...And Justice For All

The other shoe has finally dropped in the Duke Rape Hoax. According to The Johnsville News, the three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, Reasde Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, several officers of the Durham Police Department and the City of Durham.

According to the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer newspaper, the suit wants,

i. appoints an independent monitor (the "Monitor"), to be determined by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham Police Department for a period of ten (10) years, and who shall report to the Court on an annual basis regarding Defendants' compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the Permanent Injunction;

ii. authorizes the Monitor to establish, review, and enforce all policies applicable to the management of the Durham Police Department;

iii. provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police;

iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee, composed of three members selected by the Court, which shall review and hear publicly complaints of misconduct by Durham residents against Durham Police personnel and make recommendations to the Monitor as to discipline or innocence;

v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether formal or informal, and/or of suspects or "witnesses," conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape;

vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney's Office include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance;

vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training, based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current and new personnel (the "Remedial Training") on the following matters:

1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;

2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation;

3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;

4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal investigation or proceeding;

5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;

6. the standards for police reports, investigator's notes, and other reports of investigations, including the timely and truthful preparation of such documents;

7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific testing or other services in connection with a police investigation; and

8. the standards for probable cause;

viii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from issuing any press releases, written statements, posters, flyers, or other materials intended for publication relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

ix. enjoins the Durham Police Department from making any oral public statements relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor as to the substance of the statement;


x. enjoins the Durham Police Department from serving any arrest warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District Attorney's Office;

xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence when testifying before a grand jury.

xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of students of Duke University;

xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor, Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration of the Permanent Injunction; and

xv. enjoins DSI and Meehan from providing any reports of DNA or other scientific testing, or providing any expert testimony, in any court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, for a period of ten (10) years;

b. damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of privacy, and loss of reputation; loss of education; and expenses associated with defending against the criminal proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants' unlawful conduct;

c. damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish Defendants for outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice that recklessly and callously disregarded and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, to discourage them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from engaging in similar misconduct;

d. an award of attorneys' fees, including attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988(b);

e. an award for reasonable and customary costs, expenses, and interest incurred in pursuit of this action; and

f. whatever additional relief the Court may deem proper.

It is about time. Although Nifong himself has paid the price for his illegal actions, the equally illegal actions engagted in by a number of members of the Durham Police Department (Mark Gottfried, David Addison, Ben Himan) and the apparent lack of supervision provided by their superiors completely justifies this suit in my opinion. Although Himan appears to have done his best to act honorably and professionally since the case fell apart (he was the only member of the trio to rpovide honest testimony to the State Bar), it is my opionion that ogttlieb and Addison should see their careers come to the crashing halt with extreme prejudice. One simply does not knowlingly make dishonest statements as Addison did, or actively work to push forward a case that quite simply should never have been brought as Gottlieb did, without suffering the consequences. in addtion, in Gottleib's case we know that he has a prejudice againsty Duke students and has shown himself to be at best incompetent in the course of the case.

As for the City of Durham, at no point did any city official step forward to taek steps to ensure that the students;' rightw were being protected. And everyone, from the mayor on down, seems to have looked the other way while Nifong went ahead with his frame-up. Certainly Police Cheif Chalmers should answeer for his lack of leadership in the Police Department, and the City Manager, who helped produce the discredidted report on the case should also be terminated forthwith.

However, my main feeling is one of relief. These boys faced horrendous terrors virtually aloner for the better part of a year. Now it is time for real justice to be served. Durhan cou.d have avoided this by following its own processes. Since it failed so miserably, it is time for the City's spineless leadership to pay the penalty for their actions. Justice may be slow in coming, but I feel that at lazst justice will be served. Hat tip to John in Carolina.

On a different note, today marks Professor KC Johnson's last daily post at his superb Durham-in-Wonderland blog. Professor Johnson has been stalwart in his reporting throughout this case and bears much of the credit for the revealing of the nefarious antics of Nifong, Gottlieb, and others. A hearty thank you to Professor Johnson. His reporting and his insights will be sorely missed as the civil rights case proceeds.

On Political Correctness

Political Correctness has become the major problem facing free speech. PC requires that we respect all listeners' opinions, so that we do not offend anyone. Of course, the effect that this dictat has on free speech is truly chilling, as speech that offends, especially speech that offends the privileged victim groups is stifled.

Economics Professor William Anderson of Frostburg State University in Maryland has written a powerful condemnation of the forces of political correctness in the context of his review of Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor's book 'Until Proven Innocent', the damning tale of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, wherein a rogue prosecutor, a lying accuser, several Durham Police Department officers, 88 Duke professors, most of the Duke University Administration and the majority of the local and national media attempted to frame three innocent students for a crime that never occurred.

Professor Anderson believes that for many of the people who worked so hard to convict the three innocent students were motivated by political correctness, which emphasizes a True Path, whether or not the facts fit. As he writes,

Face it, those who did the most to spread the lies really did not care whether or not three Duke lacrosse players raped Crystal Gail Mangum in the bathroom of the house at 610 Buchanan Boulevard. As Newsweek’s Evan Thomas put it, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong."

Professor Anderson has been kind enough to allow me to quote his remarks in full on political correctness and how it influenced the Duke Case. His comments are as follows:

Johnson and Taylor are political liberals, and people who tend to believe in reform. They are rightly shocked by the lies of the police and prosecutors, the dishonesty of Duke’s administration, the rush-to-judgment coverage of the mainstream media, and the indecent and pathetic performance of a large portion of Duke’s radical faculty. However, as liberals, they tend to believe that such actions can be corrected or at least diverted through political and legal reform. In other words, while they observed at ground level an incredible amount of cynicism, they themselves still tend to keep their reformist nature.

However, I see what happened as something fundamental in modern higher education and the law. Political Correctness is not simply something dreamed up by "liberal wackos" (as Taylor likes to call them), but rather is something that has permeated all of higher education, law, and politics. The modern PC regime is fundamentally opposed to a classical liberal way of life. It is hostile to free exchange in a marketplace, free speech and free exchange of ideas, and everything in Western law that has developed since the Middle Ages.

Indeed, it is totalitarian in nature, and it cannot co-exist with a legal and social order that is Liberal in nature. It makes all of life subject to political thinking, and political thinking based upon raw power. We saw all of that on tap in this prosecution. There was no evidence, only accusations that came from a drug-addicted, mentally-ill prostitute who constantly changed the fundamental nature of her stories, and who could offer nothing in evidence except her ever-changing words. There was nothing believable about what Crystal Gail Mangum told the police, yet the original lies ultimately metastasized into what was known as the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

That did not happen simply because police and prosecutors chose to lie. It happened because Political Correctness does not demand truth. Indeed, PC thought is the antithesis of truth, and the PC True Believer will tell anyone who will listen that truth is what one creates in order to achieve political outcomes. Face it, those who did the most to spread the lies really did not care whether or not three Duke lacrosse players raped Crystal Gail Mangum in the bathroom of the house at 610 Buchanan Boulevard. As Newsweek’s Evan Thomas put it, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong." Indeed, that is a most cynical statement, and since Thomas was one of those journalists who worked overtime to tell the world that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans were three vicious rapists, his words tell more than even he would understand.

The Duke Lacrosse Case was a front on yet another battlefield in a war between a liberal order that emphasizes the rights and responsibilities of the individual and recognizes that the state is an entity that must be both feared and controlled and an order in which the overpowering state is everything, and that political power is something to be worshipped and sought after. In this battle, the "good guys" won, but only because some well-placed and influential people recognized that the thing called "truth" really does matter. It was and is a satisfying victory, but it is only one small victory against some very, very dark forces.

And this is unfortunately too true. P.C. is a pernicious system, one that muzzles the light of honest debate by pretending that feelings (especially those of certain designated victim groups) are more important than reaching truth. Truth can indeed hurt, but only free debate and the acknowledgment of truth can ultimates free us from the effects of political correctness.

Hat tip to John in Carolina and my gratitude to Professor Anderson for allowing me to re-post his remarks in their entirety.

Durham Police Motto- To Falsely Accost & Arrest (Especially Duke Students)

KC Johnson's fabulous Durham-in-Wonderland blog, along with John in Carolina and LieStoppers is an essential source for all things concerned with the Duke Rape Hoax. KC has recently posted a Sunday Roundup, wherein he recaps the events of the previous week. This week's recap highlights the depositions and performances of Durham Police Department (DPD) Officer Ben Himan and Sergeant Mark Gottlieb.

As Professor Johnson writes,

There are some figures about whose performance on the case it’s easy to pass moral judgment: Mike Nifong. Mark Gottlieb. Wahneema Lubiano.

But other actors bequeathed a more mixed legacy. Take, for instance, Ben Himan. Himan was critical in obtaining the fraudulent March 23 non-testimonial order—which started the whole case in motion. And he was willing to carry Nifong’s water as the only officer to testify before the grand jury that indicted Dave Evans.

Yet, in sharp contrast to Gottlieb, Himan did take—and turn over—handwritten notes. And, whether by accident or design, he was excluded from the two highest-profile instances of law enforcement malpractice in the case—the April 4, 2006 lineup, and Linwood Wilson’s December interview with Crystal Mangum.

Moreover, while some members of the DPD continued their corruption (Gottlieb); others maintained the “hear-no-evil/see-no-evil approach (Hodge, Chalmers); and still others retreated behind the blue wall of silence (Soucie, Clayton), Himan worked to redeem himself. From all accounts, he performed professionally during the AG’s inquiry, vindicating the office’s decision to employ him as the only Durham police officer involved in Cooper’s handling of the case. Unlike Gottlieb, he provided an honest deposition to the State Bar.

After reading Professor Johnson's recap of the depositions, I have to say that with potential lawsuits agains the City of Durham and the DPD looming, and taking into account the performance of the majority of the Durham Police Department, specifically Corporal David Addison, Sergeant Gottlieb and the entire upper management, I would be very concerned if I were Gottlieb, Addison or upper management. Professor Johnson characterizes Gottlieb as follows,

Gottlieb comes across as a figure who plays fast and loose with the rules, and who harbors a deep dislike for Duke students. Although he doesn’t say it explicitly, he also leaves little doubt that he continues to believe a crime occurred.

As for the performance of the DPD upper management, the Chief of Police Steve Chalmers seems to have been permanently on vacation and no one in the higher ranks appeared to have any interest in stopping Nifong's rush to falsely accuse the Duke students. Most of those higher rankers are still in the DPD and are still in positions where they can unlawfully abuse their responsibility. If I were a resident of Durham, I would be very wary of having any dealings with Addison or Gottlieb- both of these officers appear to be the sort of people that give police departments a bad name. And for the city management, these two officers should be dismissed with extreme prejudice as soon as possible- though not before allowing them to be fraced with civil suits for their callous and prejudicial behavior. From Professor Johnson's report, it sounds as though Himan, while he deserves to face some consequences, he is the only member of the DPD who behaved professionally and who did his best to make up for his actions in allowing the Rape Hoax to proceed.

Like it or not, Durham city management allowed a rogue prosecutor and police officers to come entirely too close to framing three innocent men. No one from the DPD higher echelons or from city management made any efforts to intercede in a prosecution that was clearly out of control, and indeed, in the cases of Addison and Gottlieb, made every effort to assist in a clearly illegal attempt to railroad these Duke students. In addition, Gottlieb hass shown both in statements and in his behavior that he appears to harbor a deep dislike of Duke students, admitting he treats them more harshly than non-Duke students. There should be no place for this type of police officer- in Durham or anywhere else. And because of their failure to control Mike Nifong's rogue prosecution, Durham is now facing legal retribution that will cost in the millions, and hopefully will end the law enforcement careers of Gottlieb and Addison.

Hat tip to Durham In Wonderland.

The Dookie Scandal

Posting has been light of late while I deal with some medical issues. However, I am back in the saddle, and I must say that the Duke rape case is getting interesting, though I deplore the mindset of the media that attracts them to such spectacles. Needless to say, as a Tar Heel, I have little sympathy for the elite and obnoxious behavior that is so often associated with the rich and spoiled New Yorkers and NorthEasterners who inhabit Duke University. However, I cannot remain silent while there is a clear bias as well.

According to the Durham, North Carolina Herald-Sun, a teen-aged (probably black) murder suspect, had his bail set at $50000. However, the accused Duke lacrosse players had to post $400000 in order to secure their release. This in a case where there is serious doubt that a crime has even occurred, according to the evidence released thus far. And in a case where at least one of the indicted students apparently was already gone from the party when the supposed 'rape' occurred.

I would never argue that rape is a minor offense. However, it seems that all a woman has to do is cry 'Rape' and immediately the accused are considered guilty in the Court of the Press. The woman, as in the Kobe Bryant case, clearly has credibility issues, and her story, at least on the available evidence, does not stand up well. Yet she is a 'victim' and her name cannot even be published. While the students are dragged across the dirty pages of the nation's scandal-mongers. Is this fair? I do not think so. If the woman were the same color as the students, this would be left off the front pages. If the woman were white and the players black, would race even be mentioned? Of course not. It's open season on whitey. But if the 'victim' is black, then of COURSE he/she must be a VICTIM. Gosh, he/she COULDN'T have maybe been an agent in this mess.

The race-baiters strike again. Only when they are as willing to condemn the violence committed by blacks against whites as they are the reverse will they command my respect. And unfortunately, they are completely unwilling to do that.