Monday, February 05, 2007


Georgia Goslee has been a source of bizarre statements virtually every time she appeared on TV during this case--none more so than her consistent celebration of inconsistency.

In an April 27 appearance on the Abrams Report, for instance, the host pressed her on the contradictory versions of events that the accuser had told. Goslee’s response? “To hold [the accuser's] testimony even at this time to hard and fast specific time periods I think is a little unfair.” A flustered Dan Abrams replied, “So you would rather that we just say you know what, she’s making this allegation. Let’s not get into specifics here.”

A few weeks later, the release of Kim Roberts’ statement prompted most observers to point out that the accuser’s inconsistencies would affect her credibility. Not Goslee, who reasoned, “You know, one of the problems you guys attach is consistency and inconsistency.”

Much of this case has reflected an upside-down view of the criminal justice system, but perhaps no single aspect has been stranger than the consistent downplaying of a simple fact: the accuser has told myriad, mutually contradictory, stories, while the lacrosse players—everyone at the party—have maintained a consistent posture throughout.

  • In her various tales, the accuser sometimes had 20 people raping her. Sometimes it was five; sometimes three. Sometimes two; sometimes zero.
  • Sometimes, she claimed rape; sometimes it was sexual assault; sometimes it was just “groping.”
  • Sometimes, the attackers (Adam, Matt, and Brett) were each one person; sometimes Adam and Matt were interchangeable, and the three names described only two people.
  • Sometimes, Dave Evans had a mustache; sometimes, he didn’t.
  • Sometimes, Kim Roberts stole the accuser’s money; sometimes, she didn’t.
  • Sometimes, there were three accomplices to rape who separated the accuser from Kim Roberts; sometimes, there weren’t.
  • Sometimes, the accuser remembered the precise time the non-rape occurred; sometimes she didn’t.

Contrast this almost laughable record with that of the lacrosse players.

  • On March 16, the police served with a warrant. Dave Evans told 60 Minutes, “As they read the search warrant I went through every part of it – told ‘em where they could find things and that we’d fully cooperate and answer any questions they had.”
  • Matt Zash, the other captain at home when the police came to the house, likewise said nothing had happened, and helped execute the warrant. So did Dan Flannery when he arrived back at the house.
  • The captains’ subsequent behavior was likewise consistent with innocence. As Evans told 60 Minutes, “I’d done everything that I thought I could do. I put my faith in the legal system and told them what happened. I gave my statement. I offered to take a polygraph, I gave my DNA over. I don’t know what else I could do.”
  • All three captains gave lengthy statements, without counsel, and all volunteered both DNA and to take lie detector tests.
  • On May 1, Reade Seligmann’s attorney, Kirk Osborn, released a detailed summary of everything that Seligmann had done on the evening of March 13-March 14—an extraordinary move for a defense attorney in a criminal case. Seligmann’s evidence was wholly consistent with the version of events previously presented by the captains.
  • A few weeks later, Dave Evans gave a public address reiterating his innocence. His remarks were consistent with what the captains had told police on March 16, and with Seligmann’s alibi motion of May 1. The statement “hit home with a lot of people to see Dave get up there and speak with such honesty, authority and clarity,” William Wolcott, a member of last year’s senior class on the team, recently told the Duke Chronicle. “This was the first time that the country really started to see, and the media began to understand, what a travesty of our justice system this was.”
  • In October, all three accused players gave lengthy interviews to 60 Minutes, which also spent months reviewing the case file and interviewing other people related to the case.

Their remarks were consistent with what the captains had told police on March 16, and with Seligmann’s alibi motion of May 1, and with Evans’ public statement in mid-May, and with all the evidence Nifong had turned over.

Georgia Goslee, of course, would evidently prefer an accuser who tells a different story every time someone talks to her, and offers versions of events wholly inconsistent with other evidence. But for most people, 46 college students maintaining a consistent response for months suggests pretty strongly they were telling the truth from the start.


The lacrosse players have been consistent in one other important respect: virtually alone among those who made mistakes in this affair, they have apologized for their actions.

  • In their March 28 statement, the captains apologized for holding the party.
  • In a May 3 meeting of the team with Richard Brodhead, Ryan McFadyen apologized for the reaction his e-mail had caused.
  • In his October interview with 60 Minutes, Dave Evans said, “I made a terrible judgment.”

Contrast that record with others’ equally consistent refusal to apologize for anything they did.

  • In their January statement, the (rump) Group of 88 proclaimed, “There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted.” (emphasis added)
  • In his January interview with the Chronicle’s Rob Copeland, Brodhead stated that he had nothing to apologize for: “[Though] I’m really not immune to self-criticism in any way, I believe we’ve handled this as straightforwardly and honorably as we could have, given the extraordinary nature of the situation and the changing nature of the facts.”
  • In his January swearing-in ceremony, Nifong denied all wrongdoing: “I don’t feel I’m part of the problem. I feel that I have assisted in revealing the problem.”
  • On January 7, when asked whether she and her fellow potbangers would apologize, Duke graduate student Serena Sebring eloquently replied, “Nope.”

To my knowledge, the only journalist to issue an out-and-out apology for his or her early handling of this case was Susan Ihne of the Asheville Citizen-Times. David Brooks and Ruth Sheehan did so implicitly, by looking beyond their early judgments and seeking the truth. (If there are others, please let me know.) The New York Times? Nothing. The Herald-Sun? Nothing.

To my knowledge, the only professor that I have seen issue an out-and-out apology for his or her response to the case was Duke’s Thomas Crowley. From the Group of 88? Defiance.

I suspect that the 88 will remain consistent in their defiance, just as the accuser will remain consistent in her inconsistency. But these patterns, just like the consistency of the lacrosse players in the opposite direction, should factor into the evaluation of all parties to the case.


Gary Packwood said...

GREAT Post. Thanks

It seems clear to me that so many people were coached and told to be ready when one of the groups of Duke athletes is arrested by some branch of law enforcement.

The "Adam, Matt, and Brett" is the standard phrase that is taught when trying to catch a GROUP young male athletes doing something wrong. Just tell the police that you remember Adam, Matt and Brett!! That way you will get at least 2 or 3 of the boys.

There is much more to learn about this case.

Why were so many of the Duke faculty and staff so quick and so very ready to comment on the hoax?

Thanks again for the excellent post.

Houston, Tecas

Anonymous said...

Why does Mr. Cooper, the attorney general, allow this hoax case to continue? He should be ashamed. The feds should investigate this frame-up.

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of the proverb, "Always tell the truth ... it's easier to remember."

Anonymous said...

KC- quit foolin with the sideshow
and get on with the real villains-
the mayor, the city council, the DPD-
and if you really have any guts-
the MESS at NCCU.

Meme chose said...

Even my three year old child can figure out that the risk if she does what I'm asking her to do is that next time I might expect her to be able to comply.

The members of the Group of 88 are responding in this way when they refuse to take responsibility for any their statements. If they were to do that, who knows, somebody might one day expect them to take responsibility for something else.

Anonymous said...

As my dad used to say about me and my brother, one lies(the accuser) and the other one, (the group of 88) swears to it...

Anonymous said...

The non-apologies are the reasons I hope the lawsuits after this case will be severe. The 88s, Rosenbergs, Sebrings, Hummels, Proffitts, Amanada Marcottes, Wendy Murphys, and the rest have to be used as examples that, when they've shown no moral fortitude, monetary penalties must be paid. The U.S. is not a tinpot banana republic, and people must be forced into reckoning with their words and actions, sometimes, to maintain quality.

M. Simon said...

Faith beats reason most of the time.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

Three excellent points:

1. Mangum has been consistently inconsistent.

2. Everyone else has been pretty consistent and the lacrosse team members and the accused very consistent. I say pretty consistent because Roberts [aka Pittman] waivered a bit when she thought the profitable side might be with Mangum and Nifong and the driver for some reason added an addendum to his statement that he misremembered and he did not have sex with Mangum that day but a week earlier. Most would guess he was pressured not to contradict Mangum.

3. The young people have apologized for their minor or non-mistakes in my view. [McFadden should have apologized for the e-mail which was in poor taste. I am not sure anyone other than maybe a parent was due an apology for the party.] The adults with much much much more to apologize for have fail to stand up and apologize.

luke said...

The mustache thing drives me crazy.
From the lineup transcript:
A. “He [Evans] looks like one of the guys who assaulted me sort.”
Q. “Ok. How um, how sure of it are you on this image?”
A. “He [the picture shown her] looks just like him without the mustache.”
Q. “Ok, so the person had a mustache?”
A. “Yes.”
Of course, Evans is able to demonstrably prove that he had no mustache at anytime in 2006. Then, in her December 21st statement to Linwood Wilson, the accuser said that by “mustache” she meant “5 o’clock shadow.”
So…if you substitute her use of the word “mustache” with 5 o’clock shadow, she meant to state as follows:
“He [Evans] looks like one of the guys who assaulted me sort.”
Q. “Ok. How um, how sure of it are you on this image?”
A. “He [the picture shown her] looks just like him without the FIVE O’CLOCK SHADOW”
Q. “Ok, so the person had a FIVE O’CLOCK SHADOW?”
A. “Yes.”
As everyone has pointed out, in the photo of Evans shown to her he has a pronounced 5 o’clock shadow. She is saying he had a five o’clock shadow when he allegedly assaulted her, but since he has a five o’clock shadow in the picture as well, the “clarification” makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

It is my guess that the apologies from the Group of 88 and others will come as a last ditch effort to avoid writing checks in defense of civil litigation.

I very much hope that the civil litigators representing the lacrosse families are bold, creative, and expansive in their theories of damages.

All slanderers should be made to defend themselves... and then pay.

Anonymous said...

Polanski says

Finally, a post on Mangum. Is "inconsistent" a euphemism for a black-female liar?

Let's put an end to female and minority privilege.

Everyone knows this woman is a criminal; why pretend otherwise?

Let's send the psycho killers packing.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: Luke

You are only bothered because you are accepting the fiction that the December statement was made by Mangum. It was almost certainly put in her mouth word for word by Wilson at Nifong's direction.

It was such a transparent attempt to shore up this hoax that the next week the bar association went public with their complaint and the DAs went public with their letter to Nifong calling on him to recuse. The DAs never had to make their letter public and the NC Bar was not required to make their charges public at that time and had previously said they would do nothing about this case until it was over.

If you don't consider that statement from Mangum, but rather a joint statement of Mangum, Nifong and Wilson, then this whole case will make more sense. Also if you read the full transcript of the photo session you would understand that Mangum nervously IDed Evans because she had just picked the wrong guy and likely been yelled at by Gottlieb. She mentioned the mustache because a warning about different facial hair particularly a mustache is mentioned in the instructions she signed. She was nervous because she had just screwed up on her first ID and then she was too clever by half concerning the mustache issue.

Vivian Thomas said...

Meanwhile, the lunatic fringe continues to hold court over their sad, bigoted fiefdoms, blindly or consciously unaware of reality.

I'd like to welcome Amanda Marcotte to the ranks of the NBPP, Victoria Peterson, Chan Hall and Kim Curtis.

Gary Packwood said...

Luke @ 12:23 AM

Ah. Interesting Luke and very helpful.

Can you please give me that URL so I can read more.

She is quoting those who coached her and she got confused with the complexity of the language she was supposed to learn...and spit back to the police.

You caught it Luke. I never read that before.


luke said...

Gary: you can read the supplemented suppression motion here -- look at pgs. 13 and 14 for this discussion by the defense attorneys including a copy of the lineup pic of Evans shown to the accuser: Suppression Motion in PDF format The relevant lineup transcript portions were set out by KC on December 6 and can be found here: Statement Analysis Between us, I think the defense team could have written that portion a little bit clearer.

highcotton said...

As I have said before, 'all politics is local'. Chancellor Gee of Vanderbilt University has failed to answer my emails demanding to know how and why Houston Baker was hired.

So now I'm demanding the same answers of the local Vandy alumni association. They're a proud bunch, so I expect an answer. I pointed them to his rascist screeds that are online. I think it will turn their collective stomach. The Memphis chapter is a bunch to be reckoned with, so maybe this will get somewhere........

hman said...

Certain radical strains of feminism can be blamed, I think, for the runaway sense of entitlement dripping off of Goslees various statements. Afterall, it limits ones power to be held to one version of ones story. An absolute ruler does not have her subjects complaining that she has changed her story. No, subjects would have have learned that truth is whatever the autocrat proclaims it to be - at that particular moment.
Enough prattle about female supremacy and some of them will start to take it to heart. "You go girl" turns into "Whatever I say goes and don't talk back" .
Keeping to one story (because it is true) and submitting to the rule of consistency is, if you are drunk with a sense of "empowerment",
an intolerable yielding to limits.
I was fascinated to read that in the time of the last absolute monarchs in Europe, the development of dictionaries and encyploypedias was rigorously suppressed. Why? Because words and ideas would then be inflexibly linked to definitions. Autocrats recognized in that a proposed limit to their autocracy and tried to strike back.

Joe T. said...

Vivian Thomas- Welcome Amanda Marcotte to those who will hopefully be slapped with a lawsuit or two or forty. As stated above, the lawsuits should be broad and creative (though legitimate).

Anonymous said...

The thing that is so very sad is that those who deny culpability, avoid accountability, and ignore reality seem to be in the majority. In a democracy, this is a very bad thing. I'm very sorry to say that this affair has me seriously considering immigrating.

At some point, the producers in society may yet be overwhelmed by the parasites. Too many politicians pander to the basest drives for personal gain, creating an environment where, instead of lifting each other up and taking advantage of the best we can collectively create, there is destruction and a race to the bottom. Where did things go so wrong?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Gary Prestion here is the link the the full report on the photo array session:

Report on the photo session

Here is Wilson's typed full report on the alledged December statement by Mangum:

Wison's report

If you read these, then you are reading the actual evidence without me or a reporter or anyone telling you what the "evidence" says.

Anonymous said...

Polanski says

re "where did things go wrong?"

There's nothing wrong. We just need to fix certain things. The poster who advocates creative, broad lawsuits is on the right track. THINK AND YE SHALL CONQUER.

Black and women's studies programs were a natural outgrowth of the collective marginalization of women and blacks. This, I understand. Since their inception they've become ugly antimale and antiwhite incubators of mediocrity. We just have to do battle with these people. There's nothing wrong with a little battle for moral, social remediation.

Ditto our dumb rape laws. It's true that women were victimized once upon a time re sexual history and such. The tide has turned. Now men are being victimized. Change things. It's not hopeless.

Joe T. said...

I like that, Polanski. It might not be recognized as such, yet, but this case might have a lot of cultural significance for sparking those kinds of changes.

AMac said...

It would be interesting to inquire of Prof. Davidson or another member of the Group of 88 if there is anything--anything--that might concievably lead them to say those three words, "we were wrong."

-- A confession by D.A. Nifong that he made the whole thing up to save his election bid?

-- A confession by the false accuser that she was desperate to avoid involuntary committment that night?

-- Discovery of a videotape of the evening, running from 11:30pm to 1am?

-- A journey in an 88-passenger time machine back to March 13th?

Anything at all?

I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

re: Polanski, to me what is wrong is there is no or little check on prosecutors. We have a government of checks and balances except it seems for prosecutors. Now NC particularly has no checks on DAs, but I think this is a nation wide problem.

re: AMAC, The 88 gangsters have already said we are willfully misreading their ad. They were not talking about this case according to them. So according to them they have nothing to apologize for. That is their story and they are sticking to it, I bet.

So no evidence this was a hoax will get them to apologize. Their position is they were not talking about this and they will stick to it no matter how transparent it is to the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Polanski says

thanks, Joe T. The beauty of the Duke mess is that it will foster cultural changes--legal and academic

JLS: re "checks and balances vis-a-vis prosecutors"--I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure your point will be thoroughly addressed by the legal community.

Amac: I'm glad none of the knaves are apologizing. They are locked in to their ridiculous positions, and they will be blown out of them as well by the power of the people. Eg, 1 guy I've loathed for years is Cornel West. He's a phony, academic welfare sucking punk. I have very good sources at Princeton (dance, physics, and English professors) that tell me that the blowback from the Duke hoax has made its way to Princeton. They tell me that West is so paranoid that even his assistant's email address is nonfunctioning. While at Harvard you have that overrated Spike Lee lookalike doofus, Henry Louis Gates coercing PBS to "trace Oprah's roots." These so-called intellectuals in this crap are so clueless they'll be easy pickings for someone like me. I only hope I can find the time to address this crap in a serious way.

The fun stuff is just beginning, and I'll be watching and sniffing.

Amac: I'm glad none of the knaves are apologizing. From a tactic

David Brennan said...

Entertaining as this post is, it's also sad to point out that it's only repeating well known, thoroughly documented facts.

But the phonies - the Group of 88, the Wendy Murphy's, the John Edwards-like cowards whose silence implies trust in the government - have totally sacrificed their honesty at the altar of fake-leftist fairy tales.

I'm not a big fan of Old Dennis Miller (although I think that Young Dennis Miller was cool and funny), but he had a great comment on Fox: these people all think they're Atticus Finch and they have savior complexes: blacks and women are victims who need to be rescued from evil whitey.

And, again, they've proven that they'll look the truth straight in the face and tell it to f--- off: they've got a fantasy to indulge.

Anonymous said...

Leftists such as those found in the G88 are anarchists at heart, and thus they will never apologize nor even acknowledge their error in judgment.

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick says:
Why is KC trying to rehabilitate Ruth Sheehan? She is the third vertex of evil in that unholy triangle with Nifong and Precious. There is no way any apology from Sheehan can be accepted. All it would be is an admission of egregious behavior on her part. There can be no mitigating her guilt.
You're not going wobbly on us with regard to this bitch, are you?

Anonymous said...

Let the crapweasels stick to their inconsistencies, non-apologies, etc. People with functioning brains can figure out they are knaves and fools.

The only people that have to do something are the 2 special prosecutors and the AG and that is to dismiss all charges with prejudice.

Then let it be open season on payback for the LAXers. Hopefully, Nifong will be disbarred and Gottlieb and Wilson will be fired. Hopefully, $ damages will be assessed on several parties that contributed to this farce. If they aren't, I want all the crapweasels to live in mortal fear that they will be for as long as possible.

rod allison, detroit said...

“There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character"

Notice when she responds to calls for an apology, she throws the "attacks on their character" in the same sentence? She's trying to make the 88 the victims.

Instead of considering an apology seperately, she lumps it together with, and hides behind, an unconvincing claim of victimization, and its attendant moral superiority.

The lacrosse guys are victims, and at the same time, they also have some things to apologize for. This concept is totally beyond the comprehension of the '88. Their moral conceit and hate won't allow it.

Anonymous said...

The group of 88 are completely wrong. Even if the case wasn't a hoax it would still not be true that Duke University is running rampant with white male privilege and sexual violence and racism.

What their continued intransigence tells us is that their is a very large influential, politically minded group of faculty members at Duke who are almost pathological in their dislike for white males in general and white male athletes in particular. To have absolutely no compassion for the accused for what has happened to them and to feel no remorse for their participation in the villification of the players speaks volumes about the moral climate at Duke.

One lacrosse player was villified for a joke in a private email that was admittedly in poor taste. By contrast the only reaction by the Duke administration to the mob that formed to villify the lacrosse team has been the defense of the mob of 88 who have been getting angry emails from outsiders.

There were two Campus Cultural Initiatives. The offical Duke appointed one chaired by members of the mob of 88. The other, the report on the lacrosse team by James Coleman. The first will produce a dishonest document justifying a continued demonization of whites and males. The second was an honest document that defended the basic decency of the lacrosse players.

There is a moral cancer at in the governance of Duke University. The group of 88 is the disease, James Coleman is the vaccine. Take your choice.

bill anderson said...


You might want to ask them what they they about the sexual assault charges that were made against Baker by a graduate student. Karla Holloway was part of the "investigative" team and there were no hearings, nothing. All of a sudden, Duke went quiet about it after someone spoke to the student.

As I have said before, this damns Duke is so many ways, but it also damns Vanderbilt. They KNEW about these charges before Baker was hired, and in ordinary circumstances, that would have been enough to squash the hire right there.

Also, as K.C. has pointed out, the only people who consistently have told the truth here have been the lacrosse players. We see the "adults" at Duke and in Durham who have been unending and vociferous in their condemnation of the lacrosse players, yet it seems that there is this little matter of truth that gets in the way.

Of course, the "isms" studies are based upon the belief that there is no such thing as truth, so I guess these people are being consistent, in that they are proving that truth to them is no barrier when wanting to make political statements.

Terry said...

Goslee just had to have something to say back to Abrams. That's how those talking head programs work. It doesn't matter if what is said makes any particular sense, just give us hot steaming verbiage and we'll put you on the tube. The only sin is dead air.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that the NC legislature will actually make changes to the law that would stop this sort of misconduct in the future. They might suprise me, but I will wait and see.

I am amazed that KC Johnson still doesn't think that Crystal Gail Mangum should charged with a crime. She needs to be tried, and I for one, hope I serve on the jury that condemns that oozing skank to jail. She deserves no less, and KC should realize that the law applies to all. Color and sex matter only in Durham I guess, eh KC?

Anonymous said...

2007 Spring WOMANST163S-01, Interpreting Bodies...

"This course uses the intersection of U.S. feminism today and the contemporary so-called “animal rights movement” to study the implications and effects of identity and subjectivity on other animals, the natural environment, and ourselves..."

Every course I've reviewed is chocked-full of this clap trap. I'm embarassed for these women, that they don't think better of themselves. no wonder they have esteeme issues.

Check them out yourself per the link below. Be sure and read the synopsis.

I must say I am also shocked at the number of courses. My expectation was a handful and when one considers race studies, the meta narrative (read make up what ever you want) revision of the classics, one wonders what remains.

My apologies M.Simon, I tried and tried again, but failed to link as instructed. Maybe a more descriptive tutorial would save me.

At $46k a year this is criminal. Not so much that they teach this tripe, but that certainly isn't overtly presented. I don't recall this crap being mentioned during my son's tour. Transparency, governance, and leadership are difficult to find.

David Brennan said...

Terry said...

Goslee just had to have something to say back to Abrams. That's how those talking head programs work. It doesn't matter if what is said makes any particular sense, just give us hot steaming verbiage and we'll put you on the tube. The only sin is dead air.

You must be a talent booker for Fox News, eh?

Seriously, I think that that's probably a spot-on description of the cable news monster. (Like Stephen Colbert said, "The cable news beast must be fed." )

Anonymous said...

2:15 The Gang of 88 may want to consider apologizing for the pap they are teaching first, then consider the irresponsible letters.

Greg said...

Here is Bob Herbert's column today in the New York Times. I dedicate this article to the Group of 88. This is what happens when prejudice gets in the way of the truth.

The term “time warp” could have been coined for this rural town of 11,000 residents that sits beside, and just a little below, the Mississippi River. A remnant of the sugar-plantation era, the region’s racially troubled past is always here, seldom spoken about but inescapable, like the murk in the air of a perpetually stalled weather front.

The Harry Hurst Middle School is on the site of the old Destrehan High School, which was the scene of violent protests during the integration period of the 1970s. Local residents have tried to blot out the murder case that made Destrehan High notorious three decades ago, but there’s a big problem with that collective effort to forget. The black teenager who was railroaded into prison (and almost into the electric chair) for the murder of a white student in 1974 is still in prison all these many years later. He’s middle-aged now, still suffering through a life sentence without any chance for parole in the notorious state penitentiary at Angola.

There is no longer any doubt that the case against the teenager, Gary Tyler, was a travesty. A federal appeals court ruled unequivocally that he did not receive a fair trial. The Louisiana Board of Pardons issued rulings on three occasions that would have allowed Mr. Tyler to be freed.

But this is the South and Mr. Tyler was a black person convicted of killing a white. It didn’t matter that the case was built on bogus evidence and coerced witnesses, or that the trial was, in the words of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “fundamentally unfair.” Mr. Tyler was never given a new trial and the pardon board recommendations were rejected by two governors.

(Lurking in the background as the case unfolded was David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who was very active politically in Louisiana and always ready to inject his poison into the public issues of the day. If you drive around Destrehan and nearby communities today you will still see some of the old blue-and-white campaign signs for Duke.)

Mr. Tyler, a sophomore at Destrehan High, was on a bus filled with black students that was attacked on Oct. 7, 1974, by a white mob enraged over school integration. A shot was fired and a 13-year-old white boy standing outside the bus collapsed, mortally wounded. Mr. Tyler was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace after he talked back to a sheriff’s deputy.

Although the bus and its passengers were searched and no weapon was found, Mr. Tyler was taken into custody, savagely beaten and accused of committing the murder. A gun was “found” during a subsequent search of the bus and witnesses were rounded up to testify against Mr. Tyler. It turned out that the gun (which has since disappeared) had been stolen from a firing range used by officers of the sheriff’s department. All of the witnesses who fingered Mr. Tyler would eventually recant, saying they had been terrorized into testifying falsely by the authorities.

Mr. Tyler was represented at trial by a white sole practitioner who had never handled a murder case, much less a death penalty case. He kept his meetings with his client to a minimum and would later complain about the money he was paid.

The outcome was predictable. Mr. Tyler was convicted and sentenced to die in the electric chair by an all-white jury. At 17, he was the youngest prisoner on death row in the country. He almost certainly would have been executed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not ruled the Louisiana death penalty unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

2007 Spring AAAS 297S-01, taught by Miss Lubiano.


"This course is intended for graduate students who expect to be teaching about social inequalities, especially those of race, gender and class. What is the appropriate content to be teaching? What are the trade-offs among the various answers to that question? What are the trade-offs among various ways of presenting the content? How do our own characteristics--ideology, race, gender, age--affect the teaching process?"

One wonders if the defense counsel may audit this and other courses...

M. Simon said...

Witness intimidation Guilford College?.

School officials and Greensboro police say the three quickly left the dorm after police were summoned. A police spokesman says threats were made, but he wouldn't say who made them or who was the target of the threats.

Anonymous said...

9:33 AM
"teaching about social inequalities"

Quite a curriculum to build the next generation of race and gender pimps. We'll have all the Duke trained Jacksons and Sharptons that we need.

Glad to see that the past will be the future.


M. Simon said...

Is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
Women's Studies Courses at Duke

Women's Studies Courses at Duke

M. Simon said...

Please not that the "url" and "text to display" are mandatory.

Leave either out and it will not work.

duke09kparent said...

I could tolerate some inconsistencies by an accuser if she were as impaired by alcohol and Flexeril as CGM was. Even such folk do not deserve to be raped and slippage of a half an hour or even more would not make me disbelieve her story necessarily. But the mountain of non-testimonial evidence against any of her versions and the fact that she has so many contradictory versions makes anything she says incredible, even without her prior history.

Anonymous said...

One of the hallmarks of truth is consistency. However, meta-truth transcends that bound.
Translation: I can say whatever I want, because the end justifies the means.

Anonymous said...

you're overlooking an obvious point:an apology can be considered an admission of guilt.when the lawsuits start flying the only defense will be to claim they did nothing wrong.
as for Mz.Goslee and those who perpetuate the hoax,if they honestly believed this woman was raped why aren't they demanding to know who the DNA belongs to?it doesn't match the LAX defendants so why not dismiss charges against them and start looking for the real rapists?the answer is simple:this case is about prosecuting these three men.without them there is no case.

Anonymous said...


I think you are giving the LAX players way to much credit for their so-called apologies. When President Brodhead stated that the players were innocent until proven guilty, you blew off his statement and said it was nothing but a pro forma statement for which he should receive no credit. You tried to bolster this analysis with the absolutely ludicrous argument that the number of words he had devoted to saying the players were innocent until proven guilty represented only 2% of the total number of words he had spoken in regard to the case. Now you are patting the players on the back because of a couple of very brief pro forma statements, one of which was supposedly made in a private meeting and not where the local or national media could even hear it. I have a question. Of the total number of words the LAX players have uttered in regard to this case, what percentage of their words have consisting of apologies for their conduct and for all the damage they have done to their alma mater?

Anonymous said...

It is NEVER advised that someone being questioned by law enforcement EVER give statements without counsel present. Whether guilty or innocent, DO NOT SPEAK to anyone with law enforcement unless you have proper representation. These inexperienced young men have learned a bitter and valuable lesson. Law enforcement routinely makes mistakes. Never forget the psychological profile of typical law enforcement and the fact that they are political. They are not very bright. They are subject to gross errors in judgment and action. The Innocence Project routinely demonstrates this. It is folly to speak with them, regardless of the circumstances. It is highly likely that innocent individuals have been executed. Obviously, many have served prison terms who were not guilty. People do get run over by the system.

Anonymous said...

To: 11:08 AM

You are moron, these young men did nothing wrong. They engaged in the same behavior that all college students engage in. They had a party. They drank. They didn't vandalize anything. They did harm anyone. They didn't utter racial epithets (this has been roundly disproven). Sorry, take your uninformed shrill shrieking somewhere else.

jim said...


Yes, on both counts.

1) The 88 dare not concede anything on liability grounds, and

2) If there had been a rape accusation, the other DNA would have been an obvious line of investigation.

Note that #1 is the precise counterpoint to why the defendants do not want this to get to a trial. That is, my understanding of the applicable liability statutes (as I read them explained here and elsewhere) is that the liability risks to certain officials and institutions is greatly reduced if the case gets to trial instead of being dismissed early.

On a point related to #2, I would expect the defense to go after that not-explained DNA. That is, on what bases did the DA determine that those unexplained samples were not associated with rape? Consider what answer(s) might be given. Consider what the accuser might have said then and what she might say under oath.

Anonymous said...

Although Ruth Sheehan may have changed her position, she struggles mightily with saying she is sorry for the damaging words she has written and taking responsibility for her work.

As recently as her January 1 column, "It's Tme to Drop Charges," Ruth explicitly refused to apologize for her rush to judgment and passes all the blame back to Nifong. When referring to her early erroneous columns, she defiantly states, “I make no apology for that.”

As the New Year rang in, Sheehan wrote,

"What kind of dimwitted fools does Nifong believe us, and the potential jurors, to be?"

"I ask this, of course, from some experience."

I was one of the hopelessly naive who fell -- hard -- for Nifong's original depiction of the case.

"In statements the State Bar now says violated ethics rules, Nifong described in detail the horrors of the alleged gang rape, including an attempted strangulation and racial insults."

"Like others, I was outraged. And I wrote about it. I make no apology for that. It is not my job to wait for cases to be resolved and then walk through the aftermath and shoot the dead."

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: 5:53

It certainly is interesting that Professor Johnson wants to forgive without an apology a leftist like Sheehan who gave Nifong a huge amount of cover to perpertrate this hoax.

re: Greg, Interesting article, I lived in Louisiana in the early 1980s and I never heard of this case. I in fact read an artcile about parole in Louisiana suggesting it was too easy and Democrat governors were paroling or commuting sentences of people including rapists to ingratiate themselves to their families.

Could this be a matter of who is who in this case? That Gary Tyler has no family or no connected family or the victim was somebody's child that wants the convicted to stay locked up?

Of course it also could be as the case with many cause celebs of the left, he is just guilty. The DOJ has jumped into many many cases over the years where someone black was railroaded due to their color. Why have they not prosecuted anyone in Louisiana for this case? And of course all the black witnesses have lots of reasons to recant once it becomes a cause celeb.

The Gary Tyler story is a real puzzle to me. I guess I wonder why a populist like Edwin Edwards would not have pardoned him/commuted his sentence for the votes he would have gotten even without any cash to lubricate the action. And the Louisiana all party primary system makes the black vote in Louisiana even more important to finish in the top 2 to get in the run off.

re: Polanski, I am not so sure more lawyers looking at the lack of checks on DAs will do it, but that would be a step. [I am not a lawyer either.]

Anonymous said...

11:08 AM,

Sorry Group of 88 or whomever, drinking beer and looking at naked women (even if done by men under 21) did not damage Duke. To say it did is absurd. If I had a son, I would prefer he not drink beer (or any alcohol, at any age), and I would prefer he not look at naked women other than his wife. Nevertheless, I did both when I was in college (and maybe a few others did too), and my alma mater was none the worse for it. What these men did was no worse than (and probably not as bad as) running a red light. Running red lights is not good, but a college student's running of red lights does not does not discredit his college.

Texas Professor

Anonymous said...

to 9:21

Concerning Dr. Rudy and the Women's Study "courses"- there's a very nice photo of her in a Duke periodical from several years back with some additional remarks about her perceptions about the kinds of things Duke students should learn about before they graduate. I would not have survived that indoctrination.

I am also link challenged- but I do know how to copy and paste into the address line.....

Duke alum- School of Medicine '75

Anonymous said...

hmmmm- entire link didn't seem to make it:

Anonymous said...

"Of the total number of words the LAX players have uttered in regard to this case, what percentage of their words have consisting of apologies for their conduct and for all the damage they have done to their alma mater?"

The behavior of the players has done little to harm Duke. While their choice of entertainment and activities was poor, it in no way stands out (which is, of course, an unfortunate comment on the state of college life in America).

The real harm has been caused by the self-serving distortions of what occurred at the party and the (continuing) overreactions of people with matches looking for fuses to light.

To say that the lacrosse players have harmed Duke is likely saying that the Joooos were responsible for getting Germany wrecked in the 1940's.

By apologizing even once, they have shown far more character and adult behavior than their detractors. Those who continue to harass them almost a year later need to learn that there is not only losing, but degrees of losing. The postmodern narcissists have lost and lost badly. The only question is how much damage do they want to do to themselves.


Anonymous said...

11:44 Texas Professor...running a red light will potentially kill you or others...strippers and parties usually do not.

Ironically, the lack of leadership at Duke and the visibility and credentials of the nonsense the Gang of 88 teach, are the what's driving back-lash against Duke.

Instead the Gang has created an openly hostile environment which exacerbates the situation.

Anonymous said...

11:08 is simply trying to provoke everyone. Given the sentiments, writing style and mention of the local media, sounds like Cash.

Anonymous said...

To Poster 11:08, G88/87, Cash, Amanda, Victoria, NAACP, etal... Your case has turned into the "Princes and the Pea" fairy tale.

Now you really struggle to find a suitable pea to keep you awake at night.


Anonymous said...

11:08 is simply trying to provoke everyone. Given the sentiments, writing style and mention of the local media, sounds like Cash.

Actually, I don't think Cash has such good diction, nor can he use such well formed sentences.

Anonymous said...

JLS says,

Cutting and pasting m simon's easily used directions to make a link:

Rudy in Duke Mag

Anonymous said...

You can visit the John Edwards blog by Amanda Marcotte but you have to sign up if you want to leave comments.

Might be a good idea to ask if Amynda has been asked to explain her potty mouth yet.

Anonymous said...

12:08 PM
"Actually, I don't think Cash has such good diction, nor can he use such well formed sentences."

Kinda rules out the G88/87 too.

Anonymous said...

I love this post. It pulls everything together in a stunning it reveals the depravity of those who had rather appear like fools before the world than admit that they were---and still are---wrong.

Another sizzling post!

Ssssssssst ! .......don't get burned.


Anonymous said...

They will never apologize because, in their view, morality is not a matter of actions but rather of social and ideological positions.

A black, disabled, lesbian, Maoist of Third World background could be torturing little children in the hallways of the literature department and it would be considered a minor indiscretion. If, on the other hand, a heterosexual, White, male, conservative, Christian professor from a wealthy American family were so much as to utter any word beginning with "nig" (such as "niggardly), it's time to call out the firing squad.

Anti Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

Is there any evidence that Freda Black had or has an alcohol problem? Not sure what her having a black boyfriend, if true, has to do with anything, though.

Anonymous said...

12:09 Rudy's article...this speaks to the underlying fraud those in the race/gender/class welfare perpetrate upon everyone. Too much to cite, but here are a few:

1. Immigration? No mention at all that the people are hear illegally.

2. "We've had fairly good outreach connections for social services to the migrant communities and that very quickly translated into social-service benefits to some degree--getting kids in school, things like that--for newly arrived immigrants .." No mention on who is paying for these illegals and NO mention of the medical costs.

3. "So we are talking poverty, but I think the immigrants' experience is buffered by the fact that, even though everyone's very poor, the ability to share allows them to have much richer lives." So all of our lives would be richer if we distribute our wealth...

4. "These are borders-crossing communities that have very little to do with people moving. It's the borders that move. We Americans act like these borders were set in stone at the time of Moses and the
Ten Commandments, and that's not true. Texas was annexed not that long ago [in 1845, nine years after winning its independence from Mexico.] Suddenly we draw a line there and say, "This is ours, you're American."

You go through some pockets of Durham, which seems so far away from the border, and Mexico has been recreated. You are an outsider there if you do not speak Spanish. That's happening all over the United States. And so the borders are being jumbled up in that way, too." Up is down, down is up, let's redefine the boundaries to suit our agenda.

4. "Thirty years ago or longer, you might have been able to find an African-American woman who would have said it's all right for my husband to beat me, because we need to stay together to keep the race strong. Now, you're never going to find anyone in black America arguing for domestic violence based on feminism." $46,000 per year for this pap.

Anonymous said...

To anyone part of the the G88/87

This is a perfect opportunity to rise above the steaming pile that has become the Hoax Supporters. To seize the day, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, to live to fight another battle...use your influence and political clout help get Gary Tyler out of prison.

Start the healing process, show the world that you are not really hypocrits and that principles drive the G88 rather than personal interest. Your statement as a group could have a very positive impact

Cedarford said...

It is a characteristic of ideologues of the Left or Right - or of a particular "cause" - never to apologize because they are right in the macro sense and errors of fact should be denied because they only help "The Enemy" - which of course the Ideologue is convinced is wholly wrong.

Lest we think it is confined to Nifong and his Cabal, look at other nests of ideologues. "Terrorists have significant Constitutional Rights" lawyer and Lefty cabals. The Bush cabal "illegals do jobs Americans won't do", "What WMD?", "Iraq is going fine", "Workers don't want a min wage increase. Holy Milton Freidman says it is bad for them". The Kerry Cabal. "John is right on all things", "he only botched a joke". The Feminist cabal "Women never lie"...

Try to get any of them to admit error and apologize is like banging your head on concrete.

On Amanda Marcotte, a blogger that has baited her and ridiculed her for years, Vox Day over at Vox Popoli Blog, expressed his profound disappointment at everyone being on to Amanda so fast. He disliked Edwards, and had hoped that Amanda would have gone unchallenged for months, unwittingly inflicting severe damage on Edwards campaign.

Anonymous said...

TO 12:21PM--

I recall several years ago a local politician in Washington, DC used that word, and the people around him were so ignorant of its definition that they had him fired.

The ultra-Left atmosphere in this country is truly putrid.

Dinesh D'Souza has a new book out whose title, I believe, is "The Enemy Within". His international view of America is spot-on. Although, most Liberals are afraid of his observations because they render those like the Duke88 as the malcontents and ill-educated people that they are.

It's interesting that Barack O'Bama's international upbringing is deified....yet the brilliance of those like Dinesh D'Souza is ostracized.

I like the personality and demeanor of O'Bama. He's a sharp guy, but he's just not ready to be a president.

Yet I might vote for him if I'm in a frivolous mood at the ballot box. Not!

It's Rudy or hunky Mitt for me.


Anonymous said...

It would be a good exercise to group KC's list of characters into:

(A) Those consciously picking, choosing, twisting, or distorting facts to suit an agenda.

(B) Those so emerged in their ideology that their psychosis affects their entire view of the world. They are incapable of seeing the facts, or see things that don't exist at all.

An interesting example of (B) is today's NYT article on the Super Bowl commercials. The writer is so overwhelmed with anti-war agenda that he states: "the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials.

Anonymous said...

If a Women's Studies class actually advocates that African-American women no longer should accept being beaten by their husbands, it will have to recant when it is confronted by the Islamic Studies group because wife beating is endorsed under Sharia Law. Surely, Women's Studies must welcome cultural difference.

Nifong's hat trick said...

Talk about Consistencies or lack of, DA Nifong is inconsistent in his use of common sense! Dec 22, 2006, Nifong decided to drop rape charges stating "...since there is no scientific, or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis, the State is unable to meet it's burden of proof."
Questions for a lawyer: 1)Are there actual steps or measures that a DA follows to be sure his case will meet the State's "burden of proof"? 2)If Nifong believes "...there is no other evidence independent of the victim's testimony..." Doesn't his reasoning then follow suit in sexual assault and kidnapping charges since for those charges there is also "...NO OTHER EVIDENCE INDEPENDENT OF THE VICTIM'S TESTIMONY?"
3)If Nifong knows that he can not meet the "...State's burden of proof..." for a charge of rape because he is lacking "...scientific...evidence..." how does he intend to "meet the State's burden of proof" with a charge of sexual assault when he is lacking the same "...scientific...evidence..." that didn't support his charge of rape?

Anonymous said...

Freda Black seems intelligent enough. Although she got her law degree from some knock-off school. Campbell University, I think.

My main repulsion is that she has such a harsh and base demeanor. She paints on eyebrows--(sorry for some women who lose's too bad)--like Bill Clinton's mother used to do. It's a very witchy and cheap look.

Also, I was turned off by her performance in the Michael Peterson trial. Her manner of speaking is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

IMO, all those in professions where speaking in public is a feature of their job, should be required to take speech lessons.

That goes for a nasal Midwestern accent.....a gnawing New Jersey clip.....or a g/d-awful Southern accent like Freda's.

Freda is no doubt an intelligent woman, but she comes across as a hick by the way she talks.


Anonymous said...

12:55 PM
gk - "If a Women's Studies class actually advocates that African-American women no longer should accept being beaten by their husbands..."

I believe that this only applies if it's an inter-racial couple, per the class syllabus

Anonymous said...

To 1:08:
Nevertheless, To beat their wives, regardless of their race, is a right accorded to husbands under Sharia Law. Thus, Women's Studies would not be faithful to a full multicultural agenda if it objects to Sharia Law.

After all, have you ever heard NOW or that crowd criticise the subjection of women in Islamic countries? To do so would not be very PC.


Anonymous said...

The lumpen-esque mass of ultra-Liberals in this country....along with the Islamo-fascists of the world.... to see their bleeding inconsistencies.

As they rail against any "oppressor" du jour, they seem to miss the accepted oppression that is all about them.

Islamic women, for the most part, are second or third-class citizens.

Violence against women in the black community seems to be treated like a common cold.

Such emotional and psychological bankruptcy......given pro tanto relief only by projecting their vast pathologies onto others.

Sad, that.


Anonymous said...

NYFD Engine Co:

***The ultra-Left atmosphere in this country is truly putrid.***

Right, because before this past election, the Republicans (running on Iraq and the neoconservative/religious right agenda) weren't in control of the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court or anything.

"I am a combat veteran, insofar as I play an integral role in the War on Christams, grappling with the SP's and the old liberal media."
-Bill O'Reilly

-Engine Co.

jim said...

gk -

Re your 12:55

Stop it!

At the very least, please post a "put down your drink" warning next time.


William Shakespeare said...

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding:
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

Anonymous said...

The Players are the only one's to apologize, as you point out - and, they are the only one's who have told the Truth - the unvarnished truth.

Precious, DPD, Nifong, et. al have made bald-faced lies.

The Duke Admin has shaded the truth.

Both the Duke Admin and the "88" have revised the past to change the Truth.

I am often reminded by one of the "pot-banger" signs that read "Real Men Tell the Truth"

That pot-banger could not have been more correct !!


Anonymous said...

1:31 Engine Company

2007 Spring SXL 115S-01, Study of Sexualities

"Overview of the new field of sexuality studies that highlights the "social construction" of sexuality. Explores how sexuality is shaped by historical and cultural contexts and by gender and race. Topics include the "invention" of homosexual and heterosexual identities, debates about prostitution, sexuality in non-Western societies, and
queer theory."

Study of Sexualities

Maybe his course will help us all understand better...It only cost $46,000.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon and others, even a blind hog finds an acorn...

My first successful html tag (2:07), and to think so many did not think I would amount to much.

Many, many thanks, especially for your patience. I begin working on patience next week...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:08, you said,

Of the total number of words the LAX players have uttered in regard to this case, what percentage of their words have consisting of apologies for their conduct and for all the damage they have done to their alma mater?

What damage? Except for a false accusation and an out-of-control prosecution, the most that the LAX players would have deserved is a reprimand for the tasteless (but legal) act of hiring strippers; possibly there might be something to do about the under-age drinking, but many college students (even at Baptist colleges) are guilty of that.

Anonymous said...


How many public apologies would it take from the players to satisfy you? I would be happy with ONE each from the many adults who owe an apology for their behavior in this case and have refused to give it. And, yes, I consider the sober behavior of the grown ups in their various official capacities of far greater concern than the college students' foolish party antics.
The NYT has a front page article today about the murder rate in New Orleans and the complete breakdown there of LE and the justice system. Near the end of the article the reporters point out that the vast majority of the violence there is drug related, black-on-black violence. But the black community shuns police efforts to address crime and, according to this article, did not really participate in the march to City Hall last month protesting the level of violence tolerated by the City:
"When the pattern of black-on- black on black violence is occasionally broken, white fear and outrage are redoubled. This happened earlier this month after the killing of a white filmmaker, when thouseands of people marched on City Hall to demand change, a majority of them whites.
"The small showing of black marchers saddened Mr. Raphael, the minister. In the 2006 murders, he said, '99 percent of them were black-on-black, and we did not march. As a community, we could not bring ourselves to respond to that.'"
Fear of retaliation and ostracism in their own community kept people away, and that says a lot about their community. I know the Duke Moms' March was not widely publicized and was meant to make a quiet, calm statement-which it did. But I suspect something similar to the fears lurking in New Orleans kept Durhamites from participating this past Sunday, and, frankly, that says something about Durham, too.


Gary Packwood said...

Luke 1:08 AM and JLS 1:27

Thanks very much. I am now up-to-date.

If I was in my own bathroom off the master bedroom with four or 5 other people, I could not move or even see anything unless I was as tall as CF..who is 6'5!

Whoever coached her to say all of those words did not practice with her before she actually talked. It shows.

The fact that she added her own 'off the cuff remarks' is even more off the wall. A Duke Lacrosse player is going to have oral sex with a 27/28 year old exotic dancer in a bathroom with his buddies watching?

Thanks again for your help.

Anonymous said...

Sad to say, many people's views have been very consistent, despite the extent to which the facts in view bear out that nothing happened has greatly increased over time, beyond the point of virtual certainty in the evaluation of any objective observer.

It is one thing to treat two incidents very differently when everything about them is similar, save for race being reversed. It is quite another to treat clear instances of actual crimes as though they don't even exist in order to fixate on a transparent fallacy that only exists in the fervent desires of some, to seek to enable such beliefs in others, and to seek to prop up the big lie by adding yet other lies, changing the arguments, or conflagrating the facts with unfounded assertions that muddy the bright line between right and wrong so crisply delineated here.

This is incredibly revealing, a clear-cut instance of the emperor has no clothes -- yet claims it is everyone else who is naked. Remember, Nofing was elected by a plurality of the registered voters who cast ballots in November.

It will be very informative to see how this ends and what lessons are drawn from this whole episode. “Adam, Matt, and Brett” indeed…

nodak boy said...

nonymous said...

I have no brief either way on the Durham case and it appears Nifong committed legal malpractice if not worse.
However, too often the exculpatory value of DNA evidence - usually, the lack of DNA - gets transmogrified into "proving innocence." It only "proves" that your DNA was not found there. It does not, in fact, "prove" you are innocent of the crime, or even "prove" you didn't leave DNA at the scene. It merely proves there is no DNA evidence against you.
Of course, it's not necessary to leave behind DNA to accomplish rape or sexual assault or gross sexual imposition or whatever definition of sexual assault is used. Even if DNA is left behind, it's not always detected or gathered by investigators.
Fingerprints are a similar form of physical evidence: their absence does not "prove" that a certain suspect is innocent of the crime. It simply means there is no fingerprint evidence against him. It doesn't even "prove" the suspect did not leave fingerprints at the scene.
It's a form of negative evidence speaking for innocence, not positive evidence or proof of innocence.
Some types of evidence can prove innocence; an alibi that holds up can prove a suspect could not have committed the crime he's charged with.
The lack of DNA evidence from a suspect at a crime scene argues for his innocence but it cannot, by definition, prove it.
While it is unlikely that any of the Duke students could have raped the dancer yet have none of their DNA show up on her panties, it sure as heck is possible.
I have little doubt in the Duke case the prosecution has little to go on anymore.
But innocence presumed is different than innocence proven.

6:45 PM

Nifong's hat trick said...

nodak boy
The only difference in this case is that 5 other men's DNA WAS found, so how does one explain that the Lax players DNA was NOT found when the accuser admits there were no condoms used? That's an impossibility (even with condom use)when you consider the description the accuser gave of how she was supposedly violated. The Lax player's DNA would have been all over the place!
I agree that alone, DNA evidence may not be enough to prove innocence, but in this case I think it speaks loudly for the innocence of the 3 Duke Lax players.

Anonymous said...

nodak boy:

Maybe you're not familiar with the facts of this case. The lack of DNA evidence from any lacrosse player in the rape-kit or CGM's clothes -- and the confirmed presence of the DNA of several prior sexual partners -- does prove conclusively that CGM's account of the "rape" (that, following a vigorous fight, multiple players, not wearing condoms, ejaculated in her mouth and vagina; and she didn't shower before the swabs were taken etc. etc. ) is untrue.

Anonymous said...

The DNA tests they did were sufficiently sensitive to detect contamination by less than a single cell's DNA from the lab director. It is quite possible that a positive DNA match could have come about just from being present in the same bathroom the students who lived in the house used. It was no accident that such a sensitive test was run -- after the normal state lab found nothing. Given the description of the "rape", the claim that the accuser spit on the floor, etc. the DNA in this cases does in fact prove a negative, in the same sort of statistical sense that proves all sorts of other accepted facts.

Gary Packwood said...

nodak boy 9:00 PM

Thanks for the clarification of what the DNA evidence offers and does not offer.

Were you speaking about the testimony of the person who is making the charges and how that plays out in front of a jury?

Please, more information.


Anonymous said...

Funny how some of your commenters defend or deny McFadyen's e-mail even though he apologized for it.

Good for him, though. Hope he has a good season despite the "fans" he has on your blog.

Anonymous said...

Funny how some of your commenters defend or deny McFadyen's e-mail even though he apologized for it.

What's your point? I as sure that lots of people say things they later regret in the heat of the moment.

Anonymous said...

Also, the e-mail was in no way racist. It was a reaction to being ripped off that was allowed to be publicly released when this was clearly improper. It is understandable, if not entirely defensible. Consider the context and the motivations of those who released it. Consider the DPD entering a students room to compose and send a false e-mail. Consider any time you've had an intemperate private conversation that may have been inflamatory when publicly released in a context created to be exactly that -- inflamatory.

Anonymous said...

I was not talking about the credibility of the alleged victim in the Duke/Nifong case.
I was simply pointing out the general fact that a lack of DNA evidence cannot, by definition, prove innocence. It may argue for innocence, but it cannot prove it.
I'm no student of this case. It appears the alleged victim has changed her story more than once and, in general, is a poor witness in a sexual assault case.
Nifong seems to have violated the ethic of his profession, if not the law itself.
It appears there is little left to the state's case. (Although I understand there is perhaps much evidence that has not been made public yet.)
The lack of DNA evidence from the three Duke players does not prove they did not sexually assault the woman. It may pour doubt on the woman's story/stories.
It may, retractively, leave the state without enough probable cause to bring a case, or now enough evidence to take it to trial.
However, just because she lied or varied her story or got some details wrong doesn't prove or mean she wasn't sexually assaulted.
Nor does the fact she said she was sexually assaulted prove or mean she was.
It's possible one or more of the three men charged - or some other man at the lewd party - sexually assaulted the woman and did not leave detectable - or detected or collected - DNA on or in her.
Once the DNA of three or more men is found in, say, the same pair of panties, it may be difficult to exclude any certain man's DNA during testing, depending on how mixed up the sample is, some experts say.
The testing of DNA in a lab is a separate discipline from gathering the DNA from a crime scene or a victim. Garbage in, garbage out still applies.
DNA does not a rape make.
One or more of the Duke players could have sexually assaulted the woman - using their finger or a broom or a sex toy or even their penis - say, without ejaculation - or simply imposed themselves on her in a gross sexual way, and left no DNA behind that was collected or detected.
She could have lied about the whole thing, or part of it, or got some details wrong without actually lying.
She might be a liar and they might be her rapists. Both things could be true. Or one, or neither.
I'm just sayin'.....