Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Right conclusion, but wrong hypothesis

On March 13, 2011, The News & Observer published an op-ed piece titled “An Anniversary Duke will try to overlook.” It was authored by Bob Wilson, a Durhamian who reached the correct conclusion, but by using faulty reasoning. Yes, Duke University would like to forget March 13, 2006, and the events that transpired subsequently. However, the overriding reason they would like to forget the incident is because it was bamboozled out of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000.00) by three avaricious and crafty attorneys who represented the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Those attorneys (Joseph Cheshire, Wade Smith, and James Cooney) probably convinced Duke that it would have no problem being reimbursed by their insurance carrier after paying the Duke threesome. Duke realized, only too late that it had been snookered when their insurance company refused to simply fork over to them the sixty mil. Then, Duke threw good money after bad when it fought to force the insurance company to pay, ignoring the fact that it was Duke that breached its contract with the insurance company and not the other way around. After substantially wasting money on this ill-fated endeavor, Duke University eventually dropped its complaint with both parties agreeing to pay their own costs.

The misguided columnist, however, seems to feel, for some unexplained reason, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are entitled to an apology from Duke University. My question is: Why? The Duke Lacrosse defendants, with their well-earned reputation for revelry and debauchery, held the beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party with under-aged drinking (and most likely illicit drug use) despite warnings by the university president to their coach to rein in the boys. Not only did the Duke Lacrosse player who arranged the night’s entertainment use a false name to procure it, but a false pretense as well… stating two exotic dancers were wanted for a small bachelor party of four or five, instead of a rowdy kegger sponsored by the Duke Lacrosse team. Now, add to the mix that the partygoers shouted out racial epithets using the “n-word” to the two African American female performers.

The Duke Lacrosse team members had a shady background when it came to legal matters to begin with, as nearly a third of the team had run-ins with the law for offenses ranging from public intoxication, driving with open beer containers, urinating in public, and other transgressions. Specifically Collin Finnerty was convicted of assault and battery against two men who he erroneously assumed to be gay… a hate crime. Dave Evans was cited for driving with an open alcoholic beverage in his car. And Reade Seligmann had a lien slapped against him for attempting to evade paying taxes of $6.7 million on his $20 mil windfall. Mr. Wilson obviously believes these are the types of citizens who are entitled to a payday of $20 million… while Duke University hikes tuition and cuts services and classes for its entire student body in order to make up for the loss of more than $60 million. Rest assured, that none of the make-up for the debt is coming from the hefty compensation packages that the Duke University bigwigs enjoy.

The columnist seems to feel that the Duke Lacrosse defendants suffered greatly because a protester against their reckless party-going ways held up a sign that read “Castrate.” Face it, the boys never spent one day in jail, and the media played them as victims from the git-go. The biased media, following the Carpetbagger Jihadist doctrine to destroy Mike Nifong and anyone deemed to be against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, crucified Mr. Nifong and the victim of the incident, Crystal Mangum. Every article written and broadcast aired spoke about how the Duke Lacrosse defendants were wrongly accused, that Mike Nifong was disbarred, and that the defendants had been declared “innocent.” The media types knew that they were misleading the public and that the Attorney General Roy Cooper had no legal right to make such an unprecedented innocent proclamation. (This promulgation of April 11, 2007, was engineered by Joseph Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon). Books have been written in defense of the Duke Lacrosse boys, and HBO has been trying to make a movie about the incident… but they had to keep firing scriptwriters for creating a story that was uncomfortably too close to the truth. (Trying to make the Duke Lacrosse defendants appear like choirboys is a monumentally impossible task, if an attempt is made to retain any semblance of the truth.)

The fact is that the Duke defendants prospered, and not just financially, because of their involvement in the case. An admiring judge in Washington, DC, expunged all legal trace of Collin Finnerty’s assault and battery conviction, and they were all highly sought after and recruited by universities and Wall Street-type companies. Doors were open to them for all types of opportunities and ventures. The ones who truly suffered as a result of the aftermath of March 13, 2006, are Mr. Nifong and his family, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and others considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

The treatment I received by Duke University was far worse than what the institution doled out to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, as I was kicked off campus and nearly arrested at a public event I attended in April 2010. Because I was a known supporter of Mike Nifong, holding thoughts, beliefs, and opinions favorable to him, I was humiliated, intimidated, and nearly arrested by a security guard who was unable to give an explanation as to why I was being kicked off campus. As he stated, he was merely doing his job, which was to get rid of me. Fortunately for me, I ran into James Coleman, a Duke law professor and friend, who interceded on my behalf. Had he not, I believe the Duke police officer who was called in for backup, without cause, would have arrested me.

Duke University does have hostility and animus as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case, but I submit that it is directed at the wrong targets. Mike Nifong was conscientiously performing his duties when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal Mangum was the victim of the Duke Lacrosse case, and Mike Nifong supporters are merely seeking justice… equal justice for all, which begins with justice for Mike Nifong. And, none of the above attempted to shakedown Duke for $20 million.

If Duke University wishes to vent its hostility, it should direct it towards the true culprits, the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Yes, Duke University, Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and most everyone else involved in the case would like to forget the anniversary… everyone except the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the defendants themselves, their avaricious attorneys, and the Duke Lacrosse defendant worshippers (which probably includes Mr. Wilson) who want to brag about and laud before the masses their financial rip-off of Duke University. 


Below is a link to the documents and audio of Nifong supporter Sidney B. Harr’s encounter with Duke University on April 14, 2010.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irepoBopen.htm

62 comments:

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This article repeats the phrase stripper ogling when the photographs show that all of the young men found drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum repulsive.

Anonymous said...

Who is Kilgo? Is Kilgo a member of the gang of 88?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Tara Levicy?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Linwood Wilson?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Cousin Jackie?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Mark Gottlieb?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Charlie Sheen?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Victoria Peterson?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Jacqueline Wagstaff?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Steven Matherly?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Crystal Mangum?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Herve Villechaize?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be the Fong?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Jared Fogle?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Lindsay Lohan?

Anonymous said...

Could Kilgo be Mrs. Sidney Harr?

Anonymous said...

I never could decide who the bigger whore was-Mangum or Nifong.Crystal was selling her vagina which none of the lacrosse wanted,but Mikey sold his soul.Assuming he had one.He knew all along these young men were innocent but charged them anyway just so he could keep his lousy job.I guess you have to say Nifong was the bigger whore.

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I wonder what disbarred loser and drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum are doing these days.Mikey probably wishes he could still bring false charges against people he knew were innocent and Crystal probably still fantasizes about being gang raped by white men who would never have looked twice at her,or once if they could help it.

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nifong Supporter said...


Kilgo said...
"Quote Bob Wilson, former long-time Duke News Service propagandist:

'...the university sailed along with its fund-raising, and applications
for the freshman class were as strong as ever. The Duke brand held fast.'

Now ask yourselves, was the $60 million pay-off a good investment
in protecting the Duke Brand, by giving an appearance of legitimacy
to Roy Cooper's bought and paid-for corrupt declarations?"


So Bob Wilson has or had an association with Duke University? I think that there should have been some sort of disclosure about this. To my recollection, there wasn't.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Kilgo admitted that there are hardly any cases of white men raping black women.We're just not attracted to them.

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

There's no doubt about it, Kilgo, you are one sick puppy living in your own delusional world. I hope you stay locked up in your room and don't wander away from your computer screen.

Anonymous said...

"There's no doubt about it, Kilgo, you are one sick puppy living in your own delusional world. I hope you stay locked up in your room and don't wander away from your computer screen."

Sid is performing a public service by allowing Kilgo to post here. Otherwise, it is anybody's guess what Kiglo would be doing with his/her free time.

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

A normal person would conclude that stopping a police force that abuses their authority and deliberately frames defendants is far more important than punishing a group of college students that piss on bushes.

Let's not ignore the real issue here. How many times has the DPD framed innocent defendants?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"A normal person would conclude that stopping a police force that abuses their authority and deliberately frames defendants is far more important than punishing a group of college students that piss on bushes.

Let's not ignore the real issue here. How many times has the DPD framed innocent defendants?"


One thing that you seem to overlook is the fact that the Duke lacrosse defendants were never found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury.

Keep in mind also that it was the Durham Police Department that set clothes on fire in the bathtub and not Crystal Mangum. I guess we can agree on this... right?

Anonymous said...

"Kilgo must be delusional."

"The N&O got the Story Right The First Time."

Yes, I would say that Kilgo must be delusional.

Anonymous said...

One thing that you seem to overlook is the fact that the Duke lacrosse defendants were never found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury.

Knock it off, Sid. The concept in this country is "innocent until proven guilty." No court found them guilty. As a result, they remain innocent.

By your standard, none of the readers on this board, including yourself, is innocent of brutally beating and raping Crystal. No one was "found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury."

As you know, that is an idiotic conclusion.

Sidney, why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation? Why didn't Nifong insist on one? Did they not believe her?

Keep in mind also that it was the Durham Police Department that set clothes on fire in the bathtub and not Crystal Mangum. I guess we can agree on this... right?

You may wish to explain why you dismiss both Crystal's and Milton Walker's confessions as invalid.

Anonymous said...

"One thing that you seem to overlook is the fact that the Duke lacrosse defendants were never found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury."

"Knock it off, Sid. The concept in this country is 'innocent until proven guilty.' No court found them guilty. As a result, they remain innocent."

Sid has proven that he is quite adept at applying different standards to different groups of people.

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney,

I encourage you to end discussion of your near arrest. Your readers sympathize with you, agreeing that Duke treated you badly. However, you are too emotional about this incident and unable to provide the dispassionate analysis for which you are known.

The treatment I received by Duke University was far worse than what the institution doled out to the Duke Lacrosse defendants… I was humiliated, intimidated, and nearly arrested

This is hyperbole.

You have reminded us that the only measure of mistreatment is time in jail. Humiliation, intimidation and legal fees are all minor inconveniences—as long as there is no jail time.

You summarize this succinctly: “Face it, the boys never spent one day in jail.” Neither did you.

Stop whining.

Duke accused you of solicitation. You dismiss this accusation as false and claim that you merely gave out business cards, encouraging others to visit your website.

However, by your standard, you are not innocent. Your case never went to trial, and you were never "found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury." Because Duke did not arrest you, a prosecutor was not permitted to take the case to trial. We will never know what evidence a prosecutor may have been able to present against you in court.

I encourage you to apologize for your misleading discussion. As I noted earlier, many of your readers believe that Duke treated you badly. However, your discussion is completely inconsistent with the standard you use in other analysis.

Most of your readers recognize that you are too emotional about your near arrest to analyze it properly. Your readers will forgive you; your discussion was not intentionally deceptive.

However, your errors have now been brought to your attention. Any further attempt to cast yourself as a victim can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to deceive your readers.

guiowen said...

harr supporter,
I agree with you 100%. I like Sidney, but he's really whining too much about this.

Harr Supporter said...

guiowen,

It is not just the whining. He runs the risk of exposing himself as a hypocrite. If so, no one will take him seriously.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'One thing that you seem to overlook is the fact that the Duke lacrosse defendants were never found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury.'

Knock it off, Sid. The concept in this country is 'innocent until proven guilty.' No court found them guilty. As a result, they remain innocent.

By your standard, none of the readers on this board, including yourself, is innocent of brutally beating and raping Crystal. No one was 'found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury.'
As you know, that is an idiotic conclusion.

Sidney, why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation? Why didn't Nifong insist on one? Did they not believe her?

Keep in mind also that it was the Durham Police Department that set clothes on fire in the bathtub and not Crystal Mangum. I guess we can agree on this... right?

You may wish to explain why you dismiss both Crystal's and Milton Walker's confessions as invalid."


When someone is arrested and charged with a crime and the charges are later dismissed, then the person has had the "charges dismissed." He/she is not "innocent."

When someone is arrested, charged, goes to trial, and is found "not guilty," then that person can be called "innocent" or said to have been "exonerated." There is a big difference, and the media purposely misleads the public regarding it.

With respect the alleged confessions, Ms. Mangum did so under extreme duress, as she was threatened with years in jail and had no counsel at the time. With regards to Mr. Walker, he is known to have had mental problems.

Keep in mind that the police were the only ones with the motive, means, and opportunity to start the fire, which they did after Officer Tyler ushered everyone out of the house and then did not bother to turn on the faucet in the bathtub.

Nifong Supporter said...


Harr Supporter said...
"Sidney,

I encourage you to end discussion of your near arrest. Your readers sympathize with you, agreeing that Duke treated you badly. However, you are too emotional about this incident and unable to provide the dispassionate analysis for which you are known.

The treatment I received by Duke University was far worse than what the institution doled out to the Duke Lacrosse defendants… I was humiliated, intimidated, and nearly arrested

This is hyperbole.

You have reminded us that the only measure of mistreatment is time in jail. Humiliation, intimidation and legal fees are all minor inconveniences—as long as there is no jail time.

You summarize this succinctly: “Face it, the boys never spent one day in jail.” Neither did you.

Stop whining.

Duke accused you of solicitation. You dismiss this accusation as false and claim that you merely gave out business cards, encouraging others to visit your website.

However, by your standard, you are not innocent. Your case never went to trial, and you were never "found to be innocent... at least not by anyone that counts... such as a judge or jury." Because Duke did not arrest you, a prosecutor was not permitted to take the case to trial. We will never know what evidence a prosecutor may have been able to present against you in court.

I encourage you to apologize for your misleading discussion. As I noted earlier, many of your readers believe that Duke treated you badly. However, your discussion is completely inconsistent with the standard you use in other analysis.

Most of your readers recognize that you are too emotional about your near arrest to analyze it properly. Your readers will forgive you; your discussion was not intentionally deceptive.

However, your errors have now been brought to your attention. Any further attempt to cast yourself as a victim can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to deceive your readers."


I agree with you and guiowen on one point... it is a very emotional issue with me. I was maliciously treated by Duke University after I sent the university two very nice letters complimenting them on their fine programs. They targeted me solely for being a Nifong supporter, and had I not ran into my friend and Duke Law Professor James Coleman, there is no doubt that I would have wound up in jail.

But this is a much bigger issue than me and Duke. This has to do with First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression, which were violated according to Duke's response. Asking someone to visit one's website should not be grounds for expulsion from campus or arrest.


My next blog will cover the NC General Assembly, and I want to hear your opinions about it, as well.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

You still owe an apology.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
"Sid,

You still owe an apology."


Like my answer to the Duke security guard who threatened to arrest me... "For what?"

Anonymous said...

Ignorance of the law, Sid, is no excuse. You were guilty of solicitation as Duke defines it. Duke owes you nothing.

Anonymous said...

The first amendment protects against restrictions on speech by a government actor. Duke is a private university and is not bound by that.

Walt pointed that out to you earlier. If you did not believe him, you should have done some research.

Your should learn from your mistakes. It is inexcusable for you to make the same mistakes repeatedly.

You owe your readers an apology.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Ignorance of the law, Sid, is no excuse. You were guilty of solicitation as Duke defines it. Duke owes you nothing."


Duke could have defined my actions as "treason" but that does not make it so. The "solicitation excuse," though pitiful, was the best Duke could come up with under the circumstances. Why did it not just admit that it was discriminating against me because I am a Nifong supporter?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"The first amendment protects against restrictions on speech by a government actor. Duke is a private university and is not bound by that.

Walt pointed that out to you earlier. If you did not believe him, you should have done some research.

Your should learn from your mistakes. It is inexcusable for you to make the same mistakes repeatedly.

You owe your readers an apology."


So, in other words, a privately owned diner or bookstore is able to discriminate against a person because it is not a government actor?

Duke University may be a private institution, but when it holds public events, the rules of the game change.

Walt said...

Duke doesn't get to define solicitation. The law does. Duke decided to interpret solicitation rather selectively. That's their problem. A recurring problem. I might add.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

This blog refuses to accept comments. Why?

Anonymous said...

It must be the Carpetbagger Jihad.

Anonymous said...

So, in other words, a privately owned diner or bookstore is able to discriminate against a person because it is not a government actor?

No. A diner cannot discriminate by race or gender in serving meals or a bookstore in selling books. However, a private actor is not required to provide freedom of speech. Try handing out pamphlets in a restaurant or mall. Refuse to stop or leave if told to do so. See what happens.

Duke University may be a private institution, but when it holds public events, the rules of the game change.

This is false.

You may not agree with restrictions on freedom of speech held by private parties, but you cannot criticize those who point out facts to you. I do not believe that Duke treated you fairly, only that they did not violate your first amendment rights as you claim.

I researched this question to confirm my understanding before I responded. I suggest that you attempt to determine your accuracy before you imply that others are wrong. You lose credibility when you maintain a position that has been shown to be incorrect.

See the following links (Google to find more links: “first amendment” private):

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

http://randybarnett.com/reinventing.html

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/
topic.aspx?topic=private_property

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/
conlaw/firstamstateaction.htm

I ask that you apologize.

Anonymous said...

Hmm...I've attempted to post a couple of times here -- the post appears to submit, but upon returning to the site, it's gone. What's the problem, Sid?

Anonymous said...

Of course Sid is guilty of solicitation. He's never had a jury declare him otherwise.

Anonymous said...

You have been shown that Duke is not required to support your freedom of speech. They cannot violate your first amendment rights.

You are incorrect in your clai.

You still owe your readers an apology.

Why has it taken you so long to apologize?

Anonymous said...

"Why did it not just admit that it was discriminating against me because I am a Nifong supporter?"

Sidney you discriminate against the innocent Lacrosse players because they are not Nifong supporters

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Duke doesn't get to define solicitation. The law does. Duke decided to interpret solicitation rather selectively. That's their problem. A recurring problem. I might add.

Walt-in-Durham"


I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Hmm...I've attempted to post a couple of times here -- the post appears to submit, but upon returning to the site, it's gone. What's the problem, Sid?"


Hey, Anonymous.

I don't know what problem you may be having. Your current post came through. I would suggest that you copy your comment before submitting, and if it doesn't come through, for whatever reason, you can try re-submitting it.

I've had problems with the post that follows this one, in that I can't get the post to put the blog in paragraphs. I will continue to try to edit it so that the paragraphs appear.

Rest assured that I welcome all comments and do not try to block any.

Anonymous said...

Walt (and Sid) - Duke's Office Of Student Affairs and Activities define solicitation as the following:

"Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."

Sid has never stated (to the best of my knowledge) that he did NOT violate this policy. He has (numerous times) attempted to minimize his actions -- "it was only business cards", "it was only a website".

I view this as the equivalent of a speeder stating "I was only going X miles over the speed limit".

FWIW, every college/university I am familiar with has a similar policy. Do you feel they also do not get to define solicitation?

Anonymous said...

In re: my previous post...That should have been "Duke's Office of Student Activities & Facilities (OSAF)"

Anonymous said...

Sid,

When are you going to apologize? It is not that hard. Why has it taken you so long?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Walt (and Sid) - Duke's Office Of Student Affairs and Activities define solicitation as the following:

'Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.'

Sid has never stated (to the best of my knowledge) that he did NOT violate this policy. He has (numerous times) attempted to minimize his actions -- 'it was only business cards', 'it was only a website'.

I view this as the equivalent of a speeder stating 'I was only going X miles over the speed limit'.

FWIW, every college/university I am familiar with has a similar policy. Do you feel they also do not get to define solicitation?"


Even by the strictest and most ambiguous of definitions of the word "solicitation," by giving my business card to someone on Duke's campus and inviting them to visit my website is not solicitation. I was definitely not peddling a product, a service, or an event. And issues related to Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case are matters regarding the legal justice system and conversation about it should be embraced by the Duke University School of Law and not restricted.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Where's your apology?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid,

Where's your apology?"


There is no apology forthcoming regarding this issue. I will not apologize because I do not feel I owe one. An apology that is not heartfelt, I believe is meaningless. So I will not submit and give you a meaningless apology. You should appreciate that.

To specify, do you think that I would want to force an apology from Duke University for discriminating against me? NO. I would graciously accept an apology from Duke if it was not forced, however.

Robert said...

"The Duke Lacrosse team members had a shady background when it came to legal matters to begin with"

No mention of Magnum's background - too funny. Bad backgrounds can only be used to make YOUR point, I guess (whatever the hell that may be. You are the last deckhand on the titanic at this point).

Oh by the way while I was typing this, Magnum got arrested again. Lets get her another scholarship!

Anonymous said...

"I was definitely not peddling a product, a service, or an event...."

Right, Sid....An organization who's stated purpose on their website is to persuade the NC state bar to "unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate (Mike Nifong's) license" does not meet your definition of providing a service....Calling that statement moronic is an insult to morons.