| Blog and Media Roundup - Saturday, October 30, 2010; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 30 2010, 06:25 AM (202 Views) | |
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:25 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10102134/article-Taylor--Election-workers-threatened?instance=main_article Taylor: Election workers threatened The Herald Sun 10.29.10 - 11:58 pm Teen backers of GOP sheriff hopeful swear out warrant vs. captain By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- Roy Taylor, the GOP candidate for Durham County sheriff, claimed that a captain in the Durham County Sheriff's Office harassed and threatened three teen election workers campaigning for him outside the Board of Elections office Friday afternoon. Later in the day, Taylor said, the youths appeared with their parents before a Durham County magistrate to swear out an arrest warrant against the captain, Rickey Padgett. Taylor said the magistrate referred the matter to Durham court officials. He said he learned that the complaint will be referred to the N.C. Attorney General's Office, although that could not be confirmed with judicial officials late Friday. "I had three poll workers -- 17, 18, 19 years old -- here [outside the Board of Elections office], and Capt. Padgett waited until the adults left, and then he approached them and said: 'Y'all are stupid' and 'You don't know what you're talking about' and 'Roy Taylor is going to jail' and 'I'm going to be taking your pictures and you're going to jail as soon as this election is over.' " "And there were all kinds of poll workers who heard him," Taylor said. "He was just out of line." Durham County Sheriff Worth Hill was in Raleigh when he learned of the allegations from a reporter. "I'd have to see what the real story is," Hill said. "It doesn't shock me that Mr. Taylor would say something like that. But if Padgett did that, that's something he shouldn't do. I wouldn't do anything like that. I wouldn't want our people to behave like that. It's uncalled for in any kind of election." Taylor, who faces Hill in Tuesday's election, claimed that Padgett broke the law through his alleged actions. "That's actually a violation of North Carolina General Statutes to harass electioneers, and that's exactly what he did. He came out here and committed a misdemeanor today." Kenneth Battle, the father of two of the campaign workers involved, said his sons, Donald Howze, 17, and Thomas Porter, 18, were handing out literature when a man approached and confronted them. They and the third worker, William Lee Jr., 20, did not know who the man was, but other campaign workers who observed the incident identified him as Padgett, Battle said. Mike Ashe, director of the Durham County Board of Elections, said "Taylor's people came and told me" about the allegations. "I told them there wasn't much the Board of Elections could do, because it allegedly happened outside the 50-feet line near the front of the building," which removes it from the board's control. Taylor said he didn't see the alleged exchange, but that his workers called him and he came to the elections board "to make sure they were OK. It's pretty upsetting, especially when you're dealing with youth," he said. "They're good kids, just trying to be active and do something good in the community. And to have somebody who comes up and bullies them and uses their official position to harass them ..." Padgett could not be reached for comment Friday. Maj. Ricky Buchanan of the sheriff's office said Padgett "won't be making a statement since it's an internal investigation." Buchanan said he did interviews Friday in connection with the allegations and will personally be looking into Taylor's claims. Taylor said he wants Durham police to investigate the matter, but police spokeswoman Kimberle Walker said she wasn't aware of the complaint Friday. Battle said his sons would be back out campaigning today. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:26 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10101270/article-Potti-colleague-seeks-retraction?instance=main_article Potti colleague seeks retraction The Herald Sun 10.29.10 - 10:59 pm Flawed paper provided basis for Duke clinical trials By Neil Offen noffen@heraldsun.com; 419-6646 DURHAM -- A Duke University researcher who collaborated with the university scientist whose research and résumé have come into question has asked to retract a paper that provides the scientific basis for two clinical trials conducted at Duke. Joseph Nevins, who worked with Anil Potti on the paper published three years ago in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, acknowledged that patients at Duke were assigned cancer therapies based on a test he now says was inaccurate. Nevins was not available for comment Friday. Douglas Stokke, a spokesman for Duke University Health System, said Nevins asked the editor of the journal to retract the paper because “the authors have been unable to reproduce the experiments using the original data sets. Therefore, the data in the paper don’t support the conclusions that were reported.” Nevertheless, Stokke added, the university believes that the more than 100 area patients involved in the clinical trials were not put at risk. “The impacted trials that were based on this work were primarily comprised of widely used, widely studied or in some cases standard of care, regimens, [so] we do not believe that patients were endangered through their participation in these studies,” Stokke said. The patients involved, he added, will be notified of the request for retraction. Last year, Duke briefly halted the trials, which are focused on whether physicians can use information about a patient’s genes to decide the best tactics for treating cancer, amid allegations that the science behind them didn’t hold up. They resumed the trials after a review, but stopped them again this fall as Potti’s credentials came into question. But two biostatisticians at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who have criticized Potti’s and Nevin’s work for some time, said the trials should never have been allowed to continue. In a guest editorial published Friday in The Cancer Letter, a Washington-based publication, Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes asked, “How did work with such flaws become the basic for clinical trials?” The two researchers also wrote, “Given that Duke knew of these problems in November 2009, why were these clinical trials reopened in January 2010?” Stokke responded that the trials were resumed because, “regrettably, the data sets that are the source of the retraction request are a subset of the same data that were provided by Drs. Potti and Nevins to external reviewers in early 2010 and were the basis for their review.” Potti has been on paid leave at Duke since last summer when allegations arose, first in The Cancer Letter, that he padded his résumé, falsely claiming to have been a Rhodes Scholar. The university’s review of Potti’s credentials, completed this fall, found what school officials termed “issues of substantial concern,” confirming that he had embellished his credentials. The review, the university said at the time, had already “resulted in corresponding sanctions.” Potti is currently the subject of two other investigations, a formal Duke inquiry into whether there’s been any scientific misconduct and an outside review of the work of Potti and his team by the national Institute of Medicine. Both reviews are expected to take several months. “This retraction request was made apart and separate from the scientific misconduct investigation that involves Dr. Potti and is ongoing,” Stokke said. “However, all of the information related to this retraction will be made available to the scientific misconduct investigation, and the IOM committee that was recently formed to address the serious questions regarding this work have been notified of the retraction request and our concerns.” Potti’s status “has not changed” since Aug. 27, said Michael Schoenfeld, Duke’s vice president for public affairs, and his final standing at the university will be determined only upon completion of the scientific misconduct investigation and the study being conducted by the IOM. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:27 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10100834/article-Duke-student-fell-from-ground-down-stairs?instance=main_article Duke student fell from ground down stairs The Herald Sun 10.29.10 - 10:23 pm School official says groundlevel staircase descends into service area By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- A Duke University senior who died last week fell from the ground into a recessed stairwell at an East Campus building after 3 a.m., university officials said Friday. "At this time, all the evidence indicates that the death of Duke student Drew Everson was a tragic accident," Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations at Duke, said in a statement. "We are still awaiting the results of the medical examiner's report, which will take several weeks. Current information suggests he fell some time after 3 a.m. Friday morning [Oct. 22] in a staircase that leads to a service area behind the East Campus Union. There are no indications that anyone was with him at the time of the fall, and there is no evidence he was the victim of a crime." Schoenfeld said in an interview Friday that Everson fell down from the ground into the stairwell, possibly while on the way to his off-campus home. "We don't know why he was there," Schoenfeld said. "We can assume he was on his way to his home, but there are some things about this that we'll obviously never know.'' Asked if alcohol may have been involved, Schoenfeld said: "We are awaiting the results of the medical examiner's report, which will be available, we understand, in about 45 days.'' Everson was alive when a Duke employee found him about 11:30 a.m. Oct. 22, and was taken to Duke University Hospital, where he died Sunday afternoon. A memorial service for Everson was held Wednesday at Duke Chapel, followed by a reception in the Scharf Commons area adjacent to Cameron Indoor Stadium. Everson, 21, was a political science major from Tampa, Fla., a member of Pi Kappa Phi fraternity and the Duke Debate Team, and served as a line monitor for Duke men's basketball. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:34 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/10097796/article-Oct--30--2010?instance=opinion_hs_letters 10.29.10 - 04:49 pm More road bonds? Not again, thanks Don't fall for it again, Durham! Cities should not finance routine maintenance items with bond issues. And yet here they come again, three times in five years, begging the voters for another bond issue to cover road maintenance while the money available was spent on other things which many of us would not have favored. Now they say they are going to do better, but as long as we bail them out with bond issues, they will have no incentive to change, and it will be business as usual. Vote no on the street bond issue. Force the city to budget responsibly and to live within that budget, just like we do. GEORGE PADDISON Durham Vote down bonds There is no reason to support street bonds to repair roads at this time or in the future. Though Mayor Bill Bell stated that "For less than $1 a month ... we can catch up all streets in desperate need of repaving" and "we can have city streets to be proud of" (Herald-Sun, Oct. 25), I feel misled. Durham currently receives annual funding from the North Carolina State Street-Aid Fund or Powell bill. This fund is supported by our gas taxes. Of the $90,847,426.28 in adjusted statewide funds for fiscal year 2009-10, Durham was allocated $ 5,434,343.67 on Oct. 1. According to the bill, "funds shall be expended only for the purposes of maintaining, repairing, constructing, reconstructing or widening of local streets that are the responsibility of the municipalities or for planning, construction, and maintenance of bikeways or sidewalks along public streets and highways." According to the NCDOT website, municipalities that are associated with the State Treasurer's Electronic Payment System (STEPS) had their allocation deposited directly to their account on Oct. 1 and 43 municipalities received their allocation by check. So I would like to ask the mayor and our council: Why do we need each citizen of Durham to spend an additional $1 per month, "in the current state of the economy," when the city already receives funding for the repair of its roads? Say no to street bonds! MARY ANN MEYER Durham |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:34 AM Post #5 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Friday, October 29, 2010 Group Members, Hypocrisy, & Karen Owen I haven’t commented on the Karen Owen affair because Owen’s affront to basic decency seemed so obvious. (Owen, for those unaware, is the Duke graduate who chronicled, through a PowerPoint replete with photos, her sexual exploits with multiple male Duke student-athletes.) The PowerPoint went viral, and even prompted a Today Show segment, which helpfully used Owen’s actions to recall the lacrosse case—insinuating that a false allegation against Duke male students, inflamed by a rogue district attorney, had relevance to an invasion of privacy by a Duke female student, after voluntary sexual intercourse. It’s not difficult to imagine how the Duke campus would have responded had the genders of the Owen affair been reversed—i.e., if a male Duke student had publicized, sometimes in mocking terms, his sexual interactions with multiple Duke female student-athletes. Doubtless we would have seen jeremiads against Duke sexism, and perhaps even calls for another Campus Culture Initiative. Yet the Group of 88 and their allies on the faculty were silent as the grave. Until now. Jezebel reports that three Group mermbers—History professors Jocelyn Olcott, Sally Deutsch, and Peter Sigal—used an official Duke list-serv for to invite History majors to an “informal gathering[]” with them. The topic? “Sex and the Student: Historical Perspectives on Karen Owen’s Sex List.” Olcott (a gender specialist who once team-taught a course with Wahneema Lubiano) articulated a thesis for the gathering that combined an attempt to rationalize Owen’s decision with academic pablum: “The idea simply is that Karen Owen isn’t a person in a vacuum but rather someone within a particular historical context, subject to all the contingencies and forces of her time and place. My hope is that the setting will give faculty and students alike a chance to think through what some of these contingencies and forces are.” And what of Olcott’s co-facilitators? Perhaps Deutsch can recall the time, just after Mike Nifong began his pre-primary publicity crusade, in which she deviated from her syllabus—in a class that contained several lacrosse players—to deliver a guilt-presuming analysis about how Southern white men had a pattern of assaulting and disrespecting black women. In language that echoes Olcott’s announcement for the Owen affairs, Deutsch asserted that because her course spent “extensive time on [naturally] race and gender relations,” it was appropriate for her to use class time to contextualize the incident, thereby helping to “explain why people were so upset.” And perhaps Sigal, whose scholarship combines “poststructuralist gender studies and queer theory influences” with use of philology and postcolonial theory to “understand the texts that I read as literary devices which I decode in order to represent the cultural matrix,” can offer his personal perspective—as seen in the photo below, from his Facebook page—about sexually-themed exhibitionism and the internet. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:41 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/30/769887/no-foul-play-seen-in-students.html Published Sat, Oct 30, 2010 02:00 AM Modified Sat, Oct 30, 2010 03:26 AM No foul play seen in Duke student's death DURHAM Duke senior Drew Everson was most likely alone when he fell early last Friday and suffered injuries that would prove fatal. And there are no indications of foul play, Duke spokesman Michael Schoenfeld said Friday. But the university won't know more until the results of an autopsy come back, Schoenfeld said. Everson, 21, was found last Friday near a stairwell behind a dining hall on Duke's East Campus. He died two days later. Duke police enlisted the Durham Police Department's forensics unit to examine the scene where Everson was found. "They have looked at the evidence available and have come to the conclusion that this was not a crime; this was a tragic accident," he said. Everson had been out with friends at Satisfaction, a Main Street bar and restaurant, the night before, according to one of Everson's fraternity brothers. But it isn't clear what happened after he left. His death prompted a massive outpouring of grief this week at Duke, where Everson was described as bright, popular and funny with a rare ability to bring people together. A memorial service Wednesday in Duke Chapel drew more than 1,000 mourners. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 06:42 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/30/769843/duke-scientist-ask-to-retract.html Published Sat, Oct 30, 2010 07:03 AM Modified Sat, Oct 30, 2010 01:52 AM Duke scientist asks to retract cancer work A discovery once touted by Duke University as a major leap in using genetics to prolong the lives of cancer patients is now likely to be retracted, officials said Friday. The work, led by Dr. Anil Potti, appeared to establish a genetic basis for predicting which treatments would best benefit individual cancer patients. Potti has been on paid administrative leave since July under the taint of having padded his academic credentials. His scientific findings have also been questioned for more than a year, leading to Friday's request to retract a 2007 article in The Journal of Clinical Oncology. One of Potti's leading collaborators and co-authors at Duke, Joseph Nevins, reassessed their work and found it didn't support the conclusions they reported. Nevins asked the editors to retract it. Editors at the journal said Friday that they are reviewing the request. Nevins and Potti did not return phone messages for comment. For scientists, retractions are embarrassing public acknowledgements of errors and other serious problems. But the Potti controversy has also blemished Duke, which investigated him late last year and declared his work acceptable for use in human trials. "Having something wrong on a research paper is OK; people make mistakes," said Keith Baggerly, a biostatistician at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas who was among the first to question Potti's research when it couldn't be replicated. "To my mind, there is a different level of error involved when you go to say this is how we're going to treat patients." Duke had been running three clinical trials based on Potti's findings, enlisting 111 lung and breast cancer patients, primarily in the Triangle. The patients were steered to different medicines based on the Potti group's calculations of their genetic susceptibility to chemotherapies. Dr. Michael Cuffe, vice president of medical affairs at Duke, said the patients were never put in harm's way. "The trials have been on hold since last summer, appropriately so, and the patients are under the care of their clinical oncologists," Cuffe said, noting that all the patients received common chemotherapies, although some of the drugs were not approved for their type of cancer. Duke had halted the clinical trials a year ago after Baggerly and others raised concerns that the science behind them was faulty. The university lined up an outside reviewer to check Potti's research, although Duke never disclosed who led that probe. Sally Kornbluth, Duke's vice dean of research, said last year's investigation of Potti's work did not "drill down" to re-check the actual data that were used to form his calculations. She said that review team was "not aware that there were data integrity issues with the work." As a result, the reviewers did not catch the problems that have now led to Nevin's request for a retraction. A skeptic's surprise Baggerly said he cautioned Duke officials that the data were wrong and was surprised when officials reaffirmed their support of Potti's work and restarted the trials in January. "I still have a question: If we told them about these exact problems last November, while the trials were suspended, why did they choose to reopen the trials in January?" Baggerly said. "That's my basic question." Potti has been a lucrative source of federal and private research dollars to Duke, garnering at least $1 million in recent years. In addition, his findings appeared to prove some of the promise of genomic medicine, which aims to use a person's unique genetic information to tailor therapies. After Duke cleared Potti's work in January, the controversy simmered until July, when a scientific newsletter called The Cancer Letter published discrepancies in Potti's résumé and biographical information. Among the embellishments were claims he received a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship. Duke then put Potti on paid leave, launched a second round of investigations into the scientific findings, and looked into the résumé charges. In August, the university said it found "issues of substantial concern" related to Potti's professional credentials but did not elaborate. Potti had been characterized in Duke publications as a Rhodes Scholar. Although he cannot teach or conduct research, he continues to be employed while the inquiries into his research continue. Kornbluth defended the university's handling of the case, which could well result in additional scientific clarifications. "We cannot rush to judgment," Kornbluth said. "This has to be dealt with appropriately through the misconduct process." A separate effort is under way by the Institute of Medicine to use the Potti experience to explore whether additional rules and disclosures are needed in genomic research. Kornbluth said that effort will benefit all of science. "This is a very new, cutting-edge area," Kornbluth said. "We're developing the guidelines. Duke is on the cutting edge of these areas, and we have to think carefully what is best." savery@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4882 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 30 2010, 07:48 AM Post #8 |
|
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20101030/NEWS01/10300332/Former-police-officer-found-not-guilty-in-Taser-death-trial-in-Winnfield Former police officer found not guilty in Taser death trial in Winnfield By Bret H. McCormick • bmccormick@thetowntalk.com • October 30, 2010 WINNFIELD -- Scott Nugent waited nearly three years for his manslaughter trial to begin. Then, he waited about three weeks from the trial's start until closing arguments on Friday. So, what were an additional three hours? One of Nugent's attorneys, George Higgins of Pineville, said the three-hour wait Friday afternoon while the jury deliberated was "gut-wrenching," but the jury returned with the two words Nugent wanted to hear: not guilty. Nugent was a 21-year-old officer with the Winnfield Police Department on Jan. 17, 2008, when he arrested 21-year-old Barron "Scooter" Pikes (also known in Winnfield as Barron Collins Jr.). Pikes died in police custody, and Nugent was accused of causing the death by using excessive force -- specifically a Taser eight or nine times. The incident between Nugent, who is white, and Pikes, who was black, caused racial tensions in the town of approximately 5,700 people, and those tensions were evident following Friday's verdict. Several audible gasps were heard from friends and family members of Pikes' when the verdict was read, while Nugent began crying and shaking his head in relief. Pikes' family members said the verdict would not be received well by members of Winnfield's black community. "When it all boils down to it, the whole community is going to be outraged," said Nicole Collins, Pikes' cousin. "The community is not going to be pleased by this verdict," Pikes' stepmother, Kayshon Collins, added. Nugent and his team, however, were ecstatic at the news. Nugent's family was released from the courtroom before anyone else and was unavailable for comment. However, Higgins couldn't hide his joy. "We're thrilled that Scott was found not guilty," said Higgins, one of Nugent's three attorneys. "We're thrilled because we always thought Scott wasn't guilty." Higgins said he also was happy for one of his fellow Pineville attorneys, Phillip Terrell, who also worked to defend Nugent. "I know that this victory was especially meaningful for Phillip Terrell," Higgins said. "There is no bigger supporter of the police." Terrell and Jerry Glas, a New Orleans attorney who specializes in Taser cases, both were unavailable for comment following the verdict. Glas made his closing argument that the Taser had no effect on Pikes' death, and instead said Pikes died from red blood cell sickling that was brought about by Pikes' decision to run from police. Pikes was wanted on a felony drug charge and said he didn't want to go to prison, so he attempted to evade police, according to testimony in the trial. "Did the Taser trigger exertional sickling?" Glas asked the jury. "No, the exertion triggered exertional sickling," he answered. He argued that Pikes already had reached "the point of no return" with blood sickling before he ever was Tasered, and said there was reasonable doubt that Nugent committed any crime. Winn Parish District Attorney Chris Nevils argued that as a police officer, Nugent was given a number of different tools to perform his job. On Jan. 17, 2008, Nugent chose to use his Taser as a tool. The weapons he didn't choose to use, Nevils said, were "(his) training, (his) intuition and (his) common sense." Nugent used "excessive" force, Nevils said, because he Tasered Pikes at least eight times, and then violated his training by waiting more than 30 minutes before seeking medical attention for Pikes. By that time, it was too late. Despite getting a number of key pieces of evidence into the trial, including a video of Nugent's statement to Louisiana State Police investigators that was shot just two weeks after the incident, Nevils was criticized for his performance by members of Pikes' family. Nevils didn't call the right witnesses and should have played the entire video of Pikes' final minutes before he died, Pikes' relatives said. Because of that, Gordon Powell, who said Pikes was "like a nephew" to him, said Pikes' family doesn't get the closure it needed. "We need justice in this town," Powell said. "We need peace in this town." Nugent was able to walk away Friday to his family, fiancée and young child, while Pikes wasn't afforded the same opportunity, Kayshon Collins said. "Scott can go home and hold his baby," she said. "What about Scooter's baby?" While Pikes' family members criticized Nevils, who was unavailable for comment following the verdict, his opposing counsel said the district attorney did a fine job with his case. In his closing arguments, Glas said Nevils presented a strong case but couldn't meet the "burden of proof" standard because the evidence just didn't show that Nugent caused Pikes' death. Huggins, meanwhile, also had glowing reviews for Nevils. "Chris Nevils did an excellent job," he said. "You're only as good a lawyer as your case. ... He did the best he could do with what he had. I thought his closing argument was excellent. The bottom line is the science wasn't there." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:14 AM Jul 11