Duke to forfeit games to Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's

[abcnews.go.com]

I didn't know I was going to have to actually IDENTIFY anybody, I thought I could just get me the money from, you know, what I said. Damn, wouldn't you just know I'd go ahead and pick one that wasn't there. Can I try again?

Ken '70
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

I didn't know I was going to have to actually IDENTIFY anybody, I thought I could just get me the money from, you know, what I said. Damn, wouldn't you just know I'd go ahead and pick one that wasn't there. Can I try again?

Do you have any evidence that the alleged victim's motives are extortionate, or that she knowingly misidentified someone? If not, Ken, your post is just plain despicable and hateful.

Beeeej

Beeeej
Do you have any evidence that the alleged victim's motives are extortionate, or that she knowingly misidentified someone? If not, Ken, your post is just plain despicable and hateful.

Beeeej

Is that aything new for Ken?

Local station recently reported on process police are to use for photo ID of attackers: the suspect is supposed to be one of 8 pictures (7 unrelated parties) shown sequentially to accuser. Given that 46 players were suspects then following the procedure to the letter would require the accuser to view 368 pictures - I bet that happened. Since the players may have been shown with their shirts off, then the 342 unknowns should also have been shirtless.

A local organization that designed, implemented and monitors the process says if police just showed the accuser the 46 pictures of the lacrosse team the ID would not be admissible.

That's why defense lawyers are so keen to find out how the ID was done.

IMO, a very bizarre effect of this matter:

[abcnews.go.com]

As expected...

[www.wral.com]

Yeah, that's pathetically sloppy police work.

Beeeej

[www.insidelacrosse.com]

Feared this would happen: Cornell's victory being tainted by the belief that Duke had things other than lacrosse on its mind on game day.

And, does the [NCAA lax seeding] committee value Maryland’s early-season win over Duke more than Cornell’s, since by that point the Blue Devils could’ve been distracted by the early stages of the sexual assault investigation? This year, more than any, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall during the selection process.

If this slips Cornell's seed so it loses a field advantage, or so it winds up bracketed against Virginia before the finals (were Cornell to advance that far), we got screwed. It kind of pales against the tragedy, much of it self-inflicted, that's affecting Duke.

billhoward
Feared this would happen: Cornell's victory being tainted by the belief that Duke had things other than lacrosse on its mind on game day.

And, does the [NCAA lax seeding] committee value Maryland’s early-season win over Duke more than Cornell’s, since by that point the Blue Devils could’ve been distracted by the early stages of the sexual assault investigation? This year, more than any, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall during the selection process.

If this slips Cornell's seed so it loses a field advantage, or so it winds up bracketed against Virginia before the finals (were Cornell to advance that far), we got screwed. It kind of pales against the tragedy, much of it self-inflicted, that's affecting Duke.

Nice persecution complex, bill.

Personally I think its entirely possible, if not likely, that Duke may not have been at their best that day.

Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation. For all other teams, it doesn't matter what you are when you beat them, it matters what they are at the end of the year. Why should this be any different? Duke, at the end of the year, will be a 20th something team. So we should get credit for beating a 20th something team. You can't go about assuming that they would have beaten the top teams and gotten back up to a place that they're not in - that would be what is ridiculously unfair.

Does it suck for us? Sure. Is it fair? Yes it is.

Now if Duke was sitting in the top 5 or 10 or even 15 at the end of the sesaon, that becomes a more interesting question. And I think you have to treat them as if that's what they were. But its irrelevant here.


Personally, my favorite part of the article is where they said its not a big factor because we've solidified our bid. Something that I was hoping, but was unsure of. Who knows if it'll hold up for sure, but its nice nonethless. But beat Brown tomorrow and it won't matter.

[www.newsobserver.com]

She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.

DeltaOne81
Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation.

Why are they ranked so low? Before the scandal weren't they considerably higher? I'm going to guess that the teams they beat kept on losing but I'm all ears for someone with knowledge to fill me in.

Ken'70
She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.

Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?

ugarte

DeltaOne81
Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation.

Why are they ranked so low? Before the scandal weren't they considerably higher? I'm going to guess that the teams they beat kept on losing but I'm all ears for someone with knowledge to fill me in.

I dunno specifically, but must be. The ranking is just RPI, same formula as in hockey - win %age, opponent's win %age, and opp's opp's win %age.

Since the former is frozen by definition, the difference must be in strength of schedule - which is 2/3rds opp's win %age, and 1/3rd opp's opp's win %age. Opp's opp's is usually not a big difference between schools and tends to converge - and is only 1/3rd of SOS - so it seems the main effect would be from teams they played starting to lose.

ugarte

Ken'70
She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.

Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?

Exactly. Well said, ugarte. I would have used many more words, but that was brevity in its best

Of course, there's also the chance that just because she may have lied before doesn't mean she's lying now. But I agree that things seem to be falling apart slow but steadily.

ugarte
Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case

Yuh think?

AND that you are being an asshole, right?

Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.

Ken '70
I do understand.

Sadly, I'm certain you don't. Pity.

Ken '70

ugarte
Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case

Yuh think?

AND that you are being an asshole, right?

Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.

No, you really are just an asshole. Does Age need to take a poll?

Ken '70

ugarte
Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case

Yuh think?

AND that you are being an asshole, right?

Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.

Jumping to a conclusion, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, is not any better than jumping to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong.

Of course, now you probably think you have a great deep understanding of everything and know all and can look into people's souls and know their intent.

But really, you're just an asshole who jumped to a conclusion and apparently got lucky. No better than the people who said the entire team should be kicked out of school without knowing the facts.

ugarte

Ken'70
She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.

Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?

Ugarte, you said it for all of us, and you just missed it being haiku length. Well done.

Personally, I'm worried that a visitor to the site will see the other username and think: "Hey, Dryden really WAS the goalie on that 29-0 team of 1970 ... but he seems to be a bit moody these days."

I vote "yes". Haven't put my two cents in, but have been following this thread. I had no idea who was right in this case and have seen plenty of problems with both sides of the case over time. Despite not being surprised that the case seems to be falling apart for the prosecution, I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded. Cornell must not have offered its widely publicized diversity back in 1970.

Al DeFlorio

Ken '70
I do understand.

Sadly, I'm certain you don't. Pity.

Delta One
Jumping to a conclusion, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, is not any better than jumping to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong.

Ken,
To expand on Delta One's thoughts, so that perhaps you might eventually understand, it's one thing to jump to a conclusion based upon having a good percentage of the facts of the case, but it's quite another thing to jump to a conclusion based upon your perceived racial or class stereotypes. Yes, sometimes the answer may turn out to be correct, but the logic used to get there is fatally flawed.

cth95
I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded.

narrow-minded? elitist? no, not at cornell... who whould have thunk it?

I'm with Ken on this one.

This situation is not yet settled and so it is still possible that the stripper told the truth, but it certainly looks like this case is heading for the trash heap. If that ends up being the case, I think its pretty pathetic that these kids lives were messed up so badly because they made the admittedly terrible mistake of getting consistently drunk and acting like fools. Something that I'm sure all of us have done (maybe not consistently) at some time or the other. There is no debating that the racist crap was way over the line and I know that kids with some decency wouldn't resort to something like that even when drunk. However, we all know what a combination of being made to feel super important, combined with an overdose of alchohol can do to some people.

These kids made a very bad mistake, and sometimes you have to pay the price and face the consequences, but I believe that it is okay to vilify the parasites that feed off such events. In this case the stripper, the prosecuter, the "it makes me feel good to patronize poor African-Americans" lobby, and the national media, all of whom proved that they can't seperate their head from their arse.

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.

Redscore
I'm with Ken on this one...

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.

Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely.

Al DeFlorio

Redscore
I'm with Ken on this one...

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.

Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely.

I may miss a point here and there but I certainly don't miss the ones I do "so completely". Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to quote my post, quote it completely. Quoting the first line and the last sentence makes for a very clever bit of editing, and makes your point at the expense of the facts.

My point was not whether they deserved to be f'd up for any of the things that they ACTUALLY did, they absolutely do and I did say that they need to face the consequences. My point was that it appears as if a combination of false statements and a confluence of events took things to a level that was beyond fairness. We may execute people for murder (in some states) but we don't execute them for robbing banks.

If you think that it is okay for a mugshot of Seligman to be placed on the cover of Time and Newsweek and to receive premium exposure on all other forms of media including network TV, and to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there as a rapist when it now appears that he left the party early, you are just not being fair. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light. And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life. Those other facets should be judged and evaluated on their own merits. I don't like these kids at all. I just think that sometimes it is okay to point out the flaws in our culture as they expose themselves.

If your point is that I should save my energy for other more pressing problems rather than try to assess the appropriate calibration of the punishment for this behaviour, I would probably have to agree with you. I guess I'll just move on.

I don't think that anyone here has a problem with you feeling these guys have gotten a horrible deal if they are innocent; which looks more and more likely. They should never have been smeared so badly without being proven guilty. You have posted a reasonable argument.

I think most people's problem with Ken 70, is that he has been highly condescending and has presented a holier-than-thou attitude throughout this event, without showing any indications of open-mindedness at all. He basically has represented the opposite facet of the extremists you have correctly criticized for smearing the players with no hard evidence. Just because he may turn out to be right doesn't justify his comments or attitude before hard evidence is presented proving that the woman was lying.

I think Al's point was less disagreeing with your ideas and more disagreeing with your self-association with Ken.

You say (emphasis mine):

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light. And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life.

Why is there any difference between the accuser and the accused? The case in question revolves around the night in question, not anyone's race, profession, background, etc. When this story broke, it sounded as if the dancer had truly been raped by the Duke lax players. Ken posted things like this: [elf.elynah.com]

While mass media was portraying the players as a group of racist rapists, Ken was essentially saying it was impossible for the woman to have been raped because it would've been white-on-black rape, because she was a "hooker," and because she has "demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks." [elf.elynah.com]

It now looks like the dancer was indeed making up the story, and it's a shame that it has damaged so many lives, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

edit: cth95 beat me to it. cth, I agree.

I'll agree with cth and Liz.

Redscore, I don't think anyone disagrees (at least not much if at all) with your posting that the players did not deserve this. The complaint was your association with Ken.

As you said yourself:
[Q]If you think that it is okay... to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there ... you are just not being fair.[/Q]

Yes, I edited that down, but I really intended to do it to get to the heart of your point, and not to twist it. Please let me know if you disagree.

But basically you said, its not fair to be pre-judged. I agree completely. So why was it then okay for Ken to prejudge the accuser on things like her background and by calling her a "crack whore", before we had any real sense of how legit any accusation may be. How it is fair to call it a lie simply because "white on black" crime apparently doesn't exist, even before we even have any specific suspects who could be guilty or innocent.


No one is saying that pre-judgement is right. I really did my best not to pretend that I knew the truth, as did, I believe, most people on here. How exactly is it okay to pre-judge the accuser, but not the players? Which is exactly what Ken stands for on this thread. Is it that poor and black can be pre-judged but not rich and white? Is it anything that matches Ken's viewpoint can be pre-judged, but not anything that doesn't?


I don't think anyone disagree with your point that this was a shame and not fair - if it does indeed turn out that this is a very bad case - but watch who you align yourself with and what they truly stand for.

Fair points cth, Liz and DeltaOne. I jumped into this thread late, read the postings quickly and focused on one aspect of Ken's arguments. Agreed - it is not okay to pre-judge the accused OR the accuser.

The Duke players were out of control but it took an accusation of a horrible nature to get the Duke community to look at the things that long ago should have been reigned in.

Athletes sometimes get rowdy when they're not actually on the field or the ice. But Duke seems to have carried this to excess ... no one (Pressler, the ex coach; or the athletic director) tried to or succeeded in keeping it down to a dull roar ... and now the team and to a lesser extent anyone who cares about Duke is paying the price.

Some of the publicity was unfair. The Newsweek cover story came really late, at the time the story seemed to be unraveling, and probably didn't deserve the cover at that point, but then Newsweek had a couple breaking news stories for the cover the previous couple weeks like the one about why women have trouble sleeping at night. (That was sarcastic but in reality it's stuff like that that's going to be the short term prop for newsweeklies that no longer have much news you don't already know about.)

[www.newsobserver.com]

"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."

[Q]"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."[/Q]

This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though.

"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

For those who didn't follow this closely, the Duke players' troubles bubbled to the surface during the re-election campaign of District Attorney Mike Nifong, who defeated challengers Freda Black and Keith Bishop. Black is white. Bishop is not ordained but is black. Got that? The Bishop got the black endorsement. The white Black finished second. Black the candidate got more of the black vote than the black candidate Bishop, but Nifong, whose name doesn't have any connotation I can think of (unless it's Polynesian for paleface), got more of the black vote than Black or the black candidate. But Nifong also got 1 percentage point less of the black vote (44%) than Nifong got overall (45%). (Because the two challengers combined, Black and the black candidate, together got 56%.)

There are now reports one of the alleged exotic dancers is also part Asian. So far that part has not become a major issue unless there's a one-liner about thirty minutes later she was back again.

Okay, conservatives, let's see your spin on this one. If Rush is still in rehab, you're kind of on your own.

Can Ugarte work a standup sketch around this?


... and it's still a sad situation. The lacrosse players are still jerks whether or not they're felonious jerks, Duke's good name has been sullied, the town-gown schism deepened ... no winners in this one.

Robb
[Q]"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."[/Q]

This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though.

The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.

billhoward
The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.

Sure, but that's not what she said. All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser. That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.

If she'd said, "I wanted to vote for Bishop, but didn't think he had a chance to win and I strongly dislike Black, so I decided to vote for Nifong to be sure that Black lost," then I can understand that as a rational, reasonable position to take.

Of course, it's also extremely possible that that's what she DID say and the reporter just misquoted her...

Robb
Sure, but that's not what she said. All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser. That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.

Well, then you'd only be in the company of about 50% of America

Note: I am not saying that Yankees *fans* are bandwagon, only the majority of people who cheer for the Yankees. A very different thing.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not surprised.

billhoward

Robb
[Q]"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."[/Q]

This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though.

The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.

Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.

WillR
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.

I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.

Robb

WillR
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.

I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.

I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking. I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning. I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent. Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.

billhoward
"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.

Ken '70

billhoward
"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.

No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.

WillR

Robb

WillR
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.

I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.

I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking. I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning. I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent. Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.

We could bring the "My vote doesn't matter because there are so many other people voting" argument back home and say, "There are so many other people at Lynah cheering, my voice can't be heard." But we do cheer, and the fact of everyone cheering is impressive.

nyc94

Ken '70

billhoward
"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.

No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.

Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: [en.wikipedia.org]

Ken '70
Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: [en.wikipedia.org]

While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.

And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.

DeltaOne81
The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.

That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.

DeltaOne81

Ken '70
Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: [en.wikipedia.org]

While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.

And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia link that supports what you're saying, Ken.
"A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office.
In Western democracies, the term is generally restricted to those officials who attain their position through election campaigns, rather than all members of the state bureaucracy."

ugarte

DeltaOne81
The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.

That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.

Hey, I don't know what Nifong believes or doesn't - and at no point was I attempting to argue or say that Nifong's behavior was appropriate (or wasn't).

I was merely defending Bill's point - which is what Ken was arguing:

billhoward
"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

I never meant to say it was appropriate. All I was doing was agreeing that its not surprising. And Ken didn't try to prove that it wasn't appropriate, All he tried to prove was the technical definition of politician - which, technically true or not, still doesn't make the behavior surprising.

3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."

If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.

WillR
I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.

You never know when 1 vote counts. One afternoon in '67 or '68 I was headed home from Cornell when, leaving campus, I remembered that a fraternity brother of mine was running for a student government position (could have been something called SCARB, but very fuzzy at this point). It was late afternoon and I wasn't sure the polls were still open, and what a hastle to go back to campus, park etc. But he was a good guy, and the smartest, hardest working fellow student I ever knew at Cornell, so I turned around and got to the Straight to vote just before the polls closed. He won by 1 vote. (FWIW, this is him [www.whitehouse.gov] )

But by all means, please stay home next election, it makes my vote that much more important.

Ken'70
3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."

If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.

"Wiki," "authority," and, "cite" don't belong in the same thought.

Besides, right there in your (subtly) self-proclaimed authoritative definition, it says "usually." That means that there ARE members of those organs of government who are sometimes regarded as politicians. I would think that most people would agree that someone who is running a campaign for office is "politicking," and is, at least during that campaign, acting as a politician.

Of course I'm speculating as to how most people would think, but that's how I see it.

The way I see it, if you're being elected for your job then you're a politician. Judges are appointed so that would obviously make them not a politician but DA's shake hands and kiss babies just like any politician.

nr53
Judges are appointed so that would obviously make them not a politician ...

Haven't voted in a while? New York elects judges.

Meh. I'm from Jersey and as far as I know (no thats not very much) judges are appointed there.

Ken'70
But he was a good guy, and the smartest, hardest working fellow student I ever knew at Cornell, so I turned around and got to the Straight to vote just before the polls closed. He won by 1 vote. (FWIW, this is him [www.whitehouse.gov] )

It's a shame he had to fall in with such a bad crowd

Redscore
Fair points cth, Liz and DeltaOne. I jumped into this thread late, read the postings quickly and focused on one aspect of Ken's arguments. Agreed - it is not okay to pre-judge the accused OR the accuser.

Thanks for writing this, Redscore. This is precisely what I meant in my posting responding to yours saying you were "with Ken on this one."

Peace.

WillR
I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.

When I was a kid in New Haven a mayoralty election was decided by two votes. (The winner owned a funeral home. One wonders how many of his clients voted. ) Close enough to keep me going to the polls still.

The first time I ran public office I won by a single vote. At lunch in the company cafeteria that day the conversation came around to the election and someone from my town happened to be at the table. I told him to vote for me, and he told his wife. That tipped the balance.

A couple of years ago we had a bitter race for city council (in another ward) that ended in a tie. They flipped coin. The good guy won.

Ken'70
3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."

If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.

[wordnet.princeton.edu]

Noun

* S: (n) politician (a leader engaged in civil administration)
* S: (n) politician, politico, pol, political leader (a person active in party politics)
* S: (n) politician (a schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways)

[www.thefreedictionary.com] [q]1.
a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
b. One who holds or seeks a political office.
2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process" John F. Kennedy.
3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[/q]

we had a school budget vote end in a tie two years ago. which was actually a loss because to pass the budget you needed a majority... every vote counts

Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?

[www.foxnews.com]

Also, the inevitable result of "thought leadership" from the likes of Jesse Jackson, The New York Times and AAS programs

[www.townhall.com]

Ken '70
Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?

[www.foxnews.com]

Jesus Christ, Ken. Why exactly does she not have the right to a civil case when everyone else does? When the hell *isn't* there a civil suit??

Now that doesn't mean its right, but why the hell shouldn't she do what everyone else does. Oh right, because you called her a whore. That's true, that means she doesn't get to have the same options in the legal system as everyone else.

You're truly an awful human being.


Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.

DeltaOne81

Ken '70
Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?

[www.foxnews.com]

Jesus Christ, Ken. Why exactly does she not have the right to a civil case when everyone else does? When the hell *isn't* there a civil suit??

Now that doesn't mean its right, but why the hell shouldn't she do what everyone else does. Oh right, because you called her a whore. That's true, that means she doesn't get to have the same options in the legal system as everyone else.

You're truly an awful human being.


Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.

Delta, would you tone it down please?

nyc94
Delta, would you tone it down please?

Sorry. You're right. I should just not read this thread anymore based if I'm gonna get this riled up by the blatant racism. Sad thing is I'm interested in the general topic.

< sigh >

I'll remove my earlier post if people would like.

DeltaOne81
Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.

Without getting into the things about Ken that you wrote that I agree with/disagree with/lack information to judge, you may want to cut Fox a break. The Essence article that Fox links to, and on which the Fox story is based, is titled Accuser’s Mother Meets With Famed Attorney: Civil-rights lawyer Willie Gary expresses interest in Duke rape investigation. I don't know that it is all that significant that the accuser hasn't met with Gary herself.

DeltaOne81

nyc94
Delta, would you tone it down please?

Sorry. You're right. I should just not read this thread anymore based if I'm gonna get this riled up by the blatant racism. Sad thing is I'm interested in the general topic.

< sigh >

I'll remove my earlier post if people would like.

I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.

Based on what we know from the newspapers the prosecution has a pretty lousy case. Since the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than a criminal case the accuser may have a better case but it again based on what we know it seems it is going to come down to he said, she said.

nyc94
I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.

You're probably right; [Q]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life[/Q] is really more misogyny and classism.

jtwcornell91

nyc94
I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.

You're probably right; [Q]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life[/Q] is really more misogyny and classism.

Not disagreeing with that.

[www.wral.com]

She was turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party (as prostitutes are wont to do). Her partner at the Duke house said when first interviewed that the rape charges were a "crock". That lasted until she figured she could pry some money out of the situation by sustaining, or at least no longer denying, the accusing hooker's lies.

And all these continued lies and sordid behavior are a complete mystery and so surprising to many here who simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that character matters (and is predictive).

Of course now the liberals will again ring down charges of racism, classism, misogyny and god knows what else for simply stating facts that annoy their own prejudiced fantasies. And will engage their favorite pastime of ad hominem attacks when confronted with inconvenient facts.

It gets more degrading all the time. According to a photo caption in the story Ken so kindly linked for us, while in court, the performance partner of the accuser ... "stuck out her tongue and made an obscene gesture at a television camera." What uncivilized people the Duke athletes had the misfortune to retain. Fortunately for those of us of a gentler disposition, the story didn't go into detail about the nature of the obscene gesture.

Interesting. From which part of that article did you gather that she had been "turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party"?

As much as this is the accuser's fault if the accusation is indeed false, this could perhaps all have been avoided had the police not withheld the second dancer's statement.

I wonder what race and economic background they're from?

Beeeej

Ken'70
Of course now the liberals will again ring down charges of racism, classism, misogyny and god knows what else for simply stating facts that annoy their own prejudiced fantasies. And will engage their favorite pastime of ad hominem attacks when confronted with inconvenient facts.

I fail to see how you can be this obtuse.

The more recent facts that have come out indicate more and more that the accuser is lying. This would be very difficult to dispute (though pointing out that this information was in the defendants' court submission is one reason to perhaps not consider it 100% accurate) - so nobody is disputing it, though you seem to believe that other people are.

What so galled people at the beginning were your grotesque biases. What continues to gall them, is that because your wild-assed guess that the accuser was a lying prostitute (simply because she was a dancer) turned out to probably be right, you seem to believe that all of your disgusting biases are now confirmed.

Nobody should be proud if they assumed that the players were guilty but your repeated "victory laps" mark you as pretty douchey.

Beeeej
Interesting. From which part of that article did you gather that she had been "turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party"?

Presumably "had a function at a hotel room with a couple where she performed using a [sexual device], which clearly could have caused signs or symptoms of vaginal penetration." However, assuming that the redacted word is "dildo", that's certainly not what one usually means by "turning tricks".

If you're disgusted with a corrupt DA pandering to a maleable constituency by persecuting demonstrably innocent people you can write to the North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, requesting an special prosecutor.

See [friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com] for a sample letter to use in whole or simply to get you started.

[www.newsobserver.com]

So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?

nyc94
So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?

Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?

Chris '03

nyc94
So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?

Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?

From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.

nyc94

Chris '03

nyc94
So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?

Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?

From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.

I agree completely. The whole thing reeks of a DA doing anything to get elected again. But from a journalistic point if view it would have been nice to hear the other side of the story from someone.

Chris '03

nyc94

Chris '03

nyc94
So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?

Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?

From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.

I agree completely. The whole thing reeks of a DA doing anything to get elected again. But from a journalistic point if view it would have been nice to hear the other side of the story from someone.

I'm guessing very few people wanted to be on the record supporting a sinking ship.

Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results), the DA has dropped the rape charges. Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.

I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.

ugarte
Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results), the DA has dropped the rape charges. Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.

I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.

Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.

AP Bar presses charges

At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.

WillR

ugarte
Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results), the DA has dropped the rape charges. Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.

I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.

Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.

AP Bar presses charges

At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.

Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).

Beeeej

WillR

ugarte
Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results), the DA has dropped the rape charges. Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.

I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.

Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.

AP Bar presses charges

At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.

Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).

Ah thanks, i see.

Is there any reason then that the defense would not bring such a charge forward at this time? Assuming money is no object, i would imagine it would make the DA's job even more difficult to hold together this prosecution and to begin working in some way on his own defense for malicious prosecution.

-WillR

WillR

Beeeej

WillR

ugarte
Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results), the DA has dropped the rape charges. Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.

I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.

Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.

AP Bar presses charges

At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.

Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).

Ah thanks, i see.

Is there any reason then that the defense would not bring such a charge forward at this time? Assuming money is no object, i would imagine it would make the DA's job even more difficult to hold together this prosecution and to begin working in some way on his own defense for malicious prosecution.

First win your defense, then you sue for malicious prosecution. Victory in court is, in practical terms, a condition precedent.

Ken '70

I am very reluctant to click ...

ugarte

Ken '70

I am very reluctant to click ...

Totally work safe. It's a clip of Mary Catherine Ham of Townhall.com talking about the Duke case in her usual style.

KeithK

ugarte

Ken '70

I am very reluctant to click ...

Totally work safe. It's a clip of Mary Catherine Ham of Townhall.com talking about the Duke case in her usual style.

Work safe isn't what I was worried about.

Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school

[sports.yahoo.com]

nyc94
Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school

[sports.yahoo.com]

Two? Why only two? Was the third the one who transferred to Hofstra to play under his father (or something like that)?

ugarte

nyc94
Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school

[sports.yahoo.com]

Two? Why only two? Was the third the one who transferred to Hofstra to play under his father (or something like that)?

The third player graduated just before he was charged. I think you're thinking of an incoming freshman released from his commitment...but I'm really not inclined to track down why I think that

I think one was a senior, and may have had enough to graduate before he was suspended.

Today's news is Nifong has asked the state to take over the case so he can focus on the ethics charges he is facing over his handling of it.

Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.

Chris 02
Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.

But the team just lost to Cornell again! Who knows what those kids are going to do this time.

ugarte

Chris 02
Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.

But the team just lost to Cornell again! Who knows what those kids are going to do this time.

They could always try growing up. The legal problems may be behind them. But they were never charged by the DA with boorish behavior, not being gentlemen, and acting as out-of-control privileged jocks with a plantation mentality. On those charges they may be guilty, guilty, guilty. Coach K never would have allowed it, and with the spotlight on Duke hoops, even if he wanted to, which he didn't, it wouldn't have been possible. The three who got charged paid too high a price. The others who lost a season? Hard to say. Sometimes, as the poster says at Despair, The Purpose of Your Life is to Serve as a Warning to Others.

ESPN reports that it's all over but the disbarrment. You know it is a poorly conceived prosecution when the only charges pending are against the DA.

EDIT: The title of this thread is so understated in light of what follows.

ugarte
ESPN reports that it's all over but the disbarrment. You know it is a poorly conceived prosecution when the only charges pending are against the DA.

EDIT: The title of this thread is so understated in light of what follows.

Right: Al should've given more thought to the immortality of his thread. Maybe "Nappy-headed dancers accuse Duke laxers; DA salivates at opportunity"? Wait, wrong medium. And perhaps Safire on Language can enlighten us as to the etymology of the term.

Better not hold our breath waiting for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to apologize to the Duke players for jumping all over them.

cth95
Better not hold our breath waiting for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to apologize to the Duke players for jumping all over them.

...or the Duke faculty group of 78 (or whatever it was) or the Duke administration or any person or group where reality is determined by ideology rather than facts.