Thursday, January 25, 2007

Duke Law School Panel

I happen to be in Durham for a few days, and so went by to watch today’s law school panel on prosecutors and improper public comments. Here’s a brief summary for those who couldn’t catch the webcast.

Metzloff:

He contended that the more serious charges in the ethics complaint are the pre-trial comments, and predicted the case might be one of the leading cases on this issue to talk about in law schools for quite some time.

If Nifong were still on the case, he added, this would be about easiest change of venue case you could imagine; neither he nor many colleagues he has spoken to could have judged case fairly with Nifong trying case, because of their distaste with his behavior.

Of all of Nifong’s comments, Metzloff termed the “hooligans” remark the worst, since it directly related to a bar rule prohibition—an assault on the personal character of the defendants.

In an intriguing section of his remarks, he tried to guess how Nifong might defend himself.

  • Public statements made before anyone arrested;
  • 1st amendment arguments;
  • His remarks constituted legitimate law enforcement purpose by trying to encourage “witnesses” to come forward;
  • He was a political novice— and got carried away.

Neither Metzloff nor any of the other panelists seemed impressed by these defenses.

Metzloff also pointed out that the bar—though it didn’t have to do so—expanded the allegations into Rule 8.4 (misconduct), suggesting that the bar desires serious sanctions.

Coleman

His comments were succinct and brilliant. His criticism of Nifong, he stated at the stat, had nothing to do whether students innocent or guilty; and it didn’t matter if they were Duke students, or UNC students, or NCCU students. The issue was one of procedure. He said that he had two specific concerns with Nifong’s conduct and one general problem.

Specific:

1.) The statements were racially inflammatory; made in circumstances that appeared to be for political gain, Nifong knew that what he was doing would increase racial tension—in effect, he was pandering to black voters in Durham.

2.) The statements were intended to heighten public condemnation of lacrosse team and privileged white students at Duke generally.

His overarching concern:

Because of his statements and effect in Durham and in the University, Nifong’s actions increased the chances that some would be wrongfully charged and even wrongfully convicted. Nifong involved himself in the investigation, contended Coleman, “in a way that was destructive.”

Also, Coleman noted, Nifong put pressure on police to focus investigation in single direction. He cited two examples:

1.) DNA evidence: if Nifong really believed the accuser had been sexually assaulted, the unidentified men whose DNA was found in her rape kit would have to be suspects.

2.) Lineup—everyone involved understood that it was done improperly, designed solely to get the accuser to pick three players, any three players, that Nifong could indict.

The summary: Nifong committed himself to bringing a case; he broke procedures to do so.

Neff

The question is better framed as how not to cover cases where prosecutors make high-profile remarks.

The coverage of this case, he noted, changed from a criminal case to investigation of someone else’s investigation; hidden agendas therefore played a more substantial role.

Reporters, moreover, have a long history of getting in trouble in cases like this—Richard Jewell and Wen Ho Lee are examples of why reporters need to be really careful in using anonymous sources in case like this.

Also, Neff cautioned, reporters need to beware of meta-narratives—instead, they must rely on the facts. (The New York Times coverage is the obvious example here.)

Neff, meanwhile, said that he was assigned to the story initially with a simple mandate—go out and find second dancer. He didn’t do so (this was very early on, when Roberts’ identity was unknown.) But his editors kept him on story because they suspected there was prosecutorial misconduct occurring.

The summary: reporters covering such a case need to know how the process is supposed to work; they need to learn the rules.

Tigar

He was a mesmerizing performer. He stated that the Nifong case will serve us well only if first step to addressing serious injustices in the system.

Nifong, he contended, harmed the system of justice in three ways.

  • His pretrial publicity had an obvious effect.
  • He did a distinct disservice to people who want to bring complaints of wrongdoing, by making fair-minded people less likely to believe legitimate victims, or making victims afraid of coming forward lest their case be turned into a media circus.
  • He derided people who invoked their constitutional right to counsel—thereby compromising basic values of the legal system.

All three attorneys predicted that the bar would punish Nifong severely. As Coleman noted, Nifong caused a great deal of damage; his behavior was intentional; and the damage was systemic.

Tiger also suggested that Nifong will have hard time establishing a Sullivan distinction on civil liability—since the lacrosse players weren’t public figures at the start of the case, Nifong will be very vulnerable to a libel suit.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Joe Bingham said...

Duke law school looks better to me now. If only they didn't fall under University administration...

Anonymous said...

KC,
Wish I'd known you were in the "Bull City" I'd had number one son take you to dinner. He is studying for law board tonight, so it is not possible now.

Keep up the good work, I am out of the country, I'll get on the Fed case with my sources as soon as I return.
OH BOY Mikey does the walk!!

Kemp

Anonymous said...

Mike Tigar is a former protege of the great trial lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, so it is no surprise that he was mesmerizing

Anonymous said...

KC - Please find out what is happening at the lab. Are they still in business, etc? Have a good trip and be careful.

gs said...

Nifong history.

He will spend his last dime defending himself against the Bar charges.

The Bar will show the State, "See we can clean our own house"

What is really good is that the two new DAs will be interviewing and chacking the reports/records of the "accuser", Meehan, the DPD and Wilson.
Who knows what else they will find out?

They should all be very afraid. Remember the new DAs know that the records will be released, lawsuits will be filed and the Feda may come in. There will be no coverup. The new DAs will expose the frame and all the players.

Anonymous said...


DNA evidence: if Nifong really believed the accuser had been sexually assaulted, the unidentified men whose DNA was found in her rape kit would have to be suspects.


An excellent point. If he believed that she was raped, which people say he does, then it would have been by one of the 5 men who left DNA in her. Logically the police should have been pursuing those leads. I think the police would have gone back to her to find out their names and then go question these guy to make sure it wa consentual.

Maybe we just havent heard about this part....

Anonymous said...

KC:

Give us a report on the attendees's responses to the event.

Anonymous said...

December's word of the month was "exculpatory".

January's word of the month is "schadenfreude".

HumboldtBlue said...

"DNA evidence: if Nifong really believed the accuser had been sexually assaulted, the unidentified men whose DNA was found in her rape kit would have to be suspects."

This idea has also stuck with me. The accuser worked the sex industry, and after the DNA tests confirmed the presence of male DNA, I thought to myself, maybe this is a lead to a rape that actually occurred.

And yet, we saw that following that line of thought was out of the question.

I truly wonder if the woman was raped that night, at an earlier event. Could help explain the alcohol and drug use ...

Anonymous said...

Just "happen to be in Durham"? I enjoy that line; I suppose I happened to be there during my four years at Duke as well.

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,

Who are you going to interview in Durham? Is it for your book?
Stay safe there (Nifong is still the DA, for now).

Anonymous said...

typo: "stat," should be "start,"

Anonymous said...

Looks like they all had great commentary. I, however, disagree with Metzloff to the extent that deception is the shortest path to disbarment here, nto the pre-trial comments (though they are bad sitting alone). Coleman's comments are the purest of the lot, and reflects a procedural mind aghast at what he has witnessed. Coleman, IMHO, should be a Judge. He has shown amazing consistency here, and I only hope the Federal Nominating officials have taken note. Tigar is also correct, that Sullivan does not apply, but what is unsaid is that CNN had better be aware of that as well. Nancy Grace, are you listening?

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer/retired professor: KC must have an interview for a position in the history department at Duke. No doubt he will be wined and dined by the group of 88.

Anonymous said...

Mike Tigar was mentioned in

Lawyer Bob Ekstrand urges petition signings

Tigar declined to sign, though he did state that Nifong had "repeatedly violated ethical rules in dealing with the press"

Anonymous said...

KC,

Why haven't we seen anything about the proposed walk of support scheduled for Feb. 4th by concerneddukemothers on the post?

Just curious

Jack Denver said...

To the others looking for why the other DNA leads were not pursued:

It's obvious - Nifong must have realized that this DNA belong to Crystal's other "customers" and/or "friends" and would only lead to embarrassment and further destruction of her credibility. He knew it did not belong to any LAC player.

Anonymous said...

Esquire,

I've read your (justifiable) comments about Nancy Grace, but if you're gonna boycott that ... that ... whatever she is ... you've got to boycott the knucklehead that is O'reilly over at FOX, because Nancy Murphy is still his honored and frequent guest, and she's done a lot more to cause pain to the LAX boys than Grace ...

Anonymous said...

There was never any "real" rape to investigate it, and Nifong knew it, as soon as he had the cold shower of learning that the DNA tests on the lacrosse players were negative.

Almost certainly the DNA of the men found inside the AV was left by paying customers, or perhaps her drivers.

The interesting question is whether some of the mystery DNA may have belonged to a member of the Durham PD. That would add spice to this story. Gottlieb... anyone?

gs said...

3:20

If Nifong was interested in truth, before arresting the third player, he would have asked the woman:

Are you sure you only had sex with your boy friend?

Could you have picked out the wrong persons in the lineup?

No, he charged the third player and noone interviewed the "accuser" until Dec. Nifong was not interested in the truth. In fact as the BAr points out he tried to hide the DNA.

wayne fontes said...

Was there any comment about the sheer volume of comments. That was a problem in and of itself. Was Karala Holloway on the grounds.

I'm curious about the atmosphere on campus. Was there an absence of terror or did it fell like everything was up for grabs? Tell us now that you are on the ground what does a social disaster feel like?

Anonymous said...

It seems odd to me that the panel spent so much time on pretrial comments by Nifong. They were, of course, ethically wrong, but I think that far more serious was the apparent conspiracy to obstruct justice by withholding evidence he was required by law to deliver. This carries the potential for more than attorney discipline; it could result in an indictment against Nifong. Moreover, lying to the court, and to opposing counsel, is a major ethical wrong as every lawyer knows. Is Nifong simply crazy, or has he been getting away with this for a long time?

Anonymous said...

3:49 - Incomparable. Murphy is invited on to O'Reilly to provide a countering opinion that he then gets to destroy. Murphy is invited on Nancy Grace for a concurring opinion. It's like two lunatics patting each other on the back.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

"DNA evidence: if Nifong really believed the accuser had been sexually assaulted, the unidentified men whose DNA was found in her rape kit would have to be suspects."

Doesn't that include Meehan too? His DNA was one of the 5. The story is that it was the result of contamination in the laboratory, but what if it was the result of contamination in the bedroom? Is it possible that Meehan is one of CGM's client's? Wouldn't that be a motivation for him to cooperate with Nifong in the first place?

This is all speculation, but ???

Anonymous said...

Since much has been made of the fact that there were non lacrosse players at the party, isn't this part of why the rigged line up should supposedly pass muster, it would seem that upon finding DNA from other men, not lacrosse players, that the logical thing to assume was maybe she ID'd the wrong perps, and to have redoubled your efforts to find the non lacrosse player party attendees, get their DNA, and then you would have your correct perps.

The fact that this did not occur seems to severely undercut Nifong's argument about the rigged line up. It goes without saying that he knew the DNA came from the sex worker's 'dates' from earlier in the week or the day, even.

Cedarford said...

Like so many it seems, it really struck me when discovery of 5 different men's semen was discovered dribbling out of, or encrusted on her underwear - not of the 46 accused -

Why?

1. If Nifong believed as Brodhead and the Gang of 88 that "something happened in that House - why he didn't immediately check out the untested non-lacrosse players he know were at the Party?

2. Why if he was convinced that Mangum was truthful, did he not immediately interview her about the discrepency of 5 guys semen not of the Duke lacrosse players on her? About her whole story.

No, what it appeared happened is he went to the Grand Jury the day after. Without pursuing the DNA discrepencies or Mangums story discrepencies and indicted ham sandwiches he knew were innocent.

The Bar maybe had an oblique reference to it in their complaint - but I wish they had added specific charges that he failed to pursue DNA leads of unaccounted for "suspects" and didn't square his accuser's story with the facts.
*****************
The Law school prof's observation that in his opinion Nifong is liable for slander of non-public figures is nice. But I heard Nifong has all his assets in his wife's name and likely his pension is OJ-simpson untouchable-like. I wonder if damages Nifong caused in that tort can still get a pound of deserving flesh from the guy.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

1. The panelist of course spent more time on their prepared over the last month comments and less on the new charges that they only had a day to incorporate into the comments. And it is human nature to both use the material you previously prepared and to say all this material I spent the most time on is the most important. Their views my change as time passes.

2. Professor Johnson, were you armed? Were all the panelist armed? Was everyone in the audience armed? I have heard that the Duke campus is a very very dangerous place with lots of racists and violent people about?

3. I wonder, if people who play sports publically and are regularly interviewed for stories about their games are public people or not?

4. A first ammendment defense is laughable. This a bar proceeding. Nifong is not at risk of his liberty. He does not have a RIGHT to hold a law license. He does not have a RIGHT to be the DA. He has those priveledges only when he accepts the restrictions that come with them.

Anonymous said...

3:20 PM,

You wrote, "I think the police would have gone back to her to find out their names and then go question these guy to make sure it wa consentual."

Well, maybe you are right in thinking that anyone dumb enough to have sex with CGM might be dumb enough to say it was not consensual. However, I somehow doubt it.

Cochise's Enchilada
3:20 PM

Anonymous said...

Can't we do without 'dribbling' and 'encrusted' terminology?

Some of the DNA came from stains, probably old, and some from what appear to be the leavings of more recent unprotected sexual contact.

The language you use to describe the DNA results is neither accurate or necessary.

Anonymous said...

Someone must have worked out a scientific formula that predicts the degree to which a person will deviate from the straight-and-narrow as determined by, among other things, (a) the extent of the contemplated deviation, (b) the subjectively perceived risks of getting caught, (c) the subjectively perceived probability of getting caught, and (d) the person's propensity for analyzing and modifying behavior in accordance with a, b, and c, instead of just sticking with doing the right thing.

Given the caliber of this group, I expect to see the appropriate link posted here before I get back from my meeting.

Dave in CA

don t. said...

If Duke has any assets left after the lacrosse team (yes, team) gets through with them, it will need someone like Prof. Coleman to protect them. He or his clone needs to be the Pres.

Trinity60

Anonymous said...

4:02, you say:

This is all speculation, but ???

If this case has forcefully taught anything, it's that unfounded speculation, particularly lascivious unfounded speculation, leads to grief.

And that's just ugly and unnecessary.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Crystal work a NCCU fraternity party the day of the lacrosse party?

gs said...

Cedarford said...

I agree that any DA would put his assets in his wife name, years ago.

But Nifong is still owed 8K from his campaign. I doubt he is getting donations now.

He will bleed money defending himself from the Bar.

When the other lawsuits start, I expect him not to show up and result in default judgements.

The real money is the lawsuits against Durham, NC, and Duke. Someone has to pay for the Dukies lawyers.

Cedarford said...

3:49 - Incomparable. Murphy is invited on to O'Reilly to provide a countering opinion that he then gets to destroy. Murphy is invited on Nancy Grace for a concurring opinion. It's like two lunatics patting each other on the back.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-


Sorry, Esquire, but crap.

O'Reilly uses Wendy Murphy as his "sex crimes expert" that agrees with whatever Bill says about the latest child molestation case 'Ol Bill is championing justice for.

He doesn't bash Murphy. He pays her well and nods his head sagely at whatever psychotic lies come out of the moonbat's mouth.

The other night, the discredited Murphy explained her hokey "Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome" - which forensic psychologists describe as a schlock theory that is not admissable in court because it covers no symptoms of child abuse but only tries to explain psychological "normalicy" of behavior in kids that may or may not have been abused.

The evil bitch couples CSAAS with the equally discredited "recovered memories" theory she clings to to explain numberous Day Care Center witch hunts and Crystal Mangums many stories - that the only story that matters is the one that the child (or skank whore) can come up with, using anatomically correct dolls to educate the kid or Crystal Gail what the "bad part" of a man is and psychological coaxing to get the "right" responses. (Similar to the type Linwood Wilson did.)

Gayle Miller said...

I had said from the outset that this case kept giving me flashbacks of the Sam Shepherd trial in Cleveland - the 2nd one necessitated because Dr. Shepherd's first conviction was thrown out due to PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. I was a very young and green reporter covering that 2nd trial and pretty intimidated by the presence of such heavy hitters as Dorothy Kilgallen on the story, but this I do remember: The judge in that 2nd trial had imposed such a draconian gag order on the press that we could not report on things that we all - as a group - witnessed that might or might not have impacted the jurors' deliberations.

And since I've never heard of that prohibition on excessive pre-trial publicity being rescinded anywhere, I found Mike Nifong's babbling to be quite troubling.

Nifong has caused so much damage to so many in ways that are not yet even felt that he really needs to be held to account for his actions and definitely SHOULD BE disbarred in perpetuity.

At least that's my opinion.

gs said...

Liestoppers had an interesting quote:

Nifong may ask the attorney general to pay for his legal fees, arguing that he was acting in his public capacity. The attorney general can recommend the state pick up the fees; the request must be approved by the Council of State.

No way:
1 - Withholding evidence is against the law, not part of the job.

2 - Politics, no AG is going to let that action be in his resume. The AG is going to say calling people names is part of a DAs job?

Anonymous said...

cedarford,

I think you have some problems well beyond this particular case or Wendy Murphy.

You can call it whatever you want but it is an established fact that childhood victims of sexual asault will often go to great lengths to hide the abuse, going so far as to outright deny abuse when even forensic science proves it occured. To belittle the idea that normal appearing children can be victims of sexual assault is wrong. I agree recovered memories are a crock, but I'm not sure that Wendy Murphy supports them, if you are right, then, she should be ashamed of herself, but so should you.

Anonymous said...

KC, could you (or someone else who saw/heard the presentation) please explain this comment: "He [Tigar] derided people who invoked their constitutional right to counsel—thereby compromising basic values of the legal system." ?

- Lawyer J

Anonymous said...

"If this case has forcefully taught anything, it's that unfounded speculation, particularly lascivious unfounded speculation, leads to grief.

And that's just ugly and unnecessary"


I disagree that it is UNFOUNDED speculation. Meehan's DNA was one of the 5 found. Is it settled that the reason is from laboratory contamination? Or could it be from some other reason?

I am simply asking these questions. If someone has a definitive answer that laboratory contamination is conclusively the source for Meehan's DNA to be mixed into the rape kit then I will certainly accept that. But if that is NOT conclusive, then it poses the question how else did it get there?

Gayle Miller said...

Please don't mention Nancy Grace, folks. She offends me to the deepest recesses of my being!

Anonymous said...

4:12 & the second 4:16 just have to be the same person.

What sanctimony and moralizing!

feh.

Anonymous said...

I thought Meehan's DNA came from dandruff, I give it 100% certainty that it wasn't his semen that was found.

Anonymous said...

Nifong said "Why do they need lawyers if they are innocent"

Anonymous said...

"O'Reilly uses Wendy Murphy as his "sex crimes expert" that agrees with whatever Bill says about the latest child molestation case 'Ol Bill is championing justice for.

He doesn't bash Murphy. He pays her well and nods his head sagely at whatever psychotic lies come out of the moonbat's mouth."

I'm with ya on that one Cedar

Chief Joseph's Quesadilla

Anonymous said...

No. Sorry, I am 4:12 and not 4:16.

There is nothing sanctimoneous about wanting the discussion to focus on facts and not take a downhill turn into the gutter.

The post I was responding to was inaccurate and unnecessarily crude. It doens't change the fact that the accuser is a liar and most probably a prostitute.

There is no reason in this case to inflate and exaggerate the overwhelming evidence of innocence.

Anonymous said...

LawyerJ - You didn't catch that? Nifong said early that if the players were innocent, then why do they need lawyers? I almost fell over when I heard it.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

I was so wishing someone would have asked his lawyer about that statement, but I guess that would be too argumentative??

gs said...

He said it during an ESPN interview.

I think that is one of the Bars pet peeves with Nifong. Hard to talk your way out of that to a bunch of lawyers.

Anonymous said...

" LawyerJ - You didn't catch that? Nifong said early that if the players were innocent, then why do they need lawyers? I almost fell over when I heard it.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

4:34 PM "

And that refrain has been the lone talking point from supporters of the accuser i.e. if they're innocent they should want to go to trial as soon as possible.

Geronimo's Burrito

gs said...

In the old days a lawyer could say he was misquoted. Nifong did most of these statements will being filmed.

The court transcripts also nail him. He is just wasting his money trying to defend himself.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for Nifong, there is no single defense that can account for all of his statements and actions.

If it were only the 'hooligans' wall of silence, he might be able to get away with trying to get witnesses to come forward. But how to account for the condom statement? The innocent people don't need lawyers statement? The date rape drug statement?

Forget about the DNA, I cannot see any way to explain his multiple false statements in a cohesive manner that accounts for all of them.

But, perhaps his alleged victim can help him out, or he could just move the dates around a bit.

GTP said...

It looks like the deed to Nifong's house is in both his and Cy's names. It's valued at $281,000 so even if he owned it outright, it's not going to cover all his legal bills.

Anonymous said...

For any of you who are locals or within the general area of Durham ...

Will you participate in the walk of support scheduled for February 4th with the concerned Duke mothers? If so, please bring lots of pots and pans, and maybe a sign or two.

Seeing as though it's on a Sunday, I think maybe something along the lines of ... "it's Sunday morning, time to confess," should work.

Sacagawea's empanada

Anonymous said...

Coleman

His comments were succinct and brilliant. His criticism of Nifong, he stated at the stat,


start?

Anonymous said...

Chief Joseph's Quesadilla- that's just what I was going to say.

One night O'Reilly is ripping on the bath-robed Nifong & the Duke hoax. Then the very next night he has Murphy on as a guest to speak about child molestation, and he agrees with everything she says.

Just having her as a guest on a show gives her credibility that she very undeserving of. IT also diminishes the host's credibility

DisgrAce

gs said...

If I was Nifong I would not comment on the DNA issue in front of the Bar. The judge in the case can still charge Nifong. Any comments he makes to the Bar better not conflict with what he tells the judge. Judge on one side, Bar on the other. Nifong better keep his mouth shut about the DNA issue.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Esquire Maryland and 4:29. I had missed that outrageous statement by Nifong and misread "He" in the OP as referring to Tigar. Couldn't figure out why Tigar would be deriding people for invoking their constitutional rights. My own carelessness.

- Lawyer J

Anonymous said...

gs,

If I were Nifong (and didn't off myself) I would fold and fold fast to keep the bills at a minimum.

M. Simon said...

joe 3:04PM,

Look at U. Chicago.

I hear they have a pretty good law school.

gs said...

Nifong loves late Friday's afternoon to drop news bombs. I'm hoping one Friday to hear he has resigned and given up his license.

He is just bleeding money trying to defend himself. Its too well documented.

Sell the house move to Florida, buy a house, the house can not be touched in a lawsuit.

That what a smart person would do. Of course as soon as he trys to sell, some Lax player will file a lawsuit and try to lock the house up, pending a trial.

Anonymous said...

Any bets on how soon he will resign?

I don't think he's ready yet, based on his lawyer's comments today reality is just now sinking in for him.

Anonymous said...

To a lawyer
Will it mean anything to the case if Nifong is found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct?

M. Simon said...

anon 3:20 PM,

Want to bet one or more of those 5 were "too hot to handle"?

Which might explain the "privacy concern" remark by Jailfong.

Anonymous said...

Any chance that members of the grand jury will coem forward to say what the representative of the DPD or DA'a office (Nifong was not there, right?)said was their evidence that justified the indictment?

Any thing to prohibit them speaking publically?

Some of them must be getting the idea that they were dupped, don't ya think?

gs said...

His lawyers will review the Bar complaints, the court records and the public statements, and then tell him he has no chance.

I believe that his lawyers told him to recuse himself or they would not take his case (just guessing).

He is not going to bankrupt his family on a lost cause. I expect him to be gone before his lawyers file a response at the end of Feb.

By that time he will have spent thousands and his lawyers will tell him he has no viable defense.

It gets much worst if by the end of Feb the new DAs drop the case.

It could even get worst as the new DAs interview the hoax major players. Who knows what they may find out about Nifong?

I say he is gone by the end of Feb.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford et al:

Regarding the ownership of the Nifong assets; I believe that it can be proved that they are his assets, as well as his wife's, and would be fair game.

Any attorneys care to comment?

Sitting Bull's Taco

gs said...

5:11 PM

In NC they do not record what is said in the grand jury.

So even if a juror broke the law and talked about it, it is only what he remembers. I'm sure the DPD remembers it a different way.

LOL

Anonymous said...

I didn't know it was illegal for a member of the grand jury to speak publicly. Jurors in criminal cases who are the actual finders of fact can speak about their deliberations IF they want to, so why should a member of the grand jury that just says yes or no to the indictment be prohibited.

I would LOVE to hear from someone at the grand jury, but they may not have been a Duke friendly group of Durhamites, so may not have any desire to come forward and tell what kind of bogus evidence Nifong used to get his indictment.

M. Simon said...

anon. 4:26PM,

Some kids get over abuse. Some do not.

Go to the below site and click on the "CB1" link to find out why.

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

Joe Bingham said...

m. simon 505,

UChicago already has my application.

JAB

Anonymous said...

I was watching some cable news show, and one of the folks commenting on the Duke case used a word I have always pronounced as bay-null (banal), but this dude pronounced buh-nahl ... I've noticed this more and more of late ... why?


Chief Illiniwek's horchada

Anonymous said...

Grand juries are secert.
to prevent retailation against the members.
Also
Some people are not indicted, so their names should not be dragged thru the mud.

So grand juries are secert, but in NC they don't record them in any manor. So DPD could not mention that one of the players has an alabi or that the DNA came back negative for Lax players but she had 4 other men's DNA in her.

Grand juries are very one sided, Nifong could indict a ham sandwich.

HumboldtBlue said...

M. Simon, seeing as though you're a Rockford guy, do you know anyone from the Yocum clan? (and yes, they do exist, relatives of mine)

Joe Bingham said...

527,

Interesting. I was going to make fun of them, but they're right. I guess I'm the illiterate one.

Either is correct, but the pronunciation they used is preffered.

Anonymous said...

5:28

Still seems odd to me, especially the part about no transcript.

My understanding though is that whether it is a grand jury or a probable cause hearing by a judge that the prosecutor can use only the evidence he wants to, since the threshold is so low, there is no rule, in fact, it is never done, that any exculpatory information would be presented at a grand jury or a probable cause hearing before a judge.

Anonymous said...

Thanks JB

Anonymous said...

Is it illegal for a member of a NC Grand Jury to speak publicly about the evidence presented? If several were to come forward, DPD be damned, we might learn something

Cy's Huevos Divorciados

Anonymous said...

In many cases where DNA has lead to exoneration,it is based on a combination of the accused's DNA NOT being found AND the presence of someone else's DNA. So, where are those someone else's? Surely they are the guilty one's if in fact the prosecution believes sexual assault has occurred. Certainly the 3 Lax players can not be guilty when it is not their DNA that was found on this woman. Since Crystal is unable to make a visual identification, wouldn't the DNA be the next best identifier? After all, isn't identification the idea of DNA? If the prosecution wants to move forward with sexual assault,the DNA will lead the way to the real perps. What's to think about? Seems pretty simple and logical.

gs said...

Nifong could have arrested the lax players without going through a grand jury. But the players would have been entitiled to a evidence hearing in front of a judge.

Nifong knew he could not pull that off, so he waited 9 days to go to a grand jury with these "dangerous rapists" on the street so he could skip the judge.

Anonymous said...

gs,

So it's either or at the prosecutor's discretion? Am I right that if it's a probable cause hearing before a judge the defense lawyers are present, but they don't get to go before the grand jury?

M. Simon said...

HumboldtBlue said...

M. Simon, seeing as though you're a Rockford guy, do you know anyone from the Yocum clan? (and yes, they do exist, relatives of mine)

I'm not a townie only got here in '86 due to a Sundstrand contract. Don't know any Yocums.

Do you actually live in Humboldt County CA? I used to hang around Whitethorn, Briceland, Redway, and Etter's Pass. Back in the wild and wooly 60s.

Anonymous said...

How would Diphthong's exposure to civil liability change if he just folded and gave up his bar card?

If it is a foregone conclusion that he is a Tostada, why spend the money? (ego?)

Mike's Moronga (a mexican sausage made of pig's blood)

gs said...

Yep,

The evidence hearing is both sides, but the average joe on the grand jury is getting spoon feed.

And because its secert, we will never know what was said. And since it is not recorded (paper or electronic) and is a year later, who knows what was said. But Nifong gets to pick who goes in and talks to the grand jury, it is very one sided.

Anonymous said...

KC's posted extensively about the need for North Carolina grand jury reform in the past. Beth Brewer also had a recent column about it:

http://heraldsun.com/opinion/columnists/guests/68-807247.cfm

"How diligent was the Durham County grand jury on April 17 when the first indictments in the Duke lacrosse case were heard? The grand jury heard evidence related to 81 felony charges that day and returned 81 indictments. How could the grand jury have had enough time to hear and question witnesses, carefully weigh each case, look for probable cause, and debate the issues? The grand jury did what it was asked to do: issue indictments and allow Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to bypass a probable cause hearing. "

Hey said...

Any transfers or conversions in the previous 3 years can be reversed. Further, anyt transaction done in contemplation of a specific action can be reveresed. It's similar to tax rules that you can't do anything solely for tax purposes, there has to be a business/investment purpose too. If all you're doing is a tax arbitrage scheme, the government will void it take your money. If you shuffle assets in contemplation of a specific lawsuit (which anything done by Nifong since the accusations would be) then you are SOL, even for homestead laws.

Esq.: could one file a civil suit under seal? or file an injunction to freeze assets before a lawsuit is filed? Of course no one will be able to get any real money out of Liefong, but he's got 47 families baying for his blood and I'm sure that the Evans' at least will spend another few hundred k to make his life miserable.

Anonymous said...

Attorney privilege?

The Marxists would have a strong argument if they were to analyze the comments on this board. Here we have a man, Michael Nifong, an attorney. He has committed crimes so foul that I could justify having him hanged.

If this Nifong were a plumber, do you think for a second that society would not want him locked up for a long time? Lawyers are a lot like low-IQ, female sociopaths: they were born with a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Limiting his sanctions to Bar-related BS is an outrage.

Why are lawyers and prosecutors given such nice gifts by society?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

RP

Anonymous said...

I think it's bizarre that any grand jury proceedings would not be transcribed, but unlike a lot of people here, I don't think the criminal justice system makes it overly easy on prosecutors, I tend to feel our system is too easy on defendants.

gs said...

Do like OJ and other scum. Buy a house in Florida and you can not touch it. Sell the house (in NC) in a fire sale and move the asset to Florida (new house) otherwise his house is gone.

I bet though, Nifong signed a lien on the house to cover his new lawyers. His lawyers want to make sure they get paid before anyone else.

HumboldtBlue said...

M Simon,

I do, I live and work in Eureka. Moved here a few years ago and absolutely love it (well, except for the four police-involved shootings over the past six months ... that's right, four separate incidents)

Anonymous said...

Tangential: "potbanger" is not defined in Wikipedia nor The Urban Dictionary. Surely that's a cultural oversight...

Anonymous said...

5:45:"our system is too easy on defendants"

Please tell me how we get Precious and Mikey to join the defendant class. That's the point: society protects a lot of sleazeballs from being characterized as defendants.

I heard the term "overcriminalization" thrown around on this board.

What about "undercriminalization"?

Nifong and Precious won the lottery.

KC, if you describe Coleman as "brilliant," then how would you describe Charles Murray?

RP

Vitruvius said...

English jurist William Blackstone said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". For an excellent essay on the n Guilty Men principle, that directly relates to the matter at hand, see Alexander Volokh's 1997 University of Pennsylvania Law Review essay here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong is already a defendant in the bar case, eventually he will be a defendant in a civil trial, though his immunity may keep him from being a criminal defedant.

There is ample evidence that this is the rare truly, obviously false rape complaint and the accuser should be charged with filing a false complaint. However, PC politics will protect her, because as a downtrodden black woman, already victimized by society at large, it will never happen that she's charged for her role in perpetuating this hoax.

Chicago said...

I search news.google.com and other places for the Duke Lacrosse case periodically. After reading this and I happened across an article by Alton Maddox Jr in the Black Star News

It seems that a few reporters could take Neff's advice - beware of meta-narratives and rely on the facts. If the facts don't support your discussion however, there do seem to be alternatives.

I have to give Alton points for substituting creativity and intuitive thinking for a knowledge of proper procedure when he writes "Since the indictments are still in play, a judge must believe that where there is smoke there must also be fire. Otherwise, the indictments, in the Duke case would have been dismissed months ago. A judge and not a prosecutor has the authority to dismiss an indictment."

So apparently the ethics charges against Mike N. are a red herring. I wonder how Mike was able to drop the rape charge when he was so powerless as a prosecutor?

The New York Times also continues their unbiased coverage. By the end I was unsure if Mike N. was getting railroaded for helping old women across the street.

Sadly for the NYT this article may be a step in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

There wouldn't be much point in suing Nifong for libel (and I agree Sullivan would not apply here). Nifong, in his individual capacity (which is how he would be sued in a libel suit) is likely to be judgment proof (having spent whatever $$ he has now on his Bar defense). That's why the families need to proceed with a Sec. 1983 suit. While Nifong does not have deep pockets, the municipality (or State, I'm not sure which government entity actually pays Nifong's salary) does -- and that's the party from whom the LAX players will be able to recover the big bucks.

Anonymous said...

I would describe Charles Murray as a race-baiting wannabe intellectual whose made money selling a sham idea in a sham book.

Geronimo's Bell Curve

Anonymous said...

You thought Mike Tigar was "mesmerizing?" Interesting. I've taken a couple of seminars from him, and I always thought he came off as rather pompous. I guess it's a matter of taste.

gs said...

Maddox was disbarred for the Brawley hoax.

He only writes in very radical black sites and papers. tries to appeal to radical blacks.

Anonymous said...

That guy is a nut. I mean, Tawana Brawley was a real victim??? He should be ashamed to write such nonsense, the sad thing is that a lot of members of his audience will probably believe it.

Anonymous said...

6:01

false rape accusations are common. Google it. There are many articles about this in criminology journals.

"as a downtrodden black woman..."

The above-cited women are responsible for our criminal underclass, and I am certain that Precious's male children will be a major burden on society.

Should society criminalize irresponsible breeding?

It's certainly something to think about.

RP

Anonymous said...

re the word "hoax"

I've come to realize that this word is another euphemism we've used to color the deeper truth:

Precious didn't perpetrate a hoax--she deliberately and viciouslt attempted to ruin the lives of innocents.

We need a new word to describe what Precious "accomplished"

RP

Anonymous said...

6:05 GS

Maddox was not disbarred for the Brawley affair. He was disbarred for stealing money from clients.

RP

Anonymous said...

RP

No, false rape accusations are NOT common. That is myth.

If you seek out reputable studies and statistics from the FBI and DOJ, or even the huge study done by the UK only a year or so ago, you will find that over many decades and many countries the false rape rape is somewhere between 3-6 percent.

There is only one single study I am aware of that found a very high rate of false rape claims, and as any scientist will tell you, if your results cannot be replicated they are worthless, an anomoly.

The perception that false rape complaints are common and 50 or more percent of rape complaints is pervasive, but it is false.

Anonymous said...

6:20

re false allegations

According to scholars in this area, no reliable stata are available for false rports--for obvious reasons. I suggest you phone Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau's office. Ask for ethnic and racial stata for false reporters. They won't give them to you. Why? Figure it out.

The acecdotal evidnce suggests that female sociopaths have a likelihood to commit this type of crime.

RP

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt that a female sociopath would be prone to make a false rape report, just like I don't doubt that a female criminal or an unbalanced emotionally unstable criminal would be prone to make a false rape report.

But those are a small minority, just like men who rape comprise a small minority of all men.

It is also true that false rape complaints are hard to prove, e.g. prove they are false, but so are legitimate rape complaints hard to prove that they are true, which is why most rape cases never make it to court and a l ot of cases that do make it to court result in acquittal.

All of which make this case all the more horrible, because it further cements wrong views of people that most rape complaints are false and that women should routintely be disbelieved, rather than being treated like any other victim..you believe them until there is a reason not to believe them.

Vitruvius said...

"Trust, but verify." --Ronald Reagan

Anonymous said...

I am a recently admitted attorney in New York State. I remember quite clearly in my ethics course that comments such as the ones Nifong made are great big NO-NOS!!! Very rudimentary stuff. I'm shocked that he went ahead and made those statements. I'm not surprised that he committed a Brady violation with the DNA evidence (secret prosecutorial misconduct is not unique, particular with those less well off than the Duke students, making his practices even more threatening to those not similarly economically situated). I was, however, very surprised to see Mike Nifong go on national television and broadcast his ethical violations on national television!!!

Cedarford said...

Anonymous - You can call it whatever you want but it is an established fact that childhood victims of sexual asault will often go to great lengths to hide the abuse, going so far as to outright deny abuse when even forensic science proves it occured. To belittle the idea that normal appearing children can be victims of sexual assault is wrong. I agree recovered memories are a crock, but I'm not sure that Wendy Murphy supports them, if you are right, then, she should be ashamed of herself, but so should you.

4:26 PM


If you weren't so in the grip of your self-righteous ignorance, you would understand my critique of Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome is that it is not usable. It tells an investigator nothing other than abuse victims may appear normal.

Murphy could have been just as easily opining on use of the Serial Killer Pizza Eating Syndrome to explain why a serial killer appeared "normal". It is a fact that serial killers attempt to enjoy other facets of their life and that includes eating fun food. It is worthless as a diagnostic tool to separate pizza eaters into the good and "bad" types.

Which is why Murphy would be laughed out of court if she explained why "normal" wasn't really normal based on a normalacy syndrome w/o means or diagnostic tools to discern if a crime took place. (and yes, Murphy is a huge fan of "recovered memories" from her Day Care witchcraft trial days, and a brainless lover of "always believe the victim" theory - as long as the "victim" accuser is female)

Believe what you want - you clearly don't understand what the forensic community's opinion of victim advocates pet theories like CSAAS is.

Wendy Murphy was just shoveling her usual shit into the usual dumb audience maws.
********************
Anonymous 6:20PM

RP

No, false rape accusations are NOT common. That is myth.

If you seek out reputable studies and statistics from the FBI and DOJ, or even the huge study done by the UK only a year or so ago, you will find that over many decades and many countries the false rape rape is somewhere between 3-6 percent.


Sorry, you're just dishing out feminist crap.

The UK study was thoroughly err...."pussified", by weeding out all false rape allegations AS false rape accusations if the accuser later said "Whoops, never mind", or stats dropped because charges were not pressed by the Crown because they believed the woman was lying or crazy.

Only those that entered UK judicial process after charges were made AND they survived initial hearings and were later debunked counted in your "only 3-6%".

In any country, a screening process weeds out dog accusations before trial. (Unless there is Nifongery afoot) So you get the 95% of murder trials ending in conviction, rape 96% conviction rate - 4% accuser determined lying during trial, yadayada...

Actual counts from college studies and US Air Force Stats show false rape accusations from the first allegation made, before LEO investigatory involvement, in the 42-50% range.

I also believe that more studies should be done and DOJ should finally get into the business of doing honest, objective crime statistics.

But keep in mind that feminist- driven "male violence, rape facts" occupy a separate universe from ours.
Did you know that every second the Super Bowl is on, a woman is severely beaten, on average, by a husband intoxicated by violent "helmeted sports"?

Anonymous said...

"Chief Joseph's Quesadilla- that's just what I was going to say.

One night O'Reilly is ripping on the bath-robed Nifong & the Duke hoax. Then the very next night he has Murphy on as a guest to speak about child molestation, and he agrees with everything she says.

Just having her as a guest on a show gives her credibility that she very undeserving of. IT also diminishes the host's credibility

DisgrAce"

I'm with you Dis, but it was Cedar's rebuttal to Esquire that I copied and pasted, not my original post (damned jebbie-educated background means I have to confess)

Geronimo's Quesadilla

Anonymous said...

So terrific to watch this thing finally turning around and creating an acknowledged touchstone for legal education. I just want those charges DROPPED. Any inside word, KC, on whether the march and hearing definitely will take place as scheduled February 4 and 5?

Observer

Anonymous said...

on the faslse rape claims, this is an interesting quote from a news article on the Kobe Bryant case:

"The statistics on false rape reports in the U.S. are widely divergent, and often too outdated to be meaningful. Not surprisingly, the numbers also depend on whom you ask. Organizations that tout a feminist agenda claim the number of false rape reports to be nearly non-existent - about two percent. But other organizations, taking the side of men, claim that false reports are actually very common - citing numbers ranging from forty-one to sixty percent.
Amid the statistics, the truth is impossible to ascertain - but it's plain that false reports are indeed made, and that they can ruin the life of the accused."

I am SO sorry that I didn't save the footnotes which detailed the basis for the conflicting statistics, but there were a number of conflicting studies.

Anonymous said...

"Did you know that every second the Super Bowl is on, a woman is severely beaten, on average, by a husband intoxicated by violent "helmeted sports"?"

This is an urban myth, one I challenge you to provide even a shred of credible evidence to support it (and I challenge kindly, this is not an in-your-face response)


Chuexacotl's Margarita

Anonymous said...

Vitruvius
Great link!
Barry Scheck,(OJ Simpson DNA expert)and a founder of the Innocence Project said
"Every time an innocent person is convicted it means there are more guilty people out there who are still committing crimes."

patsy mc said...

Hello

As an attorney who sadly was forced to do collection work at the beginning of my career, I would like to respond to Sitting Bull (5:14), Hey (5:42) and some others.

First of all, if the house is titled in Nifong and Cy's name, it is most certainly titled tenants by the entireties. This is the marital entity that is separate from either individual. As such it is protected against any judgments rendered against the individual. Thus, if Nifong is hit with a big judgment, the house would not be subject to attachment.

Second, hey raised a question about attaching assets before the judgment. All jurisdictions have a procedure call attachment before judgment. It is cumbersome but it does provide a mechanism to attach assets that may be transfered to avoid attachment.

Third, even if Nifong is individually judgment proof he still would be named as a defendant. Certainly, the plaintiffs will plead a Section 1983 claim against Durham, etc. It is hardly any extra work to throw in a libel claim against Nifong individually. The discovery overlaps, etc. No reason not to sue him. Besides, you never know, maybe there is a secret inheritance that could be attached.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the Super Bowl beatings thing has most definitely been proven to be a hoax. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, it was found to be a publicity stunt, ACKNOWLEDGED as same by the feminists who put it out there.

I'd like to admit that I'm not 100% sure this is accurate, but I'm pretty sure I remember it being proven a publicity stunt.

Also, considering most males care much more about THEIR OWN TEAM's games, isn't it only logical that more football-related beatings would take place during the 17-week regular season? Unless I'm rooting against the Patriots, I usually don't care much about the outcome of the game!

Anonymous said...

GQ 6:58

O'Reilly and Limbaugh have the same schtick: the former is a libertarian who is always right, the latter an unimpeachable conservative

Neither is credible. Sometimes you can discern credible info, if you read between the lines.

O'Reilly and Limbaugh are successful because they are smart and occasionally humorous. It's an Oprah world on TV: most of the talking heads news programs are also BS

RP

Anonymous said...

I hear ya RP, that's why I wile away the hours reading various blogs ...


signed-- Chief Joseph's Quesadilla while eating Cochise's Enchilada, Sitting Bull's Taco drinking Chief Illiniwek's Horchada and Chuexacotl's Margarita

Anonymous said...

6:50 - Yes, a no-no would be putting it mildly. The best course of action is to say "no comment" if you are in a high profile case.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the distinguished panel talked about how the NAACP, the Group of 88, Duke and Brodhead, Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panther Party are ALL sitcking up for Nifong and will help him get through his legal difficulities.
They are no where to be seen. His only advocate is a lawyer who takes cases defending other lawyers.

Anonymous said...

False reports of rape:

One report I have found states 41%, others are as low as 2%. False reports of rape happen for a variety of reasons, including revenge, sympathy, etc. Then again, I have litigated patently false rape claims at the US Naval Academy, so I am a bit jaded.

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

HumboldtBlue said...

Esquire, were you involved at all in the case of recent case involving the quarterback?

A sad tale all the way around. I'm still haunted by the quote from the victim after the accused had apologized, and I paraphrase ...

"tell that to my dad."

HumboldtBlue said...

ESQ

apologies for the tortured syntax

Anonymous said...

agree 7:18

if you make a false statement on a good blog, someone'll eventually call you on it

That's a good thing, to quote BO

RP

Anonymous said...

"DNA evidence: if Nifong really believed the accuser had been sexually assaulted, the unidentified men whose DNA was found in her rape kit would have to be suspects."

- This struck me right away - the DAAND DPD will BOTH have to be held responsibe for this Gross oversight.

If ever there was proof of a 'frame-job' - this is it !

Anonymous said...

RP 6:11 -

"Irresponsible breeding"? Have you read Crichton's essays about the genesis of the holocaust?

Please....eugenics was a VERY fashionable cause (a la global warming today) in the 1920s and 30s that proved to have no basis in scientific fact.

dl

Anonymous said...

7:27 Post of the Day!
Where is the Liefong Defense Fund?

Anonymous said...

Ole Walter still at it.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4971893

Anonymous said...

KC, was Prof. Gustafson at this pow-pow. He supports the Duke players and also Prof Holloway. He is definately a fence sitter, not a believer. He is another reason, why people shouldn't send their children to DUKE.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:11 -

At least he has the courage of his convictions. I respect him even though I don't always agree with him. He is honorable. Back off.

dl

Anonymous said...

Esquire MD's link to false rape claims stuff

Anonymous said...

re "irresponsible breeding"

that was the genesis of a joke I coudn't finish because I was interrupted by a messenger--shouldn't have posted it because I forgot what point I was making, except that it was related to the "undercriminalization" idea

whatever...
RP

Michael said...

re: 7:31

Thanks for that article. Nice to read
some research on the matter.

The research seems to give every benefit of the doubt so I think that a reasonable person would conclude that the actual percentage rate is higher than their conservative research shows as there are most likely others out there like Crystal and Nifong that will never admit that they did something wrong.

Anonymous said...

As I see it, Nifong threatened witnesses and suborned perjury.

First, he threatened Kim Roberts with jail (over a 2001 embezzlement conviction) unless he changed her story about the rape being a load of 'crock'. Then Nifong threatened the cab driver, Moez Mostafa, with jail if he didn't stop backing up Seligman's alibi. Kim Roberts caved in and changed her story - but Mostafa didn't. In revenge, Nifong put Mostafa on trial. Tell me, people, isn't this threatening witnesses AND suborning perjury?

If suborning perjury is an offense, three more must be added - Nifong's subornation of perjury via Brian Meehan, plus the officer who wrote the fake 'report' nearly 6 months after the phony rape, and finally Nifong's assistant who coached Precious how to lie in the December 21st 'interview'.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Are you serious? You actually think that more than 41% of rape claims are false? Despite the fact that the study was seriously flawed (too small a sample, too many women who will drop charges because they are harrassed or told they can't win)? Despite the fact that more reliable studies find false rape accusations to be in the 5% range? There are too many people on this blog who seem to agree with the horrific racism of RP and the silly claims of the rape defenders like esquire. Why don't more people keep to the serious point about the horrible misjustices committed in this case?

Anonymous said...


Despite the fact that more reliable studies find false rape accusations to be in the 5% range?


Can you cite some of these reliable studies?

M. Simon said...

anon. 8:02PM said:

abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story

Anonymous said...

Ok, well, 8% in 1996:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf

Anonymous said...

4:45

I hope that droves of people come out to support the March on Feb. 4th. But, I hope that everyone leaves their pots and pans behind. The very word "potbanger" conjures up a very negative image in my mind. I hope that people show up with signs..TRUTH..JUSTICE..etc. but none that stoop to the level of the potbangers demonstration.

M. Simon said...

anon 8:31PM,

That is exactly the MO used in dope cases.

As I keep saying prohibition is corrupting the justice system.

bill anderson said...

8:31 PM:

I think this is an important point that often is overlooked. My sense is that Nifong did suborn or at least tried to suborn perjury in both instances. Furthermore, Linwood Wilson was involved in the Elmostafa incident.

According to Mike Gaynor, Ashley Cannon confided to one of her colleagues that Nifong "made her lie" in her prosecution of Elmostafa. It is clear that Nifong was very anxious to see Elmostafa put away, given he was part of Reade Seligmann's alibi.

To my knowledge, none of the Bar's charges deal with either Kim or Elmostafa, but does anyone know if there has been an outside investigation of either situation? Obviously, out-and-out criminal conduct in these cases would be something that would pile even more dirt on Nifong.

Anonymous said...

What do you have to do to get a quesadilla around here?

HumboldtBlue said...

4:45 ...

here's what been posted over at liestoppers, and some of my responses. I guarantee you, I'll be outside my door here in Humboldt on the 4th banging my pots, as I indicated in an email to the mothers.

Super Bowl schmuper bowl ...



what has come out except that the defense has tried to destroy both the accuser and Nifong? There are 1000 pages of case evidence the defense has not let the public see and they have everyone running around saying there is no evidence whatsoever. I guarantee you that no women of color will be there and if there are any, you can count them on one hand and they will have ties to Duke. The rest of the black mothers will be in church at 11 am where their pastors will be asking them to pray for the Nifong, Precious and the special prosecutors in their time of trouble and harrassment by the powers of darkness.

9:53 AM
Anonymous said...

what has come out except that the defense has tried to destroy both the accuser and Nifong? There are 1000 pages of case evidence the defense has not let the public see and they have everyone running around saying there is no evidence whatsoever. I guarantee you that no women of color will be there and if there are any, you can count them on one hand and they will have ties to Duke. The rest of the black mothers will be in church at 11 am where their pastors will be asking them to pray for the Nifong, Precious and the special prosecutors in their time of trouble and harrassment by the powers of darkness.

9:53 AM
HumboldtBlue said...

I think they should march in front of the houses of every individual who attempted to railroad the players. Bring the pots and pans, and maybe a sign reading .. "it's Sunday morning, time to confess."

Maybe then women of color, whatever the hell that means, can hear the protests of mothers, regardless of color, who are watching as their sons are persecuted by the defenders of abject racism, sexism and elitism.

I'd love to see soon-to-be-disbarred DA Nifong have to answer to an angry mob crowding the sidewalk outside his home.

Maybe the fraud that is professor Holloway would have something interesting to say after she is called out for blatant racism, along with Wahneema (did someone make that name up, because Hollywood couldn't have done better) and the others enablers of the hoax as angry mothers and supporters of innocent men demand they explain their actions.

Maybe the mothers could get the good sisters of the "ism" departments, you know, racism, sexism and paternalism, to join them in calling for Nifong's castration.

Maybe the good women of color who will all be in church on Sunday, could hold a pancake breakfast at the "man of color" owned strip joint where Crystal Mangum worked. Maybe they could all bang pots together as black pimps sell black women to white men for sexual tittilation.

Then again, it's Durham in Wonderland, and we know that however you color it, this won't happen

4:28 PM
Anonymous said...

"church time" ??? who cares.

11:52 PM
Anonymous said...

The person above who wrote "who cares" about church time is a good example of the likes of people who support the Duke 3. They support the doers of evil and they do not care about church and God. Unfortunately for them, the people in Durham do believe in God and go to church and they recognise evil when they see it. Porn, drunkeness, perversion, stripping and sexual shows(the strippers are not exempt from condemnation) are examples of moral depravity and if this case ever got before a jury, the Duke 3 would be in trouble and the defense knows that which is why they are afraid to go to court here in Durham.

3:06 AM
HumboldtBlue said...

People go to church in Durham, and they believe in god?

Wow, you should write a news story about this amazing development.

Who knew people in Durham went to church on Sunday?

Let's hope the march on Feb. 4th goes right past every goddamned church in town with pots a'bangin' and banners flying.

Let's hope the good church goers of Durham find some semblance of wisdom from mindlessly repeating the same drivel every week, and turn their eyes from the pages of whatever version of the bible, or koran, or torah they are reading to notice the hate, the racism and the abject ignorance of those who would convict men of a crime that doesn't exist. Unless porn, strippers and beer are now illegal in the madhouse that is church-going Durham.

Maybe we should just hope that god, or baby muhammad, or samson, or an itinerant jewish carpenter or some other mythological magical creature from the pages of sacred texts flies down from the sky and slaps you upside the head.

Bang them pots long and loud

3:01 PM

Michael said...

re: 8:37

[Are you serious?]

Yes. Esquire is a reliable and serious poster here. It is hard for me to judge the seriousness of "anonymous". Perhaps you could use your name for posting so that readers could have a frame of reference for your posts.

> You actually think that more
> than 41% of rape claims are
> false?

Yes. People do stupid things. And women are people.

> Despite the fact that the study
> was seriously flawed (too small a
> sample, too many women who will
> drop charges because they are
> harrassed or told they can't
> win)?

If you have better data and research, then post a link. I'm sure that you've seen the standards that KC sets in reporting the facts of a matter.

This particular study looks like it the numbers they found were very conservative given their methodology.

> Despite the fact that more
> reliable studies find false rape
> accusations to be in the 5%
> range?

If you want respect for your opinions, post links to these reliable studies instead of just claiming that they exist and what their reported numbers are.

> There are too many people
> on this blog who seem to agree
> with the horrific racism of RP
> and the silly claims of the rape
> defenders like esquire.

He seems to be an insider with
experience and has my respect for
what he has posted. I have no clue
as to who you are and no background
on you to make a determination as
to whether you should be believed.

> Why don't more people keep to the
> serious point about the horrible
> misjustices committed in this
> case?

This case entails a lot of interesting directions, many that KC has delved into. They may be interesting to parents that have sons and daughters and that have to deal with women and knowing that women can and do cry rape for various reasons enumerated in the web page can be useful information in day-to-day business interactions and in raising up children to beware of the risks of living.

Anonymous said...


There are too many people on this blog who seem to agree with the horrific racism of RP and the silly claims of the rape defenders like esquire.


Seems that some people can't resist labelling those they disagree with as racist and sexist.

Great technique you have there.

Anonymous said...

Prof.Coleman hit upon the essential truth:if Nifong believed this woman had actually been raped then the DNA found on her would have to be considered the suspects'.instead he suppressed it because he was more interested in prosecuting these defendants.

Anonymous said...

Where is Liefong hiding his "payola" money? Beware Mikey, you and the locals have been exposed! The Fed's are circling.

Lawman said...

I have read many things on this site about the Group of 88. Karla Holloway is a member and also puts out false claims the they are guilty. Now we seem to have another Professor at Duke that supports her idiea's, Professor Gustafson. He says he supports Dave Colin and Reade, but also supports Karla at the same time. What is that supposed to be all about, they are guilty, but not guilty.

Cedarford said...

Please....eugenics was a VERY fashionable cause (a la global warming today) in the 1920s and 30s that proved to have no basis in scientific fact.

dl


Wrong.

Eugenics is nothing more than millenia-proven valid animal breeding techniques applied to human beings. The truth is that if we were willing to accept infringements, severe infringements on liberties - we could breed out genetic diseases in people, breed for size, intelligence, disposition, other traits same as other animals.

When you say animal breeding or husbandry has no scientific basis, you are just pulling an emotional assertion right out of your ass.

Oh, and PS....the Earth is warming. NO scientist disputes that. What is in dispute is the degree to which CO2 buildup factors in.

*****************

Anonymous:

Are you serious? You actually think that more than 41% of rape claims are false? Despite the fact that the study was seriously flawed (too small a sample, too many women who will drop charges because they are harrassed or told they can't win)? Despite the fact that more reliable studies find false rape accusations to be in the 5% range? There are too many people on this blog who seem to agree with the horrific racism of RP and the silly claims of the rape defenders like esquire. Why don't more people keep to the serious point about the horrible misjustices committed in this case?

8:37 PM


Getting past your pure emotional investment in feminist numbers....

1. A huge reason we got in this mess and the media formed a lynch mob was the success of feminist propaganda convincing them that "women seldom, if ever, lie about something as serious as rape". Whereas men will lie like rugs about nearly everything because they lack women's purity genes against ever lying.

The liberal female claim that children never lie about molestation (after the right recovered memories sessions with a feminist psychologist) led to the witchcraft trials of the 1980s and 90s. The notion that women never hardly ever lie about rape led to the Duke stripper's claims being taken as the gold standard of honesty by a wide segment of America.

2. The 42-50% stat is more credible than the feminist ones of less than 3% that claim most "cries" of rape are serious and the women doesn't go forward because they aren't as courageous as someone like Crystal Gail Mangum. Which reduces the true number of rape accusations "Billy took me against my will last night..I hate him..but I love him...I almost don't want to see him again as soon as we can be alone together..", surveys where women in a victim approval setting claim victimhood and sympathetic hero status from victimhood to other infantile female pea-brains of the bodice-ripper romance inclinations..

3. I don't see "horrific racism" in RP. Just a lack of PC.

4. Why would a Victimologist such as you call Esquire's claims based on his litigating several whopper rape lies "silly"?? What is your legal experience with litigating rape accusations?

Anonymous said...

http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html

Sorry I don't know how to post a link. This is a good article about false accusations and other related rape topics.

Ezekiel Henderson's haggis

Anonymous said...

Damn, now I want to know who Ezekiel Henderson is.

Pancho Villa's Tostada

M. Simon said...

8:57PM,

109 is not too small a sample. I believe the MOE for a sample that size is less than 20%.

Any sample size over 30 is considered useful in statistics. Since the sub-populatiions exceed 30 the odds are good that 41% +/- 20% is probably a good estimate.

So false rape charges are in the range of 21 to 61%. with 95% confidence. (I think - my statistics are rusty)

Now the question is does this sample of 109 represent the rest of the nation well enough?

A number of 8% is likely low.

M. Simon said...

salon.com/news/1999/03/

HumboldtBlue said...

mmm ... a quesadila sounds pefect. time for chow

Anonymous said...

Excuse my digression, please, but I think you all will enjoy this: Bernie Goldberg came within a gnat's eyelash of saying Wendy's name on O'Reilly's show tonight when he said that Fox has a commentator that has stayed with Nifong "way too long." Bill changed the subject rather quickly at that moment, I thought.
gk

Anonymous said...

O'Reilly's got the intellect of haggis, and Goldberg is a goldbrick. They deserve each other, and Wedny Murphy too.

Renegade, the Horse's oats

AMac said...

anon 8:37pm --

You wrote, "There are too many people on this blog who seem to agree with the horrific racism of RP and the silly claims of the rape defenders like esquire."

-Esquire- has chosen to be accountable by consistently using a pseudonym. I suggest you garner some credibility by following his example. Refraining from ad hominem attacks wouldn't hurt, either.

At 7:31pm, -Esquire- also gave this link to the Kamin study that produced the "41% false" figure.

What is the evidence in support of your opinion?

Here is what seems to be a better article on the subject, by Wendy McElroy at Fox News. She cites studies to arrive at an estimate that about a quarter of initial accusations of rape may be false.

Anonymous said...

Questions:
Will an an attorney take up the case of the courageous cab driver and sue Nifong, Durham Police, the city of Durham, et al?
What's keeping unindicted players from suing for libel over publication of the scurrilous poster? Why wait? Why not now?
Tigar's point about the Sullivan case and the fact the players weren't public figures is excellent. Will libel and defamation cause more lawsuits against Nifong and Durham?
Isn't North Carolina incurring more financial damages by dragging out this case? Each day adds to legal bills and damage to the players' reputations?

Anonymous said...

thanks, C

6:04 avers that I'm a "race-baiting wannabe"--I presume you're referring to my statement that "society should consider criminalizing irresponsible breeding behaviors"

If you were to read the brilliant work of Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, you would have discovered a very troubling fact about Hispanic immigration. Hispanics also have a huge illegitimacy rate, which has caused the formation of a second underclass.

Given the parallels between black out-of-wedlock births and future crime statistics, it makes sense for society to examine who's responsible for the violent criminals. These "mothers" (cf Precious) should be targeted. Their irresponsible behavior should be diagnosed for what it really is: a breeding ground for future underclasses and their attendant crime problems.

Sorry if I offend you, Wahneema.

Women like Precious have been given a free pass by society to romp away. It's time for a little revocation therapy

RP

M. Simon said...

9:31PM,

I assumed a standard deviation of 100% (the worst possibe and unrealistic).

If you assume a more reasonable standard deviation of 30% it is 35 - 48% in the 95% confidence interval.

Michael said...

re: 8:48

A number is provided without any information on the methodology behind the number. I think that research is
more useful than aggregated statistics without any real knowledge of those statistics.

It also only indicates claims that were unfounded according to aggregated definitions of determinations by investigators.

I don't see any statistics in that report directly indicating the percentage of claims that are false though. The statistics there are for claims and claims that are found to be baseless. Not of false claims.

I think that the research that Esquire referenced is far more useful in that methodology and detail were provided.

Michael said...

re: 8:37

Interesting. The FBI's DNA data conflicts with their aggregated crime report statistics. But they are measuring different things. Still that's a pretty wide gulf in the rate of false claims determined by investigators. Perhaps investigators aren't putting in enough effort to clear false claims.

Anonymous said...

"Illegitimacy is the single most important social problem of our time--more important than crime, drugs, poverty. illiteracy, welfare, or homelessness because it drives everything else."

--Charles Murray
"Losing Ground"

Anonymous said...

8:37: Hmm, we have an idealogue. Excellent.

I see from your post that you take issue with the study that I posted, By all means, kindly direct my attention to a study that counters it. I also see that you take issue with the number of people involved saying the numbers are "too small" The city chosen was representative of the nation at large, as stated within the report itself, and the false reports were based solely on women who ADMITTED they has falsely reported the crrime of rape. Indeed, the FBI's own studies on this find a high percentage of false rape charges.

Within the USNA it is particularly prevelant for the simple reason that if a woman yells rape when caught in bed with a male classmate, the male will be thrown out of the USNA, the woman retained, and she will then receive "counseling." In defending these actions, I have seen numerous examples of the most absurd claims of rape you can imagine, where when pressed, one discovers that the two people had an ongoing relationship for months, and everyone knew about it. I even had one woman try to argue that when she said "yes" she really meant "no." In other words, the military presents a motive to lie for self-preservation not found in the civilian world. It benefits females exclusively. The term in Navy circles is "Sea Daddyism."

I do find your position mystifying as it is in my experience woefully naive. It credits too much to the goodness of human nature, and discounts normal human motives not to tell the truth. It was excuses like these that allowed a woman in NY to kill a number of her children before finally being caught years later when her son finally approached authorities to reveal that al six of them did not die from SIDS. Instead of questioning how this affliction mysteriously found its way into numerous children in the household, it was immediately discounted by the patriarchal system I am certain you abhor, and a murderess was allowed to walk freely no questions asked for decades. Perception of maternal love by males trumped obvious suspicion.

In short, contrary to the self-serving tripe dished out by the feminists in this country, there is a certain social status with being a victim that many people find irresistable, whether it is true or not. Further, there is the element of revenge to consider, such as if a young man hooks up then "loses" young lady's number. Discounting these factors in favor of a picture of pureness, particularly in light of the facts presented in this case, defies the senses.

If you would like to debate this topic further, I am certainly game for a debate. Please note that the gentle nodding atmosphere of academia is absent, and I disagree wholeheartedly with your contentions stated. In other words, you have to prove it.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Is anyone familiar with the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbucle rape/murder case in the 1920s? Today it struck me that there are many similarities between the Duke Hoax and the Arbuckle case. A party with illegal booze. A non rape where nothing actually happened, a very politicaly ambitious DA, Mathew Brady. A woman of questionable virtue,Virginia Rappe the alleged rape victim who expired. A false Accuser, Maude Dumont, Virginia Rappe's Madam. A journalist who sensationalized the case with little or no regard for the truth, William Randolph Hearst. A rush to judgement by the Hayes censorship commission banning Arbuckle's films, etc. Very tragic and very scary.
Fatty Arbuckle was one of the first movie stars and made $1,000,000/year in 1920. He went to trial 3 times, twice the jury was hung and the third time he was aquitted in very short order. To this day people still incorrectly remember Arbuckle as the silent movie star who raped and killed that young woman.

I read a book on the trial years ago and hope my recollection is accurate.

Anonymous said...

I first heard about alton maddox in the Marla Hansen case.she was a NYC model whose landlord turned into a stalker.he hired several(black)men to attack her and disfigure her face.all were convicted.maddox represented one of the attackers and suggested in open court that she somehow "asked for it" by doing her landlord's laundry!this guy is an absolute piece of work and now he's trying to use the HOAX to get reinstated to the bar.priceless!

Anonymous said...

Can you attatch a pension in the same way wages can be garnished?

Both CGM and Nifong should be prevented from profiting from book/movie deals and have future earnings paid to the actual victims here.

Anonymous said...

8:48 - Let's start with the FBI link you provided. It states 8% of all rapes reported were unfounded, in other words so patently false they did not merit serious investigation. The normal false clai in any other of the crime categories cited is 2%.

But that number does not represent false claims, only those claims which were absurd on their face.

The Kanine Study also looked at college rape reports. After examining two large Midwestern campuses, he discovered 50 out of 64 reports of rape were false in a three year period.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

An excellent study can be found here as well:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

bill anderson said...

I remember during the child molestation witch hunts of the 1980s and 90s, one of the mantras was "children never lie." As one who has had four children, I find that one to be a lie in itself.

When social workers were praising children for "disclosing" and browbeating them for, in effect, telling the truth, it did not take a Ph.D. to see that the kids would say what would gain them the rewards from adults.

Likewise, we hear the Wendy Murphys of the world telling us that women "never lie about rape." That is nonsense, and every reader of this blog knows it. Murphy, who apparently never met a lie in her life that she did not like, is no authority on anything except on how to lie, lie, lie.

Michael said...

I like the reference to Joseph and Potipher's wife in one of the articles that Esquire linked.

It's as old as the hills.

Anonymous said...

Bill: This all goes to a bigger issue in the Gender Gap in education. Males in society do not feel welcome in an educational environment anymore from elementary school to college. It has become a male unfriendly PC nightmare.

We are learning why that is right now.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Michael: The author was ahead of his time.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
4:45

is it the March on Feb.4th or the Feb on March 4th?I'm confused...

M. Simon said...

esq 10:16 PM says:

archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape

www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/

Anonymous said...

re 10:01 Fatty Arbuckle

I hadn't thought about that case in a while; you're right, there are similarities. Arbuckle never fully recovered from that debacle. He was a genius. Later on he proved an invaluable mentor to Buster Keaton.

RP

Anonymous said...

KC If you see Nifong, please ask why he thought he could get away with this.

Anonymous said...

8:31,

Yes, yes, and yes. All of the incidents you mention have "Trouble for Mr. Nifong" written all over them. They are all very bad, but the Elmostafo incident, because it involved another false charge and another false prosecution and could have resulted in a false conviction, was surely the worst.

Ahoy Kemp...we've missed you!!

RP, are you thinking the sexual revolution a failed experiment? Daniel Patrick Moynihan's question about whether the human being will be the first species to forget how to raise its young sure seems an accurate prediction of the fatherless, unmoored generations that have followed his comment. Even these cursed "false accusers" seem a by-product in part of ever weaker skills in forming and maintaining meaningful relationships. And where did these young adults learn to value our commitment free, porn saturated, hook-up culture? From us, of course. And then, despite our best intentions, welfare has offered perverse financial incentives. Yet, if Precious really had a welfare net and access to regular psychiatric care, would she be prostituting herself and wrecking other peoples' lives? Short of state enforced family planning a la China, where I believe sex without marriage is still heavily discouraged and procreation within marriage heavily regulated, what do you have in mind to encourage responsible sexual behavior and family formation?

Observer

Anonymous said...

OJ's pension from the MFL can not be touched by any lawsuits, etc. He still gets his 25.000 thousand a month.

Gregory said...

176 comments and counting! K.C. you ARE the big time!

Joseph Neff for Pulitzer 2007. Vote early, vote often!

Coleman for Duke President. They'll be needing one pretty soon....

K.C. Johnson for 2007 Duke Commencement Speaker. Who has meant more to Duke this last year? Who has something more relevant to share?

Gregory said...

I just caught the reference to OJ's pension. Remember, OJ moved to Florida, which has the laxest (not a pun) laws dealing with exempt property.

In North Carolina, a pension can be obtained AT THE TIME OF ITS DISTRIBUTION.

Thus, while the pension is sitting around, it is invulnerable. Nifong can sit on it for years (but he'll have to get a job flipping burgers to make end's meet). If he takes any pay-outs, bam!, the money can be ordered paid to the lax players (assuming a big fat civil judgment).

He'll have $10,000.00 exempt personal property (which also includes amounts for his home).

He gets dependent exemptions and an exemption for his car ($3,000.00 or so, if I remember correctly).

Also, NC law allows the courts to get at most jointly owned property, and there is precedent for setting aside any transfers (e.g. a transfer of property to Cy or Cy's parents) as fraudulent.

Lots of good news when it comes to enforcement of NC civil judgments.

Anonymous said...

I hope that KC will do something, maybe delete, uses of such garbage as "burrito", "taco", "conchise's enchilada", "margarita"........as someone's name.
This BS diminishes the entire board considering the subject matter. What total idiot--if he or she is an adult--takes the time for such childishness? A total fool.

Anonymous said...

O, good post

How to induce responsible family formation--that's a bitch. Of course, we shouldn't have to "induce" anything.

Suggestions:

1. decriminalize drugs, to reduce black-male prison population
2. junk a lot of high schools, and substitute trade schools--have you tried to find a good mechanic lately?
3. make social workers accountable
4. in dysfunctional household's like Precious's, emphasize responsible foster care
5. do not reward illegitimacy
6. free birth control; plenty of "reality ed" courses
7. change welfare rules so father doesn't have to worry about eluding the man
8. entrepreneurial workshops starting in high school--eg, learning to run a grocery

That's a start.

RP

Anonymous said...

"2. junk a lot of high schools, and substitute trade schools--have you tried to find a good mechanic lately?"

Amen

And why have we decided that an advanced degree in either a mainstream subject or an obscure fringe discipline is more noble than a master carpenter, or plumber, or, as stated above, mechanic?

The push to send every kid to college is a sympton of a society that has gone from a producer to a consumer and service-based one.

What happened to Vo-tech? Why isn't a vocational trade taught alongside the science, math and logic needed to be productive in the field?

I can assure you, I have much more need for good plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, printers or bricklayers, than I do for a university poetry professor.

And I apologize to the learned professors, but why has the mindset gone from self-reliance, manual skills, the ability to produce a tangible product as worthy, to "everyone go to college or you're doomed to be poor and uninformed."

Just a thought

Anonymous said...

12:10

Love your post, and I agree that the trades are noble occupations. I'm in awe of a cabinet maker, plumber, mason. This "get a college education or you're screwed" has to go the way of the Edsel.

Saw a rerun of "Sanford and Son" recently, and I recall thinking that running a junkyard is kind of cool, and difficult. The work ethic is another ingredient.

RP

Anonymous said...

I think one could argue that having a growing population of impoverished individuals who can be called on to deliver votes represents political power. This provides a perverse incentive for some politicians and "leaders" who benefit by this to actively undermine anything that is likely to actually reduce poverty, improve race relations, foster understanding, or otherwise benefit society.

Call me a cynic, but the Great Society welfare state has gone a long way toward destroying families rather than eliminating poverty, creating an entrenched culture of entitlement and dependence. At best, this had been a nationwide failed experiment when we could have set up a system where States were free to try different things, so it could be shown what works and what does not and best practices could be copied – enterprise and competition undeniably work. In fact, we have lessons from a great number of societies across a long history and should be much wiser, doing research and having an open, informed discourse on what is most likely to reach desirable ends. We should be cautious and continually measure where we are and evaluate where we are heading. Critics from a diverse constellation of perspectives and a press that is free and has integrity and our collective interests in view should raise awareness and alternatives. We have a unique ability to evaluate and correct, but this doesn’t work when everyone sees things only very selectively and in caricature – or deliberately distorted.

Personal responsibility, accountability and, yes, some degree of social stigmatism for harmful behaviors, as well as rising income levels, hope, and the prospect of upward mobility tend to produce offspring who contribute to society, not parasitize it. This is a function of parental involvement, numbers, and resources; parents mostly provide kids’ environments and it matters. Modern science has basically ended natural selection and it is societal-scale forces that really determine demographics at this point. I submit that politicians have not done a good job in shaping the debate, the policies, and the outcomes. In a way, we are all exploited in this, but we have only ourselves to blame. In a population of politicians with power to frame debates, gerrymander electoral districts, and influence demographics – with enough sophistication and allies to get away with it – is there much doubt that all available avenues are in play?

If people learn nothing else from this, it should be to think for themselves and to try to look at things in different ways. Seek to understand the motivations of others and don’t lump them into groups just based on appearances. Rape happens, but so do false accusations; racism exists, but not everyone is a racist. There are legitimate feelings all over the spectrum, based on different experiences and indoctrination. Not thinking greatly increases the odds of making mistakes and not being willing to admit a mistake only compounds it.

Anonymous said...

well said, and well written, 12:49

let me get back to you in the AM

RP

Anonymous said...

cedarford 9:26 -

"Wrong.

Eugenics is nothing more than millenia-proven valid animal breeding techniques applied to human beings. The truth is that if we were willing to accept infringements, severe infringements on liberties - we could breed out genetic diseases in people, breed for size, intelligence, disposition, other traits same as other animals.

When you say animal breeding or husbandry has no scientific basis, you are just pulling an emotional assertion right out of your ass."

You are absolutely correct. I meant that social policy should have no basis in eugenics. My writing is poor. Here's the Crichton link:

Eugenics

And yes, the globe is warming - .6 degees F in the past century. The questions are: (a) how much of that is attributable to man? and (b) how good is the science behind the models that predict a doomsday scenario?

dl

Anonymous said...

Was the walk suppose to include pot bangers? I would have hoped that this walk to be a supportive, get the message out there, but in a peacefully respectful manner, for justice,in the names of Reade, Collin And Dave?
Why stoop?...not how we got this far...

Anonymous said...

Esquire,

The 8% for unfounded rape claims includes more than "false" claims, it includes claims that were dropped by the police for a myriad of reasons.

I hardly think any DOD statistics on what they claim to be false rape reports is very useful since there have been multiple congressional hearings on the military's propensity to disbelieve rape victims and then hound them out of the service. The recent yearly surveys of military personnel show about the same rate of rape and attempted rape as the college studies show, between 20-25%.

The single Kamin study is worthless because it has never been replicated and 300 is the standard smallest sample size that any credible organization would cite for allowing the results to be generalized to the wider population.

I find it very sad that so many clearly well read and intelligent people stil apparently believe that huge percentages of women are crazy liars who are willing to be labeled 'rape victims' gossiped about, treated like lying trash in a courtroom and have a less than 50% chance of winning their case. It is illogical to believe such a huge percent of women are this unbalanced on it's face.

Certainly, any review of real rape cases one would hope that 'I got drunk, made out with him, then said no, and he didn't stop' is not the best lie a woman could come up with.

Indeed, the majority of false rape claims are not by women who say they are raped by acquantances, where they admit they were drinking or engaging in other risky behavior, those are the murky cases that are probably true, though they may not reach the evidentiary burden of a criminal conviction.

The false rape claims are just like this case..strangers, violent, struggles, injuries...where the rape victim's story makes her out to be a true rape victim, not a woman whose behavior would be counted against her.

The British study was quite rigorous to distinguish between 'false' claims, e.g. that could be proven false or that as in this case, evidence supported them being false and cases where women decided not to more forward. To say it was 'pussified' and therefore decide that a large, recent, multi-yuear study conducted by the British government within the last 2 years is worthless when compared to some single study of 109 case in one city done several years ago is more indicative of the 'truth' is the same kind of bizarro world selective reasoning that the Group of 88 use.

The truth is rape is a problem, it is widespread in all societies, and the reaction of a few on this board show exactly why it is so rarely reported, because women are right that they will be ridiculed and not believed.

Yet somehow, you still think that half of rape claims are false. It's crazy, it is based on no emperical evidence unless you simply discount every study of college students, every DOJ and FBI crime report and a number of statewide studies on the rate of rape, reporting percentage and false rate.

Anonymous said...

Putting statistics aside for the moment, the simple common sense truth is that there are many reasons that motivate such false claims, and very little to deter them: not the least of which is the absence of any need for any corroborating physical evidence. The following article, written only days after the Kobe Bryant case broke, correctly predicted the the likelihood of a flase accusation and the imunity with which it could be made:

"What If Kobe Bryant Has Been Falsely Accused?
Why the Law of Acquaintance and Date Rape Should Seriously Penalize False Reports
By JONNA M. SPILBOR
----
Monday, Aug. 11, 2003
Last Wednesday, August 6, in what amounted to a highly publicized yet rare spectacle, Kobe Bryant was arraigned on a felony sex assault charge.
...
Bryant's case has raised a firestorm of issues, but one in particular is at center court: Has this good guy been falsely accused? Even at this early stage, the majority of those asked say yes. To many fans, this case just feels false.

If Bryant has been falsely accused, it won't be the first time that a false report has been filed in an "acquaintance rape" case. In part, that's because the law fails to meaningfully penalize false reports, or to give those who have been falsely accused any justice.

In my experience as a criminal defense attorney, I've found that false "acquaintance rape" and "date rape" accusers tend to fall into two rough categories.
First, there are those who seek revenge against the accused: the jilted lover, disgruntled employee, or custody-seeking ex. Their reason for wanting to cause harm to the accused is transparent. Fortunately, that usually means it is also easily exposed to both judge and jury.
Second, there are those who seek not to annihilate another's reputation, but instead to preserve their own - albeit at another's expense. Some are young women who are trying to cover up, to their parents, the fact that they are already sexually active. Others are men or women in relationships who are trying to cover up, to their partners, that they have committed an infidelity.
A seemingly remorseful witness once told me, "I knew if I cheated, my boyfriend would beat me. The only way out of the beating, for me, was to play the rape card." You read it correctly: The rape card.
Not too long ago, I represented an Ivy League honor student who'd spent a weekend at a beach party coupled with a woman to whom he was introduced by a mutual friend. According to the client - and about a dozen witnesses - the two seemed to really "hit it off." When the party ended on Sunday night, they said their good-byes, like everybody else, and maybe even promised half-heartedly to call each other.
Imagine my client's surprise when on Tuesday, he received an angry call from his paramour's estranged boyfriend - a boyfriend whose existence she failed to disclose when the pair were kissing beyond the crackle of a bonfire.
Of course, this was nothing compared to his total shock when, two weeks later, he received a warrant in the mail commanding his appearance in court on felony rape charges.
The Need to Make False Rape Accusations a Felony, With Serious Penalties.
...

States should make the crime of false reporting a felony, with penalties serious enough to have a strong deterrent effect. Currently, the stakes are far too low for the accuser, given how very high they are for the accused.
Compare Bryant's exposure: If found guilty, he will serve a sentence up to life in prison. He would also be branded a Class A felon, and most likely, a sex offender. (Even when released, he'd face slim prospects: He was drafted into the NBA at the tender age of 17, and thus lacks the college education upon which many other professional athletes can fall back on.)
In sum, he will move from stardom and security to incarceration and, later, Megan's List. Shouldn't an accuser who has forced him to risk this fate, also risk consequences herself if she is lying?
Juries Should Be Allowed to Express a Finding That An Accuser Lied
In addition to imposing serious penalties for false reports, states should also give juries that conclude the accuser has lied, a way to voice that finding - allowing them to render a "Not Credible" verdict along with their "Not Guilty" verdict. Otherwise, the taint of the prosecution will linger.
...
For all these reasons, most of those who are falsely accused cannot get any kind of justice, either civil or criminal. And Kobe Bryant, if he has been falsely accused, will be no different.
Real Deterrents Are Needed to Prevent False Rape Reports
Society rightly makes great efforts to protect victims (who are usually women) against the ravages of rape and sexual assault. But shouldn't we also do more to better protect defendants (virtually always men) from being wrongfully accused?

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that Mike Tigar isn't a really good source of moral guidance on much of anything....

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14125

Yes, I know it isn't a hotlink.

AMac said...

Anon 6:20pm / 9:15am --

Could you provide a citation or (preferably) a link to "the huge UK study" / "the British study"?

Without reading its abstract (at least), it's not possible for a reader to evaluate the basis for your assertion that false claims of rape are a tiny percentage of the total number of such claims.

Re: "I find it very sad that so many clearly well read and intelligent people stil apparently believe that huge percentages of women are crazy liars..."

straw man argument.

Anonymous said...

Here is the study.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

Note the part about the 'over estimation' of the rate of false rape charges by police and others.

No, it is not a straw man argument. What is a straw man argument is to say that 'women lie about rape' and then make the leap of logic that 'most/many' women lie about rape.

There isn't any evidence that this is true except for one single study done, what, almost 20 years ago by a professor who looked at 109 cases.

It is true there are not very good data on false rape claims, but the data that exists simply does not show a large rate of false rape accustations.

The data also suggestions that far from the 'acquantance rape' accusations being false, it is the crazy stranger, gunman abduction rape stories that generally turn out to be false.

I have such a hard time understanding why anyone would think that a college girl or high school girl or any woman would subject herself to the rigors of a rape claim to 'get back' at a man, or, to 'preserve' her reputation.

Quite frankly, if you wanted to do that all you need do as a woman is give yourself a black eye and say the man beat you up. Then, you are automatically believed, automatically given sympathy and the guy will automatically be taken to jail. No questions asked.

The idea that saying 'yeah, I got drunk and made out with him and then he raped me' is some kind of reputation saving great lie that women all over the country come up with is idiotic.

AMac said...

anon 12:31pm --

Thanks for the link to the study. It's a 136 page PDF, the heart of the material on false accusations is Table 4.2 on page 56 (PDF numbering) and the text on pages 62-69.

Of 2,284 rapes reported to police, police recorded 216 "false charges," for a rate of 8%. The Home Office authors re-evaluated the reports and shrunk that to 67 cases, or 3% (pg. 66).

Anon, I think you have mixed up two concepts:

1. What percentage of cases can be known to meet a rigorous, positive definition of "false accusation"?

2. What percentage of cases are due to false accusations?

#1 can be answered; here it is somewhere between 3% and 8%. #2 cannot be precisely answered... unless you dogmatically insist that rape is a special case, where absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.

From the tone of the Home Office authors, I think it is fair to say that their concern lies with the victims of rape, and with the failure of the criminal justice system to successfully obtain convictions for most rapes. The prospect that some (relatively small) number of men might end up in prison due to conviction on the basis of false charges is of no great import to them.

One could argue that this is an appropriate stance. From a feminist perspective--or from the perspective of somebody with a woman friend, sister, or mother--which is worse: that 92% of rapes go unpunished, or that some small-but-unknowable percentage of the 8% of cases that result in convictions ended up incarcerating an innocent man?

In any event, any sensible person knows that the crime of rape encompasses a range of circumstances. In most cases, those circumstances make it obvious that the victim indeed was coerced into involuntary sex acts. In a sizeable minority of cases, it is not so clear.

The Home Office authors imply that the 92% (or 97%) of rape reports that cannot be rigorously placed into the "false accusations" category are therefore not false accusations.

Anon 12:31pm, do you agree?

After scanning the report, my own interpretation would be that the lower bound for false accusations is somewhere between 3% and 8% of police reports. To that must be added some of the cases in other categories: some proportion of those cases without confession, evidence of violence, evidence of coercion or threat or drugging, or compelling testimony by the victim or third parties. I don't know what that number would be, except that it would be low. As I said, the Home Office authors are uninterested in this question.

So I would guess that the proportion of rape claims that are false is often somewhere in the range of 6% to 12%.

Anonymous said...

-----Thanks, Esquire Maryland and 4:29. I had missed that outrageous statement by Nifong and misread "He" in the OP as referring to Tigar. Couldn't figure out why Tigar would be deriding people for invoking their constitutional rights. My own carelessness.

- Lawyer J

5:00 PM ----

Lawyer J, you weren't the only one who was confused by that statement/attribution by KC. I too thought KC meant Tigar was saying that and/or not being sarcastic in regards to Nifong's public statment about "if innocent why do they need lawyers".

Anonymous said...

1:44

Yes, I agree. I will also agree with the idea that the rate of false rape claims is most likely higher than it is for other crimes. I further agree that the home office is definitely more interested in protecting rape victims and in increasing conviction rates for rape than in worrying about what is admittedly a much smaller class of potentially false convictions.

But I also agree with the study authors that the problem of rapists getting away with it is a much bigger issue than the perceived problem of false convictions. There is ample documentation of the former, and scant documentation of the later, yet the later is the prevalant narrative: liar cries rape for revenge/save reputation/fill in the blank, we must protect our men from this scourge.

The problem with rape is that the elements that make it relatively easy to determine guilt...serious injuries that only a nut would ascribe to consensual sex, non sexual injuries, a weapon found, running into the street naked yelling 'he raped me' proof positive of a break in, witnesses, a rapist with a record of prior similar rapes...they just don't exist in most cases.

The vast, vast, vast majority of rapes are in the grey zone...two probably drunk people who know each other to some degree and who were socializing together to some degree...the woman says she said no and the man says she consented. Most rapes are not violent beyond the act of rape itself...another place where feminists went wrong, sometimes rape IS about sex, it may always be about power, but to divide it from the sexual content is silly. Most acquantance rapists want sex and they decide the girl owes it to them for whatever reason, convince themselves its consensual and there you are. Also in most of these cases the woman will wait a few days or longer before going to police. This seems completely normal to me, one would need to think about the pros and cons of making a rape complaint, especially if it is someone you know, but this delay is always used as 'proof' of lying despite, again that the evidence shows the opposite.

Thus, it is very, very difficult to conclusively determine which of these more typical grey area cases are true or false. Our system of justice is set up to make it almost inevitable that in most of these cases the man would be acquitted because the standard types of 'evidence' rarely exist. To me, that is tantamount to making date rape a non crime and that is unacceptable.

Of course I don't want innocent men going to prison when they committed no crime. But the opposite, a burden of proof that is virtually impossible to sustain given the reality of how rape happens, and allowing a huge number of probably guilty men go free cannot be tolerated.

That is why this case is so disturbing, because as you see, it brings all of the 'false rape charges are an epidemic' out of the woodwork and gives them amunition. The advocacy community should be condemning this woman and Mike Nifong for doing long term damage to the cause of rape victims getting justice, not floating around crazy talking points from Wendy Murphy that are full of lies and mist statements of law and fact.

AMac said...

anon 2:02pm --

> To me, [the man being acquitted because the standard types of 'evidence' rarely exist] is tantamount to making date rape a non crime and that is unacceptable.

Reminds me of the engineer's response to the demanding client--"good, cheap, fast--pick any two." Yeah, we all want to see all genuine rapists behind bars and no men falsely convicted. But what if there's a sliding scale, a "Receiver Operator Characteristic" curve at work? To get a genuine conviction rate of X%, you must accept a false conviction rate of Y%. Make X larger, Y gets larger. Make Y smaller, X gets smaller.

We can change the profile of the curve by improving procedures--better DNA testing, more-skilled and more-impartial interviewers, SOPs that reflect Best Practices, etc.

Unfortunately, the underlying tension does not go away.

Anonymous said...

PS

Let me clarify, I agree that the false rape rate is likely somewhere between 6-12%, though 12% might be high. My guess is 3-8% are false.

Anonymous said...

The best bet is prevention and education.

If we prevent rapes, we've gone a long way to solving the problem.

If we at least educate people about the reality of rape, not the 'stranger in the bushes' raping the screaming virgin who emerges with clothes torn and full of bruises it will give police, judges and juries better tools to determine what is true, what 'might be true' but isn't proven and what is false.

My view is that we are still too far on the side of blaming the victim, letting the guilty guy go free, looking at rape as a 'mistake' and hoping he learns from the trauma of the court case, than we are in incarcerating possibly innocent men on false rape convictions.

M. Simon said...

2:02PM,

Can we say waiting is a sign of ambivalence?

It were better if the charge was unequivocal.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»