Posted on 10/27/2006 5:00:15 AM PDT by abb
Link back to old thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1721830/posts?page=682
Ping
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
Live-Blogging
I will be attending the hearing later today. If I can get wireless access from the courtoom, will be doing update posts while the proceedings are occurring; please check in throughout the morning.
What in the hell does that mean??? Does he think he is Atticus Finch batting from the other side of the plate? Is he punishing these boys for perceived crimes committed by white society as a whole?
So how late is Nifong in releasing all this? Wasn't all the information supposed to have been released in discovery some time ago?
I am convinced that Nifong is certifiable. No evidence to the contrary will change my view of this ego-driven idiot.
He was supposed to have submitted it last Friday, 10/20.
What evidence to the contrary?
No. None. Nada. Apparently.
No evidence that I can see...just a figure of speech. I still cannot believe that he is a Phi Beta Kappa. Did he lie about that too?
Other than the surrender of information by Nifong, no major developments are expected during today's hearing.
"I don't think anyone knows exactly what will happen, but I don't believe there will be much to it," said one lawyer, asking not to be identified.
Critical defense motions in the case have yet to be heard, but they will not be argued today.
Great, more nothing....
No one does nothing quite like North Carolina....
NBC-17 just reported Steve will announce his withdrawl from the race at the BOE today.
6:08 AM
I don't understand the late submission of these discovery papers either. If there are DVD's of the boys web correspondence, did Nifong "pick and choose" what he wanted to submit?
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/27/News/Aclu-Panel.Criticizes.Nifong.Faculty.Response-2406745.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
ACLU panel criticizes Nifong, faculty response
Joe Clark
Posted: 10/27/06
More than 60 students, faculty and Durham residents gathered to hear a discussion about the lacrosse incident Thursday night.
The panel, sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union at Duke, consisted of Larry Holt, Durham Human Relations Commission chair, Stephen Miller, a Duke senior and Chronicle columnist, and KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College and author of the blog "Durham-In-Wonderland."
The audience, which was predominantly made up of local residents, gathered to listen to the panelists speak, and pose questions, about the rape charges against three members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team and the ensuing legal proceedings.
Johnson, who has posted extensively on the case since he started his blog in April, began by commenting on the media attention the alleged rape has attracted.
"One of the reasons this case has generated outrage is that the procedures of the DA's office were blatantly flawed," he said.
When Johnson emphasized that the one lacrosse player the alleged victim identified twice in a police lineup as one of her attackers was able to prove he was not in Durham during the week of the party, many in the crowd began to laugh.
"Corrupted procedures beget corrupted results," Johnson added.
Holt focused his portion of the discussion on incidents prior to the alleged crime and the lessons learned from it.
"Trinity Park residents have been struggling with issues of student drinking, public urination, loud parties and foul language prior to the lacrosse incident," he said. "You have what you could perceive to be a time bomb."
Holt noted that it is unfortunate that the alleged actions of a few students reflect poorly on the University as a whole.
Miller ended the formal discussion by speaking about his disappointment in Duke's faculty because, he said, they abandoned the team.
He focused his criticism on professors who signed an advertisement in The Chronicle calling the incident a "social disaster" and alleging a culture of racism at the school.
"The advertisement said that it doesn't matter what police said or what the evidence may be," Miller said. He added that he finds the material in the advertisement disturbing, and that actions such as these ultimately serve to hurt due process.
Sparked by a question from the audience, the panelists spoke about the ethics of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's handling of the case. Johnson criticized the judicial system of North Carolina, calling for a reform in the accountability of district attorneys.
"In North Carolina, the only person policing a rogue DA is the rogue DA himself," he said.
Miller said that the actions of Nifong are impeding on the rights of the accused lacrosse players. "You have an intellectual cancer where political agendas are more important than due process," he explained.
Some audience members weighed in on the discussion after the panel concluded. Senior Daniel Bowes, president of the ACLU at Duke and a former Chronicle columnist, said he was disappointed in the low student turnout, but added that he thought the panel was productive.
"The most important thing is to have discussion between Duke and the community," he said. "We wanted as many people to share dialogue as possible."
Jill Cunningham, a resident of Durham, criticized the administration's response to the incident.
"I don't think I'd send my children to Duke," she said. "[My husband and I] are upset that Brodhead isn't showing leadership, and it is affecting the community."
I hope the defense has some pretty good data miners: 3 DVD's of emails suggests that stuff may be hidden in plain sight. Plus at $250 to $500 per hour Nifong is doing his best to make the parents pay an ever escalating price for having the temerity to challenge him.
So now we prosecute the innocent in the name of underlying issues?
The underlying issues are all about a woman who lied thru her teeth in order to protect herself from being incarcerated for breaking her probation.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/27/Columns/Duke-Supports.Voter.Registration-2406770.shtml?norewrite200610270844&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Duke supports voter registration
Guest column
John Burness
Posted: 10/27/06
Over the past few weeks, questions have been raised about Duke University's position on voter registration, especially surrounding a decision by Duke Athletics not to permit voter registration in Wallace Wade Stadium and surrounding parking lots during the Duke-UVa game Sept. 30. On behalf of Duke, I'd like to clarify Duke's commitment to ensuring its students are engaged in voting-an action that defines our democracy.
By long-standing practice of the Athletics Department, a wide array of activities are not permitted in Wallace Wade or in Cameron Indoor Stadium without prior permission. A volunteer coach for the women's lacrosse team had asked permission a week or so before the UVa game to conduct a student voter registration drive in Wallace Wade. Athletics Department officials, concerned about the possibility that the effort could be seen as a political statement regarding the District Attorney's race, told her "no." Athletics historically has said no to any seemingly partisan political activity in the facilities for which Athletics is responsible. Admittedly, voter registration is not a partisan political activity, but given the visibility and controversy surrounding the District Attorney's race, one can imagine why people in Athletics were concerned it might be perceived as such.
On game day, when an official in the Athletics' marketing and promotions office entered the stadium, he noticed some students-members of Duke Students for an Ethical Durham-were organizing to register voters in Wallace Wade and asked them not to do so. Unfortunately, he also incorrectly told them they could not continue their registration of students that had already begun in the Blue Zone parking lot adjacent to Wallace Wade. The official assumed that on game days, the lot was an Athletics Department facility. This was an honest mistake, not consistent with University policy, which he and the leadership of the Athletics Department and the University sincerely regret.
Several weeks earlier, when members of the lacrosse team approached Coach John Danowski about their interest in organizing a voter registration effort, he told them that doing so would be inappropriate as an organized team activity, but that as individuals they had a perfect right to engage with others in encouraging voter registration. Several lacrosse team players then joined with other students to encourage voter registration through Duke Students for an Ethical Durham. Though Duke Students for an Ethical Durham is not a registered student group and, thus, not officially recognized by the University, it has worked with other student groups to encourage Duke students to fulfill their civic responsibility.
Duke strongly supports voting and voter registration efforts. The library has a wonderful voter registration website http://www.lib.duke.edu/reference/virtual/voting.html, and our Student Affairs office works closely with recognized student organizations to encourage such efforts.
The former president of Rock the Vote spoke on campus this past Monday to encourage student voting and, as The Chronicle has reported, the West Campus Plaza was the site for a major voter registration event Oct. 12.
Finally, I want to urge all members of the University community to vote for the candidates of their choice in local, state and national elections Nov. 7.
John Burness is the senior vice president for public affairs and government relations for Duke University.
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.