Thursday, November 16, 2006

Legal Analysis by Thomas J. Crowley, Esq.

As Liestoppers observed yesterday, Duke professor Thomas Crowley has penned an op-ed in the Herald-Sun, in recent weeks Duke faculty members’ home away from home. The professor expressed concern “at the number of letter writers . . . who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out before even it goes to trial.”

Crowley, whose academic training is in geology and whose research speciality is earth systems science, then proceeded to produce a column that combined errors of fact derived from insufficient knowledge about the case with a faulty legal analysis flowing, presumably, from his own lack of legal qualifications.

(Crowley, it’s worth noting, just completed a three-year term as a member of Duke’s Committee on Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion—meaning that he cast a vote on every Duke tenure decision during the past three years.)

Crowley’s central argument, based on law and evidence, revolved around a claim that “items [exist] about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case.”

On the pages of the Herald-Sun, the earth systems science professor offered three claims of fact that I hadn’t previously seen, so I e-mailed him to ask about his evidence.

1.) Crowley asserted that the lacrosse team “had a previously established history of rowdiness tarnished with racial comments.” [emphasis added]

The Coleman Committee, however, uncovered no evidence “that the cohesiveness of this group is either racist or sexist,” and said that its investigation showed that the players’ conduct before March 13 “has not involved fighting, sexual assault or harassment, or racist behavior.”

Crowley subsequently informed me: [original all caps]

THIS [claim] WAS BASED ON A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE DUKE STUDENT NEWSPAPER BY AN AFRICAN AMERICAN I BELIEVE SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE NEWS BROKE. IT MADE A NUMBER OF CHARGES ABOUT RACIAL SLURS.

I searched the archives of the Duke Chronicle and could find no such letter. In any event, it seems to me extraordinary that a professor would disregard the conclusions of a faculty investigation and instead rely on his recollection of a months-old alleged student letter to publicly testify that students at his own school had a “previously established history” of “racial comments.”

2.) Crowley stated that “one of the accused had been previously arrested for anti-gay comments.”

I know of no location in the country—even Mike Nifong’s Durham—where someone can be “arrested for anti-gay comments.” Certainly no one involved in this case was “arrested for anti-gay comments.”

3.) Crowley charged that “defense lawyers continue to make inappropriate public comments about the accuser to the point of blackening her name to the potential jurors. These lawyers are continuing to manipulate the law and the public, yet they are being criticized by virtually no one.”

This is an extraordinarily serious allegation—a claim that some of the state’s finest lawyers have engaged in unethical conduct and are attempting to “manipulate the law and the public.” I asked Crowley for evidence to substantiate his charge: [original all caps]

I DON’T HAVE POINT BY POINT DOCUMENTATION ON THIS. ALL I KNOW IS THAT, EVEN THOUGH I DON’T FOLLOW THE LOCAL NEWS VERY CLOSELY I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED HOW OFTEN I HAVE SEEN ONE OF THE LAWYERS (A BEARDED ONE) MAKING SOME STATEMENT. ONE OF THEM EVEN HAD AN OPINION PIECE IN THE HERALD SUN YESTERDAY.

The only mention of the accuser in the Herald-Sun column penned by Joseph Cheshire (who wears a goatee, and thus presumably was the abovementioned “BEARDED ONE”) was the following: “Justice is not done in any criminal prosecution when a DA who assumes the role of chief factual investigator and does not bother to talk with the chief prosecuting witness about her allegations to assess her credibility.”

I assume Crowley wouldn’t consider that sentence to constitute “inappropriate public comments about the accuser to the point of blackening her name to the potential jurors.” And while defense attorneys have released police reports showing that the accuser gave varying accounts of her story, I can’t imagine that even Crowley would consider this information to constitute “blackening” the accuser’s name—unless, of course, he’s suggesting that these police accounts were untrue.

There have been, of course, many newspaper and television reports that have cast serious doubt on the accuser’s veracity and integrity. Yet newspapers or TV networks aren’t “defense lawyers.”

Again, it seems to me extraordinary that a professor would level such serious allegations against attorneys representing three of his institution’s students without performing even a rudimentary check to determine whether his allegations had any merit.

---------

While ignoring the mountain of evidence that does exist, Crowley seemed particularly excised about evidence that does not. “Why,” he asked Herald-Sun readers, “are photographs available before and after the alleged event, but not during it?”

Crowley has the scientific expertise: I do not. But it’s my understanding that laws of space, time, and motion make it difficult to photograph an “alleged event.” If an “event” didn’t occur, it’s hard to see how anyone could photograph it.

The earth systems science professor stated in the Herald-Sun that he had “no preconditioned preference for whether the accused were guilty or not.” He also told me to “NOTE THAT I DON’T THINK THE ACCUSED ARE NECESSARILY GUILTY.” [emphasis added] But asking why photographs don’t exist of an “alleged event” strikes me as a pretty strong indication of what direction Crowley leans.

Crowley also wondered why the accuser was “sober when she arrived and staggering to the point of passing out a mere 30 minutes later? Was she possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink? If so, what were their motives?”

Of course, after stalling on the item for several months, Nifong recently conceded that a toxicology report done by the state was negative. Crowley responded: [original all caps]

I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOXICOLOGY REPORT.

Yet again, it seems to me extraordinary that a professor would publicly suggest that a student or students at his own institution could have used a date-rape drug without checking as to whether the state had performed a toxicology test; and, if so, what results that test produced.

He added, [original all caps]

I STILL THINK GOING FROM APPEARING SOBER TO BEING DROP DEAD PASSING OUT IN A MATTER OF A HALF AN HOUR SEEMS VERY STRANGE.

But what Crowley finds “very strange” few others do: as Kathleen Eckelt has repeatedly pointed out, the accuser’s acknowledged use of Flexeril and alcohol explains her erratic behavior, while Tuesday’s N&O revealed that two nights before the lacrosse party, the accuser was exhibiting the same “very strange” behavior. I assume Crowley wouldn’t contend that the accuser was also given a date-rape drug several nights before at the strip club.

While Crowley went out of his way to condemn both the players and their attorneys—even if he had to invent facts to do so—he took a far more charitable approach when analyzing the conduct of Mike Nifong. Indeed, he affirmed that he was “hesitant to be totally critical of Nifong’s response.” Why? As Crowley stated in the Herald-Sun, “I could not say for sure if I too might have been swept away by all that was happening.”

The earth systems science professor concluded his Herald-Sun opus by revealing his motives: he wanted to counter the efforts of “a group of lawyers and advocates who seem to be doing their best to confuse the public.”

Some might argue that the only people “doing their best to confuse the public” are Nifong and Crowley.

---------

As with Grant Farred’s “phantom insights,” in one respect Crowley’s musings are almost comical, the latest manifestation of a Duke faculty member’s detachment from the reality of Mike Nifong’s Durham.

But in another, more significant, respect, Crowley’s op-ed is deeply disturbing. At a time when Nifong’s factual case is collapsing, and evidence of his procedural misconduct grows by the day, Duke professors seem to have no problem in going public with even with wildest and most unsubstantiated allegations to continue their condemnation of the lacrosse players.

Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook opens with the following passage:
Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.
Can anyone seriously maintain that the columns of Farred or Crowley—or various other actions and statements by the Group of 88—conform to this standard?

105 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can Duke fire professors for embarrassing the university on issues of competence, logic and general intelligence? This guy obviously hasn't closely followed the case, but feels free to send his ill-informed opinions to a newspaper, although that term should be used loosely when describing Ashley's Paxton Media-owned publication.

Anonymous said...

Methinks Professor Crowley's use of all caps indicates that he is:

1) not at all amused by being questioned

2) embarrassed by the incredible ignorance of the facts he's demonstrated

3) convinced that by talking louder he'll take command of the argument

WHAT A FOOL!!!! I want a refund of four years's tuition if it helped pay his salary.

Anonymous said...

A bearded one? One would think Professor Crowley might at least try to find out names of defense lawyers before making his allegations, but I guess not.

mtwain said...

Is Crowley a real professor, or is this a parody?

KC Johnson said...

This isn't a parody . . .

Anonymous said...

How satisfying it is to see this malicious ass struggling for air!

Anonymous said...

Crowley of course is very real.

Anonymous said...

Kc you are just angry a duke professor and not a black potbanger is saying something anti-Lax team and anti-defense. like the durham voters who elected nifong, he has realised that the defense strategy is to blacken the stripper's name and try the case in the media instead of the court room where it belongs and he is exposing the strategy. no wonder you are so upset as this refutes your contention on here that only durham blacks bent on revenge can think this way. this is not a potbanger who can easily be dismissed and his op ed piece is very threatening to your view of this case.

Anonymous said...

Is this last post a parody?

Anonymous said...

Nope, that's real too.

Anonymous said...

At least we should acknowledge the alleged professor Crowley and poster 1:14 for bringing a little comic relief to this awful case.

Joe T. said...

I have no education whatsoever, but I think both Crowley and Anonymous 1:14 are parodies. They sound like characters created by "South Park" writers.

Anonymous said...

THE BEARDED ONE????

I haven't laughed this hard in ages...

Anonymous said...

Coming from a professor who publishes such global warming rubbish as his wildly inaccurate 1000 year temperature model, Crowley's comments about the Duke lacrosse case are EXACTLY what I would expect.

If Crowley is willing to make up "facts" to fit his global warming agenda, why should he not do the same to fit some other agenda?

Anonymous said...

You'd think a Duke professor would take the time to learn a few facts about the case before shooting off an op-ed to the Herald-Sun, but I guess Crowley is content to just SIT BACK AND MAKE A BUNCH OF ERRONEOUS CLAIMS AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS. I guess the Herald-Sun is content to print them too.

Anonymous said...

The only bright spot in this is that Farred and Crowley would be automatically dismissed from the jury pool because of their documented (and demented) prejudicial attitudes towards the case. To think that these clowns, or those like them, are part of the potential jury pool in Durham is disturbing on so many fronts. Add the 1:14 poster to the mix and it's clear this pool desperately needs a life-guard!

Anonymous said...

KC, a typo that should be fixed -- The Coleman Committee, however, uncovered no evidence “that the cohesiveness of this group is Neither racist or sexist,”

Anonymous said...

KC, nevermind, it was my own poor reading skills before coffee.

Anonymous said...

In any criminal case, if the ONLY source of accusations comes from a single accuser, I think that it is important to establish whether or not the assuser's testimony is credible.

In the Duke case, the accuser's credibility DOES NOT REST on her race, occupation, or even his own personal and criminal history.

Instead, the credibility rests upon whether or not the facts as they are constructed fit the story. We have seen that they do not.

To challenge the accuser's tale is not to "blacken" her name. When we are told by police and prosecutor that the woman was so badly injured she could not stand up, yet she is doing pole dancing at the same time, goes to the heart of credibility. From DNA tests to timelines to the way the IDs were made, this goes to the HEART of credibility.

What I find interesting is that any attempt to say that the accuser is lying always is seen to be a RACIST act. It is not. The truth is the truth, whether the person is black or white.

In the UT-Chattanooga case, the accuser was white and accused were black, but the defense effectively demonstrated that the sex was consensual. This was not "racism" against a white female. It simply was a presentation of the truth.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

What could have been his motivation? He states that he is tired of regular people (citizens) commenting on a legal case. Isn't that called freedom of speech?
Following his logic, no one can comment on anything in which they are not expert. No one can comment on, for example, earth warming trends.
KC, shut down this blog. No one write any more letters to the editor. Stop discussing this case immediately. Prof. Crowley is tired of it and you might confuse someone. I'm going to alert the media to cease coverage until the trial. No one can mention anything negative about the accuser because we don't want to blacken her reputation. Her reputation is very important to her and she has taken great care to protect her reputation and not bring shame to herself, her family, and her community. Can someone call the Platinum Club and tell the management and employees to stop talking about the accuser?
And poor Mr. Nifong. He was just swept up. It can happen. When one is swept up, it's so easy to set aside little things like investigations, following line up procedures, telling the truth. When prosecutors get swept up the only antidote is to follow through with a trial that puts three kids' lives on hold and diverts public resources from other crimes.
Now, we can say anthing we want about the Duke students. They don't deserve to have their reputations considered.
Finally, how does Prof. Crowley know that there aren't any pictures during the time when the alleged rape occurred? Maybe the bearded one showed him all the pictures and so he knows with certainty that none exist. Oh wait, there are pictures during the time when the alleged rape occurred. They are of Seligman...at an ATM.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly,

Grant Farred's comments, although convoluted and simplistic, apply to Crowly and the anonymous poster. The "phantom call" is of course the charges used to challenge the "body" of "imperialism", namely Duke University and its wealthy white succesful studentsl The "phantom call" against the "best player" and (not incidentally) the engine of economic growth for the entire area including the research triangle park, is a reflection of underlying racism and resentment.

Maybe I should publish an article.


Seriously, though, it is hard to day after day listen to more inane comments. To think that Crowly would take the time to publish an article without any research and without even knowing the names of the lawyers and while admitting that he did not follow it closely and disregarding his own facult colleague can only be explained as outright class and race hatred.

As to the anonymous poster relying upon Crowley's view of the case: simple question. When and how did this alleged crime occur.

The Dude said...

Good point on the ATM photo. I would like to know what photos were taken by the partygoers and what photos were confiscated by the Pros./Police. Have they all been turned over to the Defense team as required by LAW?This Prof. Crowley seems like a real moron. He is upset because unqualified persons comment on the matter yet is less qualified himself than all the commenters. He is unprepared also which means he wasn't even smart enough to keep his mouth shut on a subject he obviously knows -ZIP_!

emmy said...

KC, all I can say is, WOW!! That was ugly for Mr. Crowley! No wonder he was "shouting" at you! Thank you, thank you, Thank You, for all the hard work you have done in exposing this hoax, as well as all the people who desperately want the Dukies to be railroaded right into prison...

Anonymous said...

I have emailed Professor Crowley requesting an apology, with a copy of that email being sent to Duke President Brodhead. I attached a copy of K. C. Johnson's excellent rebuttal.

I would like to suggest that others also contact Crowley and Brodhead with their reaction to Crowley's reckless behavior.

Professor Crowley:
tcrowley@duke.edu

President Brodhead
president@duke.edu

Anonymous said...

I nominate Professor Crowley to be Inspector DA's assistant. Their underlying assumption is that the facts are not relevant.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Cowley's letter states that the case should to to trial because "The Duke lacrosse players were not angels." Only angels are allowed due process. Glad he cleared that up.

Anonymous said...

Not being flip, but the "sourcing" Crowley did for his letter would have earned an "F" if done similarly for a paper in any class I attended while at Duke.

Is this the level of scholarship and critical thinking allowed at the University now ?

If yes, the current students and recent grads should be entitled to a refund !

Anonymous said...

Crowley's letter and response is funny at first glance but after further review it is just pathetic. He started out his letter by claiming that the people who want the case to be dropped are "uninformed". He is so out of the loop that he didn't realize that "these people" have followed every minute detail of this case, and he is the one that isn't just uninformed but completely ignorant of the facts. I guess that's not enough to prevent him from expressing this opinion, which in light of his email response to KC now just looks moronic. He should apologize. I also thought his email responses looked like a parody when I first read them.
But then I remembered, this is Durham, and it's real.

Brad Davis said...

As a former adjunct prof myself, it's no surprise to me that faculty members like Crowley appear to speak (or, in this case, write) in the absence of facts. Outside the empirical sciences, there is no imperative to "prove" anything in the university (this applies to a lesser extent even to so-called social sciences like Anthropology). Now I see that we can add some "hard" sciences like "earth systems science" to the mix; although perhaps it makes more sense simply to move it over to the social sciences side of the rhetorical equation, since apparently the political agendas of its practitioners inform outcomes more than empiricism.

In my experience, many professors functioning within the confines of the academy are unused to direct confrontation, and simply don't have the skills to handle it. They fall back on relativism when confronted with hard "facts" -- which, in their opinions, are social constructs anyway. Ideas of truth and fairness are also relative, which explains why many professors whose lives are devoted to revealing inequities of class, race, and gender can't bring themselves to identify with the problems of white males, no matter how obviously wronged.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord...

Does Duke only hire morons???

Sundayjack said...

Stupid question: Why, if a man of science and academia is going to publish something for public consumption, would he not take the effort to fact-check his work? That's what he does. Firemen put out fires, street sweepers sweep streets, and Crowley researches, logs, reports, and teaches facts.

President Brodhead should be concerned; not because one of his faculty is expressing an opinion, but because one of his faculty has taken the extraordinary step of writing a letter to the editor, and cared not to take the extra time to see that his work was factually correct. The next logical question is: Just what kind of teacher or researcher is this man? And, that's a Duke problem, not a Crowley one.

Anonymous said...

The pathetic lack of reasoning shown by the Despicable 88 and now by an actual science professor should be deeply embarassing to anyone who cares about Duke University. Previous poster is correct to ask: Does Duke hire only morons? The idiot Crowley has been serving on the tenure committee? Not good. If Broadhead was not such a despicable ninny and weasel himself, he'd recognize a basic problem with the culture at Duke and seek to address that rather than hire a p.r. firm. (with our contributions!) He could start by standing up for the Duke Three and condemning Nifong's outrageous behavior. If the Board of Trustees can't make that happen, they should all resign as well. This entire episode is quicksand and could have been avoided altogether with some moral leadership on the part of Broadhead, trustees, and administration. I believe the boys would be free and Nifong out of office had the simpering Broadhead done anything other than to attempt play the situation as a town gown public relations challenge. sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

Duke shouldn't fire this guy.Anyone with his level of intellect would be on welfare .Keep him where he is.

james wilson said...

It is no secret the Federal Government keeps statistics on everything, includiing no doubt what they have no business being involved in. Yet they have one useful one we are not hearing about. Yearly rape statistics. White men do not rape black women.In the year 2000, not even once. Where is Al Sharpton when you need him? Since rapist are criminals, and especialy unrehabilatable criminals, we may say even white criminals will not rape black women. I suppose that would be a point of joy or insult, depending on your point of view, but I don't suppose it should be spoken of lest some become insulted. So I won't.

Anonymous said...

As I stated yesterday I can think of only two words to describe "Professor" Crowley:

"Blooming Idiot".

Nothing in his reply to KC changes my thoughts regarding him. Sad, sad, sad that Duke U. has sunk to such a low level.

Anonymous said...

While I believe Crowley's opinion piece to be spectacularly ill-informed, irresponsible, and inapporpriate for a Duke professor, I'd like to point out that at LEAST he appears willing to enter into an email dialogue and consider facts that don't support his point of view. No, Crowley doesn't change his opinions immediately after being presented with the truth, but you can't really blame him for that--I don't think any of us would be able to instantly switch opinions if someone showed us convincing evidence contradicting our deeply-held beliefs. After years of being steeped in the hyperpolitical "truth doesn't matter" atmosphere of the Duke liberal arts faculty and the Group of 88, to even respond in a non-vitriolic manner to Prof. Johnson's email is probably an achievement in openmindedness. Compare his response to the ignored emails and hostile responses of other Group of 88 members (Holloway and Wood spring to mind), and you'll see what I mean.

ed said...

Hmmm.

1. Anyone who uses all caps in communicating is an unmitigated ass.

2. If this passes for logic in a senior professorship at Duke then I'm in the wrong business.

EC said...

James Wilson's comment on 10:22 cannot be reinforced enough. Even though it is off topic to this thread, apologies to all, and we need to maintain our sights on this specific travesty, one cannot ignore this very, very interesting fact of criminal stats. That being that the frequency of white male to black female rape stats are so, so low that the crime is virtually nonexistent. Another nail in the coffin pertaining to the agenda riddled hypocrisy of the Marxist 88 (and counting).

Anonymous said...

10:22 James Wilson

I said precisely that on Court TV and I was called KKK. Of course there are always exceptions, but statistics prove that rapes of black women are perfomed by black men. Most crime is intra-racial.

duke09parent said...

Crowley's point about Finnerty's gay bashing is a remnant of the early reports of the D.C. incident being a gay bashing. Since Crowley was so "tired" of reading about it he failed to notice in follow up reports that the so-called victim in that case wasn't gay and the incident had nothing to do with homophobia. Collin may have called the guy a "faggot" but as offensive as the use of that term may be to some it isn't criminal nor was it a basis for the petty assault charge. I confess I heard the early reports, too and had a bad impression of Collin until the truth of that incident came out.

Mr. Wilson, I've heard or read reference to the FBI stats on rape and race before. Can you give us a reference? Is it convictions only? It might be valid criticism of such a stat that it might well be harder in this country to convict a white man of raping a black woman than the other way around.

gc said...

8:51

I agree with you what you wrote. It would appear to be that some of these Duke Professors have spent too many years living in a liberal vacumn. They are out of touch with reality.

On the other hand, take a professor such a Coleman. He is out there beyond the campus walls. He is working on developing guidelines for the Innocence Project. He is trying to help someone on death row from getting executed.

You see more reality from a professor teaching a business course in an evening class to commuter students. Those professor are out in the real world.

Meanwhile, if Duke professors are going to write in the newspapers, they really should sent their best writers to write something intelligent and supported by facts. Then we might respect their efforts. But for now Dukies I really have not been impressed with the quality of the writing of some of these people. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

I believe Cash Michaels made a claim in one of his articles that there has NEVER been a white man convicted of raping a black woman in the history of the U.S. I remember it because it seemed totally unbelievable to me. His point was that racist juries won't CONVICT a white man of raping a black woman. Regardless of the explanation, I don't think it is a statistic that can help with the Duke case. I find it impossible to believe that white rapists would never choose a black woman to rape. It might actually be that the women are reluctant to come forward because they don't think they'll get fair treatment.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Perhaps this Professor was raised by a Cargo Cult.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:25 says:


I believe Cash Michaels made a claim in one of his articles that there has NEVER been a white man convicted of raping a black woman in the history of the U.S. I remember it because it seemed totally unbelievable to me. His point was that racist juries won't CONVICT a white man of raping a black woman. Regardless of the explanation, I don't think it is a statistic that can help with the Duke case. I find it impossible to believe that white rapists would never choose a black woman to rape. It might actually be that the women are reluctant to come forward because they don't think they'll get fair treatment.


If he did he was probably only repeating the claims of that lawyer who was disbarred over the Tawana Brawley hoax.

Anonymous said...

most crime is "intraracial"--WRONG--check FBI crime stats--black criminals prefer white victims (white criminals also prefer white victims)

re rape stats--what the poster really wanted to point out, though it is a taboo subject, is that white men (and asian men) find black women unattractive

Here's the real deal, folks: if this case goes to trial, prosecution has a good chance of prevailing because of black juries' tendency (cf OJ trial) to nullify

bon voyage, boys!

ec said...

12:25,

I find it impossible to believe that white rapists would never choose a black woman to rape. It might actually be that the women are reluctant to come forward because they don't think they'll get fair treatment.

Numbers do not lie. If it was such an epidemic, it would have been exposed one way or another. What you are experiencing is an assault on your preconceived biases. The same ones that I had when I was nearly floored when finding out that men are just a likely to be victims of domestic violence as women. When domestic violence was looked at critically, the numbers told a much different story than what was "assumed" to be the case. Same for these rape cases. We know that black women report rapes because there is a number that signifies rapes by black men against black women. Why would they hold their tongues against white rapists? They would not is the answer.


1:35,

I'm sorry, however most crime IS intra-racial. That is most blacks experience crime from other blacks and most whites experience crime from other whites. I think what you are trying to say is that most INTER-racial crime is black on white with a very small percentage being white on black. I believe the stats on that are 8 or 9 to 1.

Anonymous said...

To whatever extent anonymous 1:35 is correct, it is mostly because there are many more potential white victims than there are potential black victims. There are 5 or 6 times as many whites as blacks, and (for crimes like robbery) whites on average make more lucrative victims.

Crimes where the criminal knows the victim are usually intraracial, because our society is socially still largely segregated. Rapes tend to fit this category. Robberies tend not to.

duke09parent said...

Come on, ec, "Numbers do not lie"? You know the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

I haven't been too worried about jury nullification producing a conviction in this case because it's a lot harder to get 12 jurors to go against the evidence and law to convict than to acquit. A hung jury is a distinct possibility, however, and might be Nifong's wet dream.

Anonymous said...

To 2:07,
Recent U.S. census shows approximately 200 million whites and approximately 39 million blacks in the US...so your estimated ratio would be fairly close.

Anonymous said...

I think Nifong's dream--wet or otherwise--would be for this thing to somehow quietly go away without attracting much attention to himself. If he had any brains what-so-ever, he would make a clandestine call to the AG or the Gov and suggest they appoint another prosecutor. That would get him off the hook without the legal backlash he may face if he just drops the cae.

Anonymous said...

The comment by anonymous 1:35 that both black and white criminals prefer white victims reminds me of a WSJ column of a few years back that said that both college graduates and non-graduates now preferred to marry college graduates, whereas 60 years ago both groups preferred to marry non-graduates.

It seemed to escape the WSJ columnist's notice that the preference for college graduates went up as the number of college graduates went up.

Anonymous said...

true, interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white (85%, to be precise), but if you examine stats re, eg, black rapists' preference for white women, it gets scary--i highly suggest everyone visit lagriffedulion.com (it was favorably referred to in charles murray's brilliant essay, "the inequality taboo)--one essay on this subject brilliantly demonstrates how fast a white person may become a crime victim as blacks move into the neighborhood--i also recommend the philosopher michael levin's suppressed masterpiece, "why race matters"--let's face it, sports fans, the duke 3 are victims of a vicious black predator--i saw the "60 Minutes" piece (it sucked, by the way): these guys are not doug flutie--12 black jurors could easily convict these kids

Anonymous said...

true, interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white (85%, to be precise), but if you examine stats re, eg, black rapists' preference for white women, it gets scary--i highly suggest everyone visit lagriffedulion.com (it was favorably referred to in charles murray's brilliant essay, "the inequality taboo)--one essay on this subject brilliantly demonstrates how fast a white person may become a crime victim as blacks move into the neighborhood--i also recommend the philosopher michael levin's suppressed masterpiece, "why race matters"--let's face it, sports fans, the duke 3 are victims of a vicious black predator--i saw the "60 Minutes" piece (it sucked, by the way): these guys are not doug flutie--12 black jurors could easily convict these kids

Anonymous said...

"I haven't been too worried about jury nullification producing a conviction in this case because it's a lot harder to get 12 jurors to go against the evidence and law to convict than to acquit. A hung jury is a distinct possibility, however, and might be Nifong's wet dream."

I hope and pray that you are right. But, remember, that these people have to go back to their "community" (Durham) after the trial.

Anonymous said...

"go back to their community" is just a PC way of saying that blacks, on average, despise whites, and, on average, they are not good citizens

can anyone begin to imagine what the US would be like if it were half black?

Anonymous said...

Durham is half black, and no, I could not have imagined what we are now witnessing.

EC said...

duke09parent,

Come on, ec, "Numbers do not lie"? You know the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

I agree that statistics can be manipulated so that they can fit into an agenda. We are dealing with numbers that are from the FBI and DOJ and are available for all to see and so the numbers are not wrong but their collection and categorization may be what is wrong. I do not want to get into this too deeply only because it is way off topic from the original post. However, I am certain that crime statistics are something that are an open sore for the government, federally down to state. I also have it on impeccable authority that these numbers are teased to be presented in the "most favorable" light. The most favorable light is, in our current PC situation, where Whites are meant to be seen as criminally prone as possible in order for the "crime gap" to narrow. If anything, the numbers ARE biased but biased against Whites. I cannot divulge my "authority", though Google may be able to help if you care to research it.

north9 said...

I really do not like the direction this discussion is headed. To ignore the racial implications of this case would be silly, but some of the broad racial claims that I've seen in several of the posts are very disturbing.

I don't claim to have researched any of the statistics regarding rape in the Unites States, but the assumption that no white man has raped a black woman is absurd. Perhaps the White/Black rape ratio is disproportionate, perhaps not. I don't know, but I do believe that focusing on it is a mistake and really has no place here. To point to this statistic as a reason why the claim of rape in this case is untrue is misleading and dangerously inciteful. And to lump it with all the other evidence pointing to that conclusion could only undermine or taint that evidence as being racist.

Again, I don't know whether the statistics involved here are accurate or not, but I really don't see them serving a purpose here other than to further drive a racial wedge here - which already has proven to be the biggest obstacle to justice being seen in this farce of a case.

Now let's get back to ripping on Crowley.

Anonymous said...

There is a simple explanation for anonymous 2:32's "quite scary" statistics on "black rapists' preference for white women".

If a black woman is discovered to be having a secret affair with a white man, the repercussions are typically minor. She has little incentive to yell rape.

But many a white woman has yelled rape when found out in a secret affair with a black man, to keep from being ostracized or worse by her "friends" and family.

loki on the run said...

Anon idiot says:


There is a simple explanation for anonymous 2:32's "quite scary" statistics on "black rapists' preference for white women".

If a black woman is discovered to be having a secret affair with a white man, the repercussions are typically minor. She has little incentive to yell rape.

But many a white woman has yelled rape when found out in a secret affair with a black man, to keep from being ostracized or worse by her "friends" and family.


There's an even simpler explanation. The original claim is simply wrong. Go look at the DoJ victimization statistics (surveys). You will find that:

a. For rapes of black females, the race of the perp is the inverse of what you would expect, with black males being the perp in some 80% of the cases.

b. For rapes of white females, the race of the perp is pretty close to what you would expect, with black males being only about 18% (blacks make up about 12.6% of the US population).

Anonymous said...

After reading all of this "junk" by the Duke professors, I once again felt compelled to write President Broadhead. These are the people that are making such a joke out of what we once thought was a great university. I am at home dying at the thought that 2 of my children could have any of these idiots teaching them at this very moment.

Anonymous said...

I'm with North9--this race discussion is very troubling to me. And I agree it can only serve the purpose of driving a wedge deeper, and it will cause people to label this site as racist.

Let's keep the discussion on topics that actually relate to the case.

Anonymous said...

"racial wedge"--baby, let's get serious for a second--the entire backstory of this case is RACIAL: blacks think whitey's getting over and vice versa--part of what makes this story so juicy is the fact that we can comment on the taboo aspects, unlike the mainstream media--what's the fun of talking about mediocrities like crowley? it's like being forced to watch a spike lee movie (thank you sir, can i have another?)

what this "case" is really about is how dangerous it is for whites and asians to live among a morally corrupt underclass--THAT'S THE WHOLE STORY

the rest is just BS--like tawana, like OJ

duke09parent said...

If this string hasn't petered out I want to ask Professors Johnson and Anderson a question about university governance, and these are NOT rhetorical questions. I have my impressions as a past student (ugrad and professional school) and parent (x2), but you guys are in the system.

What power does a university president have to discpline tenured faculty members for unprofessional conduct as we have seen in this case? Is it as a bully pulpit only or does his office really have some power to enforce handbook rules on faculty?

Anonymous said...

Duke09parent--Great question. I hope KC answers. I suspect the president's power to discipline is minimal....

TombZ said...

Brodhead always has the bully pulpit, if he chooses to avail himself.

He might not want to suffer the consequences (see Larry Summers of Harvard), but then no one in Academia is interested in criticism unless they are the ones "constructing" the criticism.

I don't think we will EVER hear anyone at Duke, in Durham's legal system or the community political leadership say "I was wrong" about any part of this case.

I hope I do hear that. Then I'll have to say "I was wrong". I regretfully don't expect to, though.

EC said...

North9 and Anon 5:19,

I agree that the racial crime statistics are off topic for this post and have apologized in the past for my participation. However I have to disagree with both of you and your "sensitive" nature regarding these same crime statistics. First, I suggest you familiarize yourselves with them and decide if they are "true or not". I guarantee they are true. Though MORE importantly to me is that these crime stats are simply the SAME PROBLEM in regards to the Duke Rape Hoax. Meaning that it involves Black animosity towards Whites. This Duke Hoax is being perpetuated thanks to Black animosity and "past crimes". Three innocent boys may go to prison to atone for the sins of slavery, or so the thought process goes. That is why Nifong is still in office and why he beat Freda Black to begin with. That is why people like Cash Michaels write the things they do and not the truth. That is why people want to "go to trial so we can hear all the evidence". That is why some Blacks have voiced that they do not care about facts.

The crime stats indicate this same sort of animosity, though with the criminally prone portion of the Black population. Hence the huge discrepancy in the INTER-racial crime stats. Blacks attack Whites due to perpetuated hatred and past sins. Whites do not do that, or more accurately do not do that nowhere near the frequency. These two topics are the same thing just different points on the same continuum. You cannot focus on one and ignore the other. In my opinion.

KC Johnson said...

As to the question:

"What power does a university president have to discpline tenured faculty members for unprofessional conduct as we have seen in this case? Is it as a bully pulpit only or does his office really have some power to enforce handbook rules on faculty?"

Obviously, yes, he has the bully pulpit--and Brodhead's silence is defeaning, here.

There are other remedies as well:

Raises at most private universities (I don't know Duke's structure, but do know comparable universities, Harvard and Williams) are discretionary, at authority of the department chair and/or the provost. So raises could either be withheld or reduced for faculty members who violated the handbook guidelines.

There are lots of ways that informal pressure could be applied--i.e., the administration could make it clear that it will consider whether a department has members who have flagrantly violated the handbook guidelines in awarding new positions, or in the granting of other discretionary funding to the department.

And, finally, in serious situations, disciplinary proceedings could be convened that could lead to the suspension or dismissal of even a tenured professor for violating the handbook standards. The bar here, of course, is very high. But at Brooklyn College for instance, a tenured professor was fired two years ago in part for violating the Handbook provisions dealing with students.

KC Johnson said...

It's worth remembering that the most articulate critic of Nifong has been James Coleman an African-American; the person who might win the award for the most courageous of the case is an Afican immigrant, Moez Elmostafa; and two African-American co-workers of the accuser came forth to give critical testimony despite having no incentive to do so.

This case, of course, has revealed the moral bankruptcy of Durham's Black leadership and the state NAACP; and the susceptibility of Durham's African-American voters to race-baiting demagoguery from Nifong. But I'm leery of going any further than these two points on racial analysis.

Anonymous said...

Here are some questions:
1. Why did Mike Nifong fire Freda Black?
2. What is the process for taking complaints about this case to the Federal level?

Just curious.

The Dude said...

ot

Prof. KC Can you do a post running down the evidence the prosecutor has turned over. We have heard thousands of documents. For the time being we could use a good discussion on the general aspects of the discovery. i know the defense is probably not revealing everything but this could be a start. As an example 'the camera phones". What was taken by the Pros. and what was turned over? Where any of the three charged players in any photos earlier than the alleged incident? did the player with the alleged mustache "prove by photo that he didn't have a mustache that night?"
Seems the little things are what is going to screw Nifong. Hopefully your site and others will help vet some points the defense lawyers may have overlooked.
Thanks and keep up the terrific work.

Anonymous said...

the faculty problem, and how to solve it:

1. abolish affirmative action
2. abolish racial, ethnic and gender studies (low iq studies)
3. install elderly geniuses from the private sector who have proverbial cojones
4. after the above have been implemented, don't be intimidated by the diversity pimps: Sorry Professor Baker, you're quite stupid--try insurance

Yours truly,

Jim Clyne

Anonymous said...

"go back to their community" is just a PC way of saying that blacks, on average, despise whites, and, on average, they are not good citizens."

No, there will be white people on the jury too. Maybe a few potbangers and Trinity Park residents will slip past the defense? The point is, everyone on the jury will be well-known to everyone in Durham eventually. I wonder if the NBPP will be allowed in the courtroom?

Anonymous said...

Keep nailing all 88 of them to cross KC! There feet must be gettinbg warm.

I'd love to pick there brain to understandingwhat they are thinking as they read this blog.

Do you think the 88 gangsters will issue a mea culpa if these students are found innocent?

RM PAM

huesofblue said...

I fully agree with north9. Statistical evidence isn't admissable at trial because it doesn't go to the facts of the case, it's smoke and mirrors.

The statistics are surprising (assuming they're true), but I'm disinclined to draw too many generalizations from them. African Americans are so much lighter than native west africans because rape by whites was rampant during the days of slavery. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure such rapes continued long beyond the end of slavery too. So there is a real history there that African Americans are probably entitled to feel touchy about.

If these attacks have dropped to zero in recent years, it's obviouly a good thing. But I can assure you it's not because white people find black people inherently unattractive (tyra banks didn't make the cover of the SI swimsuit edition as a nod to the forces of PC). I suspect the real reasons involve a combination of self segregationand fear of black people in general, combined with under-reporting.

In any event, it's not relevant here.

Nothing but bad things can come from making this case about race. We've already seen that vividly from Nifong, the group of 88 and the initial reaction of the media. The players have the facts and the law on their side. Generalizations based on race can only distract from that. Leave them for the pot bangers.

Anonymous said...

mr above poster: according to your philosophy, this case is sui generis to duke--it's not

what does that tell you?

Anonymous said...

KC - You are the best. Great writer. Thank you for your interest and help in the case. Obviously, Crowley and other know nothings are looking for their fifteen minutes (seconds) of fame. Clearly these Duke Professors are not in touch with the power of the internet and bloggers, nor expect to be called on their opinions. Keep fighting everyone.

huesofblue said...

9:30

I'm not sure what you're getting at. This case is unique - if it wasn't it would have never garnered the attention it has. Reports of gang rape by elite atheletes at elite universities don't happen often. And false reports of these sorts of crimes are even rarer. Throw in the racial aspects and the prosecutorial misconduct and this case is like nothing I've ever seen.

The racial animosity that this case has brought out is nothing unique, but its intensity is. But fanning the flames of that animosity isn't going to do the players or anyone else much good.

Anonymous said...

American Association of University Professors:
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm
"Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject"
False rape allegations & earth systems science, where's the subject relation?

Anonymous said...

Crowley disgraces the teaching profession, something that at least some of us take seriously. First, he manages to mangle the information, and second, he is arrogant in his ignorance.

The first is bad enough, but the second is inexcusable. The Duke faculty apparently does not have to worry about accountability, at least while Brodhead is at the helm.

Bill Anderson

EC said...

huesofblue,

But fanning the flames of that animosity isn't going to do the players or anyone else much good.

I am not the 9:30 commenter though would like to address your point above. I do not think I, or others here, are fanning the flames. That would be Nifong and his race hustling enablers like the local media and the NAACP that have been fanning those racial animosity flames from the start. From my perspective, it is important to understand the information that is available and why things are the way they are. Ignoring it will never lead to understanding nor solution, in my opinion. Also being afraid to discuss it for fear of being called "racist" is again accepting defeat at the hands of these same race hustlers.

huesofblue said...

EC,

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still think more harm than good is done when a thread gets cluttered with statments like these:

"what this "case" is really about is how dangerous it is for whites and asians to live among a morally corrupt underclass--THAT'S THE WHOLE STORY"

OR

"can anyone begin to imagine what the US would be like if it were half black?"

OR

"what the poster really wanted to point out, though it is a taboo subject, is that white men (and asian men) find black women unattractive"

OR

"... abolish racial, ethnic and gender studies (low iq studies)"

These comments are inflammitory, and reek of not so thinly veiled racism.

Here's my honest opinion about why the Black people of Durham have rallied around Nifong: It's not because they want to see innocent people go to jail, or because they just hate white people with all their hearts. I think the real reasons lie in a deeply rooted distrust of the justice system. I think the OJ and Michael Jackson trials sent a loud and clear message to the Black community that with a good enough lawyer and enough money, you can get away with murder. So it's not surprising that there's significant scepticism about the exculpatory evidence pointing to the players' innocence, when its being offered by high priced defense lawyers. Especially when, in the minds of a lot of black people in Durham, a white prosecutor simply wouldn't go after three rich white kids for no reason. The thought is that Nifong must have something, he's just no match for the well funded defense team.

There's also the fact that black people have been disproportionatly on the receiving end of Nifong style justice for as long as anyone can remeber - especially in the south. While you might think that would make them sympathetic to the Duke three, I think there's a certain sentiment that it's only "fair" for the Duke three to experience the same thing. No one starts a campaign to recall the prosecutor when a weak case is brought against a black defendant. But when there are rich white kids in the line of fire its a totally different story. I think a lot of Black people see that as fundamentally unfair. So even if the players are innocent, they want them to have to prove it at trial the same way a poor black defendant would have to (provided they weren't cajoled into pleading to a lesser crime, which is how most weak cases are ultimately disposed of; especially if the defendant has any criminal past).

I'm aware that there are a lot of major flaws in what I just described, but I think it's more realistic than saying "Blacks just want to get whitey" or implying that every white or asian person in a city with a large black population is in constant danger of a false prosecution. That's just not true. Atlanta and New Orleans are both major cities with huge Black populations. We haven't seen a rash of false prosecutions against whites or black on white hate crimes there. And I doubt we will in the future.

Anonymous said...

To huesofblue,
Those are very good points. We keep hearing about prosecutorial abuse against black defendants. I am certain it happened in the past and may be happening now. I have asked Cash Michaels (who did not respond) and now I ask you for examples of current or recent cases where black defendants have been treated like the Duke Three. I do believe quite a lot of us are intently focused on this case and happily would let other similarly situated defendants share the benefit (to the extent there is any) of our outrage. Someone has to bring these cases to the attention of the public, though, before we can rally on behalf of the unjustly accused. I think we all agree prosecutorial misconduct poisons our justice system and disgusts most citizens.
Although other injustices have no doubt gone unremarked, I am personally not aware of another case in our history that has moved forward on the basis of such flimsy probative evidence and such a volume of exculpatory evidence. Even the dreadful Scottsboro case began with what I would consider much stronger evidence than we currently have against the Duke Three.

Anonymous said...

I could not agree more with the poster from 1:30 AM (even I am in bed at that time). While people have tried to say this case is not about race, that simply is untrue. This case IS about race, and that is what is driving it toward a tragic end.

I would disagree with one point, and that is what was written regarding the desire of people in Durham to see innocent people go to prison. It is my observation that the people there don't care, and if Chan Hall is representative of the attitude there, they would be happy to see innocent people convicted because it would give them a sense of revenge.

How else does one explain the fact that activists there have explained away all of the mountain of exculpatory evidence by employing conspiracy theories? From Victoria Peterson's "they tamped with the DNA" to the claim that the Platinum Club employees all were "paid off" by the defense, we see people who openly are saying that they do not wish to be confused with facts.

Furthermore, if the accuser were naming black men as the "rapists," I suspect that most if not all of the blacks in Durham would see through the lies that have been told.

So, unless I am convinced otherwise, it is my contention that the people there would be all-too-happy to see innocent people incarcerated, as long as it fit their views of revenge.

I do understand the sense of resentment, from the recall election to the fact that all of the defendants were able to post $400,000 bond.

(It is a good thing they did, because I am positive that Nifong would have tried to employ the "jumping on the bus" tactic, in which a defendant is placed in a cell with someone else. Later, that person testifies in court that the defendant admitted to all of the charges. Both state and federal prosecutors are notorious for this tactic.)

I also would say that the black ministers in Durham have acted disgracefully. Instead of looking for truth, they are promoting lies at the top of their lungs.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

What is Crowley talking about. Some of the best legal minds, forensic experts, Constitutional exsperts and experts who study corruption in public office have commented on this case all stating that the evidence clearly points to not only innocence but that the accuser's story is false. Nothing happened. These young men's Constitutional rights have been trampled, and Nifong is as corrupt as they come and he is throwing it in the face of good society. Mr Crowley is a big boob. Not even worth the effort to try and figure out his rambling.

Anonymous said...

Race does matter, evidence does not, no matter rich or poor. I don't like it, I don't condone some of the post, either way. But all one has to do is look at OJ's new book, "If I did it" to tell that yes race does matter and not evidence. Could you imagine the up roar if the three kids after being found not guilty wrote a book like that. That is OJ laughing all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

This may seem too obvious, but when anyone feels compelled to write ugly comments like those quoted by huesofblue, try googling "slave narratives" or read Frederick Douglass' Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. These ghosts will haunt all of us for years to come. No wonder it burned Cash Michaels and other members of the Black community to the depths of their souls to see the video of the "dancers" at the infamous party. (I assume everyone saw the Liestoppers post this week). Aren't we all struggling to rise above our histories. That said, the country cannot allow to go unasnswered Mr. Nifong's attempt to exploit that history and scapegoat three people blatently innocent of the crimes with which they are charged. Every step Mr. Nifong advances in this case is just as galling to those of us who appreciate the nature and scope of Mr. Nifong's misdeeds as the "dancing" video clip was to Mr. Michaels.

Anonymous said...

Crowley reminds me of the old proverb "It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt".

Anonymous said...

Amen, 10:17.

ec said...

hueofblue,

Those comments you quoted are certainly not PC, though no more racist than much of what has come out towards whites in general and the Duke 3 specifically. The third one is the most shakey, while the others are less so. The last one, namely:

"... abolish racial, ethnic and gender studies (low iq studies)"

I fully agree with. Those areas of study are havens of racism and sexism. Anti-white racism and anti-male sexism.

I also think you are being too altruistic in your assessment of the racial dynamics though that is not an argument for here and I fully respect your views on it, even though I do not agree. Let us simply agree to disagree here and leave it at that.

Anonymous said...

"No one starts a campaign to recall the prosecutor when a weak case is brought against a black defendant. But when there are rich white kids in the line of fire its a totally different story. I think a lot of Black people see that as fundamentally unfair."

I agree with the 1:30am poster except that the above quote is only true since people don't know about the weakness of other cases. If, on the other hand, the prosecutor went after a group of black kids saying things such as "I'm not going to let Durham be known as a town where black kids can rape a white woman and get away with it." (along with the many other crazy things that he said), then I think a similar outcry would indeed take place if there was no evidence to support the indictments. Nifong started his own little war, and after it is finished, the true victims will be those that have fought alongside him.

Anonymous said...

"abolish racial...gender studies"

i wrote that--funny how my critics didn't comment on a specific application--ie, firing overpaid doofuses like Houston Baker

as to the other "racist" comments, which i didn't post: if the US were to become half black, it would cease to exist--race does matter, sad to say

MODERATOR: i've stated elsewhere that something should be done to punish "false accusers"--suggest you start a thread with this: Affirmed, false accusers are rapists. Let's punish them like rapists."

jim clyne

ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME! said...

PPL THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS ARE USUALLY OVER 70...

ONSET OF SENILITY?

Anonymous said...

One would think staying abreast of the publicly available information about the case would be as much of a compulsion for the profs and admin at Duke as it is for us, especially if one intended to comment publicly on the case. "Staying abreast of the case" is not very easy or maybe even possible without knowledge of this blog site, Liestoppers and a few others. I do not believe the normal media outlets have been in any way sufficient for a thorough understanding of the case. Not only that, understanding the important details requires considerable investment of time, something Prof Crowley has clearly been unable/unwilling to make. He has a lot of work to do if he hopes to participate intelligently in this discussion. His careless, unfounded comments strike me as unethical and, really, outright immoral...a violation of that commandment not to bear false witness. He shares that distinction with a number of his fellow faculty.

Anonymous said...

mediocrites usually comment on esoterica like capitalization

i'm sure u like oprah, and think bill clinton is a genius

stupid PPL have it made--the fat O is on in 50 min

Fetch!

Anonymous said...

No one starts a campaign to recall the prosecutor when a weak case is brought against a black defendant. But when there are rich white kids in the line of fire its a totally different story.

It only takes one or two people to start a campaign as was the case with the Recall Nifong campaign. If someone feels strongly about something they can do something constructive, or not.

If the racial roles were reversed in this case don't you think the Justice Department, AG, Governor, NAACP, etc. would be all over this case DEMANDING the case be thrown out? Do you believe the public would have stood still while the DA discussed the facts of the case with the KKK or a radical/racial white woman -- while not speaking to the black defendents lawyers or anyone else who might present exculpatory evidence??

Just as this case hurts future rape victims, in the end, the fact that AA sat back and allowed this to happen to their justice system will hurt them too.

Bill anderson said...

I agree with 6:32. Ours is a system based on precedent, and if Nifong continues to get away with this nonsense, he emboldens other prosecutors to follow his act.

There is no doubt in my mind that the very groups calling for trial and conviction, like the NAACP and others, would take a very different look if the races were reversed. By the way, I would HOPE the NAACP and others (like the ACLU, which decided to take a powder here) would look seriously at the prosecutorial misconduct.

That is part of the tragedy and hypocrisy of this case. And that is why the bloggers have attacked this case with a vengeance. It deserves to be attacked, and Nifong deserves to be the human pinata that he has become. Swing away!

Anonymous said...

i would like to thank the 7:55pm poster who commented on the real history of black woman-white man rape in the US. american blacks are lighter than those in africa and genetic studies show lots of european bloodlines in american blacks as well as native american bloodlines. These are just objective proofs of what the history culled from slave narratives, historians, and black family traditions has said: that during slavery that white men raped and fathered children with black women in large numbers as they had the access and the power to do so and there were no repurcussions. Thomas Jefferson was not an isolated case; many white slaveowners had black children. the infamous house negroes were often related to the white master and his family and were frequently the lightest of the slaves and they were treated better than the slaves not related to the family. the next were the yard children,who might be darker and not as directly related but where still more tied with the master's family. the yard children were often artisans like carpenters, the carriage driver, etc. then came the darkest and most mistreated group, the field slaves. the children of these black-white liasons were either made house or yard servants or were sold to other whites. more rarely, they sometimes were freed on the death of the white master and given some money so there were some free blacks before the civil war, especially in Louisiana, which had a French influence rather than the more racial separtist English influence like the rest of the US.

Please note that the masters were aware of the hardships of slavery yet contiuned it: many of the masters who freed their offspring wrote they did so so"no other white man will own my children" for fear that they might be mistreated. the black colleges were founded after the civil war largely to educate the mixed race children of the white masters. Booker T Washington founding Tuskegee Institute with money his white father gave to him is the most famous example but the other schools have similar stories. If you ever look at an old black college yearbook in the years after the civil war, you will see mostly mixed race people.

For anyone to say that white men do not rape black women because they do not find them attractive is ridiculous and does not know the real history of the southern united states. documented white male rape went down after the official segregation era began because of differences in access to black women etc but there was still problems with this particular crime, especially in hate crimes. often, the kkk would castrate and lynch the black man after they raped and/or killed his female relatives. The last documented lynching in Duplin county Nc(near Durham ) was because of this type of situation. a white man raped and beat a black girl and her father warned him to never go near their farm again after the sheriff refused to bring charges(white men were never punished or admonished for these type of offenses as the black woman had no right to complain). the father came in from the fields and caught the man once more trying to rape another of his young daughters after beating her. the black father took justice into his own hands and decapitated the white man. the black man was picked up by the sheriff and on the way to the jail was lynched and castrated and his body burnt about 2 hours later. That happened in the 1930's.

for anyone to argue that the current crime statistics "prove" that white men simply do not rape black women,etc is ridiculous. history shows that they raped them a lot when they had the oppurtunity. what the crime statistics show now is the lack of oppurtunity to comment said crime. That is also why this alleged crime pushes so many buttons in durham. the black community remembers some of that past and the allegations about racial epithets and "thank you for my cotton shirt" were things that smacked of that plantation rape/lynching mentatlity. please note all contemporary blacks know this history; even our very worst curse word: m-----f------r, reflects that slave legacy. m-----f----r derived from the original mother raper, an epithet that slave blacks gave the white slave master. that is why the durham blacks were so outraged when they heard about this alleged crime. it brought that hideous past up.

Anonymous said...

DNA evidence does not show Thomas Jefferson fathered black children as anonymous 4:43 AM says, only that either Jefferson or a close relative did.

I bring this up as an example of how even "scientific experts" let their agendas get in the way of the facts.

ec said...

Anon 4:43 continues to beat the Afrocentric drum of slavery and how this will never be forgotten nor forgiven. Despite whites and the US being the first ones to abolish and illegalize slavery. And despite the fact that slavery continues to exist in Africa today by blacks enslaving other blacks. His/her ramblings are no different than the garbage that has been spewed forth by the race hustlers in this case.

As to the raping of black women by white men. Again, the sins of the slave masters is paraded forth to continue to instill guilt on ALL white people. I do not recall ever owning a slave, though we'll leave that for now. When genetic black/white admixture has been critically looked at, again, different data came out than what was truly expected.

Among self-identified whites in Shriver's sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent. That's the equivalent of having among your 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents (who lived around two centuries ago), 127 whites and one black.

It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.

In contrast, African-Americans are much more racially mixed than European-Americans. Yet, Shriver's study shows that they are less European that was previously believed.

Earlier, cruder studies, done before direct genetic testing was feasible, suggested that African-Americans were 25 or even 30 percent white. Shriver's project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That's the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.


http://www.isteve.com/2002_How_White_Are_Blacks.htm

History and slavery aside, the data by the FBI and DOJ gives the CURRENT rape stats as essentially NO white on black rapes. Those are the facts as we know them NOW and what is happening NOW. We of today do not have control of what may or may not have happened 6 generations ago or longer.

Anonymous said...

To 4:43am:
Are most interracial children from the dawn of time the product of rape?

Anonymous said...

doubt it, but in the US black-white children are invariably the product of a black father and a not too bright white mother (see nicole simpson)

Anonymous said...

I am embarassed to be a Duke graduate and shudder at the thought that idiots like Crowley are teaching at what I once thought was a great university. I hate to say it but I am going to encourage my children to go elsewhere.

Shame on you, Mr. Crowley.

Anonymous said...

1. ec you need to read a history book. the first western nation to abolish slavery was England, many, many years before the US and it was secondary to the efforts of Wlberforce, a british political leader and great abolitionist. A black college was named after him because of his tireless efforts to stop slavery and the slave trade world wide.

2.Many other works show a higher white gene penetrance than the work of Shriver. At any rate, the average white person in the US is in denial about the sexual abuse of black women in slavery so ? whether the actual percentage really matters. Witness the continued denial about the Sally Hemings-Jefferson liasion. No less than Abigail and John Adams met Sally in their lifetime when she was in Washington and Paris with Jefferson(note the nephew was not in Paris) and she appears in their journals. Sally came back pregnant from Paris and this was documented in the jefferson family bible. Yet, white scholars persist in trying to say it is impossible for Jefferson to have had a liasion with this young enslaved woman, who by the way was half white as she was the half sister of his wife as she was the product of a black slave and Jefferson's father-in-law and she was given as a wedding present to her half sister(Jefferson's wife).

At any rate all this is water under the bridge but this is the odious legacy that the Lax scandal brings up and it resonates with a lot of blacks in a negative manner.

ec said...

Anon 2:35 am,

My words:

Despite whites and the US being the first ones to abolish and illegalize slavery.

Sorry for the confusion, though it states whites as in white, European nations AND the US being the first ONES to abolish slavery. Meaning whites have abolished slavery long ago while other non-white nations followed to some or no degree. Others, like black African nations continue to practice slavery to this very day.

Shrivers work is more recent and more accurate. Also, regarding the reason of why I brought up the percent white in blacks of today goes towards the fact that others here assumed that blacks were raped with impunity in the past. That is not true, even during the slave trade days. True some were though it was not an epidemic as some would like it to be. Further, some of this admixture is due to a MUTUAL sexual relationship. And finally, we are speaking of modern rape stats which indicate hardly any white on black rapes and NOT slave day rapes. It just goes to show the weakness of the argument when one has to drudge up slave rapes to state that black women were raped.