006 10:21:46 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

CMicheals at TL Nov.22, 2006: -excerpts-

No less than the Durham NAACP just had Duke Pres. Dick Brodhead keynote their Freedom Fund Banquet last Saturday. Clearly it wasn't done in an effort to divide, but unite the African-American and white communities in a time of stress.

In my story hitting stands today I quote Brodhead as saying:

" seems to me that everyone who is a party to this issue, in this community or elsewhere, has got to understand that our collective community faith requires us to stand together for truth and justice, even in the face of difficult situations, and emotions.”

“The world of due process and the world of justice based on evidence is a world we all need,” the Duke president continued. “We need the benefit of presumption of innocence. We need the benefit of waiting until the facts are in before judgment is rendered. We all need that, though I must say, people who have not had the whole benefit of the law know that they have as much or more to lose than anybody from the opposite world, a world where prejudice is allowed to make decisions.”

“A world in which you can decide whether someone’s guilty by deciding what category of humanity they belong to, or a world in which people feel free to reach conclusions without taking the trouble to establish the facts.”

“That is a dangerous world to live in,” Brodhead declared. “That’s not dangerous for some people; that’s dangerous for all people, and that itself is one of the lessons of the civil rights movement.”

Now this may come as a shock to you, and you'll have to read the whole exclusive story (I was the only working reporter there) to see it in context, but Brodhead was pushing hard to a predominately Black audience during his remarks for the Duke Three to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in court.,784.0.html

[For the record]- An official transcript of this speech might be a good thing.

109 posted on 11/23/2006 10:45:37 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: All
Laughing at Durham

Durham is the laughing stock of the country, you have an extremely, dishonest district attorney in Mike Nifong, a police force out of control, and an attorney general who doesn't care about justice.

The Duke rape hoax is just that, a hoax. I am a rape survivor and I can tell you that a true victim will never change her story that many times. No DNA, accuser files false charges in the past, she goes back to pole dancing within days of this so-called rape and she is a drug seeker.

I have been saying this from day one: the NAACP and the ACLU are killing race relations in this country. Durham wake up. These young men did nothing to this girl. It takes a real victim to know a victim, and she is not a victim.

Springfield, Mass.
November 24, 2006

110 posted on 11/24/2006 4:04:40 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

LOL. Not at all. You never know. Truthfully thanks to an egotistical ambitious DA, this whole case is a waste of time but it will all have been worth it when Nifong has his Jim Bakker photo op.

111 posted on 11/24/2006 5:17:48 AM PST by Sue Perkick (Just a water spider on the pond of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

As much as I detest Nancy Grace I'm strongly opposed to this suit. We better be careful about what precedents are set. Any of us could be on the receiving end one day by someone who has "bad nerves" & came unglued by something we said. The potential here is frightening. I don't believe someone can "make" another person commit suicide.

I don't think Grace's intentions were noble by any means. I think she wanted to press the mother so hard that she would break & confess on Nancy's show so she could take the credit for it. But I really believe this lawsuit is without merit.

112 posted on 11/24/2006 5:26:25 AM PST by Sue Perkick (Just a water spider on the pond of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sue Perkick
As much as I detest Nancy Grace I'm strongly opposed to this suit.

In I general agree with you, but as with many legal issues it depends on what Grace and her minions said to the woman.

If they told her that she would be given the opportunity to seek help finding her missing child and then Grace switched on her, then Grace might have some liability. Basically if a jury finds that Grace and her agents baited and switched a vulnerable person, a jury might find a tort was committed.

The question becomes has someone committed a civil wrong, ie a tort, if they entice a person they knew to be psychologically vulnerable due to the loss of a child on their tv show with false assurances and then aggressively question them about their responsibility in the matter? No maybe Grace is such a jerk, that her defense is that the woman should not have expected any better from her.

But I think this would be very different than a stranger here coming to a rough and tumble discussion forum. We have no reason to know new comers are vulnerable. We did not bait them in with any promise to treat them well.
113 posted on 11/24/2006 6:33:06 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: All


Meanwhile, the Liestoppers analysis of the NAACP should win an award for timeliness. In recent weeks, Nifong enablers have attempted to argue that the NAACP has taken a "neutral" course on the case, chiefly by citing a 10-point statement by state director Barber. (That an organization with a long history of defending due process in criminal justice cases could assume a position of "neutrality" in a case with massive prosecutorial misconduct suggests a new approach in and of itself.)

Yet the Liestoppers post showed that the NAACP has, essentially, spoken with a forked tongue on the case, maintaining the Barber statement but taking action after action that contradicted it--to the point where the organization is now all but operating as an arm of the prosecution.

[end excerpt]

114 posted on 11/24/2006 10:19:22 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj


115 posted on 11/25/2006 5:10:05 AM PST by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: All
Post-Modern Prosecutions

by William L. Anderson

116 posted on 11/25/2006 6:22:53 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: abb

Officials could revise bail-bonding policies

By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
November 26, 2006 12:22 am
After years of taking it on the chin over what's widely criticized as a revolving-door court system that puts criminals back on the streets almost as soon as they are arrested, Durham judicial officials are considering revising bail-bonding policies next year.

And they may hold a public forum as early as January or February to help judges decide whether bonding guidelines need to be updated in response to evolving community conditions.

Current guidelines have remained unchanged for at least six years.

At the top of the felony scale, the guidelines provide no bond for those facing possible death penalties for first-degree murder.

The highest dollar figure on the chart is $200,000, suggested for first-degree rape suspects and first-degree murder cases not involving potential capital punishment.

The recommended bond in second-degree murder cases is $100,000. The maximum penalty for that crime is roughly 40 years in prison.

From there, suggested bail numbers go all the way down to $1,000 for Class I felonies, the lowest felony level on the books in North Carolina. Offenses in that category include public cross-burnings, safecracking and false bomb threats. The punishment goes up to 15 months behind bars.

Judges can deviate from the suggested dollar amounts at their discretion, but are supposed to be guided by public safety considerations, a person's previous criminal record and the likelihood a suspect might flee, among other factors.

District Attorney Mike Nifong is among those advocating a public forum before local bonding guidelines undergo possible changes.

"There's really a lot of misunderstanding out there," he said in an interview. "There's kind of a systemwide misunderstanding of what we do and how we do it.

"Once things are explained to people, whether they like what they heard or not, they are appreciative. It's good for members of the community to be informed and to give us their input. An informed citizenry would likely be less quick to assess blame when things go wrong."

But Nifong said public perceptions of a revolving-door court system probably will persist no matter how much local bonding guidelines are tinkered with.

Many believe it is too easy for criminal suspects to get out of jail on low bonds, only to commit new offenses and keep repeating the process in a vicious cycle of community-endangering violence.

Durham's revolving-door reputation has received intense scrutiny from a private watchdog group called the Durham Crime Cabinet and numerous writers of letters to the editor, among others.

"Whatever the [bail] numbers are, they're not necessarily going to address this perception," Nifong acknowledged. "And it doesn't matter what your bond is if you can post it."

Four years ago, a judge went way above the bonding guidelines and set bail in the $800,000 range for first-degree murder suspect Michael Peterson, who did not face the death penalty. Peterson soon went free by putting his million-dollar house on the line as bond collateral.

He later was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole for the fatal beating of his spouse, Nortel Networks executive Kathleen Peterson.

Similarly, a judge initially doubled the suggested $200,000 bond for three first-degree rape suspects in the controversial Duke lacrosse case. But the bonds then were lowered to $100,000 each.

The three defendants -- Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans -- posted bail even before the reduction.

According to Nifong, professional bail bondsmen can manipulate the system by giving favors to criminal suspects they trust.

While bondsmen normally charge a nonrefundable fee of 15 percent, they can undercut or raise the fee as much as they like, he said.

"It makes for kind of an artificial system," he added. "The bondsman can require as little or as much as he wants to get you out [of jail]. It's whatever he feels comfortable with. This means things are not as cut and dried as they appear to be. Our bonding policies do not directly address that."

Like Nifong, Chief District Judge Elaine Bushfan supports a public forum on local bonding policies.

"Traditionally, one thing we have not done well is to talk to the people about what we do and how we do it," she said. "I just think it's time to educate our constituency. I believe it's appropriate to speak with the public before we decide to change things."

But suggested bond amounts never will be set in stone, according to Bushfan.

"It is in a judge's discretion to make decisions about this," she said. "That discretion cannot be taken away. Even if we revise the numbers, judicial discretion will remain."
URL for this article:

117 posted on 11/26/2006 2:42:13 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: abb; All


by CASH MICHAELS, The Wilmington Journal, Originally posted 11/26/2006

Brodhead warns of division

[DURHAM] Calling it “an event of some fame…that’s been a burden to us all,” the embattled president of Duke University told the Durham NAACP Saturday that the continuing saga of the Duke lacrosse alleged rape case presents a unique challenge for people on all sides of the racial controversy to “stand together” for the truth, and “…protect ourselves and each other’s humanity.”

He also seemed to suggest that the Duke Three deserved more of a “presumption of innocence” than many supporters believe they’ve been getting.

In his keynote remarks to the Durham NAACP’s 32nd Annual Freedom Fund Banquet Saturday night, Pres. Richard H. Brodhead admonished African-Americans and whites to remember the struggles and accomplishments of the civil rights movement; the positive historical relationship he noted between Duke and Durham; as the legal principles of due process, presumption of innocence and justice based on evidence, as the racially divisive case proceeds towards possible trial.

“And that’s why it seems to me that everyone who is a party to this issue, in this community or elsewhere, has got to understand that our collective community faith requires us to stand together for truth and justice, even in the face of difficult situations, and emotions,” Brodhead, who was warmly received, said.

At no time did the Duke president say anything about the two Black exotic dancers involved, or the three white Duke lacrosse players indicted for allegedly raping and kidnapping one of the females during an off-campus drunken team party last March.

But in surprisingly blunt language, Brodhead said he realized the explosive nature and implications of the allegations, and the tense issues they’ve provoked in the African-American community.

“I do understand that …what was alleged to have happened has a special emotional charge to it because of the idea of white men commandeering Black women for their pleasure has a painful history,” Brodhead read from his prepared remarks to the packed, predominately African-American audience at the Durham Hilton. “It has a history that one would not ignore, and that history was aggravated.”

“And in the spring when it became my burden or mission, some days, to remind people of the presumption of innocence, more than one person from this city asked me if I thought if it had been a Black man and white women, would that person have enjoyed the same presumption of innocence?”

“If it were from me, my answer was, ‘You bet they would.’”

Though Brodhead touted the principle of “presumption of innocence,” many parents of Duke students, and supporters of the university, feel the president displayed very little support for the 47-member lacrosse team after he suspended their national championship-bound season just days after the rape allegations were made public last spring.

In a joint statement, the captains of team publicly apologized for the party, but maintained that no rape occurred. Their coach, however, was forced to resign.

Duke Three supporters have also blasted Pres. Brodhead for not speaking out against what they believe to be a “false prosecution” of the defendants by Durham District Attorney Mike Knifing, based on reportedly scant evidence and an allegedly corrupted police photo ID lineup.

They believe instead of leaving the indicted students at the mercy of authorities, he should have rallied the Duke community in support of their own.

But Brodhead, the ninth Duke president in the prestigious university’s history, seemed to echo, albeit in veiled language, the concerns of many of his critics Saturday evening that the three white defendants may not be able to get a fair trial in Durham because of allegations that many Blacks see them as “privileged” white athletes with high-priced lawyers who, at the very least, were part of group from which racial epithets and threats with a broomstick were allegedly hurled at the Black female dancers.

African-American leaders – who agree that on average, typical Black defendants could never afford the legal firepower defending the Duke Three or generate the equivalent press interest in their claims of innocence - still deny claims that a fair trial with Black jurors impaneled in Durham can’t be conducted.

In delicate terms, Brodhead addressed the reality of African-Americans and whites seeing this case through their own unique racial and historical prisms.

“In truth, in our history, …people have had unequal advantage of the law. Some people have not had the benefit of those presumptions (of innocence), and others have. And I understand that is part of the situation we have lived through.”

Brodhead said he saw an unidentified, but presumably Black person on television last spring saying, “I don’t really care if the accused people are guilty or innocent. I would just be happy to see them convicted.”

Then Pres. Brodhead said he saw a “student leader at North Carolina Central University” say, “ What a stupid thing to say, I don’t know anyone who thinks that. Everyone I know thinks we need to have the truth be established, and then let’s have justice be rendered.”

“The world of due process and the world of justice based on evidence is a world we all need,” the Duke president continued. “We need the benefit of presumption of innocence. We need the benefit of waiting until the facts are in before judgment is rendered. We all need that, though I must say, people who have not had the whole benefit of the law know that they have as much or more to lose than anybody from the opposite world, a world where prejudice is allowed to make decisions.”

“A world in which you can decide whether someone’s guilty by deciding what category of humanity they belong to, or a world in which people feel free to reach conclusions without taking the trouble to establish the facts.”

“That is a dangerous world to live in,” Brodhead declared. “That’s not dangerous for some people; that’s dangerous for all people, and that itself is one of the lessons of the civil rights movement.”

Brodhead, who came to Duke in July, 2004, noted that when the controversy over the alleged rape exploded into the nation’s headlines, Durham Mayor William Bell and North Carolina Central University Chancellor James Ammons, joined him in a united front to call for calm in the community, and patience as the criminal justice system sorted out the details.

He urged that patience again, as the case proceeds towards what many anticipate could be a long and emotionally charged trial.

“In the coming months, we will be put under trial again, and we will have to remember that at that moment of trial, we have the need to protect ourselves and each other’s humanity,” Pres. Brodhead said. “To stand up for the general rights of truth and justice and due process.”

118 posted on 11/26/2006 7:37:32 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

This speech would have been useful back in April, but now it sounds like smooth talking CYA. Brodhead still focuses on the case as if it were a racial referendum instead of a criminal proceeding with specific charges. His comments focusing on the "painful history" that this situation "aggravated." Gee, Dick, what if there never were a "situation" but rather a concoction by folks with bad motives? Three Duke students face a combined 100 years in prison based upon lies, and all this guy can say is that we should have a trial before we imprison them. What happens if they are acquitted, Dick? Will you apologize for denying them the opportunity to turn the tables on three innocent men? Strange, byut Brodhead never commented on the policy of Durham to target Duke students for harrassment and false prosecution. I guess profiling is wrong except when disfavored classes are targeted. Only the gauche challenges such matters.

Interesting to note that he received a warm welcome from the NAACP. Brodhead chose the adulation of that path instead of leading Duke University.

I used to think Brodhead was pleasant if bumbling and incompetent. He may be more ruthless and dangerous than that. The best thing Brodhead can do is keep his yap shut until this thing is over.

119 posted on 11/26/2006 8:12:50 PM PST by RecallMoran (Recall Brodhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: All
Civics lesson needed

In a Nov. 19 column, a Duke co-ed named Shadee Malaklou writes, "I assure Mr. Cheshire that these men are not innocent..." and "... it is just as unethical for Cheshire to present his defendant, David Evans, or his lacrosse friends as innocent victims..."

If Shadee Malaklou, a student at Duke who teaches workshops titled "Vagina" and "Dating and Mating: Hook-up Culture at Duke," knows Evans is guilty of rape, then by all means, she should step forward. If she also knows for a fact that Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann are also guilty of rape/sodomy, beating and strangulation, she needs to present her evidence to the authorities.

Malaklou doesn't abide athletes who drink and party. Therefore, Malaklou should resurrect the Temperance Movement on campus since she is worried about the morals of the men on campus. What Malaklou should not do is slander these three young men. Either these three students committed the crime or they didn't; that is the only question before the district attorney.

These three young men in particular are accused of a heinous crime; no one else. It is prejudicial and slanderous on Malaklou's part to paint them with a broad brush as drunken predators. She is guilty of odious stereotyping.

John Mark Kerr injected himself into the Jon Benet story to garner some sick attention; is that what Malaklou is doing here? Is Malaklou a rabble-rouser agitating a mob? What is the point of Malaklou's column?

She writes, "Nifong might not be in the right, legally, but that doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing." Huh? Malaklou, didn't they teach you basic civics in high school in California? The district attorney has to do the right thing. Legally, that is his job!

I pray Malaklou's parents are the only ones paying for her education, and I pray they have lots of money to waste.

E.V. Hoffman

November 27, 2006

120 posted on 11/27/2006 1:56:16 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson