|UPDATED CHRONOLOGY OF DUKE LACROSSE CASE: NOVEMBER 2006; Nifong Elected DA; Media Skirmishes Continue|
|Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2011, 08:44 AM (834 Views)|
|sceptical||Jan 16 2011, 08:44 AM Post #1|
UPDATED CHRONOLOGY OF DUKE LACROSSE CASE: NOVEMBER 2006
(Thanks to Quasi, JSwift, Q.A., and Baldo for suggestions and additions)
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 1: The New York Times publishes a news analysis by Duff Wilson on the contest for Durham County District Attorney (DA) titled “Duke Rape Case Shadows an Unusual Campaign”: “Meanwhile, Mr.[Michael] Nifong’s supporters are trying to cast him as an experienced prosecutor and a neophyte politician. He has been a prosecutor for 28 years and says he has handled about 300 felony cases, but he is engaged in his first political race, having been appointed acting district attorney in April 2005. ‘He’s a good person, he’s a good lawyer, but he’s in a situation he has never been in before,’ said Ronald L. Stephens, a local judge who was district attorney before Mr. Nifong. Last month Mr. Nifong won the endorsement of the city’s most influential political group, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. His supporters are predicting that whatever controversy the case has generated will not determine the outcome at the polls …”
THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2: Attorney Butch Williams provides information to Durham Police about one of Crystal Mangum’s “clients” before the March 13-14, 2006 lacrosse party at which she claims she was raped. Williams says the accuser had visited Josephus Van Hook at the Millenium Hotel several days prior to the alleged attack. Inv. Ben Himan obtains hotel records and interviews Van Hook in subsequent days.
Economics Prof. William Anderson of Frostburg State College analyzes “Why the Duke Hoax Continues” in a two-part blogpost, the first of which focuses on Duke University faculty. He states, “Thus, we ask ourselves why this case is different, and why much of Durham and the Duke University faculty have rushed well beyond judgment to a point at which they demand that no one confuse them with facts. The short version of the answer is this: the politics of race and sex trump justice and even logic.”
In a column in the Duke Chronicle titled “Nifong. Not Fine by Me,” student Kristin Butler urges student to vote against DA Nifong in the upcoming election: “Nifong has no one to blame but his own antagonism for his electoral woes. And woes they are-especially on the Duke campus. Whether or not it was true that "there's been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system," Nifong has made sure that we are today. Does the man who vowed to "not allow Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham" really think his behavior has done anything to "address the underlying divisions that have been revealed?" Of course not; he is the one who has "revealed" them.”
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 3: The former security manager at the Platinum Club asserts that four days after Crystal Mangum was allegedly assaulted at the lacrosse team party, Mangum told co-workers at the strip club that she was going to get money from those at the party. "She basically said, 'I'm going to get paid by the white boys,' " H.P. Thomas, the former security manager, says in an interview with the Raleigh News & Observer (N&O). "I said, 'Whatever,' because no one takes her seriously." Mangum never gave any indication that the party was a bad time, let alone that she was assaulted or raped, Thomas states. "She was as regular as pie," Thomas explains. "She didn't do anything different." During the March 17 conversation , Mangum showed Thomas a hospital bracelet and paperwork. While she talked about being owed money, the accuser never gave any word or indication of being hurt; he states, "The other girls would have known if something had happened… If another dancer had been beat up or raped by a bunch of white boys, there would have been a ruckus." Thomas explains that dancers must sign in when they take guests into the club's VIP room. He says those sheets show that Mangum had signed in March 17 and 18. He states she also danced the following weekend. The club's owner, Victor Olatoye, says the club's records show Mangum was dancing at the club March 23, 24, 25 and into the early hours of March 26. Olatoye claims he has no record of her working the previous weekend.
SATURDAY NOVEMBER 4: The N&O publishes an article by Benjamin Niolet analyzing the upcoming election for Durham DA:
“It's hard to find someone in Durham who does not have an opinion on Mike Nifong. For those who support the 28-year veteran Durham prosecutor, the choice on the Nov. 7 ballot is simple: fill in the oval next to the Democrat's name. But for those who disapprove of Nifong, things are more complicated. They can pick Lewis Cheek, a Democratic County commissioner on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate. Cheek says he is an alternative to Nifong but promises that he will not accept the job if he gets the most votes. Or voters can select Steve Monks, the chairman of the county's Republican Party. Monks' name doesn't appear on the ballot but has to be written in on a blank line. Unlike, Cheek, Monks says he will take the job.”
SUNDAY NOVEMBER 5: The N&O reports on the end of early voting late yesterday: “At Durham's Board of Elections, a modest building on West Corporation Street just west of downtown, a line 100 people long waited to vote. The scene was more like a tailgate party where candidates shook hands and a nonpartisan group of volunteers served food, coffee and music. Just after 1 p.m., the last voter in line cast the 650th ballot of the day and the 4,775th since Durham County began early voting Oct. 19. [Board of Elections chief Mike] Ashe said that some were voting for the first time and that many were prompted to vote by the district attorney race. The bitter campaign has focused on incumbent Mike Nifong's handling of the rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players. (…) Soon after he arrived, Nifong approached three members of Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, a group that has worked against Nifong. The prosecutor told the students that since they were working against him, they might as well meet. Nifong held out his hand. No one shook it. After an awkward moment, Nifong shook hands with the head of another anti-Nifong group, then went to work the line of voters.”
Duke senior Steven Miller writes a column in the Chronicle: “Our fellow students are not on trial because of evidence, but in spite of it. This is a moral, social and legal outrage. It is an assault on our peers, our community and the core values of our nation. To successfully unleash this depraved injustice, it seems our DA has managed to go against criminal procedure, legal precedent, constitutional protections, hundreds of years of common law and thousands of years of ethics tracing back to the Old Testament. Nifong must have confused America with a police state.”
MONDAY NOVEMBER 6: In a news perspective on the “Group of 88,” Chronicle reporter Rob Copeland elicits comments from two of the 88 signers of the controversial April 6 “Listening Statement,” an advertisement in the Chronicle: “ ‘That statement was about the climate on campus, it wasn't taking a position on the case,’ [Literature Prof. Alice] Kaplan said. ‘There's nothing in the statement that says anyone is guilty or innocent.’ (…) [English and Law Prof. Karla] Holloway wrote in an e-mail that misreadings of the advertisement have attracted the most attention. ‘It was extraordinarily telling that these respondents displaced the actual content of the ad for the fiction of their own meagerly articulated agendas,’ she wrote. She added that she would sign the petition again ‘in a heartbeat.’ Both Kaplan and Holloway said they have received hate mail from strangers. ‘The often vicious, frequently racist and generally poorly composed responses I have received speak for themselves,’ Holloway said.”
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7: DA Mike Nifong wins his election bid, defeating two challengers after a highly divisive campaign thrust into the national spotlight by his handling of the Duke lacrosse alleged rape. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Nifong leads with 49 percent of the vote over Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, who has 39 percent. Steve Monks, a Republican who mounted a write-in campaign for the position, trails with 12 percent of the unofficial total. Observers note that Nifong did not get a majority of the vote. Nifong says that he considers the votes against him to be protest votes, but he says that won't affect his future decisions in the Duke lacrosse case or in other cases. "I'm going to continue doing what I've done for the last 28 years for the next four years," Nifong says. "And for the next four years, I'm going to continue doing what I believe to be the right thing." Nifong states that the contentious campaign has been hard on his family, but he has taken it in stride. "I've been through a lot worse than this," says Nifong, a cancer survivor. "This is inconvenient, but it's not life-threatening. Win or lose, I'm still Mike Nifong." His opponents in the political fight were not ready to surrender. "I hope the North Carolina State Bar will do what the Durham citizens could not," says Beth Brewer, spokeswoman for the leading anti-Nifong group.
Nifong has a brief run-in at the polling place with Bob Harris, the popular play-by-play voice of the Duke Blue Devils, when Nifong attempted to shake his hand. The radio announcer jumped into his car and was visibly upset when he noticed a television cameraman filming the exchange. He called county sheriff's deputies, who took no action after they arrived. The exchange between Harris and Nifong:
“You've got to be nicer than that," Nifong said.
"Get out of here," Harris said. "Don't pull this crap."
"This isn't about Duke," Nifong said. "This isn't about Duke at all."
"No," Harris said. "It's about honesty. You're not honest.”
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 8: A LieStoppers editorial “Something to be Proud Of” responds to Nifong’s election: “Those with “something to be proud of” are those who stood against abuse of power and those who have vowed to continue the fight. The justice of this cause will be determined by the truth and that truth has yet to be revealed in its full and dramatic glory. Innocence is only the beginning. Citizens of Durham did their best to avoid the painful process of exposing Nifong and the ugly details of this hoax. That process is now inevitable. While we are disappointed it could not be avoided, frankly, we are looking forward to it. When the hoax is over and the full truth known, we will all look back and judge our actions against the standards of “something to be proud of.” LieStoppers is comfortable where it stands.”
The Chronicle reports on the scene at the Durham courthouse as the final vote tally is announced: “When the final vote totals were confirmed, there was an immediate cheer from the yellow-clad Nifong supporters clustered on one side. Shanieka Rhinehart, an assistant district attorney, started a chant of "Let's go Nifong" and others supporters exchanged hugs and high-fives. "This goes to show that justice can't be bought by a bunch of rich white boys from New York," said Harris Johnson, a former state Democratic party official and Durham resident for 56 years. "Duke has a habit of sweeping things under the carpet. I guess this goes to show that no matter how much money you have, Durham is owned by its citizens," he added. Across the aisle, the members of Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek sat quietly --some crying-- and two Duke lacrosse players stood stoically in the back.”
The N&O relates the following exchange with Nifong after the election: “As for the hard-fought campaign, Durham's district attorney told an interviewer he had learned some things... ‘I don't know if I've learned who my friends are, but I have learned who my friends aren't,’ Nifong said. ‘Which in some ways is more valuable.’"
THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9: An N&O article “Nifong Benefited From Split” analyzes the DA election results which Nifong won by a purality. Nifong, a Democrat, received 26,116 votes or 49 percent, according to unofficial results that exclude provisional ballots. County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, a Democrat on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate, received 20,875 votes, or 39 percent. Voters cast 6,193 write-in votes, and Durham's election director says that all but about 300 went for official write-in candidate Steve Monks, a Republican. In October, Durham County had more than 54,000 registered black voters and more than 81,300 registered white voters. Race appeared to play a part in the election. Nifong received 80 percent of the vote in 13 precincts where black registered voters far outnumber whites, according to Durham County Board of Election statistics. In the 12 precincts where Nifong received less than 35 percent of the vote, white registered voters far outnumber blacks with one exception -- a polling place where many Duke students vote went heavily for Nifong but has a relatively diverse racial breakdown of registered voters. W.I. Patterson Recreation Center gave Cheek his biggest margin with 68 percent of the vote. But across town at the Shepard Magnet School just south of the historically black NCCU, nearly all voters -- 96 percent -- turned out for Nifong. In a separate analysis, KC Johnson reports that Nifong received votes from around 95% of the black votes and 20-15% of the white vote.
Ed Bradley, lead CBS correspondent for “60 Minutes” on the Duke case, dies in New York from complications of leukemia. According to the New York Times, “In the weeks before his final hospitalization, Mr. Bradley had been scrambling to finish the Duke report in particular, while fending off what would become the early stages of pneumonia. “He just kept hitting the road,” Ms. [Charlayne] Hunter-Gault said. “Every time I talked to him, he was tired. I’d say, ‘Why don’t you go home and rest?’ He’d say, ‘I just want to get this piece done.’ ” Michael Gaynor publishes an appreciation of Bradley’s work in a blogpost “Duke case: RIP, Ed Bradley—We’ll do the rest.”
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 10: The Johnsville News preserves the text and an image of the “Listening Statement,” the controversial ad in the April 6 Duke Chronicle signed by 88 faculty members at Duke. The African and African American Studies department, which co-sponsored the ad, has just now pulled the text from its website. The text begins:
“We are listening to our students. We’re also listening to the Durham community, to Duke staff, and to each other. Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday. They know that it isn’t just Duke, it isn’t everybody, and it isn’t just individuals making this disaster.
But it is a disaster nonetheless.These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves…”
SUNDAY NOVEMBER 12: N&O editorial page editor Steve Ford explains why the newspaper did not endorse a candidate in the DA contest and suggests that the NC State Bar should take a look at Nifong’s actions in the lacrosse case. “With the players' advocates, including many Durham voters aligned with Duke, burning to get even, it was no surprise to see challengers to Nifong materialize. But the challengers were phantoms, in a way. County commissioner Lewis Cheek agreed to have his name put on the ballot after a petition drive, but said he wouldn't serve if elected. Republican Steve Monks mounted a write-in campaign that clearly didn't have a chance. If Cheek had won and declined to take office, a new D.A. would have been appointed by Governor Easley. Our editorial page staff considered whether to endorse Cheek, but decided that this was a candidacy with one purpose -- to short-circuit the lacrosse case prosecution. In our view, that wasn't a good enough reason to support him. Nor did we feel Nifong had earned our seal of approval. In this contest, our opinion boiled down to a preference for letting nature take its course. (…)If the case goes to trial, at least jurors will make the decisions on the basis of all the available evidence and on the strength of testimony under oath. That's better than decisions being made outside the courtroom by the public at large, which likely would have been the effect if Nifong had lost. Meanwhile, given the persistent questions about Nifong's handling of the case, the N.C. State Bar -- which oversees the conduct of this state's lawyers -- ought to be gearing up to take a look. If the case turns out to be house of cards, the man who built it should have some explaining to do.”
MONDAY NOVEMBER 13: The Herald-Sun publishes a letter from defense attorney Joe Cheshire concerning an article quoting fellow attorney Kerry Sutton, who at one point defended David Evans, approving DA Nifong’s election: “But it must be noted that Nifong’s only “right” and “job” as a prosecutor in this or any other case is to satisfy his oath to see that justice is done. He has no right to take over the role of lead investigator from the police and then refuse to view exculpatory evidence, or to order an illegal and improper photo lineup procedure, or to make factually baseless public statements that pander to race, gender and class during an election cycle. Justice is not done in any criminal prosecution when a DA who assumes the role of chief factual investigator and does not bother to talk with the chief prosecuting witness about her allegations to assess her credibility, and instead lets forth a stream of pure speculation about the “facts” of the case to conform to the evolving investigation: speculation that, in fact, contradicts materials in his own case file and sworn statements made by his own investigators and assistants in the investigation…”
LieStoppers presents a comprehensive investigation of the “potbangers” who inflamed the Duke and Durham communities during the last week of March. “From the ‘Wall of Silence’ to Community Uproar to a National Story” examines the role of Duke activists from March 24 to 27 as they used the case to attack the lacrosse team, “sexism,” and “racism.”
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 14: According to the former manager of the Platinum Club, Crystal Mangum passed out at the strip club two nights before the lacrosse party and had to be carried to the parking lot. The four people carrying Mangum accidentally dropped her in the gravel parking lot on March 11, states Yolanda Haynes, the club's former manager. Haynes' account of that night at the club offers a possible explanation for the scratches doctors would later note on Mangum’s body. The account also describes behavior, including incoherence and unconsciousness, that is consistent with how Mangum was acting the night of the lacrosse party. On March 11, Haynes says, a couple came into the club and Mangum, who danced under the name "Precious," started pulling the female customer's hair. Someone complained, and Haynes says she told the accuser to go to the bathroom. When Haynes followed, she states she found Mangum naked and passed-out cold. Someone called the accuser's boyfriend, and it took four people to get Mangum outside to the car. Mangum had vomited, but Haynes says she did not notice the odor of alcohol.
On the “Friends of Duke University” website, Joan Collins describes meeting indicted lacrosse player Collin Finnerty and his mother Mary Ellen: “So much had been taken away from him, but Collin finds strength is what remains behind, namely the love of his family and the support of his friends, including his girlfriend of three years. As I watched Collin and his mother interact, I witnessed first hand the love that this mother and son have for one another. These past eight months have only strengthened the bond between them. (…) When I asked what message they would you like people to know, Collin and Mary Ellen told me they have the truth on their side and that they can not wait for everyone else to know it. Knowing that people understand this is a hoax and feel the pain these false accusations have caused them helps them get through each day.”
In her Fox News television show “On The Record,” Greta Van Susteren is the first to describe Judge W. Osmond Smith III as a “potted plant” for his slowness in deciding pending motions before him in the lacrosse case. According to the transcript, “Greta: ‘...what in the world is the judge doing? The judge has had motions for discovery. He's not a potted plant. Why doesn't he order the parties to court and start litigating these motions and move this case?’”
Duke Geology Professor Thomas Crowley writes a pro-Nifong op-ed article in the Herald-Sun “Don’t be too quick to toss lacrosse case” which reads in part: “I am surprised at the number of letter writers to your paper who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out of before even it goes to trial. I don’t know what happened that night with respect to these students and that woman, but I do know that the following items about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case.
• The Duke lacrosse players were no angels – they had a previously established history of rowdiness tarnished with racial comments, and one of the accused had been previously arrested for anti-gay comments while drunk.
• Why are photographs available before and after the alleged event, but not during it? Is it possible that photographer did not want to document what happening during that time?
• Why was the woman sober when she arrived and staggering to the point of passing out a mere 30 minutes later? Was she possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink? If so, what were their motives?
The accuser has in turn been accused of misleading statements about what happened and how long it took. Of course, some of this could be intentional deception, but it could also reflect the alcohol (and drugs?) and the stress and distortion that came with anxiety and terror. It is very common for people to distort time when they are being traumatized, whether they had a drink or not.”
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 15: LieStopper’s Philip Wood critiques in detail Prof. Crowley’s op-ed column and concludes: “Although he has no legal qualifications and obviously little knowledge about the facts of the case, Professor Crowley finds it his place to offer public opinions, suggestions, suppositions, and even accusations that contradict, not only facts that are readily available to him if he chose to educate himself, but also countless legal experts with far greater expertise than that offered by his multiple Geology degrees.”
THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16: Durham Police Inv. Ben Himan and Linwood Wilson interview Yolanda Haynes, former manager of the Platinum Club, who had been quoted in a November 14 N&O article about Crystal Mangum’s behavior at the strip club. Haynes is critical of statements by “Fats” Thomas, former security manager of the club who claims Mangum was back at work March 17, but confirms his account that Mangum had danced at the Platinum Club on March 25, just 11 days after the alleged gang rape.
Chronicle columnist Kristin Butler criticizes her fellow students for their apathy in the November 7 election: “There are many, many reasons to be depressed about last week's election. But one, in particular, stands out: not many of us voted. According to preliminary data from the Board of Elections, turnout in Durham's precinct 5-which serves students from West and Central campuses-was the second lowest in the county, with just 18 percent of registered voters casting ballots. In precinct 2, which encompasses East Campus, the turnout was only 23 percent.”
Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson is interviewed by “Frontpage” about the Duke case: “Duke, as an institution, has revealed a hollow moral core. Seven months into a case of what might be the highest-profile example of prosecutorial misconduct in the last decade, two Duke law professors and two Duke arts and sciences professors have publicly criticized Nifong. Meanwhile, Group of 88 members continues to defend their actions, even to the point of making demonstrably false public assertions about the players. Meanwhile, Brodhead has shown himself unwilling or unable to lead the institution, allowing what amounts to a "separate-but-equal" system to be established in Durham, under which Duke students are second-class citizens. The silence of North Carolina's political and legal establishment regarding Nifong's misconduct is stunning…”
SUNDAY NOVEMBER 19: In a guest column in the Herald-Sun titled “Lacrosse Players Far From Innocent,” Duke senior Shadee Malaklou writes a response to a November 13 letter-to-the-editor by defense attorney Joe Cheshire:
"Not only was Cheshire's guest column unprofessional, but it was also completely insensitive to the multitudes of women who have been victim, in one way or another, to the lacrosse players' actions… After all, how could we forget the desperate situation of these young men? Indeed, although we have been allowed to — encouraged to — forget their racism and misogyny, we have not been allowed to forget their innocence."
"Much of the emphasis on this 'innocence' has ignored the gender and racial prejudice of the March 13 party. If nothing else, Nifong is holding the lacrosse players accountable for that, and as a woman at Duke who knows just how much these men get away with, I'm thankful… If things went the 'right' and 'just' way, as Cheshire argues they should have, the lacrosse players would be quickly excused of their actions. Nifong might not be in the right, legally, but that doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing."
"And here's why: Very rarely are the Duke lacrosse players not drinking or partying, and true to Duke's motto of 'Work hard, play hard,' it is understood and accepted at Duke that what happens under a drunken stupor is excusable, and forgivable the next morning,"
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 21: As part of ongoing commentaries on medical aspects of the Duke case, Kathleen Eckelt R.N. writes in her “Forensic Talks” blog about the unlikelihood of DA Nifong’s claim that a choke hold was used during the alleged assault of Crystal Mangum: “The DA went so far as to demonstrate the choke hold on TV, supposedly as a way of explaining why there were no marks. Of course, not much has been mentioned of it since. This was a very serious accusation, one which helped to rile a community. It's not something that can be explained away as a mistake due to traumatization or memory trouble. It either happened or it didn't. It's either factual or it isn't. If it is, just because there were no visible injuries, doesn't necessarily mean there should be no signs. And if it isn't ... well, then that could, and should, reflect on the whole accusation. There are several reasons why I seriously questioned that this choking occurred. The first, as I've stated, is the fact that she, admittedly, was impaired by the combination of the alcohol and Flexeril. Both of these drugs are central nervous system depressants - which means they can depress the respiratory system as well. If you add a choke hold on top of this, I believe that the accuser would have been rendered unconscious almost immediately. I do not believe she would have even had a chance to fight or break her false nails…”
SATURDAY NOVEMBER 25: Prof. William Anderson examines the Duke case as an example of “Post-Modern Prosecutions.” He writes, in part: “As the Duke Non-Rape case blunders toward an unjustified trial, we must understand that we are now looking at a full-blown application of post-modernism in the legal arena. First, we see many of the Duke University faculty members writing in various venues that while they seriously doubt that the rape, sodomy, and kidnapping charges against David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann are true, nonetheless the young men should be put on trial because of their race, sex, and class. Furthermore, the Duke administration, in its various sets of talking points, has said the same thing, except that the administration claims that a trial will present a chance for the Duke 3 to "prove their innocence." (…)
Perhaps the most "post-modern" of the prosecution claims is that the multiple stories that the accuser told police constitute "proof" that the Duke 3 raped her. In the aftermath of the lacrosse team party, she told police that she was raped, that she was not raped, the entire team raped her, that 20 people raped her, that her partner, Kim Pittman-Roberts, helped the rapists, that Pittman-Roberts tried to stop the rapists, that she and Pittman-Roberts fought back, that five men raped her, that three men raped her, and that she was "100-percent sure" at every lineup that Brad Ross was at the party when, in fact, he was not. "
MONDAY NOVEMBER 27: Chronicle columnist David Kleban discusses the concept of “innocence” in the lacrosse case: “These three [Evans, Finnerty & Seligmann] are being condemned by professors and other students, not based on factual evidence or even individual character, but on nebulous accounts of an entire team's history of being less than ‘angels.’ They have become the scapegoats of a radical segment of academia that believes, as English Professor Karla Holloway wrote, that, ‘The appropriate presumption of innocence that follows the players, however the legal case is determined, is neither the critical social indicator of the event, nor the final measure of its cultural facts.’ These ‘cultural facts’ represent the altar at which some seek to sacrifice three men, regardless of their factual --in the real sense-- actions. That doing so implies a perversion of traditional and constitutional methods of administering justice is a secondary concern…”
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 28: The Johnsville News publishes a detailed analysis of Crystal Mangum’s various statements about the March 13-14 party and lists over 20 discrepancies. The post emphasizes the differences between her written account to the police on April 6 and her other recountings of what happened. According to the analysis: “The false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, in the Duke non-rape case, gave investigators a written statement on April 6, 2006, that is a total fabrication.”
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 29: In the first of a major two-part blogpost “Green Light for Nifong,” KC Johnson investigates the actions of Duke President Brodhead during the beginning of the lacrosse incident. “In the event, a close examination of the events between March 16 and April 3 shows that Brodhead’s actions signaled a belief that team members, more likely than not, were guilty. As the president’s defenders have pointed out, each and every one of his statements contained a for-the-record reminder that, legally, his students deserved presumption of innocence—comments that were buried amidst much more passionate denunciations of the team and its alleged or actual behavior.
Edited by sceptical, Jan 16 2011, 08:57 AM.
|sceptical||Jan 16 2011, 08:45 AM Post #2|
SPECIFIC REFERENCES (BY DATE)
November 1: New York Times’ Duff Wilson on Durham DA race
November 2: Prof. Bill Anderson on “Why the Duke Hoax Continues”
November 2: Kristin Butler column on upcoming DA election
November 3: Mangum wanted money from party-goers, security manager claims
November 4: N&O’s Ben Niolet analyzes upcoming DA election
November 5: N&O on end of early voting
November 5: Chronicle’s Steve Miller on Nifong
November 6: News perspective in Chronicle on “Group of 88”
November 7: Nifong elected District Attorney
November 8: LieStoppers editorial on Nifong’s election
November 9: N&O analyzes election results, including race effects
November 9: CBS’ Ed Bradley dies
November 10: The Johnsville News preserves text & image of “Listening” ad
November 12: Editorial page editor Steve Ford on the N&O’s lack of endorsement for DA
November 13: Joe Cheshire letter to Herald-Sun
November 13: LieStoppers on the “potbangers”
November 14: Report: Mangum passed out at strip club on March 11:
November 14: Joan Collins on meeting the Finnertys
November 14: Greta Van Susteren calls Judge Smith a “potted plant”
November 14: Duke Prof. Thomas Crowley’s pro-Nifong op-ed in Herald-Sun
November 15: Liestoppers on Prof. Crowley’s op-ed
November 16: The Chronicle’s Kristin Butler on low student turnout
November 16: Frontpage. Com interviews Prof. KC Johnson
November 19: Shadee Malaklou letter “Lacrosse Players Far From Innocent”
November 21: Kathleen Eckelt RN on Nifong’s claim of a choke-hold
November 25: Prof. Bill Anderson on “Post-modern Prosecutions
November 27: Chronicle’s David Kleban on “innocence”
November 28: The Johnsville News on Mangum’s April 6 written statement
November 29: KC Johnson on President Brodhead’s actions
(The Duke lacrosse case article indices in the Raleigh News & Observer and the Duke Chronicle have been taken down following website revisions. Articles can still be found using the search feature of the new websites.)
EVANS et al v. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF et al
MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al
CARRINGTON et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al
Duke University & Brodhead Statements
Duke University Archive of Media Coverage
Johnsville Blog Posts
KC Johnson’s Case Narrative
Chronology by Vance Holmes “Poetic Justice”
CBS News Chronology
Friends of Duke University Media Index
New York Times Article Index
|abb||Jan 16 2011, 08:59 AM Post #3|
Pertinent to the election of Nov 2006, was the violation of students rights to register to vote. I sent letters to the DOJ on that issue, so they could not claim ignorance.
October 2, 2006
Chief, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
Room 7254 - NWB
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
It has been alleged that on Saturday, September 30, 2006, Duke University officials forcibly prevented on campus voter registration efforts at the university’s football game.
Duke Students for an Ethical Durham (http://www.ethicaldurham.com/) is a student organization whose mission statement reads in part, “…seeks to encourage students to fulfill their civic obligation to register and vote in Durham County.” They attempted to fulfill that mission at a university football game. Reportedly, they went through “channels” and obtained permission from university officials in accordance with university rules. As they gathered prior to the game to pick up their forms, they were confronted by officials and prevented from accomplishing any voter registration.
On its face, this action by Duke University officials would seem to be a violation of the federal Higher Education Act, which encourages campus voter registration.
This letter shall serve as a formal complaint to you and a charge to investigate said allegation. I look forward to a prompt response, as registration deadline is October 13, 2006.
Walter C. Abbott III
Cc: President Richard H. Brodhead
Duke Students for an Ethical Durham
October 3, 2006
Mr. Ben White
Assistant US Attorney
Middle District of North Carolina
P. O. Box 1858
Greensboro, NC 27402
This letter is to document our conversation of today, October 3, 2006 in re: Duke University student voter registration efforts (see attached letter).
Your response was, “Duke is private property, so they (Duke) can do what they want,” and “No one is preventing the students from going downtown and registering.” You said that you had not heard any complaints from the students themselves and would like to hear from them directly. You also questioned whether or not Duke students would be eligible to vote.
Please advise if my recollection is faulty or that you remember the conversation differently.
Walter C. Abbott III
Cc: John K. Tanner, Chief
Voting Section, USDOJ
Anna Mills S. Wagoner
US Attorney, Middle District of NC
October 5, 2006
Mr. Alberto Gonzales
United States Attorney General
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Gonzales:
I write to enlist your help in resolving a complaint on a voting rights issue I filed with Mr. John Tanner, Chief of the Voting Section, USDOJ. A copy of the correspondence is enclosed. Also enclosed is a letter to Mr. Ben White, Assistant US Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina confirming a telephone conversation I had with him on Tuesday, Oct 3.
Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, I tried to follow up with phone calls to Mr. Tanner and then Wednesday with Ms. Anna Wagoner, US Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina. With the exception of Mr. White, I’ve talked only to administrative assistants.
Mr. Gonzales, as the election is Nov. 7 and the registration deadline even closer, this matter is urgent. I was truly shocked to hear of the incident detailed in the complaint – I never imagined such a thing could happen in the United States of America in 2006.
Please help so that these students won’t be denied the right to register and vote in the community where they live.
Walter C. Abbott III
Cc: John K. Tanner, Chief
Voting Section, USDOJ
Anna Mills S. Wagoner, US Attorney
Middle District of North Carolina
|Quasimodo||Jan 16 2011, 09:04 AM Post #4|
This needs to be done, and it's good to get it all down before it disappears from the NET.
It's a boon to future researchers (I've referred to earlier Chronologies already).
This case is so complex that it really needs a handy reference.
|Quasimodo||Jan 16 2011, 09:07 AM Post #5|
I think we need to bring that incident up before the new congress, if it starts investigating the way the DOJ
has responded to rights violations.
|sceptical||Jan 16 2011, 09:33 AM Post #6|
In an earlier post I discussed the sophisticated PR strategy of the defense attorneys for Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann to get out the facts supporting the innocence of their clients. This strategy included placing key information in public court motions, leaking information to receptive journalists (e.g. Joe Neff of the N&O) and bloggers (KC Johnson), and allowing their clients to make public appearances (Dave Evans' statement at the courthouse, their "60 Minutes" interviews).
The November Chronology emphasizes another aspect of the "media wars"-- the role of letters-to-the-editor and op-ed articles in shaping public opinion.
Defense lawyer Joe Cheshire was particularly aggressive in using public comments by others to assert his views. The lawyers were bound by ethical rules not to comment on the case-- however, a glaring exception to that dictum is that they could respond to public statements by others. Lawyer Kerry Sutton, who at an earlier time was defending Dave Evans, was quoted as approving Nifong's election (cynics suggested she knew who buttered her bread-- attorneys on good terms with the DA received better treatment). However, Cheshire took advantage of Sutton's statements to write a blistering letter:
However, the pro-Nifong forces did not take this lying down. Nifong by this time had chosen to clam up about the case (in contrast ti his more than 75 interviews in March and early April) and was generally not responding to specific attacks. However, his supporters, this time in the form of radical Duke student Shadee Malaklou, came to his defense:
There were many eloquent denunciations of Malaklou's column (which I referenced but did not include due to space limitations) in which lacrosse supporters counter-attacked:
This is just one exchange in November. Another example is the Nov. 14 letter of Duke Prof. Crowley suggesting that the case should go to trial and attacking the lacrosse team. This also elicited heated replies, and Crowley in December (coming attractions!) later retracted his statements.
These are but a few examples of the "media skirmishes" which marked the case.
|Baldo||Jan 16 2011, 04:07 PM Post #7|
Again Nice work sceptical! This is so valuable.
November was an interesting month. Cooney in a law school presentation post Innocent Declaration said that the single image that should be used to show what the Lacrosse case was about is the Castrate Photo. It was posted in the LieStoppers Potbangers post and taken by a potbanger
I found it on a List-server used by the Potbangers on the Indy Weekly. Sort of amazing that none of the media who were there ever showed it.
Events were also happening behind the scenes that were leading up to Dec 13 when the three most important motions of the case were submitted and caused the Dec 15 hearing to become explosive. Nifong & Meehan were exposed to have been hiding exculpatory evidence in Brad Bannon's Perry Mason gotcha moment!.
It took great legal work by RCD's team and others.
Just great work again sceptical. He is the person who deserves all the praise.
Edited by Baldo, Jan 17 2011, 12:42 AM.
|Baldo||Jan 16 2011, 04:12 PM Post #8|
It is up on the Blog
|MikeZPU||Jan 16 2011, 07:02 PM Post #9|
sceptical: Another tour-de-force -- awesome job!
And therein lies a strong element of the culpability of the
citizens of Durham. They had an opportunity to stop the
wrongful persecution of three innocent Duke students.
If they vote Nifong out, the case is most likely dropped.
But, instead, they chose to reaffirm the wrongful prosecution.
By November 2006, it was well-documented that all of
the evidence contradicted the allegation of gang-rape. All
Nifong had was the word of a stripper. Everyone was aware
of the problems with the illegal lineup that Nifong ordered.
Any civil judgment against the city -- against the city
administration and the DPD -- will ultimately be paid for by
the taxpayers of Durham. And I, for one, will not feel sorry
for them whatsoever.
They had a chance to end the madness, to end the wrongful
prosecution, to end the reign of terror by Nifong, but nearly
half of them voted to keep Nifong in office.
Edited by MikeZPU, Jan 16 2011, 07:18 PM.
|sceptical||Jan 17 2011, 07:46 AM Post #10|
I would like to thank my informal "board of editors" who have collaborated with me on the Chronology.
After I have finished a semi-final draft of each segment, I have e-mailed the draft to four individuals, each of whom has taken the time to review the draft and suggest changes, corrections and additions.
For example, for the November Chronology, Quasi, who has an encyclopedic knowlege of the case, pointed out that I had missed the important November 13 LieStoppers article about the "potbangers." JSwift, from his impressive list of questions for the Durham PD, added the November 2 contact between Butch Williams and the police about one of Crystal's "clients," and also the November 16 interview of Platinum Club manager Yolanda Haynes by Ben Himan and Linwood Wilson. Q.A., who is an accomplished writer and proof-reader, made several suggestions as to format, language and punctuation. As always, the amazing Baldo provided encouragement and posted the segment on the LieStoppers main blog, where it is more accessible to internet search engines.
Each of the "board of editors" has made the series more comprehensive and better written. I thank them for the time they have spent.
While it may take a while, I am looking forward to the December, 2006 Chronology with all the explosive events that brought the case to a head.
|sceptical||Jan 18 2011, 10:41 PM Post #11|
November 2006 featured some classic Nifong moments:
|Quasimodo||Jan 18 2011, 11:21 PM Post #12|
IIRC, this included Kerry Sutton...
ALL the ADAs in that office needed to be questioned about what they knew, and when. As ADAs they have
a responsibility to the truth and to the law. And it can't be that there was office gossip about the biggest
case in Durham's history, in every office in the city EXCEPT in the DA's office...
Nope. If they can't get justice, then how much chance does a poor man in Durham have?
It's "owned", but by special interest groups, not its citizens.
|sceptical||Jan 29 2011, 10:04 AM Post #13|
The Updated Chronologies have necessarily relied primarily on the written record of the time. I have not included video references up until now. A complete reference list to videos about the lacrosse case would be helpful, but someone else will have to do that.
A quick look through you-tube showed at least one video produced in November, 2006:
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »|