Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Association for Truth and Fairness

I've added a sidebar link to the Association for Truth and Fairness, the legal defense fund in what can now officially be termed the non-rape case.

Media reports have suggested that the monthly defense cost for each family is around $80,000; I have no reason to disbelieve this figure. This defense has cost so much in part because the State either conducted no investigation or (as the Meehan testimony revealed) actually withheld the evidence that it did collect. So, over the past several months, defense lawyers have not only had to perform their normal function, but also a good portion of the State's--all while dealing with the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in recent memory.

And, to get a sense of the highly personal toll this affair has taken even for the families of the unindicted players, take a look at Joan Collins' recent column.

232 comments:

1 – 200 of 232   Newer›   Newest»
Jim said...

But I read somewhere that defense lawyers lie.

Anonymous said...

Jim: I looked. Wendy Murphy still doesn't get that rape charges have been dismissed.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

sceptical said...

Bill Anderson reports that the defense bill has been nearly $5 million for the families so far. See his latest article.

sceptical

Jim said...

Equire, I've admired your posts.

Tell me- are we about to see nullification on a societal scale in the African-American community if Roy Cooper's office dismisses this case? Or is there some hope for a rational acceptance of the facts?

Anonymous said...

The number I've heard from a source *relatively* close to the case is $80,000 per month, total, for the three families.

$80k total seems very wrong. 9 months, 3 defendants, a bargain rate of $200/hour - it means only 15 billable hours per defendant per month.

Anonymous said...

Jim: I think this case has given a lot of Blacks pause for reflection. Many feel they got duped, and they are right.

I think the long term effect of the Duke case will be that many of the more moderate elements (and there are many) within the Black community will be leary of rushing to judgment when such allegations come out. They will look for motive from all parties before rendering support one way of the other.

So, for the vast majority, I would say this will be accepted. The radical fringe will not accept it, but they are becoming increasingly distanced from an ever-increasing moderate presence within the Black community.

Thus, what is really at stake in the long run is the direction of Blacks in this country, and the lessening of power of race hustlers in favor of people who are more intelligent in their thinking, and moderate in their outlook. Short version - Holloway types are losing their grip while Coleman types are tightening theirs.

And I think this is a positive development.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

10:20 - $200 per hour? Multiply by three for these lawyers. The rate you give us might be for their associates.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

10:20 - $200 per hour? Multiply by three for these lawyers. The rate you give us might be for their associates.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Hmmm - here's an interesting twist to a defense fund. The usual crazy NCAA rules that prohibit athletes from receiving a ham sandwich without getting into trouble may come into play. If Reade and Colin receive gifts of cash from anyone related to Duke (i.e. an alum like myself), will that violate NCAA rules and make them ineligible to play lacrosse, should they ever decide to return and try to rejoin their team?

I am not sure I would return to Duke's campus if I had a giant red R stamped on my forehead, and an active faculty group that continues to call me a rapist and bigot, frankly. But these guys are fiercely loyal to their teammates, and so might want to play again at some point. And the NCAA, in all it's wisdom, would surely not grant them an exemption. They almost never do, even in some of the worst cases of hardship.

Further potential jobbing of these guys by the system.

Anonymous said...

10:20...
$80,000 divided by $200 per hour is 400 hours per month (approx. 100 hours per week) of legal workfor the three. My guess is thatey are also sharing info, so the firms do not have to carry separate loads. That's actually a lot of legal work


Also my guess is that the rate for the primary attorneys is much more than $200/hour...unless that is an averge rate between attorneys & paralegals & secretaries.

Jim said...

That's encouraging, Esq.

I still don't understand how CGM became, and remains, such a martyr. There are loftier paragons to rally around than an exotic dancer with a history of emotional disfunction and moral indifference.

If you're going all-in, I'd think you'd want a better hand.

Anonymous said...

10:20 AM,

You have such cool math, Dude. However, you are off by a factor of about 10. $80,000.00 per month at $200 per hour yields 400 hours per month, or about 133 hours per Defendant per month , or about 30 hours per Defendant per week.

$200 per hour is rather low, but 400 hours per month might be high if there are some low-hour months and if the three sets of lawyers have found a way to divide up the work and not duplicate too much (which I seriously doubt). Of course, we have not even considered investigators, DNA experts, photography experts, and other non-lawyer expenses. All in all, even discounting your funky math, $80,000 per month seems low.

Cochise's Enchilada

Anonymous said...

Jim: CGM is a martyr to those who want to push an agenda. The more moderate elements within the community certainly do not view her as such.

And this is important to realize, because it is easy to fall into the trap of viewing a community of many millions of people as having one stance. Nothing could be further from the truth. This case serves to show a widening rift of opinions not only between academia and the general public, but within the black community as well. I see this is very healthy as the result is genuine discourse for those who want to discuss these matters, and what caused this miscarriage of justice to develop.

There are so many dynamics at play that it makes this case fascinating to follow and analyze.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Hey Enchilada et al:

Read sceptical's post. Anderson has word that the legal bills and expenses have topped $5M. Good counsel (and all the experts) has its price.

dl

Anonymous said...

I think we should each contribute to the legal defense fund set up on behalf of the three men.

Even $5 should help.

Mr. Pepsi

Anonymous said...

My wife's a Duke Alum who has been following the case since day one. My suggestion to her was to give to the defense fund what she would normally contributes to Duke. It kills two birds with one stone: she's helping defray the cost of the defense of three obviously innocent young men and when Duke come soliciting as they do every year she can tell them just where the money, why the defense fund deserves it and why Duke doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Somebody may have linked to this Duke Chronicle Q&A with Brodhead yesterday (Brodhead on the Record). But just in case nobody posted it, check it out:

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/01/22/News/Brodhead.On.The.Record-2657128-page5.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Brodhead has repeatedly stated that he never rushed to judgement i nthis case, but in the article he's quoted as saying, "I certainly wish that the district attorney had not made the statements that gave everyone such a degree of certainty about the matter." He makes it sound like he was tricked into rushing to judgment. And what about his quote early on about hoping the players will eventually be proved innocent?

Pop goes the weasel.

DisgrAce.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the bad link, here it is:

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/01/22/News/Brodhead.On.The.Record-2657128-page2.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Anonymous said...

KC: Did you double check these folks? I just made a telephone call as instructed on the web site, and some woman who was absolutely out to lunch answered without a corporate greeting, said she was a bank, had no idea what Sherwood Forest was, then freaked out and hung up when I asked her about the organization.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

As I have said repeatedly before, Nifong is the only politically acceptable fall-guy in this sad affair. For reasons not only to their inner racist, the left refuses to condemn the black female who filed the false charges, further refuses to condemn the the minority-laden leftist faculty who indicted their own students in a paper published to their peers, (in the absence of facts, mind you), and refuses to condemn the the leftist figurehead of the insane assylum who threw every white male he could get his hands on under the bus, after deciding "whatever they did is bad enough" (really, who needs facts once you know their race, anyway? We don't look past the race on admissions decisions, why change when it comes to guilty or innocence?)

You see, it was a white man's fault that a black woman filed false charges against three white men, and 88+1 leftists rushed to judgment and took sides based on race rather than facts.

Anonymous said...

Esquire -

Interesting....I sent a check about three weeks ago. It has been cashed. I also tried to check into the web site and noticed that no principles are named, even though they reference a board of trustees.

Checking further....

dl

Anonymous said...

K. C.,

I'm all for a defense fund, but the website says nothing about the individuals who are running the fund, not even their names (J. Catherine Hirsch is mentioned, but I assume she is an employee of the bank that is serving as the Association's depository). How do you know the Association for Truth and Fairness is legit? How can we know that the Association's employees or operators will not rake off most, if not all, of the funds?

Cochise's Enchilada

bill anderson said...

I just received an email from a "victim's advocate" who forwarded something from...Wendy Murphy. I am posting it on Liestoppers because she specifically targets Reade Seligmann. Murphy is pure evil.

Anonymous said...

Professor "Gabby Johnson" of "Blazing Saddles" fame joins Group of 88. He speaks Gibberish only they can understand.

Anonymous said...

It appears that United Bank is a legitimate bank and that J. Catherine Hirsch is an employee there.

I have sent an email to Friends of Duke University - which as an organization referred me to the Assn. for Truth and Fairness web site - to request bona fides of the Assn.

Cochise's Enchilada is absolutely correct in questioning its authenticity.

I sent a check three weeks ago that has been cashed by the bank. I am awaiting their response and a response from Ms. Hirsch.

dl

Anonymous said...

-Esquire-
-Maryland-
11:29 AM,

What's the relevance of Sherwood Forest? Is the Sheriff of Nottingham involved in some scam?

Cochise's Enchilada

Anonymous said...

DL: Never mind. I got confirmation from the top. I should never had doubted it in the first place, but the knuckle head at the bank set me off.

Send all your money to this organization. Question answered.

The word on legal bills: "Staggering." Please support these families.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Evil

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

BTW, could the extention of Nifong's deadline to repond to the bar charges be a sign that additional charges were leveled during the bar committee meeting last week?

Jim said...

Before we "rush to judgment" on the Murphy e-mail, have we gotten any verification it's legit?

Anonymous said...

12:12pm Equire Maryland:

Due diligence is surely a good thing.

Now that we know that the organization is legit, we should all contribute.

Mr. Pepesi

Anonymous said...

Jim: As to your query, there is much too of a rosey picture being painted here regarding the "black community". It's understandable that KC and some others must cast a patina of "moderate" and "fringe".

Truth is, as much and as often as the cry-"We are not monolithic!" is heard, all one needs to do is look at behavior. Look at the actions and inactions of black America with regard to every controversial issue in association with white America.

Even those who really are moderate and don't spend every waking hour hating someone, do not speak out. They remain silent.

Just look at the population in Durham. Look at the black population in total. What black leader or prominent black person has spoken out at all in a decisive manner about the injustice against these white guys? And I'm not referring to the safe gobbledygook of the academic world.....where a few have said to replace Nifong and look at the case with fresh eyes.

NONE!

Hell yes there's a monolith. And one gets the feeling that those educated and influential black people think all this is ok as well. They don't make fools of themselves and say racist and ignorant things in public so they will be quoted, but they do nothing because, imo, they like the feeling of watching these lacrosse guys skewered. Don't ever be fooled by the facade.

I had one black politician in Durham tell me privately---because he considered me a "good" white person and because I am a bit ethnic and "safe" to be open with---that you can just scratch a white person and find a racist.

This is a man who is allowed to make very important decisions concerning the finances of white people in Durham. How's that for a "moderate" outlook? And in public, he's kissing everyone's ass as if he's open-minded.

Don't you naive commenters tell me there is much difference between "fringe" and "moderate" blacks. The others just hide and enjoy the dirty work done by the "fringe". Then they go out later and ask for "calm". We see this sh!t everyday.

This person about whom I speak has a law degree and is still in the "political business" in Durham.

So don't any of you try to sugarcoat what the Duke athletes are facing from the mob in Durham.

Of course, it ought to go without saying that in every group of people there are those who are thoughtful and reasonable---and please, you'll have to find another example other than James Coleman. He's Duke. And he has suggested to the lacrosse parents to direct their anger toward Nifong. Not the Duke faculty. So his position is one of safety and to help mitigate things for Brodhead.

Coleman knows the type of mentality we're dealing with. He is from Charlotte, NC which has a very large activist black population. He knows the mentality in Durham as well.

When is any black "leader" going to come out the way Bill Cosby did and just tell the truth?

Black America will have to be the ones who clean up their act. And there are almost no moderate blacks who will do sh!t in a case like this against white people.

This is basic undeniable evidence of their psychological, emotional, and intellectual bankruptcy.

It's a disease which few of them will try to cure. Just listen to the rotund Cash Michaels. It's like listening to a crazy person.

We know that KC has to use the academic world as an appendage and try to beat the James Coleman example to death, but the truth of the matter is there has been an anemic or just simply a silent response from the black community concerning what was done to Reade, Collin, and Dave.

No amount of platitudes in conversation will overshadow that.

It is going to be up to the rest of America to take the pacifier away from these people and show them with actions that the special treatment---to the detriment of other more deserving and decent people---is over.

Anonymous said...

Cash Michaels has shown his true color and that is black racist. He reports lies and distorts the truth for his own agenda. He stupidity in the face of this hoax is overwhelming. Yet he still stand up the the false accuser, Nifong and the AA community based only on the color of their skin, not on truth, not on justice, not on intellect, and not on the Constitution. Cash must have recieved a call from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to step it up for the black ones. Maybe the AA community threatened him like they threatened AG Cooper. Either way he has lost all credibility as a reporter when you lose all perspective as he has done. And Wendy Murphy is just a hate spewing morone who doesn't know her ..... from her elbow.

Anonymous said...

12:29 PM
Please tell us how you feel. Don't hold back now.

(well spoken!)

Anonymous said...

So where is the email from Wendy on Liestoppers? I couldn't find it. Appreciate a link or pointer..

Thanks

Anonymous said...

HARVARD CRIMSON

-------
Duke University President Richard H. Broadhead denies interest in Harvard presidency

Published On Monday, January 22, 2007 12:08 AM

By NICHOLAS A MOLINA
Crimson Staff Writer

Duke University’s president declared late last week that he has no intention to fill the post left by former University President Lawrence H. Summers.

Asked last week whether he would leave Duke to lead Harvard, President Richard H. Brodhead wrote in an e-mail, “What a foolish question. I already have a great job,” according to the Duke Chronicle.

Brodhead, who assumed the Duke presidency in 2004, was on the list of 30 candidates vetted by the presidential search committee looking to replace Summers, The Crimson reported last month.

Brodhead has reaffirmed his commitment to Duke, despite criticism from some faculty and alumni for his response to rape allegations levelled last spring against some of the university’s men’s lacrosse players. Brodhead announced in April that he had cancelled the men’s lacrosse season.

Duke’s senior vice president of public relations and government affairs, John F. Burness, also said that the backlash has not made Brodhead more willing to consider leaving Duke, according to the Duke Chronicle.

Before moving to Duke, Brodhead spent 11 years as Yale’s college dean. Prior to that, he was an English professor at Yale, according to Duke’s Web site.

During his tenure, he oversaw Yale’s most recent curricular review. Brodhead spoke at a 2002 symposium hosted by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences about his experience leading the curricular review, a month after Harvard launched its own review.

Anonymous said...

1247
Go to Liestoppers Discussion and click on Duke Hoax.

Anonymous said...

If anyone has particulars about the Association's legitamacy, please share them.

Anonymous said...

lookee, lookee here:

Karla Holloway holds TWO endowed chairs, one of which endowed by the estate of a brilliant chemist and philanthropist, William Rand Kennan.

Wonder what his family thinks about this.

There are 3 juicy aspects to this case remaining:

1. defunding Angry Studies
2. creating a felony sex-crime statute for false accusations
3. strategizing Richard Brodhead's farewell

RP

Anonymous said...

12:55 - It's legitimate. Founded in DC by attorneys for a major law firm. I got my word from one the folks involved directly. The Duke wristbands also go the Association for Truth and Fairness.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Here's a link for the wristbands:

http://store01.prostores.com/dukelax/about.html

Richard Aubrey said...

I read the Pandagon piece.
Those people are certifiable.
But I had posted there before and this was no surprise.
They are nucking futz.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Democrats should call the black community's bluff. Make it known, in no uncertain terms, that they can all vote Republican in the next election.

I have no doubt Republicans would love to pimp that vote (after all, they're politicians), but the reality of "right of center" policy and legislation will quickly inform a more cautious approach to black advocacy.

dl

Anonymous said...

Alev said:

Jim--

I agree with Esquire, from a "local to the case" point of view.

A lot of concern has been generated by the publication and republication of a comment by a student at NCCU who said that he didn't care whether the lax players were guilty or not, he'd like to see them convicted to make up for past wrongs. That particular comment is not mainstream in the black community, but it has been the lens through which many white people have interpreted the calls from African-American leaders for the case to go to trial so that things can be decided in court. I think a lot of white readers infer that means, "Let's get them to trial so we can get a Durham jury to legally lynch them!" I think it means something different: 1) We want to keep this off the streets 2) We are suspicious that the press and others could be being manipulated and that there is something in the evidence that the defense has not released, but that might change our perceptions altogether if we knew it. So we want it to be tried in a court of law where there are penalties for perjury, and where we can see for ourselves that everything is above-board.

That's a far cry from the "nullification" worries that many have. (I totally concede that there are some bigots within any ethnic group who would convict out of spite. However, my own relationships with African-Americans in Durham do not lead me to believe that that is a representative sentiment.)

Would the Black community in general accept a dismissal? I think the key issue is one of trustworthy information. It's my thought that if it was delivered with back-up information that assured that justice, not injustice, had been done, most everyone would be satisfied.

Here are some quotes from N& O columnist Barry Saunders, a local African American whose columns are known for a certain "attitude;" no one could accuse the man of being an Uncle Tom. Here's what he said in two recent columns:

While calling for the accuser to have her day in court :

"So let it be heard. If the accuser is shown to be a liar, her next appearance in court should be as a defendant charged with making false statements to police officers and damaging the lacrosse players' lives." He also mocked the magic DNA towel in the article. While I disagree with the notion that any accuser is entitled to a day in court, I'm presenting his conclusions as evidence that the AA community is not going to move to "nullification
on a societal scale."

Again, in a later column he admonishes people about the special prosecutor in light of Coman's role in the Allen Gell case:

"Knowing that Coman is loyal to his colleagues is admirable; knowing that he is loyal to the law would be even more so."

I think that's what we all want: loyalty to the law. I think that we'll get there.

Anonymous said...

I just read the Wendy Murphy email...

What's the big deal?...she has no credibility what-so-ever. None. Zilch. So why agonize over what she thinks? She is so far out of touch with this case that she is simply writing dumb stuff, only to get herself noticed. She is not evil..just incredibly stupid.

In fact if a bum on the street told me it was going to be 80 degrees tomorrow (Wisconsin), I would be more likely to believe that than anything Wendy Murphy has ever written or spewed forth.

My advice...forget her...let her stew in her own little fantasy world. (Maybe she is trying to become the Clown Princess of Attorneys--kind of like what Max Patkin was to baseball)

Anonymous said...

the wilmington journal?

Not a MSM paper, may Murphy and Goolee be happy. They have been pushing themselves off the main stage. Noone takes them seriously anymore, if ever. This case has destoryed any "sense of fairness" that the public sees in them.

Anonymous said...

Race, sex and class (well, maybe not class)

graywolf said...

Granted, these kids are apparently being railroaded by that scumbag Nifong and the equally scaumbaggy, chickenshit faculty....BUT

If you can afford prep school AND Duke, you can afford lawyers.

I don't contribute to uppper-class charities.

bill anderson said...

Before we "rush to judgment" on the Murphy e-mail, have we gotten any verification it's legit?

12:17 PM


Yes, it is legit, or as legit as a Wendy Murphy statement can be. I called the woman who sent it, and she really is the executive director of Campus Security. She and I agreed to disagree on the case, but it was an amiable conversation.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know whether the Feb. 5 hearing will happen? It obviously should not be postponed.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Catherine Bath has added herself to the list of people who will be sued in civil court.

Anonymous said...

1:32 - I contribute to the Finnerty family with the rest of their children in mind.

bill anderson said...

I probably made a mistake including Catherine Bath. She sent the email to me, and while I think she is wrong, she does not need to be bombarded from the blog.

Anonymous said...

1:07 PM
"Perhaps the Democrats should call the black community's bluff. Make it known, in no uncertain terms, that they can all vote Republican in the next election."

The bluff is weak. The threat is not to vote Republican, but sit out the vote. The minority voting block is not particularly active unless revved up by their leaders.

The Democrat pandering will continue in NC. Proof point: Last weeks NC DEM Party apology for racial injustice in Wilmington... just 108 years after the fact.

Anonymous said...

I'm with 1:33...anyone know if the hearing is still on for 2/5? What a further injustice if the "state" gets to further delay this fiasco because their 'first' persecutor got it wrong.

Furthermore, the hearing could certainly end the case if the defense motions are likely granted. Therefore, if the hearing is delayed, I would think the boys' civil rights would be futher eroded, signaling an even greater need for the US AG to step in....unfortuntately however, Alberto thinks he can't step in to protect a person's civil rights when a trial may be in the works. Makes great sense to me!!??

Jim said...

Ok, Bill. My bad.

It's just that Ms. Murphy's e-mail is so laced with factual inaccuracies, it's laughable.

Unless, of course, Cookout is now a pizza joint.

Jim said...

Looks another alleged hate crime at a college campus in North Carolina.

M. Simon said...

Liestoppers - Wendy Murphy on Reade Seligmann

You know, if some one asks, the kindest thing to do is to give them what they are asking for:

urls are easy.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=1775

*

M. Simon said...

graywolf said...

Granted, these kids are apparently being railroaded by that scumbag Nifong and the equally scaumbaggy, chickenshit faculty....BUT

If you can afford prep school AND Duke, you can afford lawyers.

I don't contribute to uppper-class charities.


How small minded of you. One of the boys is on scholarship I believe.

Don't think of it as money for the rich. Think of it as money for justice.

Think of it as a way to show support.

If money irks you so much send a card.

Heck, blogs are free. Start one.

Anonymous said...

Just because a family has managed to put aside money for education for their children, doesn't mean they should spend it on defending against a rogue prosecutor and hoax charges.

I say this as a parent of two boys in private education -- one Ivy lacrosse player and one prep school student -- both paying full freight.

Anonymous said...


Looks another alleged hate crime at a college campus in North Carolina.


And there can be no doubt that that racist program 24 is to blame for this attack!

luke said...

Ironic, tragic, and disgusting is the fact that others are making money off of this disgraceful case. I had read that a professional betting service was taking wagers on the outcome of the Duke trial and it didn't take me long to find it. I note the info is as of May 2006; whether there is more current info I don't know.
WagerWebOnTheTrialOutcome

They had previously taken wagers on the outcome of the DNA tests:

WagerWebonDNA

Anonymous said...

Bill: You can send this to her, in fact, to the whole string if you like.

Dear Colleagues:

I have had an opportunity to review an e-mail forwarded by Wendy Murphy regarding the issues in the Duke Lacrosse case. I feel that it is my duty as an officer of the court to remedy a situation in which a fellow attorney has made an argument based almost entirely on faulty facts.

It should first be noted that the prosecutor in this action, Michael Nifong, is presently defending himself before the North Carolina bar for making comments to the press that have been viewed as violative of the rights of the accused. These comments range from the term “hooligan” to a rather outrageous statement that if the Defendants were innocent, they would not avail themselves of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Thus, Ms. Murphy’s statement that the prosecutor is saying “nothing” is itself a half-truth. Mr. Nifong is saying nothing at this point because to do so would only make the Bar’s action against him that much stronger.

It should also behoove you, my fellow counselors, to realize that Ms. Murphy’s statement that defense attorneys can “lie with impunity” also lacks merit. ABA Model Rule of Prof. Conduct 4.1 makes it quite clear that any attorney may not make a false statement of a material fact to a third person. Further, ABA Model Rule 3.6 states quite clearly that an attorney shall not make an extra-judicial statement that “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding” in the matter to which it applies. Thus, any lie stated by counsel, no matter his or her role, would be considered a violation of Rule 4.1, Rule 3.6, or both Rules.

Ms. Murphy also states that there is “nothing wrong” with the prosecution withholding DNA information found within the alleged victim and her underpants. Aside from North Carolina open discovery law, this argument also fails. The evidence introduced by the State to date in this action is that the S.A.N.E. nurse allegedly found that the alleged victim had suffered trauma in her vaginal area. The victim also stated that she had not has sexual relations with any man for a period prior to the alleged incident. However, the DNA evidence collected goes to the issue of the alleged victims credibility, and tends to show that the alleged victim was, in fact, not truthful in her statements. It also tends to provide an explanation as to why the alleged victim may have had some trauma in her vaginal areas. Obviously, such information tends to “negate or mitigate” against the guilt of the Defendants. See Brady v. Maryland. The hiding of such evidence is considered an affront to due process. See id. The fact that Ms. Murphy states she would have done it as well is indeed troubling.

Nor is Ms. Murphy’s argument regarding the alleged victim’s right to privacy compelling. Such considerations pale in comparison to the Defendants’ right to due process. Certainly, the alleged victim lacks privacy when she has made a complaint, and the results of various medical procedures, which form the basis of the State’s case, are placed in the public arena. In short, any such right to privacy is affirmatively waived when the Complaint is made, and anything discovered must be produced if it tends to negate or mitigate against the guilt of the Defendants.

Ms. Murphy also makes a statement that the prosecution has not told the world about the “strength” of the State’s case. However, interviews reveal that Mr. Nifong affirmatively stated he “believed” a rape had occurred.

Ms. Murphy also makes an argument that DNA materials should not be tested. Such an argument flies in the face of scientific certainty. If our profession should be learning anything from recent events, it is that many innocent men have gone to jail for rapes they did not, in fact, commit, which innocence was only established through the later testing of DNA from existing evidence from the scene of the attack. Once again, Ms. Murphy raises the specter of the alleged victim’s privacy, yet in a criminal context, it is the right of the Defendant to a fair trial that reins supreme, and that includes evidence that he, in fact, committed the crime he is accused of.

Ms. Murphy’s next point is a statement that the line-up of the players was somehow not “illegal.” Naturally, an attorney will not fall for such language. The question is whether it adhered to the policies and practices of the Durham police department. The answer is no. Contrary to Ms. Murphy’s statement, the line-up involved was made up solely of the Caucasian members of the Duke Lacrosse Team, without filler photos. Indeed, on one occasion, the alleged victim chose a team member who was not even in Durham on the night when the alleged attack occurred, and was thus excluded as a possible suspect. It goes without saying that the line-up directly contradicted the Durham Police Department’s own established policies and procedures, and as such is subject to suppression as a violation thereof. However, the propriety of lineups has been a special area of concern for the Innocence Project, which has made findings following research that cross-racial identification is itself faulty, and asks for guidelines in this area to eliminate faulty identification. http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/whitepaper.pdf.

Ms. Murphy then launches into a specious argument that one of the Defendants made “frantic..” phone calls to escape the area and “could have” raped her. However, the evidence known to date does not support this statement. The evidence shows that the Defendant made one telephone call, at 12:14 a.m., to the taxicab company, and he was picked up at approximately 12:19 a.m. The remaining telephone calls were to a New Jersey number, and to his girlfriend. Stamped photos then show him stopping for some cash at 12:26 a.m., getting some food, and returning to his dorm The Defendant then re-entered his dorm as reflected by Duke’s own time system, at 12:46. Thus, if we look at the evidence, we would have to believe that a young man, who had never previously been in trouble with the law, engaged in a severe rape, called his girlfriend and pals several time, caught a taxi, got some snackies, and then went home. Finally, the alleged victim modified her story at a later time, countering her several earlier versions, and stated that the Defendant did not, in fact, touch her. Thus, Ms. Murphy’s theory that the Defendant could have raped the alleged victim flies squarely in the face of the alleged victim’s latest story.

Ms. Murphy then makes another specious statement, alleging that the alleged accuser “rejected” a $2,000,000.00 pay-off for hush money. The problem with this theory is that the Defendants and their families have specifically rejected this story. To put such an item into print is reckless without a solid foundation.

Ms. Murphy’s next allegation, that Mr. Nifong did not profit from playing the race card, is equally without merit. The allegations came to light not during the general election, but during the primary, when Mr. Nifong was losing ground to a candidate who was an African American female, in a three-way race. In Durham, the primary is the real contest, not the general election. Indeed, during the primary, the Republican Party was not even fielding a candidate for District Attorney. Mr. Nifong won the primary due, mainly, to the backing of the African American population which he cemented by indicting three young men whose DNA was missing from the victim.

Ms. Murphy’s statement that the Defendant’s attorneys would not meet with Mr. Nifong at the last minute is likewise unsupported by any evidence that I have seen in this matter. They have always, consistently, stated that Mr. Nifong refused to meet with them before or after the alleged act.

Ms. Murphy states that the evidence “must” be quite solid because a decision to bring charges was made in the first place. Is it now Ms. Murphy’s position that Mr. Nifong hid more evidence from the eyes of the Defendants? The evidence at hand reveals that the alleged victim has changed her story several times, the other dancer has called the entire thing a “crock,” and all of the available evidence is on the table. At this point, that means no evidence whatsoever.

Ms. Murphy next tries to state if the State’s case was as bad as we all see it to be, the Defendants would not be actively filing motions and asking for the DA to recuse himself. They would want a speedy trial. Naturally, Ms. Murphy forgets that the Defendants requested a speedy trial at the outset of this action, which was denied by the Court, and the case was set for Spring, 2007. The fact that Mr. Nifong argued for delay, in fact, could be viewed as an implied admission of the weakness of his own case, requiring time to find evidence, any evidence, to support the charges.

In conclusion, I hope this communication helps clear up some obvious mistakes on the part of Ms. Murphy regarding the Duke Lacrosse case.

Very truly yours,

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

M. Simon---

Wendy Murphy is insane beyind mention. Her written diatribe eclipses even her loony behavior on the cable news shows.

Tell you what I want to see: Murphy on Bill O'Reilly's show debating that super Duke senior who was on last night. Miller would tear her to bits. And he's still in school!

I also want her to be verbally beaten to a pulp by O'Reilly when she throws out her libel and slander against the lacrosse players.

Perhaps this will happen as "The Factor" follows the Gang88.

Wendy Murphy is way off center in many ways. She reminds me of the now-deceased Mercedes Cambridge---her voice was that of the devil inside the body of Linda Blair in "The Exorcist"---with her wild and reptilian eyes as she rants on and on.

Debrah

Jim said...

Luke, if they're still taking action on "all three counts", we're rich.

Back up the truck to the wager window.

Anonymous said...

May I ask, does anyone have the date on which this Wendy Murphy e-mail was written? It would be embarassing to be ranting about something that is months old as if it were brand new.

If it's new, it's evidence of insanity.

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

There is only one way to deal with the Grace, Murphy etal gang. Don't watch their shows in cases like Grace where they have a show. Switch the channel whne someone like Murphy comes on a show you watch. Do it every time.

There are plenty of choices out there. There is no reason to put up with FNC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CTV or any other network insult your intelligence with people like this.

And yes it is an obivous falsehood that Seligmann was calling the cab company over and over, when it has ALWAYS from DAY ONE been reported he was calling his girlfriend.

locomotive breath said...

Esquire said:

[quote]
Ms. Murphy’s next allegation, that Mr. Nifong did not profit from playing the race card, is equally without merit. The allegations came to light not during the general election, but during the primary, when Mr. Nifong was losing ground to a candidate who was an African American female, in a three-way race.
[end quote]

One minor quibble. In the primary, Nifong's opponents were

Freda Black (a white woman)
Keith Bishop (a black man)

http://www.newsobserver.com/630/story/435392.html

Although I guess you could literally call Freda a "Black woman" :)

Anonymous said...

Check out the 3:35pm thread on KC's other offering today.

I think KC has finally gotten to a Gang of 88 professor.

LOL

Anonymous said...

lacrosse website www.lax.com has been one of the only sites to support these guys from the day the allegations hit the media. They have done a great job of showing support and fundraising for the defense team by selling T-shirts where all the revenue goes towards supporting the defense.

here is the link for the fundraiser t-shirt

http://www.lax.com/shop/item.phtml?page=product_6687_front.phtml

it says they only have smalls left, but hopefully they make some more.

Anonymous said...

Yiu guys have been sending some great letters to the Herald Sun.

Today especially. Poor imbecilic Orin Starn just can't catch a break.

Hehehe

Anonymous said...

3:06

I hope it is okay, I sent your letter to CNN and USA today asking that they read it and reconsider using W. Murphy again on the Duke case.

Joe Bingham said...

Fellow truthseekers,

You may have missed comments purportedly from an anonymous Duke prof. here on KC's last post.

Check it out.

Anonymous said...

This case should not be about appeasing the black voters. There is no reason for this case to go to trial. The expense and emotional toll on the 3 families would be astronomical. A rape never occurred, everyone knows that, there is not one shred of evidence and mountains of evidence proving innocence. The black voters are using bullying tactics to get revenge for the past. It's not going to work in this case. They know white people stand on political correctness and are using that to crucify these boys. They didn't count on the millions of bloggers who care more about truth than political correctness. The AA community is in for a big let down, they will not get their pound of flesh. And it will cost them in the end as well.

Anonymous said...

Duke prof here:

I'll come back at 7pm tonight when I'll be happy to answer any questions. You should also know that other Duke professors have been posting here without announcing their identities.

There is a poster on your site that has been denigrating my field of expertise. I won't dignify using his/her name; let's just say that this person likes Polish Jews.

Anonymous said...

3:58 - Fine by me.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Daniel said...

This is the first time I've posted here (after reading this blog for the past couple of months), and I don't want to denigrate the defense fund in any way. It's a worthy cause.

But... I am reasonably confident that the legal expenses of the accused will be recouped (and then some) in the civil lawsuits which will follow dismissal of the charges. Durham and North Carolina are likely on the hook. Nifong and the Accuser have shallow pockets but will be bankrupted by their legal fees and the huge judgements against them. Duke University will probably settle for a very large sum (my guess is in the tens of millions) to avoid trial.

So unlike many other miscarriages of justice, the wrongly-accused defendants will be compensated. Hence contributing to this defense fund is more of a symbolic gesture than anything else.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers help ?
If Wendy Murphy is a lawyer, then can she not be held in contempt of her own professions ethics rules ? Appearing on National TV and spitting out what are clearly lies has to be unethical, and should not be looked well upon by the legal profession. Does she have some culpability here ?

Thanks,
BDay MD

Anonymous said...

3:45

I've been following the case pretty closely since September (after finding DIW), and I know I've seen several references to F. Black being, well, black. Thanks for pointing out otherwise. A photo on the web (?)confirms she is not black. That changes the complextion (sorry for the pun) of the primary race. I understood LieFong pandered to the black electorate because he was loosing to a black former ADA in Ms. Black. I understood she was better known, base on several (1 or more) trials that garnered public attention....

So, was LieFong running against a viable black contender in teh third candidate? Or was he loosing to a white woman?

Just curious...

Anonymous said...

The farther you drive down the wrong road, the harder it is to back out. Especially if you have tenure.

Dave

Anonymous said...

4:19pm---Nifong was losing to Freda, a white woman. Until he latched onto a black woman.
Then Nifong got on board the........

Hoooooooooooooooooooo Train!

It's a stone cold soul ride, baby. (With a nod to Don Cornelius).

Anonymous said...

BDay: You could, but her little tirades mean little in the scheme of things. She looks foolish enough without Bar Counsel. You have to pick your battles. Going after her is like attacking an insane asylum with a banana.

Let her rant. It's entertaining.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo!

Soooooooul Train!

Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo!

Soooooooul Train!


Mikey would look some kind of bad line dancing in his bathrobe on the soul love train. That rugged look on TV last night was pure testosterone surging.......steaming.......Marlboro Man meets Precious on a soul ride.....aboard the stone cold love train......for the ride of his life!

Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo!

The Fong Train!

Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo! Doo!

Mikey the Marlboro Man be gettin' down wid it!

locomotive breath said...

To 4:19

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/436642.html

[quote]
Nifong also garnered significantly more support from blacks than Keith Bishop, the only black candidate in the race. Bishop, a lawyer who did little campaigning, received the coveted endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, which historically has delivered strong support from blacks on Election Day to its favored candidates.
[end quote]
Keith Bishop (the black man) was not really a viable candidate. The Durham Committee is usually the "kingmaker" but not in this case.

Jim said...

Duke case redux:

Saturday, there was an altercation on the campus of Guilford College in Greensboro that left three students of Palestinian descent injured. Three members of the GC football team have been arrested and charged with assault.

At today's press conference, as Guilford's Dean of Campus Life was encouraging the community to allow justice to run its course, he was confronted with signs declaring, "Liar. This is a hate crime", "Cover Up", "Stop Hate", etc.

No pots and pans, but the rush to judgment sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Jim
it will be interesting to compare reactions between the two cases (G vs. D), considering the G case involves only men and one of the alleged attackers is AA. Will the entire football team be branded racists? I hope not that would be crazy... well on second thought we've seen it happen.

Anonymous said...

Jim,

From the linked article:

The documents, which were reviewed late Monday, said those arrested are accused of beating three Palestinian students with fists, feet and brass knuckles while calling them "terrorists" and using racial slurs. The documents also indicated that the attack involved "at least 15 members of the football team."

And everyone refused medical treatment at the time? Now, 15 people attacking 3 would get in each others' way. But 15 people using fists, feet and brass knuckles are going to do a lot of damage.

This story makes absolutely no sense as related.

Anonymous said...

BDay, MD @ 4:18;
I don't think Wendy Murphy is meant to be taken seriously. Remember Max Patkin, the guy who looked somewhat retarded, dressed up as a baseball player, and did silly things to amuse baseball fans? I think that Wendy is trying to do the same thing, only with the legal profession.

Jim said...

I agree, 5:26. You'd think if 15 football players were clobbering you with fists and brass knucks, you'd find yourself seriously misshapen.

I wish I could directly link the slideshow from the Dean's press conference. When you hit the html link in the previous post, you can click on the photos. It's similar to the Duke case, and it's happening less than an hour away from Durham.

I'll check to see if any of the Guilford College football players go by "Brett, Adam or Matt".

Anonymous said...

Jim at 5:39

Sorry, I see only 3 are actually supposed to have done the beating.

But...brass knuckles? Are they actually in evidence? Because anyone struck by someone wearing brass knuckles - no matter where on their person they are struck - is going to want someone to look at the injury. That's more-or-less the point of brass knuckles.

Anonymous said...

In regards to the Guilford College incident, I expect plenty of potbanging. That's Tema Okun's employer.

Anonymous said...

Tema Okun is a relic and a mental case.

Jim said...

5:44: Three were charged. From the story in the (Greensboro) News and Record: "Those arrested are accused of beating three Palestinian students with fists, feet and brass knuckles while calling them "terrorists" and using racial slurs. The documents also indicated that the attack involved "at least 15 members of the football team."

GPrestonian said...

4:11pm Duke prof:

Thanks, Prof, I look forward to hearing more of your perspective.

You might want to check out some of Pastor Martin Niemöller's posts, btw.

Anonymous said...

To Esquire & 5:29:
Thank you for the input, I know you are both correct, I guess it just pushes my buttons that she can go on National TV pretending and mislead the public, I guess I expect better from lawyers (and Drs.)...

Thanks
Bday MD

Anonymous said...

4:13PM
Should I take your comments to mean that you will not be contributing to the defense fund?

I sincerely hope that Dave, Collin and Reade get huge settlements from every single individual or institution that was complicit in this travesty. That said, legal bills have to be paid now and they are staggering. I hope that everyone visiting this board contributes.

Anonymous said...

4:13

I respectfully disagree with your post.

As 6:24 has correctly observed, legal bills for the lawyers have to be paid now.

Anonymous said...


5:44: Three were charged. From the story in the (Greensboro) News and Record: "Those arrested are accused of beating three Palestinian students with fists, feet and brass knuckles while calling them "terrorists" and using racial slurs. The documents also indicated that the attack involved "at least 15 members of the football team."


Perhaps the NAACP will speak up for Barnette and ensure that his civil rights are respected.

Anonymous said...

4:11 Duke Professor:

Are you here now?

psych said...

4:11 PM

What is wrong with liking Poles or Jews?

From

A Jew

Anonymous said...

[re: Guilford] $2,000 bond (as comared to $400,000)...

Anonymous said...

Freda Black is a white woman. She was well known because she participated in prosecution of Michael Peterson. Regardless of Freda being white and not black, Nifong still needed black vote to win, as it is (even after he indicted Reade and Collin), Freda only lost to him by 881 votes.

Anonymous said...

Murphy: "other prosecutors should take a lesson" (meaning Nofing is to be held up as an exemplar)!

Also, you can see the actual cell phone records in the defense motions -- this is not a matter of opinion. To got this so wrong when you know it will be checked really says something...

Anonymous said...

I am not reasonably confident the defendants will ever get their money back through lawsuits.
I am not sure why anyone thinks Duke would pay them millions-after all Duke did not indict them. What exactly would be Duke's liability? Can someone at least explain to me on what basis would Duke be liable in this?
Nifong is not a millionaire, so suing him (even if it was possible since he has immunity as a DA) is not going to get the defendants their money back. And aren't these lawsuits would be heard in front of Durham juries? So, no, I am not confident at all these families would ever get that money back through lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

NIFONG IN HIS BATHROBE, Bill O'reilly going after Group of 88!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8-qwj8RDXA

I am not a fan of Bill O'reilly, but sometimes we just need snakes to eat the rats!

Anonymous said...

Duke professor is now online. I'm happy to answer your questions, to the best of my ability: I cannot speak for fellow faculty.

There have been a number of critical posts of liberal Duke professors registered on this site. I am one of these "radical professors."

I presume you have questions...

bill anderson said...

To 4:11 PM:

Other Duke profs have been posting? Aha! Now we know the partial identity of TheMan!!! He is a Duke prof.

Anonymous said...


Duke professor is now online. I'm happy to answer your questions, to the best of my ability: I cannot speak for fellow faculty.

There have been a number of critical posts of liberal Duke professors registered on this site. I am one of these "radical professors."

I presume you have questions...


Please demonstrate your bona fides.

Anonymous said...

Duke Professor,

Does the letter signed by members of the economics faculty express your sentiments?
If not, in what respects do you disagree?
If so, have you made those sentiments publicly known? If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

duke prof:

which dept do you teach?

Anonymous said...

Why do I feel Jim Clyne/RP/ Barack Obama/Roman Polanski diddling this thread again?

Anonymous said...

1st question: "please demonstrate your bonafides [sic]

bona fide?

I have every right to post anonymously while Duke has its conversation about the ramifications of the case. Quite frankly, I'd love to reveal who I am, but if I were I'd be bombarded with you-know-what. Who has the time?

I have published many peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books. I attended respectable schools. I am a full professor who cares very deeply about Duke, and especially my students.

Let me revisit the thread so I can answer more questions.

psych said...

Duke Professor;

You referred to someone in a derogatory way as liking Polish Jews. What is wrong with liking Polish Jews

Anonymous said...

7:10 - No, a Trial would be heard in front of a Federal Court based on diversity of citizenship and damages in excess of $75,000.00. The Jury pool would be taken from the District where the Court is located, i.e., the Eastern District of NC I believe. My experience with the Federal Judiciary in the 4th Circuit is that they will not like Nifong at all, and will see him as crooked.

Duke's liability stems from its contractual obligations to its students. Further, its agents will most likely be sued for libel and slander. Duke has a duty to protect its players and students from harassment, and allowing groups to pin up wanted posters and bang pots at all hours of the night does not meet that contractual duty.

Mike Nifong will not be paying any civil judgment, the City/County of Durham will, and this is covered by insurance. Durham, the police department, and Mike Nifong (who stupidly appointed himself as chief investigator, a police role with qualified immunity) are liable under a variety of theories, including violation of 42 USC 1983 for violation of civil rights under color of law, and malicious prosecution (ergo, the reason Nifong did not dismiss all the charges).

Further, each of the profs in their individual capacities, the news networks, the individual show hosts, each newspaper, talking head, etc. are also liable for any statements they have made that cast the players in a false light. Translation, Holloway and Murphy had better make sure their home insurance is paid in full.

The damages are in the millions.

So, they are all liable, and there are deep pockets.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Duke Professor (a question comes at the end of this post),

Jason Trumpbour, spokesperson, Friends of Duke University posted the following at another website:

"I am posting here for the first time because the assertion made by Brodhead’s assistant that the Duke administration has been “in regular contact with them and their families and offering considerable support” is so absolutely outrageous that I believe you should know the facts.

Brodhead and the rest of the administration have had no contact with any of the lacrosse players or their families whatsoever with the following three exceptions:

1. Brodhead talked to Devon Sherwood’s family and apologized for what they were going through. Devon is African American.

2. One of the families of a player who was not charged ran into Brodhead at a reception following the dedication of a facility at Duke Medical Center. Brodhead was very cold and uncaring toward them. One of the trustees joined them and was supportive of the lacrosse players. The trustee asked them how to get lacrosse wristbands and he indicated he wanted to get enough for a lacrosse team at the university where he teaches. As Brodhead watched silently, the family members gave him one of their own wristbands, and he put it on immediately. At this point, apparently, Brodhead walked away.

3. Colin Finnerty’s parents contacted Brodhead to ask for permission to transfer credits from other colleges. Both Colin and Reade Seligmann are taking classes this semester at colleges near their homes. However, Duke will not let them transfer more than two courses so they are unable to keep up with their studies while suspended unless they get permission to transfer more. Colin was supposed to do study abroad this semester, but Duke cancelled that. Brodhead refused to meet with them despite several requests. Finally, the person in charge of the annual giving program told Brodhead that, unless he agreed to see the Finnerties, he would resign. Only then did Brodhead agree to meet them. In the meeting, Brodhead remained intransigent and he and Mrs. Finnerty got into terrible argument. The Finnerties walked out because Brodhead started insulting them.

There has not been a single note, card or other expression of kindness from anyone in the Duke administration to any of the three accused students."

If the above description of the actions and inactions of Brodhead and the Administration are accurate, do you believe those actions and inactions are appropriate? Please explain your answer in some detail.

Anonymous said...

To 6:59pm---I don't know who you're addressing, but blacks have a bug up their asses about Jews because they have not only survived attempts of many to destroy them, but they have thrived.

Unlike the black community as a whole, they work and create like no other group of people in the world.

Even after the horrors that have been inflicted upon them, they have flourished---placing the highest emphasis on education, hard work, and loyalty to family.

They stood with the black community through their struggles which were shared by both.

The difference in how these two sects of people handled adversity is evidenced by their positions in society today.

Of course black racists resent and sometimes hate Jews. Jews work for a living.

Anonymous said...

"Duke Professor"

You have to identify yourself as "Duke Prof" in your posts. Otherwise, people may not who you be.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy does not have to be credible. She is a clown. She gets paid to entertain. Many other people want in on the clown thing, but real clowns ala Barnum & Bailey actually possess talent and skill, so these people turn instead to MSM.

Goslee and Cash want to break into the MSM clown business and make real money also. Hey, don't whine - laugh! They are just trying to make an honest living.

Anonymous said...


1st question: "please demonstrate your bonafides [sic]

bona fide?


Ohhh, puh-leaze, mister alleged Duke Prof.

The original said:


Please demonstrate your bona fides.


Can't you even use cut-n-paste?

If Duke is paying a shit-load of money for you they got a pig in a poke.

Anonymous said...

Don't be too harsh folks. If I were teaching in that viper's nest, I would not post my identity either.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

psych said...

I'm referring to the 4:11 pm post

Anonymous said...

Do I support the letter by the economics faculty?

I haven't read it, as I'm not a member of that department. I am extremely busy--writing, lecturing, and mentoring my students. Please post the contents of the letter.

When I read it, I'll answer your questions.

Anonymous said...

Md esq.

your posts are ver good

Anonymous said...

7:46 - Thanks.

-Esquire-
-#11-

Anonymous said...

The goofy "professor" is probably RP.

He's tried to impersonate everybody else.

wayne fontes said...

Thhis just went up from Wendy Murphy today.
http://www.nsvrc.org/publications/all_pubs.html

Read the Duke talking points her name is at the end.

Your tax dollars working for you.

Fire Millen

Anonymous said...

Duke Professor is as real as the Big Foot or the Loch Ness

Anonymous said...

7:46 PM

"I haven't read it."

I think the Professor is Mike Nifong.

Jim said...

The Duke prof isn't answering questions.

There's your proof it's a real Duke prof.

Daniel said...

In reply to those people who say that legal bills have to be paid now:

1. Do we know that is true? Perhaps the attorneys have made other arrangements with the families, such as a contingency fee based on prospective civil lawsuits. A definitive answer would be useful in deciding whether to make a contribution to the defense fund. And yet I would not expect a definitive answer at this point, since it could effect the legal and PR maneuverings which are underway.

2. Unless many people have the resources to each contribute thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars to the defense fund, I don't see it having a significant impact on the reported $5 million in legal bills. Even a large number of small contributions is not going to make a dent in that total. So if I make a contribution, it will be a token amount of $5 or $10 just to add my name to the list of supporters.

3. If the families are being pinched by legal bills and need immediate contributions, perhaps they could offer to reimburse the contributors in the event that later lawsuits are able to cover the costs.

4. I would be really, really unhappy if the defense fund was somehow able to garner a large amount of money to defray most or all of the legal bills, and then the families decided (for whatever reasons) not to pursue civil lawsuits. That doesn't seem too likely, considering how angry the parents were on 60 Minutes. But who knows? They could decide they just want to put it all behind them. I want justice, which means I want Nifong and the Accuser and Durham and North Carolina and maybe Duke University (based on the actions of their employees) to pay for this travesty. If the families elected not to seek that justice because the financial pressure was off them, that would be a terrible outcome in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Daniel: DC and NY firms are waiting in the wings for the civil side. Think of them as hounds on a leash.

One sad reality is becoming apparent - Duke, Durham, the professors, and Nifong have absolutely no clue what is coming down I81.

And criminal defense attorneys always expect bills to get paid up front.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

7:56

You have never been confronted with legal bills that make your jaw drop.

veteran of litigation

Anonymous said...

While Esquire Maryland is here, he should take some questions from the audience.

Anonymous said...

Esquire Maryland:

Where/how/when did you learn how to write the way you do?

Anonymous said...

Martin Niemoller was a brilliant and courageous person. I have a lot of respect for him.

I'm based in the English department, and also teach in other disciplines so vilified on this site.

7:37: I truly apologize if I offended you, but I was referring to a vicious sexist and racist on this site who has appropriated the name of a famous Jew born in Poland.

You may find this surprising, but many professors read the blogs. What alarms me is the hateful vitriol spewed at whole classes of people. If you perform a close reading of the Listening Statement, you'll discover that the students who were quoted therein were expressing deeply felt feelings about what MAY have happened to the accuser.

Again, I haven't issued any statement publicly--yet. I certainly intend to once the time is right.

Anonymous said...


Statement, you'll discover that the students who were quoted therein were expressing deeply felt feelings about what MAY have happened to the accuser.


And where were their deeply held feelings and compassion for what might happen to the accused? For what has happened to the accused?

Do you have any understanding of what it might feel like to have large numbers of people demand that you be castrated?

Anonymous said...

8:08 PM Professor

Do you mind tackling a few questions from here?

Thank you for your time.

Anonymous said...

If a 10,000 thousand people who read this blog daily each donated 50$, that's 500,000$. So please do not argue that a small contribution is only going to make a little dent.

Anonymous said...

8:07 - Loyola College, Maryland, History Honors Program.

Mentor - Dr. Kelly Devries.

19 years of Catholic school. They don't give a damn if you can add, but you had better learn how to write. Turned in 28 papers in one semester, including an Honors Thesis.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

"What alarms me is the hateful vitriol spewed at whole classes of people.

How ironic!

Anonymous said...

Please allow me to answer one question at a time. That works optimally for me.

Lawyer from Maryland asked how I learned to write the way I do. I'm not sure I understand that question.

I read a lot, and I learn from all the great writers--James Baldwin, Donald Barthelme, Flann O'Brien. I also had good teachers. I don't teach composition, but I certainly line edit all essays I grade. The adage all good writing is rewriting holds true.

huesofblue said...

Duke Prof,

I consider myself a liberal as well, and don't expect anyone to apologize for that. But as this case has developed, it has become clear that these students were railroaded based on very flimsy evidence. In hindsight I know that I was much too quick to judge these defendants and feel pretty bad about it. That said, I've always been a taken aback by the obstinence of the group of 88 and the protestors on campus in not fessing up to their own rush to judgement. That's my main criticism of the Duke professors and I'd appreciate your thoughts. A lot of people were wrong and it's a shame that so few will admit it.

psych said...

8:08 pm

Professor

Thanks for the explanation.

Anonymous said...

"The adage all good writing is rewriting holds true."

Bull.

There are brilliant writers whose first drafts come out perfectly. No rewriting is necessary.

The old adage that an insular campus drone is hard pressed to get in out of the rain by him/herself holds true.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you considered ignoring this troll? He's a long way from Durham.

Anonymous said...

LOL!!!
LOL!!!

Mikey Nifong was given an encore on O'Reilly tonight.

The woman was on who analyzes body language.

Mikey was given ultra exposure. I didn't notice last evening the carved definition he has in his calves. He would definitely look good in a skirt.

Too hilarious for words.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

7:38 "Do I think Brodhead's actions or inactions are appropriate?"

I have to accept what you write on its face--OK? I have no knowledge of the facts. Given what you write about Richard Brodhead, however, I'm not surprised. Mr. Brodhead's puppeteer is the University's attorneys--he is now traveling on a rocky road. He has been proven to be a weak leader, and I'm embarrassed for him. What he did to the Finnerty family is inexcusable. But I'll add this: I would never want to be an administrator at a college such as Duke. But Mr. Brodhead has always sought to please the vulgi.

Your suggestion that the lacrosse team constitutes a class is a bit of a stretch.

huesofblue said...

To the poster who asked about legal bills ... Rest assured that the lawyers expect to be paid up front for the criminal representation. It's not a PR stunt. Good lawyers are very expensive.

As for the defense fund, I just contributed 50 bucks and encourage everyone else to do the same. It might not buy 15 minutes of Joe Cheshire's time, but if it makes you feel better think of it as buying text book for Collin or Reade next semester.

As for the civil suits, don't be so sure that these defendants are going to get their bills paid. Prosecutors don't make a lot of money and municipalities are very hard to succesfully sue (Police and prosecutors enjoy a certain amount of immunity for acts done in their official capacities). Even where people are wrongfully imprisoned for years on end, multimillion dollar settlements aren't common.

Even if these familes do manage to recover their legal fees, it'll be years from now and their going to have to pay around a third to the civil lawyers who make that recovery possible.

The odds of a full recovery are very, very, very low.

Michael said...

re: 8:08

Is there any evidence that those "letters" were real and not just made up?

huesofblue said...

To the poster who asked about legal bills ... Rest assured that the lawyers expect to be paid up front for the criminal representation. It's not a PR stunt. Good lawyers are very expensive.

As for the defense fund, I just contributed 50 bucks and encourage everyone else to do the same. It might not buy 15 minutes of Joe Cheshire's time, but if it makes you feel better think of it as buying text book for Collin or Reade next semester.

As for the civil suits, don't be so sure that these defendants are going to get their bills paid. Prosecutors don't make a lot of money and municipalities are very hard to succesfully sue (Police and prosecutors enjoy a certain amount of immunity for acts done in their official capacities). Even where people are wrongfully imprisoned for years on end, multimillion dollar settlements aren't common.

Even if these familes do manage to recover their legal fees, it'll be years from now and their going to have to pay around a third to the civil lawyers who make that recovery possible.

The odds of a full recovery are very, very, very low.

luke said...

"A lot of people were wrong and it's a shame that so few will admit it."
When the allegations first hit the airwaves, I must confess that I, too, assumed some team members were guilty (this was before any individuals were charged) and was hopeful that the power of the state would come down hard on them. This was all based on the soundbites that I had heard. I believe the presumption of innocence is an important foundation every juror must subscribe to, but I also believe that, as to non-jurors and in most high profile cases, a body of evidence eventually develops which can give one enough material to decide on a personal level whether one believes a person guilty or innocent. I was wrong in my initial presumption and I was wrong in not waiting for that body of evidence to develop before reaching a conclusion in my own mind. In fact, I had forgotten about the case and did not follow it in the slightest until Drudge linked the New York Times article several months ago. My feeling after reading the article was that something stank and that the gloss on that article was blinding. From there I began digging deeper and began reading motions and reviewing evidence, and became appalled at what I eventually discovered.

martin said...

Professor: whether you are sincere or merely presenting a passable imitation of a self-important senior academic (you could have established your credentials in a far less condescending manner), you are doing yeoman's duty as a meta Troll.

Vivian Thomas said...

When are we going to get a foundation that will support pursuing the civil suit against CGM and Nifong?

Anonymous said...

Professor I think it odd that "recent publications" are not linked and available for the public to read. Is this a departmental or Duke policy? How may one locate and read faculty publications?

Thank you.

Joe Bingham said...

Professor,

I hope you'll respond to my questions in response to your original post. Like huesofblue, I'm a liberal. I think KC is, as well. But (if you're the same professor) in your original post you seem to pain this issue as one of conservative vs. liberal, lumping criticisms of "you conservatives" in with criticisms of KC and of Thomas Sowell who, while conservative on some issues, certainly doesn't toe any sort of Republican line. Your beef in your original post didn't seem to be with attacks on classes of people, but on specific people like KH.

Some commenters here have certainly been guilty of declaring people guilty by class--whether blacks, liberals, or AA studies professors. In your post, though, you commit the same offense against conservatives, people who criticize KH, and whites (who are, apparently, falling behind in some theoretical race between races--zero sum game, anyone?).

Again, I may be assuming you're the professor whose post I linked to from this thread (4:04). I apologize if you're not him.

M. Simon said...

Guilford College in Greensboro was founded by Quakers.

Joe Bingham said...

The post I'm referring to is here, posted at 3:35.

You conservatives really crack me up. You take potshots at brilliant, hard-working African-American liberals like Professor Holloway, but you give a pass to overrated black conservatives like Thomas Sowell. Sowell is not a well-respected intellectual, and if you follow the link to his article you'll find that his writing is mediocre, and that he has no original insights on this case.

KC Johnson is also someone who has no original thoughts on this case. His book will shine no added light on this case.

Are you people really trying to argue that Duke shouldn't spend lots of money on brilliant feminist philosophers, as well as brilliant African poets, musicians and writers?

The poor, beaten-down Caucasian just can't get it through its head that other cultures--and races--are surpassing you.

Keep on blogging. My highly paid job at Duke is secure, and I've earned the salary I earn. I owe no one an apology.

Guess who?


QFT.

Anonymous said...

Dear fans of DIW:

the "Professor" ain't no real no Duke Professor.

If he is who he says he is, I am Derek Bok.

Joe Bingham said...

Here's my most important specific question for you:

On what basis (please point to specific dates and posts) are you so dismissive of KC's work here?

Anonymous said...

Joe: It could be that we dare disagree.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

To 8:42. So very true. In my state the wrongfully convicted guy who spend years in prison settled for 1 million $. Now, this man spend years and years in prison. So, whoever is talking about multimillion $ settlements-where are these money going to come from if someone who spend years in prison only gets 1 million $?

M. Simon said...

*

Latest Wendy Murphy

*

M. Simon said...

Don't forget books and movies.

M. Simon said...

8:08 PM,

Our very own Roman Polanski doesn'yt hate individuals or groups as I understand it.

What he hates is an idea. Some call it victim studies. Roman is more apt. He calls it Angry Studies. He is not too fond of pomo either.

Joe Bingham said...

EM 9:25,

Not sure I got that.

You mean he's dismissive of KC's work (and our opinions) because he (we) dare to disagree with KH and her ilk?

Please clarify. (Sorry, my brainpower is at something like 40% right now)

Anonymous said...

Simon: Oh, good Lord.

Do you want me to write something else on this poppycock? The results of a DNA test are "constitutionally protected?"

Are the rights of the Defendants to due process constitutionally protected, or are the rights of the accuser more important than the right to due process?

The prosecutor does not need to have full and complete disclosure because it might "taint" the jury pool? In other words, this paper advocates Brady violations.

The argument that the report which was provided sans the other DNA matches was performed as a result of the accusers right to privacy is also a laugher. Why was any report submitted at all then? Is a partial report less constitutionally damning than a full report?

And the part that asks why the defense did not appeal to the NC appellate court is equally laughable. perhaps they did not appeal because there has been no final determination to appeal, and their motion was granted when the Court allowed them to cross Meehan. As for sanctions, such an act by the Judge cured the santionable conduct, and left the matter of sanctions open to later determination.

Shoddy, very shoddy indeed.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe that Wendy Murphy wants to financially support the defendents. However, after reading her latest e-mail it's clear that she wants to be sued for libel. She still clings to the $2 Million dollar payoff, still comes up with bizarre ways for CGM to be assaulted and tells everyone that the defense is spinning and lying, and insists that the prosecution is under no obligation to disclose the DNA evidence even though NC has open discovery laws. The defense has filed motions in accordance with criminal procedure, did the prosecution even respond or did they just spin and lie to the media ?

Me thinks Wendy wants her day in civil court. Me thinks Wendy will get her day in court. Lets see if she's the great legal mind she thinks she is..... Keep posting Wendy.

Orange Lazarus

M. Simon said...

8:29PM,

I'm pretty much a no re-write guy.

The advantage I have is I type slow, so I prefer to think through very carefully how I intend to express my thoughts in the most clear vibrant and economical way possible.

Sometimes I succeed.

Punctuation and spelling is optional though. LOL

Anonymous said...

Joe: He is dismissive because it counters his own opinion and worldview.

Profs at top ten schools are not used to mere mortals like ourselves having the audacity to disagree with their highly researched opinions.

In other words, their reactions are simple denials. I call it the "nu uh" defense. Once a theory starts being analyzed in light of fact, and the facts argue against the viability of the theory, denial is the last desperate option available.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

M. Simon said...

-Esquire- -MD- 9:39 PM

Was it something I said or my link to Wendy Murphy?

The link was a service not a statement of congruence.

bill anderson said...

I would beg to differ with Mr. Bingham on Thomas Sowell. While I do not think his latest work is as good as the stuff he did, keep in mind that his book on Say's Law, which came from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago (which was before there was affirmative action for graduate students there) was published in 1972 and still is in print.

I used his 1974 book Classical Economics Reconsidered in my own history of economic thought class, and his 1980 book, Knowledge and Decisions, was a very good piece of work, along with his 1986 book on Marxism. While I am not as enamored with some of his later works, I respect Sowell very, very much as an historian of economic thought, and he made real contributions in his field.

Karla Holloway has become famous for articles with titles like "My Tongue in my Friend's Mouth" and the like. All of her work reads like her "Bodies of Evidence" piece, and literally ALL of her "scholarly" work is personal experience, how Karla is subject every day to vile racism, and how America is hell on earth.

I am sorry, but a century from now, people will be using Sowell as a reference, while Holloway will be long forgotten. Furthermore, that area of studies that Mr. Bingham so praises is nothing more than stuff that was created since the 1960s in order to placate campus radicals. There is almost nothing scholarly that is done in any of those departments, and you may not like my saying that, but it is true.

Anonymous said...

From Duke professor

9:18, et al I came to this site to answer a few questions. I enjoyed myself so much that I plan to return. I do not know what the social conventions are on this blog, but I am convinced that individuals like 9:18 are so hostile--for whatever reason--that they would eschew discussion of the case with a reasonable person, which is what I am. Please do not condescend to me, or accuse me of being the person I originally criticized.

I'll return tomorrow. I apologize that I couldn't address all your questions, but at least we can agree to have a civilized dialogue.

I bid you all a fond good night, and I sincerely hope that Duke can begin to come together.

westernblot said...

I have someexperience in the economics of large legal costs. Certainly the families have borne tremendous costs but as the complexion of the case has changed so has the liklihood of recovery.

In additional the national outrage virtually dictates that settlements will be made. That being said the parents have likely made new arrangements with counsel which contemplate a recovery on a partial contingency basis.

If they have not made such changes in the arrangements, they should now.

AMac said...

Re: Anonymous Duke English Prof --

Nobody reading this blog has any idea whether this commenter is a faculty member or a prankster.

Therefore, discussion on his or her terms ("ask the Professor") is pointless.

Anonymous Prof at 10:15pm, if you are serious, here's an idea.

E-mail KC Johnson and ask him to verify your identity but hold your name in confidence.

For that matter, you can e-mail me if you want. Same terms; I did this for Prof. Doe so he could comment anonymously in this blog post.

If you wish, email me from your duke.edu account at

AMac-2007@usa dot net

I'll be working at my computer for a couple of hours.

Unless and until you present some bona fides, you're just one more anonymous commenter, with no special insights to offer.

Anonymous said...

Sir, if I were to email you from my Duke account, I'd be forfeiting my anonymity.

If other posters feel similarly, I won't waste my time coming back.

Duke professor

M. Simon said...

10:35PM,

Roman is that you?

AMac said...

anonymous 10:35pm --

Please re-read my 10:29pm offer.

The most likely explanation for not e-mailing me or Prof. Johnson from your duke.edu account is ... well, do you have one?

You might be a lacrosse parent masquerading as a Duke prof! In the absence of any bona fides, who knows?

Anonymous said...

Duke professor is a fraud. Just enough provocation without imparting anything of substance. Writing too precise for G88/87.

Ignore the posts.

To "Duke professor" - don't come back.

dl

Michael said...

re: 10:35

The idea is that you verify your id to someone with credentials who you will trust to not reveal your true identity. You essentially do that when you are posting here but the trusted party is blogger.com.

The other poster was offering his service to vouch for you. I'm sure that Prof Johnson would do the same for you if you so desired.

If you don't trust anyone here, find someone that you do trust like a student that will vouch for you with a real email address.

Or, if you wish, create a group account from Duke so that Professors from Duke could post in an anonymous way.

Personally I think that you'd be generally more respected if you just used your first name.

Anonymous said...

KC's most commented post! 178 and counting.

Anonymous said...

The (Rump) Group of 88 Strikes Again

205 comments, and some of KC writings have even more comments.

Anonymous said...

Ten--and More--Questions for the (Rump) Group of 88

296 comments

Anonymous said...

The professor schtick is definitely a hoax.

Just like this case.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Kemp, Kemp wherefore art thou, Kemp?

How come you by news of the Bar and the faits of Nifong? We beseech you, answer your faithfuls' calls for news of the fray.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't this whole sorry mess at Duke make you want to examine tenure. Tenure will keep these faculty slobs in place just like the ongoing joke of removing Ward Churchill. The plagerizing and foul mouthed fool is still on the payroll after all of this time.

The rot on our campuses has been going on for decades.

In what sane universe would decent, caring, sacrificing parents really want these faculty cretins near their 18 year old's mind. It's time to start questioning the validity of tenure as protection for the incompetent, and, in the Duke case, the vicious.

Anonymous said...

Nifong plans on appearing before the NC Bar tomorrow even though not required per WRAL TV. Media should blitz his ARSE

Michael said...

Kemp is on vacation - a cruise I think.

Jim said...

Having a fake professor come on your favorite Duke chat board?

Commentless.

Some things you can't buy. For everything else, there's masquerade.

Anonymous said...

Simon,

I'm waiting for "Barack Obama" to appear, verifying the professor's bona fides.

LOL

Anonymous said...

Simon: Oh no, it's not you. The Talking Points you linked me to are shoddy in being demonstrably false and filled with unsupportable conjecture, and you certainly did not draft them. If you took my commentary as reflective on you in any way, that was certainly not my intention, and I apologize for any confusion on that point.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

M. Simon---

Don't disagree with Esquire. After always being very gracious toward him, I pointed out how gross the Dulcinea analogy was on another thread and suddenly I received these little anonymous barbs that were pure ad hominem......but no "signed" reply from him to my post.

Very petty things like the suggestion to alter my affected "ROTFLMTO !" and some other criticisms that were anonymous.

Some people can't stand to be questioned....even in a nice way.

To hell with that. I am amused by men who take praise so seriously.......but can't take a bit of deserved criticism.

Especially when the topic was so insignificant.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

The poor, beaten-down Caucasian just can't get it through its head that other cultures--and races--are surpassing you.

Would that it were so. Alas, it's not nearly so, nor even remotely so. But if it were so, it would mean that the ravaging dysfunction in the black community, widespread and painful to witness, had been largely remedied, and that would be a wonderful and welcome thing.

beckett

Anonymous said...

Jim 11:11 -

LMAO. How about:

Claiming that you haven't had sex for a week prior to the rape even though you've got the DNA of five men in every orifice and panties that can stand up by themselves?

Priceless!

Attempting to railroad three innocent young men and expecting a pension?

Senseless!

Appeasing a faculty of Affirmative Action castoffs?

Spineless!

dl

Anonymous said...

Deborah - Just because you're paranoid does not mean everyone's not talking about you.

Paranoia distorts reality.

I always sign my posts.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's political correctness, victimization, and master/slave relationships to draw down the bank account balance.

dl

Joe Bingham said...

I am convinced that individuals like 9:18 are so hostile--for whatever reason--that they would eschew discussion of the case with a reasonable person, which is what I am.

Mm-hm. Your original post was reasonable and not condescending? No. My response wasn't condescending or hostile--I responded to what you said and asked clear, pointed questions.

"I apologize that I couldn't address all your questions"

You haven't responded to anything I asked. You offered blanket criticisms of groups and baseless slams of people I admire. You claim to be an intellectual--you repeat it a lot, actually--but you can't be troubled to verify it.

Please explain how I've misunderstood your posts. Especially the part where you're not condescending.

Actually, I'm convinced this guy's legit--he's too condescending to be faking.

Anonymous said...

But Esquire,

What if everyone else really are talking about her and the paranoia is justified? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong!

dl

Anonymous said...

Debrah:

I suspect that you are paranoid.

Mr. Pepsi

Joe Bingham said...

Side note to Bill Anderson. I don't need an apology or anything, but I wish you'd delete the post in which you accuse me of praising AA studies and KH and bashing Sowell. Please read my posts carefully.

Anonymous said...

Debrah 11:35

New to the board. Could you please explain your literary reference?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 232   Newer› Newest»