Posted on 10/09/2006 9:44:07 AM PDT by abb
Feinstein is a good sports writer, I would not go as far as one of the finest of his generation.
For one thing his writing as in this case is colored by his leftist world view. He also has other biases.
He is pretty good when covering the Partiot League or Army-Navy football. But you have to remember he leftist, really maybe just Dim, biased in every thing you read from him.
An excellent idea. Where I there, I'd help.
The Peter Principle, apparently.
Friends not endorsing any of 3 DA candidates
By WILLIAM F. WEST, The Herald-Sun
October 9, 2006 9:51 pm
DURHAM -- The Friends of Durham isn't endorsing any of three contenders for Durham district attorney in the Nov. 7 election, the chairman of the political action committee says.
David Smith says he and his fellow questioners couldn't reach a decision after approximately 30-minute interviews with District Attorney Mike Nifong, County Commissioner Lewis Cheek and lawyer Steve Monks.
"I think it's ... that we're as conflicted as the public in general is, that we have a lot of strong feelings lots of different ways and we didn't feel comfortable making a selection of the three of them," Smith said in an interview.
Meanwhile, another of Durham's main political action groups, the Peoples Alliance, endorsed Nifong earlier and will not hold further interviews.
The Bull City's third main political group, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, plans to interview candidates next week.
Though Nifong won the Democratic primary in May, he continues to face much criticism about his handling of the Duke lacrosse case. Three 2005-06 players are indicted for the alleged sexual assault of a stripper at a mid-March party at a house across from Duke East Campus.
Smith said the subject came up in the candidate interviews, which he said happened Thursday at University Tower.
"And we asked Mike Nifong, and one of his comments was that he's the only one that's interviewed this victim," Smith said. "And he feels confident in his case."
What the panel heard from Cheek and Monks was that "it's not just about the lacrosse case" and that they could do a better job than Nifong in office, Smith said.
"Our feeling was, 'Why didn't they file to run before, if it was more to it than just the lacrosse case?' " Smith said.
Cheek, a Democrat, for weeks considered an 11th-hour run against Nifong. But in late July, citing the impact on his law firm, Cheek decided to withdraw his name from consideration after enough residents had gotten signatures from voters to put his name on the ballot.
Because of the timing of his decision, his name remains on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate.
Monks, chairman of the Republican executive committee in Durham County, is campaigning as a write-in candidate.
Nifong couldn't be reached for comment Monday.
Cheek said he's sure the Friends of Durham considered what was heard and "made a decision that they felt, under the circumstances, was the proper decision to make. ...
"But I know the people who were there are serious people who are interested in seeing Durham be the best that it can be -- and I know that they would not have made a decision like that lightly."
Monks said while he's "naturally" disappointed, he said he also understands people are conflicted.
"It's unfortunate that I wasn't able to better impart, I suppose, my vision for the office and why I was running," he said.
While Monks maintains he's the best-qualified candidate, he acknowledged that, absent the lacrosse case, he wouldn't be running.
"Mike has taken such a big hit from a personal stance in terms of credibility in the community that we have a very difficult problem with criminal justice -- or the perception of the criminal justice system -- in our community," Monks said.
"And, frankly, given for a lack of a better term, the hole that Mike has dug himself, I don't know that he can ever reasonably dig his way out and get us to where we need to be," Monks said.
Meanwhile, a political action committee titled "Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek" has been urging voters to replace Nifong with Cheek. If the committee is successful, given Cheek's decision, Gov. Mike Easley would have to name the prosecutor.
Smith said Friends of Durham did endorse two district court judge candidates -- Nancy Gordon over Anita Smith and Ann McKown over Tracy Hicks Barley.
---
-- Friday is the deadline for new voter registrations or changes in information, which is 25 days prior to the Nov. 7 election.
The Friday cutoff time is 5 p.m. at the Board of Elections Office, 706 W. Corporation St., though officials said it's acceptable to send the paperwork by mail as long as there's an Oct. 13 postmark.
To be a voter, a person must be 18 years of age on the day of the election, must have been a legal county resident for 30 days before the election and also must be an American citizen.
-- Oct. 19 marks the first day of One Stop No Excuse Absentee Voting at the Board of Elections Office. That process closes at 1 p.m. Nov. 4.
On the Nov. 7 election day, the polls will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Links related to this article:
Durham County Board of Elections: www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/
The Herald-Sun'sVoteBook: www.heraldsun.com/votebook/
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-777120.html
Attorney for Nifong
I've known Mike Nifong for more than 20 years, opposing him in cases ranging from death penalty murder to traffic violations. He is tough, fair, and skillful, epitomizing an attorney seeking justice for victims and the community. He is not vindictive or petty, nor does he view himself as an "agent of the Almighty," qualities found in other prosecutors. He has never deceived me. His "failing" is that he is not political, rejecting courses of action that might benefit him personally or professionally, concentrating solely on his duty to bring cases to a jury for their decision. It is ironic that he is vilified for alleged political motives and refusing to deal out the Duke lacrosse case with defense attorneys. The accused have excellent defense counsel, including Wade Smith and Bill Cotter, perhaps the finest defense attorney team I have ever seen. They are working for their clients as Nifong is working for the alleged victim and the community. The matter is for a jury to decide. Our duty is to vote. The choices are the name of a man who allowed a petition to put him on the ballot while stating he will not serve: a blank line for a good man with no prosecutorial experience: or a good man who has served for 28 years as a prosecutor, has represented us and victims in thousands of cases, and who has made the DA's office the most effective it has ever been. Join me in supporting Mike Nifong.
TOM EAGEN
Durham
October 10, 2006
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/496840.html
Race draws outside money
Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writer
DURHAM - The election for district attorney is just under a month away and out-of-town cash, donated by those interested in the Duke University lacrosse case, will be a factor.
The parents of two unindicted lacrosse players gave a total of $5,000 to a political action committee working to register voters, mostly on Duke's campus. District Attorney Mike Nifong, a committee urging voters to pick anyone but Nifong and a write-in candidate have all received money from out of state.
Normally, North Carolina elections for district attorney are quiet affairs that draw little interest outside the county courthouse. But the election in Durham is different because of the extensive interest in the rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players, and specifically Nifong's handling of it.
"It's not surprising that people who have strong feelings about the way in which the DA has handled this case, positive or negative, would want to give money," said Jeffrey Elliot, a professor of political science at N.C. Central University.
Nifong won the Democratic nomination in May. Soon after, as criticism grew against Nifong and his case, two petition drives collected signatures to add candidates to the ballot. County Commissioner Lewis Cheek was successful but said he would not accept the job, which would mean if Cheek were elected, the governor would appoint someone to fill the job until a special election in 2008.
Nifong also faces a challenge from write-in candidate Steve Monks.
Nifong said in an interview that the Durham district attorney is responsible for an office that handles more than 50,000 new defendants every year and that his opposition, which only entered the race in response to criticism over the lacrosse case, is intent on making the race about one case.
"It's kind of hard for them to say credibly that this is about anything other than the Duke lacrosse case no matter what name you give it. Whether you call it 'Students for an Ethical Durham' or you call it 'People Out to Change the District Attorney's Office Because They Don't Appreciate Duke Students Getting Indicted,' " Nifong said. "You have people from outside Durham who are seeking to influence the district attorney's election here because of their disapproval of a single case, based on a less-than-complete exposition of what went on."
Nifong said all the facts of the case will be revealed only at the trial.
The next round of campaign contribution reports is due at the end of the month. But a report for Nifong's campaign filed in July shows that he has received money from donors who live in Raleigh, Virginia and California. The out-of-town money represents a small percentage of the $35,800 the campaign collected from April through June.
Beth Brewer, spokeswoman for the Committee to Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek, an organization working to have Cheek elected, said the group has received out-of-state cash contributions, many from lawyers.
"They're most apt to have stayed in touch with the lacrosse case, and they are speaking their minds," she said.
Registration effort
Ethical Durham is a political action committee that registered with the county Board of Elections Sept. 27. The group has worked to register voters, particularly on Duke's campus. Its treasurer is a Duke graduate and a paralegal for Bob Ekstrand, a Durham lawyer who throughout the lacrosse investigation has represented as many as 40 members of the lacrosse team.
On Oct. 6, the organization filed a report showing two contributions from out of state made by parents of unindicted lacrosse players. Michael Catalino of Webster, N.Y., said he and his wife donated $4,000 to the group because they wanted to help Duke students realize that nearly all of them could register to vote.
"We felt pretty strongly that that was a good cause," Catalino said. "I think we have a connection to Duke and Durham through the university and my son."
Monks said in an interview that he has received some money from out of state but would like more.
"I have to admit I did step up efforts to secure money from the Duke community," Monks said.
Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com.
"And we asked Mike Nifong, and one of his comments was that he's the only one that's interviewed this victim," Smith said. "And he feels confident in his case."
When?
What was said by the AV?
Why hasn't it been turned over in discovery?
Was it the April 11 meeting where Nifong said only "court procedures" were discussed?
Has Judge Smith seen this?
Hello?
Hello?
"Why hasn't it been turned over in discovery?"
Good catch! I hope the defense gets appraised of this.
Earlier Nifong said he hadn't spoken to the AV. Here he says he's the only one that's interviewed her.
And--when? Was this covered in discovery?
Foley scandal implications for Duke case / comments on CBS 60 minutes story from FODU
Michael Gaynor, October 9, 2006
Michael B. Nifong is the Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney. He is supposed to be a fair and impartial "minister of justice." He has a special duty. He is not to allow personal and political considerations to determine whether or not to prosecute. He is absolutely not to refuse to consider evidence of innocence or to seek an indictment without solid evidence to support conviction as well as indictment. He is supposed to try a case in court, not in the press. He is supposed to present evidence, not personal opinion. He is not supposed to make prejudicial statements that might preclude a fair trial.
Mark Foley is a former Republican Congressman from Florida who was co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He was supposed to protect children and mentor House Pages, to whom he owed a special duty. He was not supposed to treat underage House Pages as sex partners or future sex partners and send them sexually suggestive, much less utterly vile, email or text messages.
Out-of-control prosecutors and Congresspersons are atypical, of course. It is improbable that a prosecutor or a Congressperson would abuse his or her position. Unfortunately, it really happens and when it does, it has to be dealt with, not denied or covered up for personal or political purposes.
The implications of the Foley scandal for the Duke case led me to revisit an outstanding article written last August by Cash Michaels for The Wilmington Journal (which is part of BlackPressUSA Network)
Sometimes the title of an article is misleading. From the title — "Durham Chief Backs Duke Probe," a reader might expect the article to be pro-Nifong.
It was not.
In the article Mr. Michaels identified what now appears to be the only rational basis for believing that Mr. Nifong had a case in the Duke case:
"[I]f Nifong was exploiting the Duke alleged rape case for solely political means, then why would the Durham PD, with the apparent blessing of City Manager Patrick Baker and Mayor Bill Bell, help him, knowing that ultimately, it would catch up to them?
A premise of Mr. Michaels' question — "knowing that ultimately, it would catch up to them" — is not necessarily warranted, of course, as life repeatedly teaches.
Mr. Michaels: "The improbability of that question is what those who still believe that a crime was committed, and that there's more evidence than has been revealed, hold on to."
They should let go.
The Durham Mayor, City Manager and Police Department helping Durham County District Attorney Michael B. Nifong is not competent evidence against any of the Duke Three or anyone else. It is to be expected. Each of them presumes Mr. Nifong is acting in good faith until the facts rebut that presumption. None of them would (or at least should) tolerate prosecutorial misconduct if they recognized it, and it should not be presumed that they know of it, just as it should not have been presumed that any of the Duke Three is guilty.
Ironically, the recent Mark Foley sex scandal helps to answer Mr. Michaels' important question.
Why would the Speaker of the House of Representatives fail to investigate thoroughly the possibility that a Congressman was stalking House Pages?
First, the Speaker certainly did not appreciate what a thorough investigation would have revealed.
Second, the Speaker did not want to investigate a fellow Congressman without ample justification.
Third, the Speaker has many responsibilities and delegates routinely.
Fourth, Congressman Foley was a supporter of the Speaker and the Speaker presumably thought well instead of badly of him and was disinclined to suspect that he had done what America now knows he did.
Fifth, the Speaker surely did NOT know that he would be embarrassed as a result of failing to do more.
The same explanations seem plausible for the Mayor, the City Manager and the Police Chief.
But none of then individually, and not even all of them together, mean the Speaker, the Mayor, the City Manager and the Police Chief did not made huge mistakes.
In the case of Speaker Dennis Hastert, when he did learn that former Congressman Foley was not only gay, but a predator, the Speaker told the former Congressman to resign or face expulsion. (In 1983, when a Democrat Congressman and a Republican Congressman were discovered to have had sexual relations with underage Pages, they were censured, not expelled; the Republican was chastened and then rejected by the voters in his district; and the Democrat was defiant, embraced by the Democrat caucus and repeatedly re-elected in his district until he retired.)
One hopes the Mayor, the City Manager and the Police Chief will not be too embarrassed to admit their mistakes.
Mr. Michaels sent them a clear signal last August.
Perhaps the most significance sentence in the article is this: "Critics have made it clear that D.A. Nifong was only posturing for the Black vote he needed desperately to win the May Democratic primary, which he did."
Mr. Michaels is one of the few in the media who has reviewed Mr. Nifong's discovery. So when he wrote that "[c]ritics have made it clear that D.A. Nifong was only posturing for the Black vote he needed desperately to win the May Democratic primary," instead of critics have claimed that, it meant plenty.
Mr. Michaels reported that Chief Steve Chalmers "is standing strong by his investigators and their work" and Durham Mayor Bill Bell was completely confident that the police would develop evidence to win convictions.
Chief Chalmers: "Oh certainly."They've had my full support from the start. They've had the full support of the city manager."
That's newsworthy, of course. And sad.
Mr. Michaels proceeded to detail why the investigators and their work deserve criticism instead of "full support."
Example:
"An analysis by The Carolinian and Wilmington Journal newspapers show that what the police were telling the public, either through direct statements or public documents, at times did not match what they actually knew, or didn't know, behind the scenes.
"On March 24, the Durham Herald-Sun reported Durham Police spokesman Cpl. David Addison as saying investigators had '"really, really strong physical evidence" from the crime scene (610 N. Buchanan Blvd where the party was held and the bathroom the alleged victim said the rape and beaten took place in) that police will be able to compare with DNA results.'
"Forty-six of the 47-member lacrosse team had, under legal counsel and court order, had submitted to taking photographs and supplying DNA swabbings to authorities.
"But weeks later, those DNA test results from the state crime lab and a private lab in Burlington failed to yield the 'strong evidence' connection to the alleged victim both the police, and D.A. Nifong had promised the public they would."
Jeff Neff's latest article in The News & Observer — "Experts: Lacrosse IDs likely tainted" — buttressed Mr. Michaels' case that the police work in the Duke case was improper in major respects:
"Psychologists Gary Wells and Brian Cutler helped design a procedure in 2003 for witnesses to identify crime suspects. Police departments across North Carolina embraced the procedure. The Durham Police Department adopted it almost word- for-word in February.
"The conduct of the Durham police in the Duke lacrosse case, however, is a case study in violating the new policy, the psychologists said. And as a result, police have injected doubt into a woman's selection of three lacrosse players whom she accused of rape.
"Police violated two fundamental rules for running an identification procedure, said Wells, a professor at Iowa State University, and Cutler, a professor at UNC-Charlotte.
"First, the psychologists said, police did not have an independent investigator administer the process. Second, they neglected to include photos of nonsuspects, known as fillers."
"The procedures used can yield only uncertain or misleading results, Wells said, and that's bad for everyone.
"If the woman was raped, Wells said, the botched lineups undermine the prosecution and the search for justice.
"'And if she wasn't sexually assaulted, or was assaulted by someone else, [the players are] in a position of guilty until proven innocent,' Wells said. 'It really shifts the burden to the person identified to prove it wasn't them. That is a profoundly difficult and very unfair situation.'"
Mr. Michaels closed his article this way: "Indeed, if the district attorney has no better than what has been so far shown, a trial in this case may never be, and the African-American community will want to know why."
The answer is that there is not enough evidence to warrant a trial. In fact, Mr. Nifong proceeded to hastily, not too slowly, and improperly, not properly. The Duke Three never should have been indicted, because they did not kidnap, rape, or sexually offend anyone, much less their accuser, who is not credible and whose claim is not supported by evidence.
By 8 PM, October 15 (if not sooner), Durham's Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief should realize that Mr. Nifong became a rogue prosecutor in the Duke case and act accordingly.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061009
An interesting post on the FODU site re: 60 Minutes:
snip
"By announcing that "60" was on the case, I encouraged people to let "60" know how they felt, what they realized was horribly wrong in Durham and why "60" should stay on the case.
Though some timid souls were dismayed, "60" stayed and has used the time since the gag order was listed very well. Ed Bradley was not in Durham after the ungagging because he wanted to pray in the Duke chapel.
The New York Times tried to make Nifong look respectable instead of reprehensible, but it was a fiasco. So much of a fiasco that New York Magazine just put out an expose on how NYT has miscovered the Duke case.
I was inclined to think of the Duke case as Tawana Brawley II from the start and it is evident to those who have seen the Nifong production that there was no rape, much less a gang rape, in 30 minutes or 5 to 10 minutes.
People are realizing that Nifong shamelessly played Durham politics with the case, and there is time for the voters to refuse to re-elect him (even though Steve Monks, a Republican, like me, is dividing the anti-Nifong vote).
The case should be dismissed, not tried, because there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
Democrats who never vote Republican (like KC Johnson) realize that too.
Independents Stuart Taylor and Cash Michaels have followed the evidence and applied common sense.
Bloggers did what many in the mainstream media (NOT including Dan Abrams and Sean Hannity) did not want to do: disprove the gang rape claim and discredit Mr. Nifong and his malevolent minions (NOT including everyone in his office or the Durham Police Department, thanks be to God.
Time is running out for Mr. Nifong. Tick, tick, tick.
To save Nifong now, there is no trick.
On October 15, to "60," tune in.
Mr. Nifong will suffer for his sin.
Michael J. Gaynor
GaynorMike@aol.com
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-open.html
** Let's not forget pandering to the Women's vote.
Now that Nifong is a no-show, this thing is apparently dead in the water.
Wonder how that will go over?
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/durham-da-race-update.html#links
My bad, I got my meetings confused.
From LaShawn Barber's site :
A vidoe of the Syracuse Univ. panel about the media and the lacrosse case is now available --
http://jpm.syr.edu/events_archives.html
"The panel was “Lacrosse Justice: Gender, Race, and Fairness in the Duke Lacrosse Legal Saga.” Questions presented:
"Did politics and publicity railroad the Duke lacrosse defendants? Or were their accusers treated unfairly? In America, who fares better when a criminal trial becomes a media circus?
"Featured speaker was Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Correspondent, Slate.com. Panelists were Linda Alcoff, Professor of Philosophy and Political Science; Sanjay Chhablani, Assistant Professor of Law; and Tom Maroney, Professor of Law. Mark Obbie moderated."
If anybody sees it, can they post highlights for those of us with dial-ups?
Everyone needs to see this. Much media navel-gazing and self-flagellation so far...
Second panelist: even if they didn't rape her, they're guilty because they're rich white jocks...
third panelist: the fonger was unethical with his public pronouncements...
so far into the narrative, nothing new. most ppl talking so far are less informed than we are...
http://newsbusters.org/node/8222
New York Magazine on the Duke Lacrosse 'Rape' and the Willful Ignorance of the NY Times
Sometimes the rot is so deep you just have to pull down the house and start again. That goes for the NYT and Durham LE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.