Update II (10/11): I haven’t watched “60 Minutes” in years, but I’ll catch it this Sunday. The indicted Duke lacrosse players and stripper-embezzler Kim Roberts, who was sentenced to house arrest last month, will be interviewed.
———————————————————————
Last month I told you about a discussion panel at Syracuse University on constitutional issues in the Duke rape case. A video of the discussion is now available.
The panel was “Lacrosse Justice: Gender, Race, and Fairness in the Duke Lacrosse Legal Saga.” Questions presented:
Did politics and publicity railroad the Duke lacrosse defendants? Or were their accusers treated unfairly? In America, who fares better when a criminal trial becomes a media circus?
…to which I respond: YES, no, and it depends.
Featured speaker was Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Correspondent, Slate.com. Panelists were Linda Alcoff, Professor of Philosophy and Political Science; Sanjay Chhablani, Assistant Professor of Law; and Tom Maroney, Professor of Law. Mark Obbie moderated.
The Duke case mushroomed beyond a mere rape story. The toxic mix of race and class skewed and framed left-leaning media’s coverage. We were presented with an innocent black woman-victim v. evil white privileged perpetrators, from which flowed all sorts of inanely broad social commentary.
The media aren’t covering the story as much anymore. It’s become obvious to them — as it was to me early on — that the picture they framed wasn’t quite accurate.
As I’ve written before, this was a classic man-bites-dog story, and journalists lost their collective mind at the possibilities. Salaciousness sells.
I’m listening to the discussion as I blog this, and I’ll update the post with my spin later.
In other news, blogger and history professor KC Johnson has done an outstanding job providing in-depth analysis of the Duke case. He’s received much-deserved recognition in New York Magazine.
Related posts:
Update: I hate to be a blog snob because mine certainly isn’t close to perfect, but this blog stinks. I blog for business owners. Perhaps The News & Observer would be interested in my services? Doubtful, but it’s an idea…
{ 34 comments }
The Innocence Project came to this man’s rescue. Will they save the boys at Duke?
DNA Frees Brooklyn Man After 21 Years
http://crime.about.com/b/a/257160.htm
Lashawn,
The situation at Duke has gotten worse. Now Duke is requiring the Durham Police Department to report to Duke ANY police citation given to a Duke student in Durham. Littering, parking, etc, all violations of any Durham ordances are reported to Duke and now the Duke administration is dealing out written notices that go on a students record for any citation, before any guilt has been established. PC gone wild.
The theory is we need to know everything about our students in Durham so we won’t be blind sided by some littering student.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Raleigh News & Observer (the paper that “broke” the story and contributed to its becoming a national sensation) has an “editor’s blog” where readers can pose questions and the editors purport to provide meaningful answers. The latest editor statement relates to the N&O’s March 25 publication of only PART of its interview with the Duke accuser, and a lame attempt to explain why it was a good decision to publish only those statements by the accuser that were consistent with the police report. Have you ever heard such a thing? The editors’ backpeddling backpeddling nonsense responses to legit reader comments/questions are a case study in bogus post-facto rationalization.
The N&O STILL refuses to publish the entirety of the accuser’s interview. This is, as far as I know, the ONLY news interview ever conducted with the accuser, and the irresponsibility of the N&O in redacting it to fit some story the editors wanted to portray (and incredibly continuing this “stonewalling”) is mind-boggling.
Here ’tis:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=march_25_interview&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
The N&O still is not saying what the accuser said about Kim Roberts, which might be relevant information. Given the accuser has once said Kim Roberts stole her money and tried to implicate Kim Roberts as a criminal that night. (That is outside of Kim Roberts’ prior criminal activity.)
Why is the N&O still withholding that information? So it was an opinion, it still could be relevant to the case. I think that the full report should be included as evidence in the case. Even if they don’t let us know, by all means the attorneys involved in the case should know.
When did it become appropriate for a “journalist” to write up only those comments by an accuser that are consistent with a police report? (And by the way, the N&O has not yet divulged what police report it had in its possession on March 25.) I always thought “reporters” were supposed to dig beyond such preliminary investigative reports and search for the truth and report it.
The N&O editors also try to defend their “stonewall” by claiming that whatever the accuser said in her interview about the co-stripper was just “unsubstantiated” opinion. Nice. Accusations BY THE ACCUSER against the lax players are somehow “substantiated”, while accusations BY THE ACCUSER against the co-stripper are “unsubstantiated” opinions. This is just such weak rationalization.
All of a sudden, the media want to be careful with facts in the Duke case. A journalist is supposed to dig and seek out the truth. Journalists who report only what appears in a police report: Unbelievable.
So now Duke wants to know about all parking tickets and disorderly conduct accusations on their students.
Next they will try to control the diets of students, as has been done in primary and secondary schools.
All this “PC” is a distraction against lousy scholarship and teaching. If the professors spend all this time keeping tabs of the students’ personal lives, what time do they have for professing.
Part of going away to college (I have 4 children who have done so) is to learn to be independent. Placing every detail of a student’s life in the school records does not enhance independence.
“The Innocence Project came to this man’s rescue. Will they save the boys at Duke?
DNA Frees Brooklyn Man After 21 Years
http://crime.about.com/b/a/257160.htm ”
because
- there was only one attacker/rapist
- the DNA found did not match the husband or the man who spent 21 years in jail
It’s more an example of the dangers of using a mug shot to make an ID. In a large city like NYC, there is going to be someone who looks close to the real rapist – and if you are in the mug book, chances are you are not a good witness in your own defense.
- If NO DNA was found (like in the Duke case) he would still be in jail, as he was until they found the DNA by chance in some testing lab.
The only question now is how much longer this kabuki performance will be allowed to drag on before someone finally says publicly what has been obvious for a long time, namely, that this has been just a hoax from the beginning.
I feel like I am waiting for the little boy in the story to shout, “The Emperor has no clothes!”; except, that here he would be shouting, “But there is no case!”; and then everyone would wake up from their self-imposed delusion and see how foolishly deceived they have been.
Dismiss the case, and let the courts of Durham get back to some real work; and if the public has any questions about why so much time and effort was wasted on a case that should never have been brought, and which could never have survived even an evidentiary hearing, then let them go to their politicians and ask them to explain.
What a great story on KC. I thought he lived in Durham. A Brooklyn boy on the hunt! It don’t get much better than that!
@8
It’s more an example of the dangers of using a mug shot to make an ID.
Same with the Duke case. There was DNA found in the Duke case. Just no matching DNA to the people selected in the fixed photo line up.
No DNA match, she said no condoms were used and a shady mug shot line-up where the accusers descriptions of her rapists did not match the people she picked at all.
The case is bogus.
According to the latest defense motion, filed today, Nifong has repeatedly claimed he has not spoken to the AV, though he believes her. But he has also said, that “he is the only person who has talked to the victim”.
Now, if this latter is true, then besides contradicting himself, this means that he is also denying that Sgt. Gottlieb interviewed the victm. (Hence, what Gottlieb wrote in his 30-page report is a lie.)
(Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we pratice to decieve. . )
Seahawk,
You are pretty good at knowing all the details, although I don’t agree with your evil-motive spin.
But what ever happened to the AV’s phone records and the people she called during the “rape?.†I suppose most of the people she called, witnesses, can’t and don’t want to speak to the press.
I think Kim, the second stripper, also made a few phone calls to the “escort services” in the time after the “rape” trying to find the AV’s home to drop her off?
Frank,
I have six figures invested in this BS. Yankees need to stay up North. Not only that, but the BB team isn’t going to be worth a damn. You know why Yankees are like hemorroges (sp) the good ones come down and go back up, the bad ones come down and stay.
#12 CORRECTION!
My bad.
When Nifong said, “he is the only person who has talked to the victimâ€, he probably meant he was the only one of the candidates for DA that has talked to the victim, not that he was the only ‘person’ who has talked with the victim.
(Still, though, this contradicts his earlier assertion that he has never talked with the victim.)
Drudge now has a link to a “teaser” by CBS for the upcoming 60 Minutes show, saying that the second dancer has contradicted the alleged victim in at least a part of her story–
‘Three guys grabbed Nikki,’ ‘That’s you,’ says Bradley, “‘Brett, Adam and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. Bret, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom.’ Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart?”
“Nope,” replies Roberts, who says she was hearing this account for the first time.
Need to clarify a misstatement by somebody above: [i]If NO DNA was found (like in the Duke case)[/i]
Where did that come from? Of course there has been DNA found in the Duke case – a man’s seminal DNA was found in the hoaxer’s vagina. It was positively matched to her “boyfriend”, even though she had lied to police by stating that she hadn’t had sex for a week prior to the night of the “incident”. It has been strongly rumored that there is another man’s DNA as well, also not a match to any of the men that were at the party.
So, here we HAVE DNA of another man, a man whom the accuser lied about not having had sex with. This proves not only that she had sex with that man, and that she lied about it, but also that the DNA testing was working properly. Thus, the fact that no DNA from any man at the party is even more damning to the accuser and Nifong.
I am thinking Sunday night about 9 pm, LaShawn is going to look MIGHTY good. The truth is going to set the boys free. The tide is turning and now, just before the election, hummm.
Here’s the CBS teaser link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml
That’s not to imply that LaShawn doesn’t look mightly good now!! If you know what I mean.
MSNBC is going all the way, drawing the probable (though not explicity stated, AFAIK) inference :
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15238767/
Kim Roberts, the second stripper in the Duke University rape case, told “60 Minutes” that the accuser is lying about being sexually assault during the off-campus party in March, ESPN reported Thursday.
The CBS teaser was the lead on the broadcast network news.
Seemed rather fair to me.
Unrelated – but yesterday, there were not one but TWO women in legal trouble for falsely reporting rape. Not that unusual – all you people including that one law professor, who think that women never lie about rape (or their age, lol) but it threw me off reading the news summary, since one was Ohio and the other in England – but Google combined them into one news summary – turned out they had the same last name. Davis.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/12/america/NA_GEN_US_Rape_Lie.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/6037701.stm
In addition to lying, I am open to the possibility that the AV in the Duke case was so out of it, unable to give here address or get herself home, that she was not lying, in intentionally telling a know falsehood, but has not grip on reality that night. – It was the psych ward admissions person who first brought up the subject of rape – put it in her mind.
NC legal folks:
I am not familiar with NC criminal law or trial procedures so I am looking for a few answers…if I have missed this in other posts, I apologize:
Q1: If Nifong actually put himself in the place of the police personnel to conduct the ID session where the AV identified the alleged suspects, would that clearly make Nifong the ‘expert witness’ here on the ID issue?
Q2: If yes…that being the case, can the defense cross-examine Nifong during trial?
Q3: In my state, legal counsel or prosecutor cannot act in both capacities (witness and counsel), and would therefore need to recuse himself or not provide witness testimony. Is this true in NC as well?
Q4: So perhaps Nifong does not plan to put himself on the stand to testify. But then how does the defense get to cross examine the conductor of the process by which the ID was made? In NC, can the prosecutor say “here’s this evidence created by me, but you don’t get to examine where it came from in front of the jury, because I’m the prosecutor?
Q5: Based on my knowledge of this case, the ID seems to be the only ‘quasi-evidence’ that Nifong has. And if the ‘expert’ who conducted the line-up process cannot/will not testify, then would it not be required to be thrown out?
And if there is no ID at the trial….??
Thanks for any answers you can provide.
Q 1-3
Not a lawyer, but I think Nifong is definitely a likely witness for several reasons, except that
but from the rules (http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp)it looks like a lawyer involved in a case usually doesn’t take the stand.
I assume that would likewise apply to a prosecutor; however, the judge may have some discretion in this matter and allow it for extraordinary circumstances.
Nifong may try to claim that since Gottlieb conducted the photo ID, Gottlieb is the one who ought to testify. Nifong and Gottlieb may then each try and blame each other for how the ID was conducted.
Q5
The judge may still allow an in-court ID by the alleged victim. IMHO he ought to rule that out also, as being by now impossibly tainted by publicity and the earlier bad photo ID. Whether he will or not depends upon (IMHO) his courage, integrity, and committment to a fair process for the accused.
Here’s a link to a preview of the 60 Minutes piece that will air this Sunday. It’s Ed Bradley’s appearance on Hannah Storm’s show, including clips of his interview with Dave Evans and with stripper Kim Roberts/Pittman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml
I am pleasantly surprised that Bradley seems to have found the truth here, and shows courage to state the REAL facts plainly and directly. I can’t wait to see 60 Minutes (which I haven’t watched in a few years, btw).
I just wish someone in the MSM would add what to me is the most telling and outrageous aspect of the bogus ID lineup process used in this case: Not only is it unforgiveable to included no “filler” persons among the suspects, which means there can be no “wrong” answers, but how incredible is it that the investigator/lineup clown (Officer Gottlieb) actually TOLD the false accuser that he was only showing her suspects and so she KNEW there could be no wrong answer! (of course, the false accuser did still manage to mess up, identifying 4 guys instead of 3, but Gottlieb helped her move on from the 1 that he apparently knew was not a good defendant.) Bradley mentions the disgracefully wrong procedure used, but like everyone else seems to do, leaves out the most damning part of all…that the cops TOLD the false accuser that there were no fillers. To me, this additional fact points directly and clearly to a CONSCIOUS and INTENTIONAL frame job.
Thanks Seahawk…sounds like our states have similar rules…
….on another note, I just finished reading an article by Susan Filan, a ’senior’ legal analyst for MSNBC, titled, “Defense in Duke Rape Case keeps on swinging.” I sit here absolutely stunned that a ’senior’ legal anaylyst…or senior anything, for that matter, could be so naive. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15238654/
Well, Ed Bradley just proved he is the Judge Horton of this Scottsboro II.
We owe him (and 60 Minutes) a debt of gratitude for burnishing the stains off the shield of US justice (how’s that for a phrase?)
60 minutes is over. So where was Professor Coleman six months ago. The only new stuff was the videos of Precious dancing two weeks after the event. Good story, 3 months to late.
here is transcript of it,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml
Nifungu gets off more than he should, but he still looks like the ***hole he is, two weeks before the election. I wonder where is the outrage in the story? If this was a reverse, whites ganging up on blacks, do you think we’d see a little more outrage. Da Hu
Geez, Kemp, I figured The Corner would be a hot spot tonight after 60 Minutes, and you’re the only one who’s posted up.
I agree — about the only new thing to come out was the video of Sweet Precious dancing again two weeks after the Lacrosse House gig. One would think if she’s been so brutally traumatized at one dance gig, she wouldn’t be back at it two weeks later.
By the way, going by Watford’s anytime soon? I found the place a few weeks ago, but it was on a Sunday, and it wasn’t open. We’ve gone through the bottle you sent — best Q’d chicken we’ve grilled in a while!!
Tat
Watfords only open wed to sat. sorry not going anytime soon, will check my stock pile to see if I can spare a bottle. email me your real address, you heard they found bid laden’s brothers at chapel hill didn’t you, bin wineing and bin losing?? No one I like won except the panthers, duke, state, unc-ch. etc
So where was Professor Coleman six months ago.
Coleman actually said this right at the very start. He is the ONLY Duke law professor to speak up.
And so to all of the law faculty’s impressive list of awards, magna cum laude degrees, order of the coif, etc., I think there should now be added one more : the Order of the Towel–given for washing your hands of an innocent defendant when he is being threatened by a mob and when speaking out on his behalf would prove unpopular and career-threatening.
This award comes framed and can be proudly displayed in the Law School’s lobby or in the criminal law class, with suitable plaque.
Nifong is an idiot. Part 48
I agree not much new in 60 Minutes, aside from video and pics of AV.
This is just a theory, and since it’s usually impossible to determine motives inside someone’s head –
But the more I think about it, I wonder if Nifong and even a third rate police department would think that forcing the AV to identify, after she was unable to do previously, mug shots with no absolutely innocent pics such as students not at the party – would in any way be acceptable.
Perhaps Nifong and the Police Deptment knew the line up was BS but did it 1) believing that a rape accured and 2) even if the AV did not/could not identify the right attackers – the boys would turn on each other and turn in the “real†rapist.
Then Nifong could be the hero for cracking the hate crime of the century.
To comment on last night’s “60 Minutes” segment, go to the latest Duke post:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/10/16/duke-rape-case/
Comments on this entry are closed.