|UPDATED CHRONOLOGY OF DUKE LACROSSE CASE: MARCH 2007; Special Prosecutors Continue Their Work|
|Topic Started: Feb 23 2012, 11:09 PM (809 Views)|
|sceptical||Feb 23 2012, 11:09 PM Post #1|
UPDATED CHRONOLOGY OF DUKE LACROSSE CASE: MARCH 2007
(Thanks to Quasi, Q.A. and Baldo for their comments and suggestions.)
THURSDAY MARCH 1: In his “Durham-in-Wonderland” blog, Prof. KC Johnson of Brooklyn College discusses Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s Feb. 28, 2007 responses to misconduct charges by the North Carolina State Bar. Johnson notes that Nifong has given 8 different defenses to charges that Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, but the latest filing suggests additional explanations:
“Instead, Nifong offered three new lines of defense:
(a) He didn’t have to turn over any material until a trial date was set;
(b) The one-sided nature of the report is irrelevant, since Nifong knew he would have to turn over the underlying data, which is easily understood;
(c) The issue is irrelevant, since he wasn’t required to turn over a “complete report,” at any stage of the process.”
Other bloggers, including Michael Gaynor and John-in-Carolina, also analyze the Nifong filing.
Josh Perlin, in the Cornell Daily Sun, writes that Duke lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann is being recruited by Brown University if charges against him are dropped, but that Perlin is happy Seligmann will not attend Cornell. In a column titled “Seligmann Not Worth Hassle,” Perlin says:
“Frankly, I’m tired of this case. I’m tired of all the leaked information about what did or did not happen. I’ve had enough of people taking one side or the other, the media blowing it out of proportion and generalizing the ramifications. I’m sick of the implications and everything else brought on by the media. Let’s wait for the trial, make sure justice is served and move on. But with all the baggage he brings, now is not the time to recruit Seligmann. I’m glad we’re not, and I hope Brown will reconsider.”
FRIDAY MARCH 2: The Raleigh News & Observer (N&O) reports that the Feb. 28, 2007 filing to the State Bar by DA Nifong reveals that Nifong and the police investigators in the Duke lacrosse case have different recollections of the first time they met at the Burlington laboratory that provided DNA testing. Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Inv. Benjamin Himan each list in their case notes that they were at DNA Security on April 10, 2006, a week before indictments in the case. Himan writes that Nifong was present at the meeting with Brian Meehan, head of the lab. But in a Jan. 16, 2007 letter to the State Bar, Nifong says he could not recall the event, although he acknowledged that a meeting occurred. "I can only report that I have no recollection of that meeting and that I have no documentation or other evidence that I ever attended such a meeting," Nifong says in the Jan. 16 letter. Nifong's letter is revealed in the voluminous Feb. 28 filing to the State Bar. The timeline of Nifong's first meeting with Meehan could clarify when the prosecutor first learned of DNA evidence of men not on the Duke lacrosse team. In an earlier Dec. 28, 2006 letter to the bar, Nifong says his first meeting with Meehan was April 21, four days after the first indictments. It was then, Nifong states, that he learned of the presence of DNA on accuser Crystal Mangum's clothing and body from men other than the tested lacrosse players and the accuser's boyfriend. But in the Jan. 16 letter to the bar, Nifong writes about a May 12, 2006 meeting in which Meehan provided a report to the prosecution: "He also discussed with us the results of the tests he had performed since our April 10, 2006, meeting." Nifong asserts he did not see the test results as necessarily favorable to the defense: "They neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else." In a December, 2006 hearing, Meehan acknowledged that he and Nifong agreed to exclude evidence in the initial DNA report. In his letters to the bar, Nifong says he did not intentionally withhold evidence nor did he mean to cause pretrial prejudice through the numerous interviews he gave to the news media between March 27 and April 3, 2006.
DA Nifong states in one of the letters to the State Bar he feared the bar was looking for a prosecutor to punish for the misdeeds of other prosecutors whose misconduct has recently come to light and who have gone largely unpunished. He offered several explanations for some of the problems that have arisen, one of which, he says, is that he had never before encountered such determined pretrial resistance. "A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals -- most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina, have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial."
Jason Trumpbour of the group Friends of Duke University answers Nifong’s accusation:
“It is typical of Nifong's narcissism and grandiosity that he imagines himself confronted by giants. The reality is that we are a bunch of ordinary folks who had to shoulder the burden of speaking out against him ourselves because we got tossed out on our ear at Duke. Our group’s original purpose was to get Duke to speak out in defense of its students and they did not start doing that until late December. We are mostly funded out of our own pockets.”
SATURDAY MARCH 3: Michael McCusker in his “Crystal Mess” blog calls on DA Nifong to resign, arguing that the State Bar’s poor record of disciplining lawyers and prosecutors in previous cases will force the bar to make an example of Nifong’s misconduct:
“So, the disgraced Defendant Nifong should resign now. Because of the blog attention devoted to the Duke Hoax, millions of people, myself included, now know of the Gell Frame and the Bar's essential sanctioning of it. The Bar simply cannot act, or fail to act, in Matter of Nifong as it did in Matter of Hoke and Graves. It has made clear that it is going to bend him over. Stick a fork in Mikey's law license. He's done. Continued petulant defiance only hurts his position on the end of the plank, but he's just not wired to appreciate it. He's too stupid to see that he would be better served looking for another job, now.”
SUNDAY MARCH 4: The campus culture report released last week at Duke diagnoses an environment often dominated by white men, fraternities, sports and an alcohol-drenched social scene that promotes casual sex, according to an analysis in the N&O. To some, though, the report is a politically correct treatise by leftists intent on social engineering and a top-to-bottom remake of a great university, according to the N&O.
“After nine months of study, a campus committee is recommending 28 changes covering a wide range of topics: dorm space, dining halls, social life, athletics and what types of students are admitted. Duke President Richard Brodhead has said the recommendations will be considered but are not a done deal. For some, the question is: Does Duke need fixing? Not really, says Jason Trumpbour, who last year joined four other Duke alumni to create Friends of Duke University, a group critical of the university's handling of the lacrosse case. The report appears to have a faulty premise, Trumpbour says, because the committee began its work when the lacrosse team was in the cross hairs of so much outrage. "The committee report assumes all sorts of pervasive problems with class, race and gender," he says. "I don't think that reflects the common experience of most people." Alumni who post anonymously to the web site of the campus newspaper, the Chronicle, say the proposed reforms would ruin Duke. Many students worry that their party life would suffer; others want to see a more varied social scene. "As long as these recommendations are on the table, these divisions are going to fester, and in fact, they're just going to get worse," says KC Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College who writes a blog about the Duke case. Paula McClain, who will take office in July as chairwoman of Duke's Academic Council, the faculty governing body, says she thinks the recent report was a careful study, and she gives Duke credit for undertaking it. "The reality is the world is changing, the country is changing, and we have to change," she states. "If Duke wants to remain competitive and remain a top-notch institution, it's got to change with the times. Change is very difficult, especially for people who came through Duke years ago." Simone Randolph, vice president of the Black Student Alliance, says she thinks there have long been class and race problems on campus. "In some ways it's pervasive, and in some ways it's less overt," said Randolph, a junior from Cleveland. "Lacrosse kind of shook us up and got us to look at those polarizations within our community." Student government President Elliott Wolf, who served on the campus culture group, doesn't agree with some of the recommendations, especially the ban on large group living. He says he thinks student opposition will kill the idea. And Wolf doesn't want to see the university dilute its athletic prowess, saying Duke basketball is a powerful recruiting tool for top students."
MONDAY MARCH 5: The Duke men’s lacrosse team has reached the No. 1 ranking in the country in two polls for the first time in school history. The Blue Devils-- who had their season canceled last year amid rape allegations against three players-- receive six of 10 first-place votes in the USILA coaches poll to move past Georgetown for the top spot. The Blue Devils (3-0) also reach No. 1 in the Nike/Inside Lacrosse media poll, earning 13 of 16 first-place votes.
TUESDAY MARCH 6: The blog LieStoppers publishes the text of NC State Bar’s Amended Complaint against Mike Nifong merged with Nifong’s responses in his Feb. 28 filing (see References).
Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt has become the fourth and latest member of the U.S. House of Representatives (joining Walter Jones, Carolyn McCarthy, and Peter King) to demand that U.S. Attorney General Gonzales open a federal inquiry into the behavior of DA Nifong, according to a poster at LieStoppers who received a letter from Tiahrt.
WEDNESDAY MARCH 7: LieStoppers presents evidence from the transcript of a June 22, 2006 court hearing that contradicts Nifong’s claim in his most recent filing that Nifong does not remember meeting with Meehan, Gottlieb and Himan on April 10, 2006.
"As far as eight and nine, there's similar arguments I would like to make to the Court. I understand what Mr. Nifong said about eight and that is the report of a meeting on April 10th among Mr. Nifong, Investigator Himan, Sergeant Gottlieb, and Brian Meehan, and as I understand what he says, there was no discussion at all that wasn't attorney work product at that meeting." - Joe Cheshire at June 22, 2006 Hoax hearing. (Hearing transcript page 20, lines 17-24) .
"That's pretty much correct, Your Honor. We received the reports, which he has received, and we talked about how we would likely use that, and that's what we did." - Defendant Nifong responding to Cheshire's request for clarification of the Defendant's prior assertion regarding the April 10, 2006 meeting (Hearing transcript page 20, line 25 to page 21, line 3)
THURSDAY MARCH 8: KC Johnson in a blogpost “Nifong’s Continued Evasions” analyzes the Durham DA’s January 16, 2007 letter to the State Bar, published today by LieStoppers, in which Nifong attempts to defend his actions. Some excerpts:
“1). A “summary” report need not contain all test results; and, indeed, can be confined to those results that the prosecution desires to report. (…) 2.) No law enforcement official from Durham took any notes at any point during any meeting with Meehan.
“In an astonishing claim, Nifong asserts that he, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, and Inv. Ben Himan drove to Meehan’s Burlington lab on at least two occasions, sat across the table from the lab director for over an hour in total, and that none of them ever wrote anything down about what they discussed with Meehan. Why, then, did the three of them even bother to make the trip—or is Nifong contending that all three have photographic memories, and would be able to recall the key details of the conversations months later, when the trial began? This, it seems, is the Durham Police Department’s response to North Carolina’s Open Discovery statute: since all notes now must be turned over to the defense, just don’t take any notes.
3.) Nifong used the January 16 letter to offer what was then his seventh excuse for withholding the DNA evidence.
“Nifong admits that he knew of the presence of DNA traces from multiple males. But, he told the Bar, “the specific fact that the May 12 report from DNA Securities did not contain any information about the presence of partial DNA profiles who were not members of the Duke lacrosse team (which would not be a negative result), however, failed to register with me at all at the time I received the report.” In other words, it seems the district attorney believes that state law requires disclosure of “positive” and “negative” test results, but not of test results that the D.A. and private lab directors decide between themselves are neither “positive” not “negative.” Nothing in the relevant statutes, however, seems to justify that interpretation. (…)”
The Chronicle’s Rob Copeland profiles several bloggers who have written on the lacrosse case in an article titled “The Virtual Support Team.” Among the bloggers mentioned are Mike McCusker, KC Johnson, William Anderson, LaShawn Barber and John-in-Carolina.
FRIDAY MARCH 9: A LieStoppers post “Nifong Auditions for America’s Dumbest Criminals” discusses back-tracking by Nifong in his responses to the State Bar on several points. Nifong denies that he and DNASI director Brian Meehan specifically agreed to limit the report of the DNA results, even though Meehan testified to this multiple times at the December 15, 2006 court hearing. Nifong also denies remembering the April 10, 2006 meeting with Meehan, Gottlieb and Himan, even though the other three state he was there and the meeting is mentioned in Himan’s contemporaneous case notes.
SATURDAY MARCH 10: A Los Angeles Times article by David Wharton about the lacrosse team features the first public comments by reinstated player Ryan McFadyen:
“Tall, with a straightforward manner, Ryan McFadyen does not come across as an emblem for the ills of college sports. But shortly after the infamous party, he sent an e-mail to teammates suggesting they hire more strippers, kill them and skin them. Leaked to The national media, it was the final straw prompting coach Mike Pressler's resignation and the cancellation of the season.
"Obviously I made a mistake," McFadyen now says. "A juvenile thing to do."
Speaking publicly for the first time, the junior described the e-mail as a dark joke referencing a movie, "American Psycho," he and his teammates had seen. It was also the worst thing to write at the worst possible moment. "An experience I would not wish on anyone," he said. "It's something you look back on and say I hope it made me a better person, helped me mature at a time when I needed to."”
Another article in the San Diego Union –Tribune recounts that top freshman prospect Max Quinzani “freaked out” when the Duke lacrosse team was suspended after the rape charges, that he looked into going elsewhere, but later decided to remain committed to Duke.
Duke graduate student Richard Spencer writes an on-line analysis “Rotten in Durham” in the American Conservative which critiques Duke’s academic culture. He suggests that there are two groups among the faculty—professional black activists and “tame liberals.” The first group, according to Spencer, sees the lacrosse events through a lense of alleged “secret racism” on campus while the second views the lacrosse controversy through alleged “sexual-racial oppression.” KC Johnson discusses the article, which he calls “perceptive.”
SUNDAY MARCH 11: According to Durham Police Inv. Ben Himan’s notes, Special Prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead today attempt to question second dancer Kim (Roberts) Pittman about discrepancies in accuser Crystal Mangum’s account of the lacrosse party and subsequent events. Pittman is accompanied by her lawyer, Mark Simeon. Pittman becomes visibly upset and then states that if they need her testimony and want to talk to her they would have to subpoena her.
Blogger “John-in-Carolina” continues his investigation of who was responsible for the infamous “Wanted” poster with photos of Duke lacrosse players which was put up on campus in March, 2006. He reveals that Sue Wasiolek, dean of students, and Robert Dean, chief of the Duke Police, were on the CrimeStoppers board, the organization responsible for Durham police Cpl. David Addison’s activities.
“Duke trustee chair Robert Steel needs to ask dean Wasiolek and police director Dean to explain their involvement with Durham CrimeStoppers and what, if anything, they did once they learned the "Wanted" poster was out there and endangering students and others in the community.”
KC Johnson discusses the topic in a blogpost “Addison, CrimeStoppers, and Duke.”
MONDAY MARCH 12: Mike Krzyzewski, the face of Duke athletics, was virtually silent last spring as the lacrosse case put the school and its athletic teams under scrutiny. Now the men's basketball coach says the university should have shown more support for the players. "The one thing that I wish we would have done is just out, publicly say, 'Look, those are our kids. And we're gonna support 'em, because they're still our kids.' That's what I wish we would have done," Krzyzewski tells sports commentator Bob Costas on a HBO television show. "And I'm not sure that we did -- I don't think we did a good job of that." For months, bloggers and others have criticized Duke, accusing the university of not standing behind the players as the judicial process unfolded. According to excerpts from the transcript, Krzyzewski criticizes Duke professors for their attacks on big-time sports at the university. "We had almost 100 professors come out publicly against certain things in athletics," Krzyzewski tells Costas, "and I was a little bit shocked at that. But it shows that there's a latent hostility or whatever you want to say towards sports on campus. I thought it was inappropriate, to be quite frank with you." Krzyzewski voiced similar feelings in June during his first extensive public comments about the impact of the case. He called those who used the occasion to attack athletics "very narrow-minded." "I don't think there's a latent hostility," says Paula McClain, a political science professor who has questioned the role of big-time sports programs at top-tier research universities. "The questions about athletics are not just related to Duke. I'm sorry Coach K really feels like it's hostility toward athletics and such, because most faculty really appreciate Duke athletics." Krzyzewski, who also bears the title of special assistant to the Duke president, tells Costas he did not speak out last spring because Brodhead did not ask him to do so. "I met with my college president. I told Dick Brodhead, 'If you need me ... you tell me, and then put me in a position where I'm not the basketball coach. But I am that special assistant to you,' " Krzyzewski states. "Dick Brodhead did not bring me in."
The Herald-Sun reports that former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler and Sports Illustrated magazine investigative reporter Don Yeager are cooperating on a book about the Duke lacrosse case called "It's Not About The Truth." The book, called "an explosive insider account" of the case by Pocket Books' executive Louise Burke, will be published in June by Pocket Books' Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Pressler resigned as head coach of the Duke men's lacrosse team under pressure after news first broke about the rape allegations against several members of his nationally ranked team.
Tricia Dowd, the mother of a lacrosse player, reflects on the one year anniversary of the lacrosse team party. Here is an excerpt, which was published on-line by Michael Gaynor: "As the one year anniversary of the Durham/Duke Hoax approaches, I reflect on the past year with the hope of finding the answer to one question that plagues me daily; When did the truth cease to matter? "For anyone who has followed the evidence, the truth is that there was no rape, no sexual assault and no kidnapping on the night/morning of March 13/14. The truth has become, at best, secondary to: 1. Those who want these three innocent young men punished for sins of the past. 2. Some of the gang of 88, who want to promote their own personal and political agendas. 3. Pres. Brodhead and Chairman Steele who are more concerned with Duke's image than the truth.
"Twelve months ago, Nifong, with the help of his enablers, may have been able to try and hide the truth. However, through the Herculean effort of the defense team and numerous bloggers, the truth has been painstakingly unearthed. Then why are Collin, Reade and Dave still indicted for crimes they did not commit? Why has the Gang of 88 not admitted that their judgment may have been clouded by the emotionally charged atmosphere of the time? Why have Pres. Brodhead and Chairman Steele maintained the position that canceling the lacrosse season, firing Coach Pressler and not supporting their students from day one of this travesty, was not a mistake? It seems the facts and thus the truth has fallen on deaf ears to these groups.”
TUESDAY MARCH 13: On the first anniversary of the 2006 lacrosse team party which was followed by three team members being charged with rape, the district attorney, the defense and the community are keeping relatively quiet, according to the N&O. "I think people are just ready for it to be over," Durham Mayor Bill Bell says today on the anniversary of an off-campus party in which Crystal Mangum, a 28-year-old stripper, had alleged that three players locked her in a bathroom and had then attacked her. Months later, Nifong dropped the rape charges after the accuser wavered in key details of her story. He later recused himself from the case, handing it over to special prosecutors with the North Carolina Attorney General's Office. Although the legal case still lingers at this time (special prosecutors are reviewing the evidence) Bell asserts the city and the university have moved forward in the past year. "I have do doubt in my mind this community is going to get through it," Bell says, according to WRAL. "Hopefully, we'll be better for it, and hopefully there've been lessons learned." In the past year, the number of off-campus incidents involving Duke students has dropped significantly. "The student leadership here was quite remarkable, reminding other students: Don't do stupid things," says John Burness, Duke's vice president for public affairs, Many people who live in Trinity Park -- where the alleged sexual assault occurred in the early-morning hours of March 14 -- including professor Richard Schmalbeck, say they've noticed a difference. "There've been problems with one or two late-night noise events, but it used to be something every weekend," Schmalbeck says. "It's calmed down quite a bit." Although Duke leaders don't think this one event will define the university, they're not sure what, if any kind of lasting effect it will have. "Ultimately, the test of the university and the way we're perceived will be 2 to 5 years from now when people look back and say, 'Did Duke do the right thing?'" according to VP Burness.
WEDNESDAY MARCH 14: It's been nearly a year since family friend Delores Burnette has spoken to Crystal Mangum, according to WTVD’s Tamara Gibbs. Burnette says previously the accuser would turn to her at any sign of trouble, often asking for money and spiritual guidance. That was not the case the night of the now infamous March 13th party where she claims three former Duke lacrosse players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom. “Something happened," Burnette says. "Her Daddy told me that when he saw her he knew something had happened, but when he took her to the hospital they wouldn't let him see her after that point." (…) While they have faced a media firestorm, the accuser has been silent and in hiding. "If she wanted money she would've been talking," Burnette claims. "It's just like any other rape victim and they're ashamed it happened and they usually blame themselves." Burnette also believes Mangum has remained silent because of the sordid details of her past. From a previous gang rape allegation in Creedmoor, NC to wild nights at a popular strip club in Hillsborough, Mangum has become public fodder for talk shows, websites and court motions. When the accuser was facing criminal charges for drunk driving and eluding police, she called on Burnette to testify in court on her behalf. Burnette says she encouraged the then NCCU student and mother of two to give up exotic dancing, but the allure of easy money was too hard to resist. "Her dad says she realizes that she made a mistake," Burnette reveals. "But she can overcome that mistake. Everybody makes mistakes." Regardless of her past, Burnette says the accuser deserves justice. She is convinced the young woman she has known since the age of 7 would not falsely accuse anyone of a crime. "I don't think she made it up," Burnette says. "But she probably is not in a position to stand up and say, well, ‘I don't have any reason to lie’ because of all the things she's heard too."
Michael Gaynor, in a blogpost, debunks the myth that the lacrosse players were “bad actors,” as suggested in off-the-record comments by Duke officials, including VP John Burness:
“1) In the six most recent academic years ending in 2006, there were a total of 377 reported incidents of academic dishonesty (cheating, plagiarism, etc.) by all students. Of these, 58 were eventually dropped and 28 were adjudicated and the students found not responsible, leaving 291 incidents of academic dishonesty. NONE were lacrosse players.
(2) In the six years ending in 2006, there were a total of 46 reported incidents of physical abuse, fighting and endangerment, including 3 findings of not responsible. NONE involved lacrosse players. (3) In the six years ending in 2006, there were 20 incidents of sexual misconduct, including 14 findings of not responsible. NONE were lacrosse players. (4) In the six years ending in 2006, there were 96 incidents of drug related misconduct, including 2 findings of not responsible. Only one was a lacrosse player (smoking marijuana in his room in 2001 and he was not a member of the 2005-2006 team). (5) In the three years ending in 2006, there were 171 alcohol related medical calls to DUPD/EMS. NONE were lacrosse players. (It's likely that these are the most serious, and dangerous, alcohol related violations.) (6) About 60% of the lacrosse players, based on last year's team, had GPA's of 3.0 or higher. (7) The lacrosse players have a 100% graduation rate.”
THURSDAY MARCH 15: North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper spends 23 minutes today at the house on Buchanan Boulevard where Crystal Mangum said she was gang-raped by members of the Duke lacrosse team. Special prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead also visit the now-vacant house, which is across the street from Duke's East Campus. They are accompanied by other investigators. The prosecutors spent part of the time in the backyard, taking some measurements between the back door and a rusty fence. Cooper and the prosecutors did not comment on their visit as they left the Buchanan Boulevard property in a Ford Explorer.
For the first time former Duke men's lacrosse coach Mike Pressler speaks out about allegations and the criminal investigation against his three former players. Pressler says he has always believed the players -- David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann -- were innocent of sexual assault charges. "The evidence is coming out, daily, if not weekly. The world is seeing things that we knew early on in March," Pressler says in an interview on the Fox News show "America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly," where he was promoting an upcoming book on the matter. "We remained silent for that period of time because we believe in those two words -- the truth," Pressler says. He also asserts that he made it a point to punish players whenever they stepped out of line, but the party was not one of those circumstances.
The Independent Women's Forum, a Washington D.C. based, non-partisan, non-profit organization hosts a panel this evening to discuss DA Nifong, the media coverage, and the role of Duke University professors in the lacrosse controversy. Panelists include Stuart Taylor Jr., columnist for National Journal magazine and Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War against Boys. IWF's Allison Kasic, who was featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine in May 2003 as one of the top student activists in the country, rounds out the panel. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin moderates.
FRIDAY MARCH 16: WTVD reports that a spokesperson for Atty. Gen. Roy Cooper's office confirms no decision has been made yet in the Duke lacrosse case, but the investigation will wrap up in the next few weeks. Spokeswoman Jennifer Canada says the Attorney General office has begun discussions on how and when it will announce whether to proceed with the case. There will likely be a news conference once a final decision is made.
ABC News reports that Crystal Mangum is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors, according to law enforcement sources close to the case. The accuser has met at least twice with prosecutors from the North Carolina attorney general's office, which took over the case from Durham DA Nifong in January. In those interviews she gave incomplete answers when asked about the events surrounding the alleged assault, sources say. The attorney general's office later issues the following statement to ABC News: "In discussions with our attorneys, the accuser has been cooperative in answering questions and providing information. More discussions are scheduled." The same law enforcement sources also say, however, that Kim Roberts, the second dancer who attended the March 2006 party, has also refused to speak with investigators and has said she would do so only if subpoenaed.
Lawyers for DA Nifong, continuing to push for dismissal of part of the State Bar's ethics complaint, file briefs today to meet a deadline set by the Disciplinary Hearing Commission, which acts as judge in the bar's case against Nifong. KC Johnson offers this summary of Nifong’s lawyers’ arguments in the 15 page brief: “ 1) Nifong’s actions didn’t violate the Brady rule. 2.) Nifong’s actions didn’t violate the Open Discovery statute, because the defense received the relevant information before a trial occurred; and, in any case, Nifong turned over everything he had. 3.) Neither Nifong nor any other law enforcement official was required to produce notes of their discussions with Dr. Meehan; therefore, their failure to do so wasn’t an ethics violation. 4.) Nifong didn’t violate the North Carolina law requiring that the subjects of a Non-Testimonial order be supplied with a copy of reports of the test results from the NTO because . . . well, because Nifong says so.”
In a filing the same day, the State Bar issues its own rebuke of the Nifong’s arguments. Katherine E. Jean, Carmen K. Hoyme and Douglas J. Brocker, lawyers representing the bar, argue that Nifong intentionally withheld evidence favorable to the defense and then lied about it to the court and bar: "In his motion to dismiss, Nifong urges the DHC to undertake statutory construction, interpretation of case law, and semantic hair-splitting. These are not appropriate tasks for the tribunal." David Freedman and Dudley Witt, the Winston-Salem lawyers representing Nifong, argue that defense lawyers received a DNA report and the underlying data well before any trial. "That Nifong disclosed both the report and the underlying data later than the Duke defendants would have preferred does not turn Nifong's disclosure, or failure to make what the defendants would consider timely disclosure, into a constitutional violation," they write. "It was apparent to both sides that all the underlying data had not been turned over," Freedman says Monday during a telephone interview. The Nifong lawyers also argue that neither state law nor court orders required Nifong to write a report of what he was told by the head of a private lab that did the DNA testing. "It would be our contention that the State Bar is trying to create requirements that are not required by the constitution," Freedman says. Lawyers for the bar argue otherwise. The State Bar has said that Nifong first learned of DNA results favorable to the accused April 10 but instructed Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, the lab that did the testing, not to list those results on a written report. The bar says Nifong never gave the players a complete report, as required by the State Bar and state law. Defense lawyers repeatedly asked for the information. Nifong turned over more than 1,844 pages of raw data only after a judge ordered him to do so. Attorneys for the bar state that did not constitute a report, in part because Nifong did not provide information about conversations that he had with Meehan. In September, Nifong told the court that a 10-page DNA report issued earlier encompassed all tests done by the private lab and everything discussed at meetings in April and May. Contrary to what Nifong told the court, defense lawyers were not aware at the time that lab tests had turned up DNA from four men not on the lacrosse team.
Prof. KC Johnson publishes a copy of the CrimeStoppers poster prepared by Durham Police Cpl. David Addison and distributed in the community on March 8, 2006. The “Wanted” poster asserts in part: “The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.” LieStoppers illustrates both the CrimeStoppers poster and a different poster with pictures of many of the lacrosse team members which has been called the “Vigilante” poster. John-in-Carolina writes about Duke’s reponse :
“The “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters were false, inflammatory and endangered the players and other students who might be the unintended victims of acts by unstable people and hate groups targeting the players. But Duke's never said that during the past year. So for example, when faculty-members, students and others swarmed about the West Campus lawn in front of Brodhead's office and on the Chapel steps the night of March 29 waving “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters and targeting the players with threats, Brodhead and apparently no other Duke administrator said anything condemning those targeting the players and endangering their safety and that of others.”
Edited by sceptical, Mar 5 2012, 11:06 PM.
|sceptical||Feb 23 2012, 11:09 PM Post #2|
SUNDAY MARCH 18: KC Johnson begins a series of blogposts about the “worst of the case;” this installment lists what he considers the “worst” of the op-ed pieces or editorials about the Duke lacrosse case. He critically comments on writings by Steve Ford of the N&O, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, more than 20 Herald-Sun editorials, Marc Fisher in the Washington Post, Selena Roberts in the New York Times, Josh Perlin in the Cornell Daily Sun, Hal Crowther in Indy, Amanda Marcotte in Pandago, Harvey Araton in the New York Times, and Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post.
MONDAY MARCH 19: Prof. William Anderson writes a blogpost “Duke and the Death of Academe, Part II: Faculty Members As Mafiosi” in which he charges that the demands of “identity studies” faculty, such as requiring students to take their courses, are “protection rackets.”
Blogger KC Johnson continues his series of what he considers the “worst” news articles about the lacrosse case. He especially scorns three articles: John Stevenson’s “Lawyers Haggle Over DNA Matches from the Herald Sun, Aug 1, 2006; Samiha Khana and Anne Blythe’s “Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal” from the N&0, March 25, 2006; and Duff Wilson and Jonathan Slater’s “Files from Duke Rape Case Give Details But No Answers” from the New York Times, Aug. 25, 2006.
TUESDAY MARCH 20: DA Nifong is now scheduled to go before the State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission on June 12, according to an order issued today by F. Lane Williamson, chairman of the commission that will sit as judge. The State Bar has charged Nifong with violations of ethical and professional conduct over his handling of the Duke lacrosse case. If convicted, Nifong could lose his law license. Nifong handed the case over to special prosecutors in the state Attorney General's Office in January, citing a conflict of interest because of the State Bar charges against him. In his scheduling order, Williamson sets several deadlines: The bar must submit its expert witness list by April 15. Nifong must list whom he will call as expert witnesses by May 1. By May 30, the lawyers are to meet for a prehearing conference.
The Boston Globe runs a feature by Jackie MacMullan about former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler and his wife Sue as they prepare to move to Rhode Island where Mike Pressler will coach the Bryant Bulldogs. As part of an extensive interview with both, Sue Pressler explains: “Mike’s been sad from the beginning. Not about the tangible stuff, like losing his job or having his reputation questioned. The sad part is his kids [the Duke lacrosse team] were taken away from him, and he was taken away from them.”
In his “Durham in Wonderland” blog, KC Johnson summarizes the “worst” case-related publications of Duke faculty. He criticizes works by professors Orin Starn, Mark Anthony Neal, William Chafe, Elizabeth Chin, Wahneema Lubiano, Houston Baker, Cathy Davidson, Karla Holloway, and Grant Farred.
WEDNESDAY MARCH 21: Linda Fairstein, former head of the Manhattan District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit and a leading expert on sex crimes, tells ABC News that she would be shocked if the Duke lacrosse case went forward. Fairstein points to serious flaws in the investigation and in the evidence that has surfaced to date. "If a prosecutor were to take this to court, given all the changes in the accuser's story, I don't think there is a crime for which these young men could be convicted," says Fairstein. In the accuser's retelling of the incident, recorded by investigators and hospital personnel in the weeks after the party, Mangum revises substantive details of the alleged incident, including the number of assailants and what they did during the attack. Fairstein finds it unusual for an accuser's story to change as much as far into the process as it did in this case. Some changes in a victim's story are not uncommon "within a day or two of the attack," says Fairstein. As of March 16, 2007, Mangum had not yet told that story to special prosecutors investigating the case. Fairstein believes her reticence was another sign of a weak case. "Her reluctance at this stage isn't a sign that she's not sure what happened -- it's a red flag that there are things wrong with the story." For Fairstein, DA Nifong's biggest mistake in his handling of the case has been a lack of tough questions — and a lack of effort to ask them. Nifong's first known meeting with the accuser was at least nine months after her initial accusations. "There's no excuse for the way this prosecution has proceeded," she states. "The shocking aspect of that to me is that Nifong only met with her once or twice. He himself had not done a sit down interview once he learned that the initial allegations seemed to be inconsistent."
Duke University has received a $5 million donation for student scholarships and summer fellowships, with part of the money going to scholarships for lacrosse players. The gift, from the Crown family in Chicago, provides $4 million for need-based undergraduate scholarships, $750,000 for undergraduate summer fellowships and $250,000 for athletic scholarships. The university will establish the Crown Family Lacrosse Scholarship to support male and female players who demonstrate academic and leadership qualities, including service. Keat Crown, the Duke Annual Fund's national chairman of young alumni leadership giving, is a former co-captain of the men's lacrosse team. He graduated from Duke in 2000.
THURSDAY MARCH 22: Faculty could have more say over athletics at Duke under a reorganization of a panel that oversees athletics policy. President Brodhead is reviewing the changes today with the Academic Council, the major faculty governing body. He is also announcing the creation of a new position -- a dean to oversee undergraduate life inside and outside the classroom. The changes are the latest fallout from the lacrosse scandal that has dogged Duke for the past year. Faculty representatives will increase from five to eight on the Athletic Council, a longstanding body of more than 30 professors, administrators, alumni, trustees, athletics officials and students. Within that group, an academic subcommittee of professors will focus on issues of sports and academics. And the head of the Athletic Council will now be a different professor from the one who serves as the university's official faculty athletics representative to the Atlantic Coast Conference and the NCAA. Roy Weintraub, economics professor and chairman of the review panel, says he is happy with the outcome even though Brodhead didn't exactly follow the group's recommendations. An Athletic Council beefed up with more faculty will push for more serious deliberation, he says. "The agenda for the council will be much less show and tell," Weintraub states.
FRIDAY MARCH 23: Fox News reports that the remaining charges will be dropped against indicted lacrosse players David Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann in the next few days. Fox quotes Inside Lacrosse writer Paul Caulfield: “There is no case here and they will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days." Several local media outlets report heightened anticipation of a conclusion to the case. However, Attorney General Roy Cooper's office is refuting that claim. "We don't expect to make an announcement tomorrow," says spokeswoman Noelle Talley. "Our review of the case, including reviewing documents and conducting interviews, is continuing.
According to BriAnne Dopart of the Herald-Sun, as reports spread that the lacrosse case is drawing to a conclusion, the accuser's parents hint that their daughter Crystal Mangum may welcome the charges being dropped. "She had told me once before she was tired of it and she wished she could just get it over with," the accuser's father says. "She hates that she ever reported it." While he still believes wholeheartedly his daughter was brutally raped and assaulted on the night of March 13, 2006 -- he recalls in vivid detail what he claims were his daughter's swollen eyes and cut arms -- he says his daughter has at least once mentioned regrets about having ever made the accusations in the first place… The accuser's father says he didn't understand why or how his daughter's case evolved into the media frenzy it became early last spring, but speculated that it was because, "Duke tried to cover it up." He has tried to follow the case, he states, but didn't understand why the rape charges were dropped and why the others might eventually be dropped.
In the New York Post, John Podhoretz writes about the upcoming fate of those involved in the Duke lacrosse case in a column “Duke: Who Won’t Pay:”
'Yet some of the most disgraceful actors in this case will go unpunished. I'm referring to a huge cohort of the professors at the top-flight university attended by the three unjustly accused men. Some 88 of them - more than 10 percent of the entire Duke professoriat - engaged in a shocking rush to judgment in the weeks following the party where the accuser falsely alleged she had been raped. They signed an ad declaring they were "turning up the volume at a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down." Their shameful conduct helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere that tempted and seduced DA Nifong to believe he could ride an indictment of the three young men to political victory in the Democratic primary that took place only weeks after he charged them. It is not too much to say that many of the adults at Duke, who should be stewards for their students, actually wanted the false rape story to be true because it fulfilled their ideological predilections. Since the academic work of those who organized the ad centers around the notion that the white male power structure subjugates and violates all those who are neither white nor male, the case was actually a dream come true for them."
SATURDAY MARCH 24: In response to a letter from LieStopper blogger “sceptical,” Sen. Barack Obama, candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, indicates that he supports the call for a US Department of Justice inquiry into allegations of civil rights violations committed by DA Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case. Senator Obama writes:
"Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective on the Duke Rape Case and ongoing investigations of District Attorney Michael Nifong's handling of the case."
."Congressman Walter Jones has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to initiate a federal inquiry into Mr. Nifong's prosecution of three Duke University student athletes accused of an alleged sexual attack on a woman at a party earlier this year. Specifically, Rep. Jones asked the Attorney General to review new evidence that Mr. Nifong withehld exculpatory DNA results from the defendants in order to determine if his conduct has illegally denied the students their civil rights as U.S. citizens under federal law. This independent inquiry is needed, and I will be following its progress closely."
KC Johnson in his “Durham in Wonderland” blog publishes for the first time the photograph of Crystal Mangum taken on March 16, 2006 by Durham policeman R.A. Reid just 2 days after the lacrosse team party. The image shows no signs of injury, contradicting reports of swollen eyes, bruises, or a “choke hold.” The photo was taken during Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s first interview with the accuser. SANE Kathleen Eckelt in her “Forensics Talk” blog discusses the photos in light of what injuries one might expect two days after a violent sexual assault.
SUNDAY MARCH 25: J. Kirk Osborn, the prominent Chapel Hill lawyer who was an early outspoken defender of the Duke lacrosse players, has died. Osborn, 64, suffered a heart attack Friday, says Tania Osborn, his wife. He died at 12:47 a.m. today. While many remember Osborn for his role in defending Reade Seligmann, Osborn's wife says that he would have been most proud of the fact that in a dozen or more capital trials, he never had a client sent to death row. "He hated injustice. That was the essence of his life," says Ernest "Buddy" Conner, a Greenville lawyer and friend of Osborn. "He carried a tremendous amount of credibility, but he did it without getting all angry and aggressive and arrogant." In 2006, Osborn became an attorney for Seligmann, charged with sexually assaulting a stripper during a Duke lacrosse team party. DA Nifong assured the public that a rape had occurred and that the accuser could identify her attackers. It was a packet of pages Osborn and Conner filed that helped turn the tide. The documents showed that despite Nifong's assurances, Seligmann was almost a mile away when the accuser said Seligmann was participating in a rape. In a statement, the Seligmann family says they are heartbroken by Osborn's death. "Kirk stood up for Reade at great personal cost," the statement reads. "He passionately believed that the truth would emerge."
ABC News’ Law & Justice Unit reports nationally on the letter from Sen. Barack Obama supporting a call for an investigation of whether DA Nifong’s actions in the Duke lacrosse case violated the civil rights of the students. The ABC report was also picked up by the Associated Press and Drudge. According to ABC News: “Obama's comments were first posted on "Liestoppers," an online blog and forum on the Duke Lacrosse case. The user who posted them, known on that forum by the alias "sceptical," was the constituent who corresponded with Obama about the case.”
Selena Robert of the New York Times continues her smear campaign against the Duke lacrosse team despite increasing indications that lack of evidence will lead to dismissal of sexual assault charges. She writes:
“What happens if all charges are sacked? There is a tendency to conflate the alleged crime at the Duke lacrosse team kegger on March 13, 2006, with the irrefutable culture of misogyny, racial animus and athlete entitlement that went unrestrained that night. Some readers argue no one would have known about the lacrosse team's misogyny bash last year if not for the initial rape charges by the hired dancer. True, but that's how we often discover what goes on behind the curtains: by a botched break-in, through a door left ajar. Duke officials didn't ignore the unearthing. Even as the case changed before them, they rightly underwent a self-inspection of their campus pathology and athletic society. Among the findings: too much student drinking, too many cliques, too much athlete isolationism. What's new? Nothing really. But the opportunity to change this chronic campus dynamic is up to Duke. For now, administrators and faculty members seem earnest in giving it a college try. A case dismissal doesn't mean forget everything. Amnesia would be a poor defense to the next act of athlete privilege. “
Blogger “John-in-Carolina” marks the one year anniversary of the notorious N&O article “Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal” by recounting how the article ignited the lacrosse controversy : “The N&O published on March 25, 2006, a racially charged story from which it withheld critically important information and reported what it knew was false information about a young black woman who’d been brutally beaten, gang-raped, robbed and strangled over a thirty minute period by three white Duke lacrosse players; after which the white gang-rapists’ white teammates covered up for them by refusing to tell police who they were.”
MONDAY MARCH 26: Governors would have the power to suspend district attorneys facing disciplinary hearings by the N.C. State Bar under a bill proposed by state Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Democrat from Charlotte. Under the bill, a governor could suspend a district attorney if a formal misconduct complaint had been made to the State Bar, the organization that disciplines lawyers, and if the Bar had found reason to proceed with a hearing. If the governor chose to suspend a district attorney, the state attorney general would be able to appoint a special prosecutor to fill in until the Bar hearing was complete. Under such a bill, DA Nifong could have been suspended while awaiting his trial before the Bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission. Nifong, charged with ethical and professional conduct violations, is scheduled to go before the Bar panel in June.
In a column titled “The Crawl of Justice” in the Chronicle, Stephen Miller calls for criminal charges against DA Nifong and accuser Crystal Mangum. He also writes:
“Duke University also needs a new president. When students needed him, President Brodhead was not there. When the lacrosse team needed him to correct damning public confusions and misperceptions, he didn't step up. When Nifong's conduct began drawing fierce criticism from all directions, our president's head was still buried in the sand. When his own professors launched attacks in and out of the classroom against our peers, he neither made an effort to rein them in nor come to the students' defense. At the very least, I don't think any of us can reasonably deny that there are better university presidents to be found out there. So let's find one.”
WEDNESDAY MARCH 28: In a major article, LieStoppers marks the first anniversary of the start of the alleged “rape hoax” by recounting the events surrounding March 28, 2006, the date when the blog asserts a frame-up originated:
“The deceptions of March 28, 2006, inflamed the community, while providing temporary cover for the absence of DNA and other evidence. The multiple misrepresentations from the day Nifong sold his soul included: the release of the 911 tapes (under the false pretext that the identity of the caller was unknown and was someone in addition to the two dancers who attended the lacrosse party), the start of Durham Police Corporal David Addison’s “horrific” CrimeStoppers e-mail newsgroup fiesta, the creation and distribution of the civil-suit-inviting Durham Police Department Wanted flyer, the start of the “DNA is a junk science” campaign (in apparent response to that day’s SBI testing, which failed to reveal the presence of any semen, blood, or saliva in the rape kit), and the continuation of the Wall of Silence Hoax begun by Hoax Spokesman David Addison the previous weekend.”
Prof. Bill Anderson summarizes the lack of evidence in the Duke lacrosse case in a blogpost titled “Michael B. Nifong and the Lies of the State.
” I will repeat what I said earlier: the police and prosecutors knew that nothing had occurred, and that this case was a lie. Yet, not only did they hide evidence, something that came to light at the "tipping point" hearing on December 15, 2006, but they also faked evidence in their reports, claiming that Mangum had injuries that clearly she did not have. Because police reports are considered evidence in the investigation of a crime, we have a number of instances in which police wrote false statements in their reports, which is no different than "planting evidence" at the scene of the crime.”
THURSDAY MARCH 29: Inv. Ben Himan and Officer Gwen Sutton of the Durham Police transport accuser Crystal Mangum to a meeting with Special Prosecutors Jim Coman, Mary Winstead, and others, according to Himan’s notes. The notes do not reveal what transpired at the meeting.
Black North Carolina journalist Cash Michaels writes an article “Obama blasted for backing fed Duke case” in the Amsterdam News:
Is presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama’s backing for a federal "independent inquiry" into the Duke alleged sexual assault case a genuine concern that the civil rights of the defendants may have been violated or just simple political pandering to secure more broad-based support for his campaign?
At least one legal expert has chastised the Black Illinois Democrat, saying, "Having a federal civil rights investigation [in this case] is such a joke." Another legal scholar added that Obama's statement "doesn't mean much" if he's "stating a position without a valid examination." ... "I heard about the statement by Obama," said North Carolina Central University School of Law Professor Irving Joyner. "I don't think that it means much within the scope of things other than his stating a position without a valid examination." Attorney Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor and currently an adjunct law professor at the New England School of Law, stated, "Barack Obama's support for a federal inquiry makes me wonder whether he understands these difficult issues. It doesn't appear that he does, and I'm very concerned that he doesn't seem to care one whit about the treatment of the victim, the violation of her civil rights or maybe most important of all, that this case is being described as a 'fraud,' etc. by lawyers & officers of the court who are ethically obligated not to lie or mislead the public." Atty. Murphy continued, "At a minimum, Obama should call for a full disclosure of all the facts before anyone passes judgment on this case."
In two blogposts titled “Remembering the Good” Prof. KC Johnson discusses some of the individuals and media outlets “to remember some of the best work of the case.” Johnson praises Duke Law Prof. James Coleman, reporter Joe Neff of the N&0, commentators Jason Whitlock, Stuart Taylor, David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, and also Susan Estrich and N& O columnist Ruth Sheehan for their turn arounds on the issue. He also lauds Duke students Kristin Butler and Stephen Miller for their columns, Duke student government president Eliot Wolf, and the group Duke Students for an Ethical Durham. Johnson praises the efforts of Duke faculty Steven Baldwin and Michael Gustafson, women’s lacrosse coach Kertsin Kimmel, and 19 faculty from the Economics Department who signed a petition welcoming the lacrosse players. Finally, he gives credit to political activists Beth Brewer and Jackie Brown, as well as Rep. Walter Jones and Sen. Barack Obama, who supports Jones’ call for a federal investigation into DA Nifong’s actions.
SATURDAY MARCH 31: The N&O’s Anne Blythe reports on changes in town-gown relationships in the Trinity Park area one year after the lacrosse team party there:
“… Since the infamous spring break bash on the edge of Duke's East Campus in March 2006, there is a different tenor in the Trinity Park neighborhood where Weeks and other students co-exist with year-round residents. "I have to say, it's been pretty quiet on the party front," said Alice Bumgarner, president of the neighborhood association's board of directors. (…) At the time of the gang-rape allegations, many in Trinity Park were at their wits' end with raucous and boorish Duke students displaying increasingly recalcitrant and mocking attitudes. Drunken partiers urinated on neighbors' houses. Music blared at all hours. Trinity Park lawns were littered with beer bottles and huge plastic cups. The commotion often jolted neighbors awake well past midnight. "I haven't been up at two o'clock in the morning in a while," said Frank Crigler, a Trinity Park resident who lived within earshot of many of the rowdy parties. In the neighborhood and at Duke, many speculate that the legal fallout from the lacrosse team party has had a quieting effect on some of the louder and brasher partiers. But a major husher was Duke's purchase a year ago of 15 properties where fraternity-style keggers had been routine weekend events. One of those was the single-story house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. that three lacrosse team captains shared last spring. "The response by Duke to take the houses off the fraternity market has been a major factor," Crigler said. During the summer and fall of 2006, according to Duke officials, there was an 85 percent drop in the number of off-campus cases that went through the campus office of judicial affairs.
Edited by sceptical, Mar 5 2012, 11:08 PM.
|sceptical||Feb 23 2012, 11:10 PM Post #3|
March 1: KC Johnson on Mike Nifong’s defenses against State Bar charges
March 1: Column in Cornell Daily Sun: “Seligmann Not Worth Hassle”
March 2: Nifong’s responses to State Bar analyzed
March 4: N&O analysis of Campus Cultural Initiative Report
March 5: Duke lacrosse team named number one in U.S.
March 6: LieStoppers publishes State Bar complaint merged with Nifong replies
March 6: Kansas congressman calls for federal investigation of Nifong
March 7: LieStoppers presents evidence that Nifong remembered April 10 meeting
March 8: KC Johnson’s analysis of Nifong’s January 16, 2007 letter to the State Bar
March 8: Chonicle on bloggers in lacrosse case
March 9: LieStoppers on Nifong’s backtracking on key points
March 10: LA Times article features Ryan McFadyen’s first public comments
March 10: Top frosh prospect Max Quinzani “freaked out” when team suspended
March 10: Duke grad student on intellectual origins of “Group of 88”
March 11: Special Prosecutors attempt to question Kim (Roberts) Pittman
March 11: Sue Wasiolek and Robert Dean were on CrimeStoppers board
March 12: Coach K regrets lack of support for lacrosse players, hostility to athletics
March 12: Lacrosse mother Tricia Dowd on one year anniversary of lacrosse case
March 13: One year Anniversary of Lacrosse Party
March 14: Friend of Mangum family speaks out, says “something happened”
March 14: Michael Gaynor debunks myth that lacrosse players were “bad actors”
March 15: Prosecutors, Atty. Gen. Cooper tour “lacrosse house”
March 15: Mike Pressler speaks out for first time in interview
March 15: IWF forum on case in Washington, D.C.
March 16: Investigation of lacrosse case wrapping up, spokesman says
March 16: ABC report: Mangum not answering prosecutor’s questions
March 16: Nifong lawyers file motion to dismiss ethics charges
March 16: State Bar lawyers respond to Nifong
March 16: Copy of Cpl. Addison’s CrimeStopper poster is published
March 18: KC Johnson on “worst” editorial and op-ed pieces about Duke lacrosse case
March 19: Anderson on “identity studies” faculty as “Mafiosi”
March 19: KC Johnson on “worst” news articles about Duke lacrosse case
March 20: State Bar sets trial date for Nifong in June
March 20: Boston Globe interviews Mike and Sue Pressler
March 20: KC Johnson on worst case-related publications of Duke faculty
March 21: Former sex crimes prosecutor tell ABC Nifong’s case is weak
March 21: Crown family establishes lacrosse scholarships
March 22: Athletic Council reorganized
March 23: Fox News reports charges to be dropped; AG office says not yet
March 23: Herald-Sun reports Mangum would welcome end of case, according to father
March 23: John Podhoretz’ New York Post column about Duke faculty
March 24: LieStoppers reveals Obama supports calls for investigation of Nifong
March 24: Photo of Mangum 2 days after party shows no bruises or swollen eyes
March 25: Kirk Osborne, attorney for Reade Seligmann, dies of heart attack
March 25: ABC News reports on Obama letter calling for Nifong investigation
March 25: New York Times’ Selena Roberts continues slurs on lacrosse team
March 25: “John-in-Carolina” marks first anniversary of inflammatory N&O article
March 26: Bill introduced to allow suspension of accused NC district attorneys
March 26: Stephen Miller on justice in lacrosse case
March 28: LieStoppers on the events of March 28, 2006
March 28: Cash Michaels on Obama call for Nifong investigation by feds
March 28: Anderson details lack of evidence in lacrosse case
March 29: Crystal Mangum meets with Special Prosecutors
March 29: KC Johnson praises some individuals, media for lacrosse coverage
March 31: Changes in student behavior in Trinity Park neighborhood
Edited by sceptical, Mar 5 2012, 11:11 PM.
|sceptical||Feb 23 2012, 11:11 PM Post #4|
(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
|sceptical||Feb 23 2012, 11:24 PM Post #5|
INDEX OF CHRONOLOGIES
Updated Chronology of Duke Lacrosse Case
March, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/1827748/1/
April, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/1976244/1/
May, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/2832366/1/
June, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/3225687/1/#new
July, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/3521836/1/#new
August, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/3710704/1/#new
September, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/3831060/1/#new
October, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/3993889/1/#new
November, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4065500/1/#new
December, 2006: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4162309/1/#new
January, 2007: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4243432/2/#new
February, 2007: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4512633/1/#new
March, 2007: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4702968/1/#new
|Quasimodo||Feb 24 2012, 08:24 AM Post #6|
Good to get this on record before the data disappears.
This is really something that should have been done by the Duke Perkins Library--which ought to have
an entire section devoted to preserving records and everything pertaining to the case.
(Future historians are going to be incredulous that they didn't.)
The usefulness and value of this to researchers will become apparent in future years,
when those who are unfamiliar with the case will have this reference available.
|Baldo||Feb 24 2012, 07:57 PM Post #7|
||Just another great job by sceptical|
|sceptical||Feb 25 2012, 12:50 PM Post #8|
The most pertinent quote of March, 2007 was this statement attributed by WRAL to John Burness, former VP of Duke, in an article almost five years ago on the first anniversary of the hoax/frameup:
"Ultimately, the test of the university and the way we're perceived will be 2 to 5 years from now when people look back and say, 'Did Duke do the right thing?'"
It is now 5 years later and the verdict is Duke did NOT do the right thing. As more information leaks out from the depositions in the civil case, Burness, Brodhead, Steel, Wasiolek, Moneta and others look worse than ever.
|sceptical||Feb 27 2012, 08:55 AM Post #9|
One of the best resources for the history of the hoax is The Johnsville News' index:
Does anyone know who is behind the The Johnsville News?
|Quasimodo||Feb 27 2012, 09:05 AM Post #10|
No. But I think the Johnsville News and John in Carolina both deserve
praise for their work on the case.
Had any print media outlet done as much, the case could never have lasted as long as it did.
|MikeZPU||Feb 29 2012, 06:46 PM Post #11|
Thank you again sceptical -- another awesome investigative piece that is a great read!
Thanks for all your hard work!!!
|Mason||Feb 29 2012, 08:53 PM Post #12|
Great work Sceptical!!
|sceptical||Mar 5 2012, 11:14 PM Post #13|
Thanks to JSwift for his suggestion to review Ben Himan's notes for events from March 2007, the most important of which were:
March 11: According to Durham Police Inv. Ben Himan’s notes, Special Prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead today attempt to question second dancer Kim (Roberts) Pittman about discrepancies in accuser Crystal Mangum’s account of the lacrosse party and subsequent events. Pittman is accompanied by her lawyer, Mark Simeon. Pittman becomes visibly upset and then states that if they needed her testimony and wanted to talk to her they would have to subpoena her, according to the Himan notes.
March 29: Inv. Ben Himan and Officer Gwen Sutton of the Durham Police transport Crystal Mangum to a meeting with Special Prosecutors Jim Coman, Mary Winstead, and others, according to Himan’s notes. The notes do not reveal what transpired at the meeting.
Of course, this was going on behind the scenes and wasn't publicly known at the time.
|sceptical||Mar 15 2012, 07:12 PM Post #14|
Thanks to Baldo for putting up the March, 2007 Chronology on the main blog, where it is more accessible to web search engines.
When the depositions are over (which may take months considering the repeated objections by Duke and the other defendants in the civil suits), I will revise the Chronology to add new information gleaned from the depositions.
|Baldo||Mar 16 2012, 05:50 PM Post #15|
I can't thank sceptical enough for his amazing work on this CHRONOLOGY. The amount of time he spent on this one installment & whole series is unfathomable. I did a lot of work on this case from April 2006 to through this series, but wow sceptical has stumped me at times with his detail.
The Durham Miscreants & their attorneys thought we would shrivel up and fade away, but thanks to the efforts of the Blog Hooligans like sceptical & Quasi, who pick-up our Banner and carry it forward we can collectively invoke the words of Henry Steels's from "One on One"
"All the way up with a red hot poker..."
Here's to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team, their Coaches, and Families!
This is dedicated to sceptical! I am sure those who he helps would agree
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »|