Trial date set for Duke lacrosse witness (DukeLax Cabbie to be Nifonged)

Raleigh News and Observer ^ | August 15, 2006 | Staff

[abb]

DURHAM, N.C. -- A cab driver who has supported an alibi offered by one of the three Duke lacrosse players charged with rape had his own court appearance Tuesday for a larceny charge.

Moezeldin Elmostafa, 37, appeared briefly before a Durham County District Court judge who set a trial date of Aug. 29. Prosecutors also changed the charge against Elmostafa to aiding and abetting misdemeanor larcency.

Elmostafa was arrested in May after he surfaced as a potential alibi witness for Reade Seligmann, one of three players charged with raping a woman at an off-campus party the night of March 13.

The 2003 warrant accused Elmostafa of stealing five purses worth about $250 from a Durham department store. Elmostafa denies the charge, and has said he helped store security locate a woman after he picked her up from the store and drove her home. The woman later pleaded guilty to larceny.

Durham prosecutors said in May the warrant for Elmostafa's arrest was discovered in a routine background check of witnesses in the Duke lacrosse case.

Mostafa has said Seligmann, of Essex Fells, N.J., called for a ride at 12:14 a.m. on March 14, and was picked up five minutes later. The defense has argued those times help establish that Seligmann left the party without having enough time to participate in the 30-minute assault described by the accuser. Seligmann's attorney has also presented cell phone, ATM and dorm keycard records to help establish that timeline.

[DvdMom]

thanks for the link

[xoxoxox]

* For the record *

Nifong Tarnishes the NAACP, Wednesday, August 16, 2006, KC Johnson.

Since March 27, Durham D.A. Mike Nifong has effectively hijacked the North Carolina judicial system, creating the image nationally of a rogue state whose leaders tolerate massive prosecutorial misconduct. It’s worth remembering, however, that Nifong has had enablers—starting with, of course, his self-appointed Duke cheerleaders, the Group of 88, who sold out their own students to advance their personal, curricular, and ideological aims. With a few exceptions, the North Carolina media hasn’t distinguished itself—most have seemed content to follow the lead of the Herald-Sun’s Bob Ashley or the N&O’s Dennis Rogers, whose recent column explained why he, as a journalist, shouldn’t be expected to know anything about the case or to undertake any independent inquiry into matters. Know nothing, have no desire to learn, and then get paid for writing about your lack of knowledge: sounds like a pretty good job to have!

Nifong enablers among the political and legal leadership of the African-American community have received less attention. Yet their reaction to events has been startling, in at least three respects. First, the black political leadership has almost unanimously given a pass to Nifong’s transparently race-baiting tactics. Second, the state NAACP has adopted a series of positions on the Duke case that wholly contradict the criminal justice principles with which the organization long has been associated. Finally, the civil rights community—with the important exception of Duke Law professor James Coleman—has missed what could have been a golden opportunity to focus media attention on blatant prosecutorial misconduct and procedural irregularities, problems that disproportionately affect minorities.

The lacrosse affair wasn’t the high point of Jesse Jackson’s public career; early on, the Durham Herald-Sun reported that the two-time presidential candidate promised that the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition would pay the accuser’s college tuition even if it turned out she had lied. And then there’s a peculiar local timeline of events:

* March 27: Nifong gave the first of 50-70 interviews on the case, featuring comments that repeatedly violated Rule 3.6 of the NC state bar’s ethics code.
* March 28: Mark Simeon, a local African-American attorney, longtime foe to Nifong’s patron, former DA Jim Hardin, and counsel to the second dancer, Kim Roberts, publicly endorsed Nifong.
* March 31: Nifong ordered the photo lineup ID that violated Durham city procedures and statewide norms in almost every way possible.
* March 31: Durham mayor Bill Bell sent a campaign contribution to Nifong (see p. 5 of this recently released campaign finance report). To my knowledge, Bell never mentioned this contribution in the many interviews he did at the height of media scrutiny of the case.

Bell and Simeon, of course, could have innocent explanations for their decisions to back Nifong. (I e-mailed Bell to ask about the issue; he didn’t reply.) But only the willfully naïve wouldn’t wonder about the timing of both decisions.

The reaction of figures like Bell and Simeon is all the harder to comprehend as evidence has emerged that Nifong deliberately inflamed racial tensions, in an apparent effort to increase support from the African-American community. Two examples particularly stand out:

* In interviews that occurred as late as March 31, Nifong denied knowing the identity of first 911 caller on the evening of the lacrosse party. But actually, in a March 22 statement to police, Kim Roberts said that she made the original call, after a post-departure verbal squabble in which she and a couple of the players traded racially degrading insults. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Nifong hoped to inflame sentiments in the African-American community by creating the impression that team members had spent 45 minutes or so hurling racial epithets at African-American passers-by, to the extent of frightening one of them into making a 911 call. The blog Liestoppers recently termed Nifong’s handling of the 911 call the case’s “hoax within a hoax.”

* Several weeks ago, Wilmington Journal reporter Cash Michaels revealed that the accuser’s cousin and spokesperson claimed that Duke alumni had offered $2 million for the accuser to drop the case. If true, this action suggested clear-cut criminal conduct. The allegation excited Nifong and the Durham police; a Durham police investigator downloaded a report on the claim, typed “$$$,” and entitled the memo, “THIS IS PRETTY INTRESTING [sic]!!!!” Yet the accuser denied making the claim when police officers got in touch with her on June 30. The public only learned the truth, however, because Michaels (to his credit) continued investigating, received a copy of the police memo from defense sources, and broke the story last week. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that in keeping secret the results of his investigation of the alleged bribe offer, Nifong hoped that those in the African-American community who initially had believed the cousin’s claim would continue, erroneously, to do so.

Twice, then, Nifong has abused his position for purposes strongly suggesting a desire to exploit racial tensions for his own ends. A person who engages in this sort of behavior deserves the condemnation of the African-American community, not its support.

---

Even more troubling is the response of organizations traditionally considered strong defenders of civil liberties in the criminal justice system—the ACLU and the NAACP. I have thrice emailed both the North Carolina ACLU and the Duke campus ACLU, asking if they have an opinion on Nifong’s procedurally dubious photo ID lineup. Both the state and campus branches refused to comment. This position starkly contrasts with their ACLU counterparts in Maryland, whose website cites “eyewitness ID reform” as one of the organization’s 2005-2006 legislative priorities, since “mistaken eyewitness identifications are the overwhelming reason for wrongful convictions.”

The NAACP has gone beyond silence. In three ways, it has taken acts involving the lacrosse case that have contradicted its longstanding core principles on criminal justice matters, risking permanent damage to the organization’s moral standing.

Change of venue. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s homepage celebrates its triumph in the case of Wilbert Rideau, whose eventual release from prison came as a result of a trial made possible by an NAACP-supported change of venue. Citing extensive pre-trial publicity in overwhelmingly white Lake Charles, Louisiana, the LDF successfully appealed for a change of venue; eventually, the case was heard by jurors from the racially mixed, university city of Monroe. Theodore Shaw, LDF Director-Counsel and President, remarked that the move was about “fairness,” because “even the guilty are entitled to a trial untainted by racial discrimination and misconduct.”

In the Duke case, Professor Irving Joyner, designated by the state NAACP to monitor Nifong’s handling of affairs, told Sports Illustrated in early June that the district attorney “still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham.” I e-mailed Joyner to ask why he specified a “Durham” jury as giving Nifong a chance of victory; he replied, candidly, “A Durham jury may see things differently than would an Orange or Wake County jury because the Durham jury will probably have more African-Americans on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina.” Joyner added, “This case originated in Durham and should be tried here.” Carried to its logical conclusion, Joyner’s statement would imply that cases always need to be tried where they “originated”—since surely if any case needs a change of venue, it’s this one. Quite beyond Nifong’s myriad public statements, the case itself was the central issue in not only the spring primary but the fall election for district attorney.

So, on the one hand, the LDF has celebrated the concept of change of venue when necessary for “fairness.” But in the Duke case, the local NAACP monitor took a blanket position against the concept of change of venues?

Gag order. The NAACP has a long tradition of defending freedom of speech, dating back to such civil rights era cases as NAACP v. Alabama and New York Times v. Sullivan. And during the Clinton years, the organization took a high-profile stance against the politically popular but civil liberties-unfriendly Feinstein/Kyl “victims’ rights” constitutional amendment. In an April 2000 letter sent to the Senate majority and minority leaders, the NAACP leadership noted, “People of color have also historically been wrongly accused in this nation of crimes varying from the very minor to the most heinous. It is for this reason that the NAACP has also been a strong and steadfast supporter of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the concept of due process in the American judicial system. It is our deeply held belief in the need to protect the innocent and allow every American the right to a fair trial that leads us to oppose . . . the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the rights of victims of crimes,” since “we have grave concerns that the negative effects this amendment would have on the rights of the accused seeking a fair and impartial trial would outweigh the benefits it bestows upon victims.” [The letter was reproduced in page S2985 of the 2000 Congressional Record.]

The organization’s record in the Duke case could not have differed more from these principles. In late May, Al McSurely, chair of the NAACP’s Legal Redress Committee, publicly stated the NAACP favored a gag order, which he euphemistically termed a “quiet zone/let’s let justice work” motion. His justification, according to the Durham Herald-Sun, was that “media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.” [emphasis added] McSurely e-mailed me to say that, in fact, a "quiet zone" request was filed, under the auspices of the Durham Conference on Moral Challenges, a group organized by the
NAACP, but consisting of over 150 Durham Community leaders, did make such a request.

Leaving aside the question of why the NAACP didn’t demand a “quiet zone” when Nifong dominated the airwaves, the Constitution does not confer upon an accuser “legal rights to a fair trial”: the accuser has the power of the state on his or her side. Nor can an accuser’s legal rights somehow trump the very real constitutional protections possessed by defendants. The Durham Conference's argument thus went beyond what even the most extreme victims’ rights advocates have endorsed, much less the more moderate victims’ rights proposal featured in the Feinstein/Kyl amendment--which the NAACP so fiercely (and appropriately) opposed.

So, on the one hand, the NAACP has long defended free speech and courageously highlighted how the “victims’ rights” movement can threaten due process. But in the Duke case, the local NAACP has asserted that the “legal rights to a fair trail” of the “alleged victim” can trump the rights of the accused, and also justify preventing the accused from exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?

Due Process and Suggestive Lineups. Working alongside the Innocence Project, the NAACP has been at the forefront of demanding greater procedural protections in eyewitness identifications. In late July, LDF Director-Counsel and President Shaw wrote, “We at the Legal Defense Fund have become increasingly concerned about recent criminal cases where the conviction was based on unreliable evidence.” He pointed to the case of Ruben Cantu, who, Shaw lamented, “was convicted solely on the basis of a questionable eyewitness identification given under pressure from police.” The LDF similarly fought against the use of procedurally irregular “unreliable eyewitness ID” in the case of Carlos DeLuna, who was convicted despite “(1) the absence of evidence linking him to the crime scene (despite a fierce struggle between the victim and assailant, there was no blood on DeLuna, his clothes or the money in his pocket; his fingerprints were not on the 8-inch buck knife the assailant left at the scene and didn’t match the few prints that were lifted at the scene), and (2) discrepancies in the eyewitnesses’ statements.” (Does that sound like any case in Durham lately?) Nor is this concern a new one: the LDF represented the defendant in the 1974 North Carolina v. Henderson, where the use of a procedurally flawed suggestive ID was a key element in the appeal.

In the Duke case, the NAACP has been, to put it mildly, blasé about this issue—despite the fact that the Nifong lineup violated Durham procedures in at least four ways and reflected principles totally at odds with those of police departments and prosecutors elsewhere in North Carolina. Professor Joyner, the organization’s designated monitor for the case, recently commented, “Based on case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and our North Carolina appellate courts, it is very easy for an identification procedure to pass constitutional muster and the written procedure which was adopted at some point by the Durham Police Department is not constitutionally required. Whether a jury will accept its validity is another question, but that has nothing to do with constitutional infirmities.” He specifically declined to condemn Nifong’s lineup. McSurely did the same, saying he didn't want to add to the public commentary on the case, and, in any case, "Mr. Nifong is an experienced prosecutor, and he can defend his
decisions before the Court."

So, on the one hand, the NAACP has long fought against procedurally suspect eyewitness IDs, lest they produce a “conviction . . . based on unreliable evidence.” But in the Duke case, the local NAACP has contended that despite Nifong having violated virtually every element of the Durham procedures and contradicted all relevant statewide trends, the jury should decide such procedural questions?

---

Imagine the alternative: the NAACP aggressively using the media profile on the Duke case to highlight its traditional principles of procedural fairness, emphasis on due process rights of the accused, and concerns about prosecutorial misconduct. It could have pointed out that the actions of rogue prosecutors like Nifong, although targeting white lacrosse players in this case, disproportionately affect minorities.

Nationally, this viewpoint has been offered by Talk Left, the website of criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt and a forum cited by Harvard professor Charles Ogletree’s Criminal Justice Institute. Within North Carolina, however, only one prominent figure in the African-American community has embraced this course.

In June, Duke Professor of Law James Coleman, former (Democratic) chief counsel to the House Ethics Committee, told the N&O that “up to now, virtually everything that Nifong has done has undermined public confidence in the case.” Coleman, a former member of North Carolina’s Actual Innocence Commission, singled out Nifong’s photo ID procedures for particular condemnation. After reviewing the photo ID transcript, Coleman noted, “The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say[ing], in effect, ‘Pick three.’ It’s so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification.” He had no doubt “that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice. The prosecutor would not care if the pre-trial identification was subsequently thrown out by the court. The accuser would identify them at trial by pointing to the three defendants seated in front of her as the three men who assaulted her. The prosecutor would argue that she had an independent basis (independent of the identifications thrown out) for doing so.”

To the recipient of the 1987 NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Pro Bono Award for contribution to enforcement of civil rights laws, this procedural record could lead to one, and only one, set of conclusions. For the case: “Whatever the truth is, Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case. Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution. That would serve the best interest of the alleged victim, the three defendants and public.” For the district attorney’s character: “You’ve got a prosecutor playing to race. It’s disgusting. If he’s willing to [make race an issue] to go after what he thinks are three white kids with influence, what will he do going against some poor black kid in a case where people are saying, ‘You’ve got to convict somebody?’ To me, a prosecutor who’s willing to cut corners in any case is a prosecutor who’s subverting justice.”

Coleman’s remarks on the case reflect the NAACP’s longstanding position that procedure should be colorblind. As matters currently stand, this valued legacy is another victim of Mike Nifong’s misconduct.

posted by KC Johnson at 1:49 AM 11 comments

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

** Now, if someone would interview the precinct captains over in South West Durham... **

[JLS]

Anyone else hear echo's of NC election law with John Edwards calling on Lieberman not to run as an independent in Cn? When I heard it, it just reminded me of the "sore loser" law that prevented the runnerup to Nifong in the primary from running against him as an independent in the general election. I bet she would beat him easily in the general now.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Those dems will stab you in the back before you turn around.

[xoxoxox]

Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - November 19, 1996

Cartoon said it all

I consider the right to vote the way I want to be a privilege. Your Nov. 8 editorial cartoon said it all for Durham County. As for the voters who accepted a completed sample ballot from the Durham Committee, shame on you for voting the committee's way. Some voted only for the three black candidates in the county commissioners' race -- look at the precincts.Shame, too, on registered voters who didn't go to the polls. They have no reason for complaining...

Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - December 3, 1996

Durham Committee hasn't learned from the past

I have noticed in the past few weeks that many minority citizens have written to protest the Nov. 8 editorial cartoon about the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. The cartoon was an accurate commentary on the committee's actions. The Durham Committee does vote along racial lines and, as far as I know, it has no white members. If there were a Durham Committee on the Affairs of White People, what would be said if it had no black members?
Seems to me the cartoon hit a...

Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - October 29, 2004

Bowser under fire for endorsing candidates NAACP
says he may be suspended as local president

County Commissioner Joe Bowser may be suspended as president of the Durham County NAACP branch because of political fliers bearing his name and title that endorse local, state and national candidates. State NAACP President Melvin "Skip" Alston said he expects the organization's national president to make a decision this morning. Previous North Carolina branch presidents who've committed similar offenses have been immediately suspended pending a...


http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/elec/2006_Election/Results/
Primary/Results_Update/UPDATES/Primary_06_Webfile.pdf

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Well, well, well.

[xoxoxox]

Study says black vote aided Nifong
No basis for racial 'lacrosse gap' seen

Michael Biesecker, Staff Writer, N&O Published: May 06, 2006 12:30 AM

DURHAM - A precinct-by-precinct analysis of results from the Democratic primary for district attorney shows incumbent Mike Nifong won in large part on the strength of his support from Durham's black voters.

But the study also reflects an electorate not polarized by race in the wake of rape accusations against two Duke University lacrosse players that catapulted the local election into the national media spotlight. The percentage of whites and blacks supporting Nifong was nearly balanced -- close to the 45 percent he won overall.

The statistical analysis, compiled by a political science professor at Vanderbilt University, indicates that white voters split on Nifong, with a slim majority supporting challenger Freda Black. However, blacks voted for Nifong by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio over Black, who finished 883 votes behind Nifong, unofficial results showed.

Nifong also garnered significantly more support from blacks than Keith Bishop, the only black candidate in the race. Bishop, a lawyer who did little campaigning, received the coveted endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, which historically has delivered strong support from blacks on Election Day to its favored candidates.

"Often in Durham, whenever there is a black candidate who receives the endorsement of the Durham Committee, then they get a majority of the black vote," said Christian Grose, the Vanderbilt professor and a Duke graduate. In this case, he said, "a white candidate [Nifong] who did not get the endorsement of the committee got a greater percentage of the black vote. That's not to say that race wasn't part of the story, but race was not the determining factor in this election."

Nifong obtained felony indictments last month against two white student-athletes accused of kidnapping and raping a dancer hired to perform at a March 13 team party. The accuser, a mother of two and honor student at N.C. Central University, is black. Both the accuser and another woman of mixed African-American and Asian ancestry who was hired to dance that evening say some men at the party used racial epithets.

"The Duke lacrosse case was the overwhelming issue," said Philip Cousin, a longtime Durham Committee member who is also a Durham County commissioner and the minister at St. Joseph's AME Church. "I think a lot of people thought there wouldn't be any arrests. When Nifong came through with the indictments, that indicated to the black community he would be fair."

Nifong said Friday he was not surprised at the study's results but added that he also thinks the lacrosse case hurt him with some of the county's other voters.

"It was obvious to me early on that we did really well in the predominantly black precincts," Nifong said. "As I would go through the black community before the election, people would stop me and say, 'Keep your head up. We're with you.'... But it [the Duke lacrosse case] cut both ways. It hurt me among conservative white voters. I expect if this issue had never come up we would have ended up with the same outcome."

More than a third of registered voters in Durham County are black, but the percentage is higher among Democrats.

Nifong was routinely on front pages and television newscasts in the weeks before the election, memorably appearing at NCCU. He also had some help reaching out to blacks. Mark Simeon, a local black lawyer who ran for district attorney in 2002, introduced Nifong at his church and other events.

Black also courted black support. A gospel singer she referred to as her "black campaign manager" introduced her at political events. In a campaign mailer, Black is shown consulting with a black man, the only individual depicted other than the candidate.

Bishop, meanwhile, put the phrase "Let's Make History" on his campaign signs, a reminder that no black person has ever been elected as district attorney in Durham.

"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."

HOW RACE WAS A FACTOR

Vanderbilt University professor Christian Grose took voting results from all 55 Durham precincts and analyzed them using demographic data about the race of registered voters in those precincts compiled for the federal government to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The results are statistical estimates of how those going to the polls in Durham likely voted by race.

MIKE NIFONG

44 percent of the black vote, 46.2 percent of the white/nonblack vote, 45.2 percent of total vote

FREDA BLACK

25.2 percent of the black vote, 50.6 percent of the white/nonblack vote, 41.5 percent of total vote

KEITH BISHOP

30.8 percent of the black vote, 3.2 percent of the white/nonblack vote, 13.3 percent of total vote

* For the record *

[Ken H]

Police say they are actively involved in busting the sex trade, but getting hard numbers is elusive.

Police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said she was unable to provide specific data by police district or overall arrests.

Michael did say that officers generally arrest between seven and 15 people a month for prostitution or solicitation.

Here is a comparison of arrests by offense between Wake County (Raleigh, NC) and Durham County. I'm not sure of the year.

Durham County--

Population- 221,436

Total Arrests 14,136

Murder 27
Rape 24
Robbery 196
Aggravated Assault 621
Burglary422
Prostitution and commercial vice 8 Sex offenses 5

--http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/arrests/county/37063.html

________________________________________

Wake County--

Population 627,846

Total Arrests 50,848

Murder 39
Rape 34
Robbery 263
Aggravated Assault 655
Burglary 867
Prostitution and commercial vice 107 Sex offenses 147

--http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/arrests/county/37183.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1664171/posts?page=617#617

[Ken H]

Nifong Tarnishes the NAACP, Wednesday, August 16, 2006, KC Johnson.

The Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek has a link to KC's magnificent article on their website. It's linked under the heading "MR. NIFONG IN THE NEWS".

http://recallnifong.blogspot.com/

[old and cranky]

I was born and raised in Kansas also, still live here, lived here all but 5 years. I love the dry witted, common sense Kansas folk! Have to disagree on the common sense yankees though, lived in the great lake area for those 5 years, coming home was a breath of fresh air. I always say Kansas is a great place to live, but wouldn't want to visit there.

[xoxoxox]

Smith tapped as judge for rape trial

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Aug 18, 2006 : 11:20 pm ET

DURHAM -- The Duke University lacrosse rape case was officially designated as "exceptional" on Friday, and Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith was assigned to oversee what some predict might be the longest criminal proceeding in Durham history. -cut-

Lawyer Kirk Osborn, representing Seligmann, said Friday that he was "really excited the case has been declared exceptional, and delighted we got Judge Smith. He's a very bright and competent judge who can focus on this case. We all greatly respect Osmond Smith."

Osborn said he would press to have a key evidentiary motion heard by Smith as soon as possible.

If Smith hadn't been specially assigned to the case, Osborn would have been required to wait until the state's rotation pattern brought another judge to Durham in January.

"I am very pleased at the appointment of Judge Smith," agreed attorney Joe Cheshire, representing Evans. "He is universally respected as one of North Carolina's hardest working and most even-handed judges. I am glad we were able to agree on his appointment, and I look forward to this case now having some positive and secure direction."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-762409.html

[Ken H]

Candy Clark, administrative assistant to District Attorney Mike Nifong, described yet another potential benefit of the exceptional classification Friday.

She said that because Smith was based in Person County, a Durham judge wouldn't need to neglect other local business while handling the lacrosse case, which is projected to last months.

Oh yeah, like you guys wanted a judge from outside Durham County all along. The question is, what compelled the DA to accept this?

"I am very pleased at the appointment of Judge Smith," agreed attorney Joe Cheshire, representing Evans. "He is universally respected as one of North Carolina's hardest working and most even-handed judges. I am glad we were able to agree on his appointment, and I look forward to this case now having some positive and secure direction."

Cheshire sounds pleased.

[Jezebelle]

It's true that judges don't decide the facts, but they do decide the admissability of evidence, in part based on the means by which it was gotten.

This judge is on stage now, or will be once he bgins deciding the motions. If he drops the ball, there should be ample cause to go to the feds at that time.

[Dukie07]

I took a statistical analysis class in college about 1,000 years ago, and I respect the theory. However, I have a hard time buying some of this assumption. We don't really know for sure how votes went by race or party. This model assumes precincts voted per their demographic; but, what if more black voters than white were drawn to the polls because of this case. Wouldn't that throw the stats off?

[bjc]

This article is so confusingly written that it is hard to actually understand what is being asserted. The bottom line is that Nifong played to the black voters and secured their votes thereby increasing his chances of overcoming the lead that Black had prior to the alleged incident. Nifong's assertion that his pursuit of the LAX players turned off "conservative" voters is more race baiting and unsupported by any data. The interesting piece of data is the disparate support Bishop, the black candidate, received. The most telling, but of unknown statistically relevance, piece of information is the explicit acknowledgement by one local opinion leader, Philip Cousin, that Nifong's action achieved exactly what he intended.

[Dukie07]

I absolutely agree that Nifong got what he wanted. I suppose what I was contesting is the notion that Nifong actually had the amount of support of white voters indicated in this study. I suspect it might have been less.

[JLS]

We know the following:

1. It was a primary. A Dim primary so there is no "by party" to worry about.

2. We know on a precinct by precinct level what the actual vote was.

3. To the extent that precincts are racially segregated neighborhoods or if mixed neighborhoods are gerrymandered so the precincts are racially segregated, we can estimate the vote by race. If all precincts were 100% black or 100% white, we would know exactly the vote by race. That is not the case in Durham, but if most of the precincts are very near 100% and a few are more mixed including the other category then the estimates are likely very good. I suspect this latter description is pretty accurate.

4. I would guess Durham has many close to 100% black neighborhoods, many close to 100% white neighborhoods or white plus other neighborhoods and a few very mixed neighborhoods. [If the whites and others are mixed together that does not mess up the analysis since the researchers were only trying to break out the black vote by candidate.]

5. What is suspect in my mind and may be bothersome to you and I agree is announcing who got what vote of a group that is 12% of the population based on exit polls of the entire country including exit polls that did not turn out to be very accurate anyway. Thus if blacks are only 12% of the exit polling as they are of the national population, then the standard error on Bush receiving 12% of the black vote my be 12% or 20% or some huge standard error like that. [Good exit polling would oversample blacks to correct for this. This oversampling would not be used to predict the election results but how blacks voted.] But in this case there was no exit polling, this is just conjecturing that within each precinct the vote was split among the candidates just like the population is split. Clearly the more homogeneous the population by precinct, the better this method works.

[xoxoxox]

NCCU classes set for accuser

The family of a woman who says Duke
lacrosse players raped her wants to hear from her

Samiha Khanna, Staff Writer, N&O Published: Aug 19, 2006 12:30 AM

DURHAM - The woman who accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape is scheduled to start another semester at N.C. Central University when undergraduate courses begin Monday.

If the young woman reports to her classes, at least then, her father says, he will have some sense that she's all right.

The 28-year-old student and mother of two has virtually vanished this summer, her father said in an interview this week.

She has cut off contact with her family, and neither police nor the district attorney would say this week whether the woman is still cooperating with them.

The woman was recently observed leaving the Durham Police Department's headquarters with her two children.

But police did not comment on whether the visit was tied to the investigation into a Duke lacrosse party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13, where the woman was hired as a dancer and said later she was beaten, raped and sodomized.

The News & Observer is not naming the accuser or her family members because it is the paper's policy not to identify people listed as victims of sexual assault on police reports.

The notoriety and publicity has mounted since the assault was reported. The mainstream media have never printed or uttered her name, but her identity is far from a secret.

"Everyone knows who she is, by now," the woman's father said.

Since making the allegations, the woman has been depressed, lost weight and has stopped communicating with her family, her father said.

The 62-year-old retired truck driver says he hasn't seen his daughter since June, when he happened to spot her sitting in a friend's car at a traffic light on Fayetteville Street.

"She said she was doing fine," he said. "I asked where [her] kids were, and she said they were out of town. ... Then the light changed."

The accuser's father and mother said they are desperate to see their grandchildren, ages 7 and 6.

The couple also marked their daughter's 28th birthday last month, but they lament the fact that they didn't know where to send well wishes and gifts.

"I used to see her every day until all this stuff [happened]," the woman's father said.

The worried father said he wasn't aware his daughter was scheduled to go back to school at N.C. Central University next week until it was confirmed by a reporter.

Sharon Saunders, special assistant to the chancellor for public relations, said this week that the woman is enrolled for the fall semester, but she could not say what degree she is pursuing or how many classes she must complete before that degree is earned.

The News & Observer has previously confirmed that the woman was studying psychology last semester and had a 3.75 grade-point average.

Despite arguments presented by defense attorneys and critics of the case that the rape didn't occur, the woman's father said he still believes his daughter was physically harmed at the Duke lacrosse party.

"She wouldn't go to the hospital if she was going to make something up," he said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/476911.html

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Do you know what the official charge for pimping would be?

[TommyDale]

Wouldn't that be "solicitation of prostitution"?