First… it is time that I modify my own rhetoric, and stop saying “Durham this” and “Durham that.” KrdDurham is right to chide me that I am standing far off, assessing his town from reports and quotes in media outlets…. that I regularly declare (when it suits me) to be utterly biased and unreliable in everything else. He is absolutely right in his assessment of my swaying standard in citing the MSM. I can’t have it both ways.

And Gus (if I may call him that) is correct to point out that it was not “DURHAM’ as one collective culprit… but instead certain subgroups of Durham …each working within its own motives and mindsets…that knit together loosely to construct the offensive WHOLE… that is so disturbing to many of us. And he makes an excellent point that we who try to deny “the real, complex, and diverse Durham community” essentially weaken our own argument as to the enormity of what happened.

True again.

However, not all of us tried to “perfect” the Lacrosse Team or their actions that night…not even in the throes of our fear while Collin, Reade and Dave were under indictment. I will admit though, that the element of “overkill” that existed in many places regarding these kids… made it difficult for those of us who supported their innocence… to articulate any objections to their “party activities” that night. I did try to address the topic in an essay here on LS in Feb, 2007: http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/02/overkill.html.

Someone asked me recently to consider why each of us REALLY got involved in this case. Of course, I would like to take off my Clark Kent glasses and proclaim I only cared about Truth, Justice and the American Way…but really, the short answer is…I could see my son doing the dumb thing and going to that party. And he would NOT have been there to demean women, or to impose his sense of “white privilege on Black strippers” or “to play out scenes from the book American Psycho” (as suggested by the NCNAACP) or to represent the values and opinions of his Father or me on any or all of the former issues. At 19 years old, he would not be planning his evening’s entertainment based on re-enacting historical outrages or representing perverse socio-political agendas. He doesn’t buy a can of Coke recalling “Coke can history” and therefore signaling support of overseas American military intervention.

He would have been there, as most of these kids were…because he was a team member and the Captains called the party. So, originally… I spoke up because I could see my son at that party. I could imagine his fear, my fear, the helplessness, the hopelessness. I empathized. I wanted to help. I wanted to articulate that empathy. I was “Thinking About the Moms.”

Today…I can accept that some who signed the “Listening Statement” may have pictured… among the minority students that article described…someone similar to… someone THEY loved. Maybe a bridge to understanding what happened here…could start with recognition of each other’s empathy and an acknowledgement of how we each tried..each in our own way…to act on it. Surely, that’s something …at least some of us..have in common, even if our empathy was lavished in different directions.

But, any bridge cannot be paved over (as Davidson tried to do) in The Big Lie…that the Listening Statement was not about the Lacrosse case…nor can it deny the harm, though it may not have been intentional, that The Statement did to the three kids under indictment at their most vulnerable time. But, at this juncture, the goal should not be about browbeating the signatories but getting to a place where our empathy on both sides can be less exclusive and more..inclusive… and spill over in such a way that all these kids come under a joint umbrella held by “Listeners” and Liestoppers alike.

Wouldn’t the world be a better place if Jesse Jackson had traveled to Durham to forcibly speak in support of three kids (Skin hue not in question) arrested on an allegation and no evidence…and while Brodhead spoke of the need to have empathy and compassion for Mangum…equal time at the podium would have given to Ammons …speaking on behalf of Collin, Reade and Dave…and the presumption of innocence …not just a sentence or phrase but a compelling address on the rights of the Team.

As to my other question…why so many stayed silent..I think I’m beginning to understand more about that every day. As difficult as it is to speak “truth to power”…speaking truth to our friends and heroes is even more daunting. And it has, like it or not, a very personal price tag. I believe one Duke Professor was quoted as saying any negative quote from her regarding the Listening Statement would mean “my word would not count for much around here.”

Someone quoted Churchill on another blog…addressing a friend who had called him out in public: “Brendan, we are so few. We must stick together. Your words, justified or not, will be used against me and against our cause by those who would oppose us”.

I answered this way (sort of): “These are beautiful words…but they imply that some “solidarity” is more important than our personal integrity. I must respectfully disagree. I think it’s that kind of thinking that has generated much of the lack of outrage and moral inertia that allowed this terrible Frame to move forward.

Over and over in this case, we saw that so few people were willing to “call out their own.” I’m sure they felt they had many good “reasons” and they wrapped themselves in their own cherished “causes” to comfort themselves. There were so many “excuses” for silence, weren’t there? Certainly, there must have been some ADAs who disapproved of Nifong’s tactics, but no doubt they felt they owed “The Boss” their loyalty or owed the “office” their loyalty. Someone at DUMC must have realized Levicy was off the tracks, but perhaps the larger goal of “wanting victims to be believed” shut them up. Some prominent members of Durham’s Black community did indeed know the truth…but opted for the comforting excuse of essential racial solidarity and sympathy with Sister Survivor. And certainly some of Duke’s faculty were appalled at the Listening Statement and the public denunciation of their own students by their fellow faculty members…but elected to be “collegial” with fellow faculty members with whom they work and socialize regularly.”

We see this Silent Loyalty mindset everywhere today. We let others represent us, speak for us, carry the ball for us. But if we see our Hero is out of bounds, we turn our eyes, because he is so important to our larger cause. Before we look at someone’s actions..we look at the tee shirt he’s wearing…. if it’s the same as ours…because THAT alone will decide how we react.

One good discussion to arise from this case might be ….does this kind of “Silent Loyalty” truly serve the best interests of either our respective cause or our errant hero or friend? Did Levicy’s role in this…help more women who cry rape…to be believed? Did the bizarro actions of the NC NAACP enhance the common groundwork their once and future issues with our justice system will require? Did the legitimate gripes of the Trinity Park homeowners advance now that the “Targeting Dukies” issue is linked with them in every airing? And, anyone want to ask Nifong how winning that election played out down the line …personally…for him?

So often our “best friends” are not those who cosset us, but those who confront us. And our best service to the ideas and issues we care about is not loyal silence but a loud and negative shout-out to our own. Where might we be today if, instead of loyal silence… one person might have emailed to Lubiano..”Don’t print this.”…might have advised “Meehan”..”Don’t go along with this.” …might have chastened Levicy, “This is not how a Sane nurse conducts herself.” ….or one LAX captain might have told another ….”Forget the strippers.”

I could pick up a few points in this to agree or disagree or clarify or whatever, and maybe I will at some point. But for now I’ll just say that I very much appreciate the thought that went into this comment, as well as the ones leading up to it.

For the past few weeks, Durham has been shaken by allegations arising from the incident of March 13. While feelings of pain, anger, and confusion are understandable in times like these, let us remember that justice is served in the courtroom, not in the media or at the hands of individuals.

We are proud of the response of students at North Carolina Central University and Duke University who are organizing events to educate each other about sexual violence, racism, and why our system of law presumes innocence until guilt is established. We are grateful for the work of clergy and other leaders who are using this time to urge healing, peace, and truth.

The three of us are engaged in regular dialogue with people throughout Durham. We are providing updates on our progress and seeking counsel, with the goal of overcoming the tensions that have arisen.

Durham has so much more to offer than what recent events or simplistic national media portrayals of our community have shown. Our universities and our city have worked together over the years to build a community that is known for tolerance, education, business opportunity, and medical and technological excellence.

We pledge to all of our fellow citizens that we will continue to work together to strengthen the bonds that unite us. We all must work to be a community of one.

WILLIAM V. “BILL” BELL
MAYOR
CITY OF DURHAM

JAMES. AMMONS
CHANCELLOR
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY

RICHARD H. BRODHEAD
PRESIDENT
DUKE UNIVERSITY

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/communityofone.pdf

Not a bad little statement. Here’s the question it raises for me, though: What was the event on “why our system of law presumes innocence until guilt is established”?

Consider that although almost every comment and deed on record from the Durham and Duke communities in 2006-2007 can be labeled anti- LAX team, or at best pro-Mangum, we are now told by you that this was not an indication of the dominant sentiment in those communities. Indeed we are told that this existed in opposition to the prevailing sentiment of the community which was supposedly eager for the boys and families to endure the stress and expense of a trial, so that Durham might acquit! Is it your position that this dominant, prevailing, and Pro-Lax community sentiment was believed to be best articulated and most effectively utilized by each member of this community by SILENCE?

Because either we had a community of apathetic Lax supporters doing nothing to stop Nifong (even with their vote) or we had a community caught up in a maelstrom of vindictiveness demanding trial on just an allegation with no evidence. Do you see a third possibility? Please explain.

I think we had a community that contained both, and more. If “the community” had been a single entity, then your question could be an either-or proposition. Durham, however, is more than that.

In reflecting on the history of all this, I often look at how Wahneema Lubiano’s construction of perfecting offenders and victims comes into play when applied to different players from her original blog post. I feel like some are trying to turn all the citizens of Durham into a “perfect offender” in this case. I believe that leads to two major problems. The first is this - it so simplifies the case that easy counterarguments can be made, and with those, the rest of a thesis tacked on to a “perfect offender” argument is diminished.

The second is, I believe, more important. That a case like this could get the traction it did, and last as long as it did, and be pursued the way it was with such small resistance in the real, complex, and diverse Durham community is much, much more troubling to me than if it had happened in the simplified one perfectly aligned to accept and support Nifong’s creation.

I also do not believe the men on the team need to be turned into “perfect victims” for the crimes committed against them to be any more obvious, damaging, or, for lack of a better word, criminal. I, personally, think the party was a bad idea. I also, personally, think that in no way, shape, or form legitimizes, excuses, or diminishes either the criminal negligence or criminal activities that came into play to try those guys in the court of public opinion; to manufacture indictments, to (allegedly…) break state and federal law; to promote the sensation at the expense of the factual; or to play on the deepest and darkest fears and history of a community to gain personal wealth, satisfaction, or standing.

KrdDURHAM, in your opinion, was the silence at Duke and in Durham of all these LAX supporters….sufficient in its moral obligation to the innocent Collin, Reade and Dave? Did it meet your ethical requirement of what we owe each other when we are witness to a great moral, political, and judicial outrage occurring? Doesn’t it “take a village” and all that?

In my opinion, the lacrosse team writ large and Collin, Reade, and Dave specifically did not get nearly the appropriate support. Naturally, it is easy to say that now - given that their innocence is so remarkably clear, obviously they deserved everyone’s support. Looking back, it is clear that many felt like this case was the goose that laid the golden egg. Time has shown instead an empty, sulphurous shell.

Apologies to those eating breakfast.

Consider that Nifong was elected by overwhelming support from the Black community and with recommendation by the most powerful Black community political action group…

One of my favorite Nifong quotes came after the Democratic Primary (from http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/436642.html)

“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.”

Erm. Mr. Nifong? Wouldn’t conservative voters, regardless of race/color/anything else, be voting in the, um, other primary? That same story had this gem, too:

“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.”

I had never before heard the notion of indictments as necessary and sufficient proof of fairness.

In that election, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People had actually endorsed Keith Bishop. And the election results for the primary showed approximately equal voting percentages for Nifong among black and white voters. My guess - and it truly is one - is that without his “pep rally,” Nifong would have lost a significant portion of the black vote – though most likely to Bishop and not to Freda Black, unless she or her supporters had chosen to use the lacrosse in her favor at that point. Would it have been near the 900 votes needed to change the election? That’s hard to know. Certainly, if Nifong had publicly stated that he would not pursue the case, I think we would have lost a tremendous number of votes. And if Black’s supporters had started a whisper campaign?

The comment you cite from LS about terrorist attacks was said once…

I’ll abstain on this one, except to say that Victoria Peterson is an active, vocal member of the Durham community with whom many, many people disagree about a whole host of subjects.

Can you cite to me any other case in Durham where the City Manager felt he had to lie to reporters to prop up a criminal case? Why did Baker feel it necessary to state Mangum only
told one story?

I’ll take a wild guess again that, in its history, Durham has seen some lies come forth from just about every office in the administration, though certainly having a City Manager involve himself in a criminal case not involving the City directly is peculiar, at best. Whatever his motivations for making false statements, he diminished himself and his office by doing so. That he now holds the position he does makes me mourn for what Durham could and should be.

Why did the NCNAACP carry that outrageous “case description” for months after exoneration? Why did Joyner… the case monitor… continue to demand a trial? Was this in defiance of the community belief in innocence that was so prevalent at the time, as you describe it?

I actually did (try to) ask both or Rev. Barber and of the NCNAACP. As you might imagine, I received no reply. Upon reflection – even with admitted bias - I believe that my inquiries were respectful, specific, and non-accusatory. They were also, ultimately, fruitless. The damage the NCNAACP did to itself in my eyes is both significant and tragic.

And yes, Justice, the citizens of Durham had a choice…

Well…in the actual election…kind of. Macroscopically they did. In the context of the election, they had a “choice” but it was among an empty chair, a tardy and unofficial spoiler who couldn’t even get himself on the ballot, and…Nifong. Admittedly, the empty chair had stronger ethics and would have served Durham better.

As a final aside – I still enjoy the fact that my spell-checker wants to convert Nifong into “Knifing.” Fortunately, the stroke he thought he’d so perfectly aimed got deflected onto his own misspelled law license.

Thanks for chiming in, Gus. Philip Cousins’ very coarse measure of Nifong’s “fairness” is a remarkable artifict of the time. A few months ago I reread parts of The Best of Enemies. If Cousins is old enough to have experienced Durham as it was then, his remark makes some sense (which doesn’t mean it was cogent). It’s a great book, anyway. It says something about how Durham ended up with a political culture that’s highly reactive and poised to polarize on issues of race.

Also, none of you who have been defending Durham have explained to me why the Democratic Party — which DOES represent the political mainstream of Durham — recently made Victoria Peterson an officer in that party.

That’s been one of the most bizarre things I have seen around here. How someone who is - or at least was - SO anti-gay and SO pro-life gets a leadership position in the Democratic Party defies imagination. Interesting that she calls herself one of the “prodigal daughters” - I guess that indicates that she doesn’t know the meaning of the word: “characterized by profuse or wasteful expenditure.”

Which, hey, describes Nifong’s abuse of funds for the lacrosse case. Maybe she was right after all…

I used to live another Democratic party stronghold, the city of Chigago. My impression from the politics there is that an extra wide range of scoundrels all shoehorn themselves into the one party that can get them elected. I don’t have my finger on the pulse of Durham politics, but maybe the situation is similar — the single-party big-tent effect, I guess you could call it.

“So, Justice58 admits that prosecuting someone on the basis of racial and sexual politics is just fine. Who cares about evidence when prosecutors can lie and get away with it?”

I believe that was the quote where I asked Bill for a link and justice58 accused Bill of “making things up”. The fact that justice58 believes that the accused were guilty of the charges is not exactly a news flash.

It is my opinion that Bill has a history of questionable ‘mind reading’ when it comes to making statements like this.

The prosecution of Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty happened because of who they were, not because of anything they did. There was not a shred of evidence at any time to support Nifong’s charges, so anyone who supported the prosecution did so because of racial and political reasons.

You can argue that Nifong “fooled” people but I don’t think anyone was fooled.

I’m not putting any words in the mouth of Justice58. She has been writing incendiary comments about the lacrosse players for nearly three years and even now insists that they were guilty.

What if I were to insist that the Scottsboro Boys really did rape Victoria Price and Ruby Bates? You would ask what evidence I had, and I would say that Price went to her death insisting her story was true.

Now, the medical exams of those women demonstrated something else, and even in that pre-DNA age, it was absolutely clear that they had not been raped by anyone on that train. The medical evidence was very clear on that point.

However, am I supposed to say that even though the kind of evidence that would demonstrate some sort of sexual activity on that train was non-existent, that there WAS a rape because a woman, Victoria Price, claimed it was such? If I were to make that claim, would the others on that board be justified in saying that I was wrong? I think that would be the case.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/scottsb.htm

Yet, we had a woman claiming to be raped, and all that her story entailed, yet there was no physical evidence on her to corroborate her story. Furthermore, the bathroom where the alleged rape took place was not cleaned up after the party, so if there had been any DNA to be found there, it would have been found. Furthermore, removal of DNA (by something other than the “magic towel”) would require chemicals such as bleach. (Remember that in the Knoxville torture-murder case, the perps allegedly sprayed chemicals into the mouth of Channon Christian to get rid of DNA.)

Yet, all of that is ignored. Instead, we are given stories that are mutually-exclusive and are told that in this case — and in this case only — DNA no longer matters. Furthermore, those of us who point out that fact are attacked and called all sorts of things.

So, Justice58, just why do you insist that these young men still are guilty. If one of your friends or loved ones faced similar charges, and the evidence (or non-evidence) in the case were the same, would you still insist on guilt, or would you take a hard look at the evidence?

Also, none of you who have been defending Durham have explained to me why the Democratic Party — which DOES represent the political mainstream of Durham — recently made Victoria Peterson an officer in that party. This is someone who still openly insists there was a rape and she went up to Mary Ellen Finnerty during the Nifong bar hearing and told her that the case should have gone to trial because lots of people in Durham still believed that “something happened.”

Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the Scottsboro Boys Trial:

“Now the question in this case is this: Is justice in the case going to be bought and sold in Alabama with Jew money from New York?” —Prosecutor Wade Wright addressing the jury in Alabama v Patterson (NY Times, 4/8/33)

How does that quote differ substantively from what Harris Johnson said after the election? It does not, except that Johnson said “white boys” rather than “Jew.” Yet, people on this blog go after me because I am critical of the political climate in Durham? Here is the Harris quote:

“This goes to show that justice can’t be bought by a bunch of rich white boys from New York,” said Harris Johnson, a former state Democratic party official and Durham resident for 56 years.

So, when the mainstream, ruling party of Durham has as its officers people who make statements like this, why is it wrong for me to interpret such sentiments as being part of the political mainstream of Durham? If the Democrats in Durham disagreed with such sentiments, then why would they make these people officers?

This comment has been sitting around for a while, along with several others that I finally cleared yesterday. This one I kept back until Anderson could point me to an instance showing that Justice58 “even now insists that they were guilty” (my request does not amount to an accusation that Anderson was lying, by the way). And here it is — Justice58 commenting on justice4nifong, the blog that embraces the same kind of tunnel vision that’s made DIW such an enlightening read but turns it in the opposite direction.

The opposing sides range from those who believe unequivocally that she was raped and that those alleged assaulters should burn in hell, and those who believe that she deserved whatever she received due to her occupation.

Those really weren’t the opposing sides. Those would both seem to be in the “she was raped” side.

On the other hand, the closing is very strong:

We should be at a point where we demand the whole truth, regardless of whether that truth serves well with the plate we already planned on eating.

I would like to see more people searching for and wanting more facts, rather than reacting to the few we have already been presented with.

and as RZ notes, it’s remarkable that this came out on April 5th of 2006. Also - thanks to RM for bringing this up - I’ve enjoyed going through some of the Campus Echo archives generally and Mr. Christopher’s writing specifically.

Here’s the full text: http://web.nccu.edu/campus/echo/archive11-0506/o-christopher.html

Yeah, it seems like he’s describing the opposing sides as they appeared at the time, based on what he was hearing and thinking, and it’s remarkable that “what’s alleged in the media isn’t what happened” isn’t one of the choices. That seems to be a pretty typical syndrome, that the media and public opinion, and even the opinion from within the ivory tower, settles on a narrow set of alternatives and works them obsessively.

Upon further review of the 23 questions you have posed, I realize that I’ve already answered most of these questions for you in the past. I’ll give them a try again, but I bet you’re not going to like my answers…again….

JF said: “Consider that although almost every comment and deed on record from the Durham and Duke communities in 2006-2007 can be labeled anti- LAX team, or at best pro-Mangum, we are now told by you that this was not an indication of the dominant sentiment in those communities.”

Consider that just about every comment and deed on record came from what you read or viewed in the media. I don’t think I need to explain to you the media’s shameful role in the Duke lacrosse case. You know how most of the media wanted to shape this story. Plus, Nifong was in front of the cameras lying through his teeth. Many of his comments certainly inflamed the community. I wasn’t surprised by the reaction of some of the people in Durham considering what Nifong was telling them. Nifong knew what their reaction would be, too…that’s why he did it, IMO.

JF said: Is it your position that this dominant, prevailing, and Pro-Lax community sentiment was believed to be best articulated and most effectively utilized by each member of this community by SILENCE?

They weren’t silent, Joan…see below.

JF said: Because either we had a community of apathetic Lax supporters doing nothing to stop Nifong (even with their vote) or we had a community caught up in a maelstrom of vindictiveness demanding trial on just an allegation with no evidence. Do you see a third possibility?

Yes, a variation of the two. Part of the community contained apathetic Lax supporter who could do nothing to stop Nifong (if it wasn’t for former Durham Republican County Chairman, Steve Monks, Cheek might have won), part of the community was “caught up in a maelstrom of vindictiveness demanding [a] trial”, part of the community felt that if the Duke lacrosse team was as innocent as they said they were then they had nothing to worry about, and part of the community simply had better things to do.

JF said: KrdDURHAM, in your opinion, was the silence at Duke and in Durham of all these LAX supporters….sufficient in its moral obligation to the innocent Collin, Reade and Dave?

You think that they were silent because you didn’t read or see anything about Durham’s “apathetic Lax supporters” in the media. Not that there weren’t any…you either forgot or you’re ignoring them. For example…how about when Nifong considered resigning from the Durham Animal Control Advisory Committee because he “was truly dismayed at the number of [his] fellow board members who signed the Lewis Cheek [petition].”

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/466495.html

How about when Nifong accused some Durham residents of trying to buy the District Attorney’s Office? You know, some of the people who organized the Cheek petition drive…

State juvenile justice official Ed Pope and former Sheriff Roland Leary…
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/465647.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/459754.html

Dan Hill…
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/11/01/News/Veteran.Cheek.Hopes.To.recall.Nifong-2414850.shtml

There are more…some even post (or used to) on LS.

Other Durham residents spoke out…

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=4738144

And these are just the “apathetic Lax supporters” who the media spoke to. The media certainly didn’t seek quotes from many of them, though. It’s not that there weren’t any.

JF said: “Did it meet your ethical requirement of what we owe each other when we are witness to a great moral, political, and judicial outrage occurring?”

Speaking for myself, yes, I met my “ethical requirement.”

JF said: “Consider that Nifong was elected by overwhelming support from the Black community and with recommendation by the most powerful Black community political action group. According to you, this occurred despite their opposition to his methods (indicting arresting Elmo) and tactics (line-up) and lack of a real case.(no evidence of rape or DNA) So ELECTING Nifong by an overwhelming majority, according to YOU, is the way the Black community of Durham showed disapproval for one of the most egregious cases of prosecutorial abuse, playing out IN THEIR community and on the national scene? Please explain the message here? How did that work?”

What do you consider “overwhelming support”? Do you know how many black people voted for Nifong? I can’t seem to find those numbers anywhere. I do know that Nifong received 26,606 votes…even if you assume that every one of those votes were cast by a black person, that’s still not even close to the majority of Durham’s black community.

JF said: “The comment you cite from LS about terrorist attacks was said once. That poster does not return over and over to advocate for terror attacks again and again and again. The silence of the LS community relates to understanding that that particular…. singular…. moment of hyperbole was borne of a moment’s frustration. Victoria Peterson has had many, many moments and many, many articulations of antipathy toward the Lacrosse team. Therefore Durham’s silence toward HER comments, the tolerance of her community, and her recent political appointment in Durham are much more significant, much more telling. Your analogy therefore is weak.”

How many times did Chan Hall make his infamous “whether it happened or not” comment?

Oh? Once?

Are you going to give Chan Hall a pass and just chalk it up to “a moment’s frustration”?

Doubt it.

JF said: “Can you cite to me any other case in Durham where the City Manager felt he had to lie to reporters to prop up a criminal case? Why did Baker feel it necessary to state Mangum only told one story?”

No, and I have no idea why Patrick Baker felt the need to do that. I hope the depositions will shed some light on the extent of his involvement in this case.

JF said: “Why did the NCNAACP carry that outrageous “case description” for months after exoneration?”

I don’t know, have you asked them?

JF said: “Why did Joyner… the case monitor… continue to demand a trial?”

I don’t know, have you asked him?

Look Joan, just as Victoria Peterson and Chan Hall do not speak for the people of Durham, neither do I. All I can do is share with you my experience living in Durham. I’ve lived in Durham my whole life (30 years)…I do not even know ¼ of the people in Durham, but I do know a lot of people around here. From my experience, I did not see the general sentiment that you and Bill have so broadly ascribed to the people of Durham.

There’s a lot here about what was going on under the radar, or right at the edge of it. Since much more happens under the radar than on it, it’s very important to find a way to factor it into one’s picture.

For me, and it seems for krddurham and Mark, as well — all of us residents or former residents of Durham — Joan is basically saying that we should believe her, not our lyin’ eyes (more or less quoting Richard Pryor). Same with Bill Anderson, except that he’s on the corner shouting it through a bullhorn. There may be nothing more to do about that than to acknowledge that we’ve reached an impasse.

The society in which we live, embraces at the least and sometimes endorses the act of pre-judgment towards others.

In this instance pre-judgments have been made by both sides.

We have heard attacks of character, which I admit being guilty of, both towards the accused and towards the victim.

However, we who make these judgments have most likely never shared compassionate words with either side.

We have yet to hear a first hand account of the night in question, yet we seem to feel strongly one way or the other.

One who has prematurely decided a verdict, is likely to favor facts that support their case and negate facts that do not.

Convenient truths are emphasized, which leaves plenty of room for deception and coercion.

It is this poisonous mindset that would rather be right, than true or just.

There are some quite reasonable people in Durham and many fair positions taken on this case by many people. It is the nature of the media that they get so little attention.

Thanks for that, Mark. It’s nice to know someone was willing to put those thoughts on the record in early April, 2006 (the piece was printed in the April 5, 2006 issue of the NCCU student paper, the Campus Echo). The last part, about the “prematurely decided verdict,” applies about as well to the one being passed on Durham as it does to the one that was passed on the lacrosse players.

Sorry for taking so long to clear this, too.

Somehow, I doubt it. Mike Nifong won the Democratic primary in May 2006 precisely because he secured indictments. Furthermore, he won the election in November because he stuck to the case. Do you really think he would have been elected in the fall had he decided to drop the case? Right.

You are right. Not everyone in Durham embraced the hoax/frame, but enough people embraced it that the case stayed alive until some very extraordinary things were done to dislodge it.