Saturday, April 14, 2007

Broverman Clarifies

The day that AG Roy Cooper dismissed all charges and declared the players innocent, it seemed as if we had another example of unfortunate conduct by a Duke professor. Newsday quoted Biology professor Sheryl Broverman (who is not one of the Group of 88) as suggesting that we'll never know the truth of what happened. It turns out, however, that Broverman's comments were taken considerably out of context.

Broverman e-mailed me shortly after the article appeared, but Wednesday through Friday was unusually hectic, and I just have gotten through this week's e-mails today. I quote her response in full:
In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I would like clarify my my comments as quoted in Newsday today. I was contacted by the reporter initially to talk about DukeEngage. He then asked me for my opinion about the expected dropping of all charges against the students. I was unaware that this was about to happen. I made the mistake of trying to provide a nuanced commentary on the difficulty of prosecuting rape in general. Many cases, some of which are valid accusations, are dismissed for lack of evidence. I think all of us would also agree that "normal legal procedures" did not happen under Nifong's leadership! Do I want the students to be guilty? Of course not. Do I accept that there is not sufficient evidence to go forward? Sure. Do I wish the lack of evidence had been acknowledged last spring? Absolutely! Who doesn't? However, I still maintain that rape is hard to prosecute, and that IN GENERAL lack of evidence does not mean a crime was not committed. However, I did not mean to suggest that I thought these students should be prosecuted.

In science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis. However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything. Looking at how Nifong handled the case, "the experiment didn't work" and one can't conclude anything. Listening to AG Cooper this afternoon, I accept that the data does not support the hypothesis, which in real life means that charges should be dropped.
People of good faith, it seems to me, can disagree over whether this case shows that rape law has bent too far in favor of prosecutors, and I suspect I would be more inclined to take that position than Prof. Broverman. About the Duke case itself, however, I agree with everything she says in the statement above.

129 comments:

Anonymous said...

One CAN now conclude that the AG has in a not-so-nuanced way said that the false accuser lied about what happened and she is so mentally unbalanced that pursuing charges against her would not be in the interests of justice ("no credible evidence" meaning INCREDIBLE statements by the false accuser.

I hope she follows up after the AG releases more facts.

Anonymous said...

It's not just that the data don't support the hypothesis in this case. It's not that the experiments didn't work and the data don't exist. The data from the first experiment, conducted by Nifong, was too flawed because of bias, research misconduct, and incompetence, to support the hypotheses of rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault. The second experiment, conducted by Cooper's office, yielded data that show that the odds against these hypothesis are astronomical.

It is true that we may never know what really happened on the night in question, but it's clear that some things definitely did not happen.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

I have no sympathy toward people who have and continue to confuse criminal charges with a political cause. Her comment was not nuanced is was nonresponsive, so she only has herself to blame for being misunderstood.

She was asked about a particular case. She can not express happiness over wrongfully accused being set free from charges without making a political statement. Any heat she gets for her poorly thought out comments are what she deserves for her bad behavior in my book.

Imagine someone in the 1930s or 1940s saying something similar when one of the "Scottsboro Boys" was released.

Anonymous said...

I hope the three boys tell us what happened in that house.Each one telling their account,from when they arrived,inside the house and when they left.

Anonymous said...

"In science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis."

Thats fine for disecting frogs, but you don't pin people to the gurney without cause and due process.

The good professor forgets that an "entire process" needs to be fulfilled (ie, hypothesis vetted, or an indictment vetted)before you have the basis to state ...."IN GENERAL lack of evidence does not mean a crime was not committed."

I don't agree with her position at all.

Anonymous said...

That makes me happy to read her full comments. I was pretty shocked to read the Newsday quote, which lead me to believe a Duke professor still refused to admit that no rape took place. I agree with everything she said. I disagree that rape law has tilted too far toward the victims, the statistics just don't bear that out.

Anonymous said...

3:50 nailed it.

Her "clarification" is very similar to what we now hear from the likes of Georgia Goslee. Anyone who can't separate themselves from such company is unredeemably biased.

BTW, I heard she had issued a clarification more widely. If so, does anyone have a link?

Anonymous said...

Ms. Broverman, the following point is not subtle. People should not have trouble seeing the distinction. Lisening to Roy Cooper's statement there is only one ineluctible conclusion that any rational person can reach.

The case was not dropped because there was a lack of evidence. The case was dropped because all of the evidence was examined and IT SHOWED THAT NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND THE YOUNG MEN ARE INNOCENT!

In terms of science, the data prove that the hypothesis is false and just the opposite it true.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Duke Three are innocent, not just "not guilty".

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

Are you jet-lagged, KC?

Broverman published this non-apology distraction on the DukeChronicle site as well last week.

And was promptly eviscerated by the posters, on several key points.

1. She is using the "something happened and no evidence can be presented to convince me otherwise" canard (you are just apparently too tired to recognize it)

2. An experiment in justice did not fail; the results were faked.

The real experimental data was concealed, willfully and intentionally. Exculpatory DNA evidence was meticulously gathered and analyzed and showed the correct result.

3. Broverman has NO credibility and is masquerading as a scientist.

Broverman is not a biologist so her talk of experimentation is a complete fraud. She has published only 2 experiments in her entire life (the last in 1995 apparently from her graduate work) and has NO peer-reviewed papers in over a decade.

She is in fact an undistinguished (and unpublished) race and gender ideologue exactly like the other G88 vigilantes.

Get some rest, KC.

Jack said...

Based upon Ms. Broverman’s remarks, I most strongly object to her insinuation, her conclusion and to K.C. Johnson’s mild concurrence. The Attorney General was pointed and unambiguous – these players are innocent. There was not any evidence to suggest that a crime had been committed, not merely a lack of sufficient evidence. Ms. Borverman, while stating the obvious: “lack of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed”, fails to accept the assertion of the AG – beyond any degree of sufficiency, there is NO evidence that a crime had been committed. Ms. Broverman’s attempt at nuanced commentary is akin to the de-construction we’ve seen from so many of Duke’s faculty – people with agendas, grudges and opinions, anything but facts, given a voice on matters they are wholly unprepared and ill equipped to comment on in a public forum.

Her comments in Newsday:

For some at Duke, the possibility of dropped charges left as many questions as answers -- and a feeling that the full truth of what happened last March in the house on North Buchanan Boulevard may never be known, in part because the investigation was mishandled.

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened," said Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman. "The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward."

Sounds to me like Ms. Broverman remains unconvinced that the AG and the Special Investigators have come to any definitive conclusion as to the players’ innocence. Even if these remarks had been made prior to the AG’s announcement, her clarifying email is anything but convincing. Professor Johnson, you are being far too lenient in concluding that Ms. Broverman’s intentions are made in good faith.

Anonymous said...

KC wrote:

About the Duke case itself, however, I agree with everything she says in the statement above.

The claim that the Duke players committed rape was not a "hypothesis" in an "experiment." It was a criminal charge in a court of law with devastating consequences for actual human beings. The factual investigation should have occurred before the hypothesis. What a morally repugnant view of the criminal process.

This is mealy-mouthed, pseudo-intellecutal garbage.

Sometimes you baffle me, KC. You've been relentless in pursuing the gang of 88, but at other times you seem anxious to let other academics off the hook for their inanities. Tribal loyalty, I suppose

Anonymous said...

Braverman is just wrong to compare the criminal justice system with biological experiements.

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" does she not understand?

According to her logic until a defendant in a crimical case is "not guilty", you cannot conclude anything.

That is not what "innocent until proven guilty" means. It is not
"innocent when proved "not guilty""

Zimri said...

No, there WAS a biology experiment and it DID work.

c.f. Apr 14, 2007 4:12:00 PM, #2 -

The experiment was whether the team's DNA would be found in a swab taken a few hours after the attack. Meehan's lab turned up DNA from several men, but not from the three who were indicted. Conclusion: Within the probability bounds of the experiment, none of the accused had sex with the accuser.

KC, thank you for posting Broverman’s defense; but her position is a debasement of science and, by extension, so is yours.

To quote Lady Thatcher, now is not the time to go wobbly.

Gary Packwood said...

Thanks Professor Broverman...I think I understand now ...Until Proven Innocent.

In science, the guilty hypothesis stands unless the data do not support the hypothesis.

In the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) the accused is hypothesized to be guilty unless the data do not support the hypothesis.

In the United States of America (USA) the accused is hypothesized to be NOT GUILTY unless the data do not support the hypothesis.

I'll notify the American Bar Association first thing Monday morning. Expect a call. They will be interested in your 'nuanced commentary' about the Constitution of the United States of America.

At Duke University you are guilty ... Until Proven Innocent.

GP

Anonymous said...

Broverman's rationalization is so nuanced, that it is twisted!

She wrote: "However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything."

I take great pride in being a scientist myself.

This is not a case of the data failing to support the hypothesis. This is a case of the data totally disproving the hypothesis!!

The fact that the DNA came back totally negative PROVED that the hypothesis was wrong!!

If a woman showed up in the hospital weeks after being raped, a reasonable person would not expect to find DNA, so the absence of DNA would prove nothing. This case is RATHER DIFFERENT, however.

Ernie in Utah

Anonymous said...

Cousin Clakki said "the implications are astronomical" about the latest Mangum baby belonging to one of the accused.

3:50 said "The second experiment, conducted by Cooper's office, yielded data that show that the odds against these hypotheses are astronomical."

Haha

Zimri said...

And, to rebut the "something happened" crowd, where "something" means something other than rape that is still prosecutable -

The evidence of non-s3x aside, there is also evidence of non-battery in CGM's photographs after the fact. S3xual assault is a subset of general battery just like rape is a subset of s3x. No s3x means no rape; no battery means no s3xual assault. (Again, "within the probability bounds of the experiment"- which bounds have exonerated other candidates from prison, death row etc.)

[evading spam filters]

Anonymous said...

Jack@4:16pm--
I'm with you.
All these people with their nuanced statements make me sick.
Roy Cooper was pretty clear on Wednesday.
Broverman is a Duke academic whore still playing a subtle game with words.

Anonymous said...

Hate to write this, but Dan Abrams would agree with me.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a construct of the trial process within the court - crime case jurors are instructed and judges instruct them or act under the notion that any given defendant is to be considered innocent until the burden of proof is met - in criminal cases, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not a constitional right, nor is it anything else.

People are free to give the benefit of doubt (or not), to feel that the accused are either innocent or guilty, guilty as sin, or 100% innocent and so on. There is no societal obligation for the 'average woman in the street' (pun intended) to do any of these things. That is why Duke cannot do anything to the 88 and it is why they will never repent.

Anonymous said...

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened," said Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman.

Hmm in most legal processes involving Nifong, there has been a plea bargain. So we will never know what really happened in those cases. Also, even in cases where Nifong has gone through the normal legal process (for him)I don't think there are many cases whee anyone will ever know what really happened.

Kynna said...

This "clarification" is insulting. I agree with above posters who point out that the AG said the evidence points to complete innocence on the part of the players. She's still trying to play the "lack of evidence" card which implies Nifong just bollucks the whole investigation so badly that they have to let these three rapists off. She's still implying there's some kind of guilt to be found even after the AG's statement.

KC, you've been had, or you're coming down with a cold. She's a fraud and an instigator and I am offended by her first "nuanced" comments and her "clarification."

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:01

Yes, the presumption of innocence comes to us from the common law if I remember correctly, and is referenced in the constitution as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

That correct?

GP

Michael said...

[Do I want the students to be guilty? Of course not. Do I accept that there is not sufficient evidence to go forward? Sure. Do I wish the lack of evidence had been acknowledged last spring? Absolutely! Who doesn't?]

How about just using the word INNOCENT? A good scientist will adjust her message for the audience so the nuance stuff is crap.

[However, I still maintain that rape is hard to prosecute, and that IN GENERAL lack of evidence does not mean a crime was not committed.]

A wise person will be able to examine the circumstances and whether a particular point or message would be wise at a particular time. I would hope that all Duke professors would express joy that a member of their family was exonerated instead of trying to make brownie points on intellectual matters with the press.

[However, I did not mean to suggest that I thought these students should be prosecuted.]

Then you should have been careful with your words. Have you learned nothin from the "listening ad"?

[In science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis. However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything. Looking at how Nifong handled the case, "the experiment didn't work" and one can't conclude anything. Listening to AG Cooper this afternoon, I accept that the data does not support the hypothesis, which in real life means that charges should be dropped.]

Wrong hypothesis lady. The hypothesis is that they are INNOCENT and the proof arrives next week. But we already know enough now. Scientific Method is a great tool. Just like a gun. But you have to point it in the right direction.

hman said...

When Broverman claims that she meant only to make general comments about issues surrounding the prosecution of rape cases she admits to a big problem: She made her comments within the context of a very particular, constantly evolving story. In other words, she admits to speaking out about this case AS IF her generalized notions were relevant. She chose to give priority to expressing her prejudices about the subject instead of bothering to learn about this particular case - which as an on-going life and death ordeal for some of her students.

Anonymous said...

Her original statement and her so-called clarification are basically the same thing. I am surprised to hear that you agree with it, KC. Rapes are hard to prosecute, and the fact that charges are dropped does not mean someone is not guilty? Well, what does? Can someone accused of rape be actually innocent? I noticed she couldn't use the word "innocent" even in her so-called clarification.

Anonymous said...

How were her comments taken out of context? Seems to me that she is arguing the same thing in her clarification-the absence of evidence in a rape case does not mean the individual is not guilty, it's just that there is not enough evidence to prove the crime. Am I missing something, KC? Is it so nuanced that I don't get what you get?

hman said...

Put another way, the basic mistake so many commenters made last spring and thereafter was to base their remarks on whatever stereotypes, assumptions, and agendas that were rattling around in their heads. The actual truth about the particulars of the case, the stuff of which guilt or innocence should alone be based, was locked outside in the rain.
Given all of this, I have trouble listening Broverman invoke the paradigm of the scientific method.

P. Rich said...

"...if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything."

What an incredibly stupid and incorrect statement. Experiments always yield data which (simplifying somewhat) either support or contradict the hypothesis upon which the experiment was constructed. And this case is a binary. Either rape occurred, or it did not. Thus an experiment (investigation) will yield data supporting one or the other condition.

All told, this is a cleverly weasle-worded statement which, when stripped of the suprefluous verbiage, implies the prosecution failed to produce evidence of rape because of Nifong and not because ALL data supported the negative of the hypothesis, i.e., there was no rape.

In science, if one forms a hypothesis and the experiment yields overwhelming indication that the hypothesis is false, it must be discarded. The hypothesis in this case was, "A rape occurred." At this moment in time, ALL evidence (and there is a great deal) points to the negative of that hypothesis. Ipso facto, one must conclude, as the state AG did, there was no rape and therefore there cannot be any rapists. Recall the use of the term "innocent?"

This biology type must have a dual major in race/class/gender studies. Her "logic" is unsound.

KT said...

I completely agree with Ernie in Utah (4:51 pm) and many others about Broverman's nuanced words. Science is all about looking at empirical data. Broverman is misleading, whether she intends to be or not. Broverman's statement: "In science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis. However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything."

Don't fall for Broverman's contention that "if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything." Pure BS. There must have been *some* data to suggest that an experiment "didn't work". That an experiment "didn't work" is a conclusion in and of itself.

So when she says, Looking at how Nifong handled the case, "the experiment didn't work" and one can't conclude anything, she is misleading again. What is the "experiment" that she asserts "didn't work"? That there was no DNA retrieved at all? I expect that a Duke professor of biology should know better than this.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Bull shit! Broverman put out a stupid, half-assed 'listening statement' and only after every one told her how disgusting it was did she finally realize that herself. Now she's babbling to cover her ass.

Mrs. Former Prosecutor said...

Is it just me, or is Broverman STILL saying the players could very well have raped Mangum, but she's generously accepting that it can't be proved? This is a far, far cry from saying there is no evidence a crime occurred. What a bloviating moron.

Mike said...

Don't twist the prof's words, she just is very open to the fact that women's rights (especially minority women) are trampled all over the world. I personally have had her as a professor, and believe me when I tell you that she's not implying the duke lacrosse players "did anything", just that in many cases of race or sexual assault it may be hard to clarify the facts. If she really thought the players did something illegal, she would have been part of the group of 88. Oh, and I wouldn't read too much into her wording, she can be a little scatterbrained sometimes.

Anonymous said...

She was using very real students in her own University to give out nuanced statements about rape cases, suggesting that even if the charges are dropped it doesn't mean "nothing happened." And in her e-mail to you she never actually admits those students are innocent, even though NC AG actually proclaimed them innocent. Why all of the sudden you think that kind of behavior is appropriate for the University Professor, KC?

Ryan Frank said...

Ah, its nice not being a wacko college professor, I don't have to be 'nuanced' about simple truths.

Anonymous said...

What does Broverman look like? If she's attractive, maybe KC thought about a score and is being nice to her after such stupid comments.
But if she looks like some in the gang88, then he might just be tired and not feel like arguing.
Don't know, but this bitch is a typical Duke professor who has sat back and has gone along with this injustice, and still can't acknowledge that these guys are innocent.

Anonymous said...

Mike
What does she look like?

Anonymous said...

google her

Anonymous said...

Taking a break from Broverman (who is even less productive than the other G88- a possibility I had never considered until she rushed to microphone in the dying days of the hoax)

Apparently a decade of academic fraud has stimulated Professor Lubiano to begin publshing (on the interet anyway)

Here is her lecture from the SHUT UP AND TEACH fiasco in 2/07 in written form.

http://www.aas.duke.edu/aaas/collaborate/documents/LubianoPresentation.pdf

I think it is clear why Lubiano has not appeared in print previously. She is speaking and writing total gibberish (sampling one or two paragraphs should do the trick for all but the truly masochistic)

Like me.

As near as I can tell, her point is that Black Studies is about dissenting from actually accomplishing anything in scholarship, since that would be supporting the university which would in turn buy into the white supremacy model of academia and thus undermine the project of Black Studies.

And ruin the whole scam for everyone.

(as I see it, a painfully overintellectualized justification for laziness)

A position which she unfortunately undercuts here by publishing her second pdf in the last year - the first of course being the Listening Statement.

If this level of productivity continues, I may have to switch my major.

Anonymous said...

Properly cited Lubiano Gibberish

Anonymous said...

KC,

This is the first time I've seen you completely taken. Broverman said as follows: "However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything. Looking at how Nifong handled the case, 'the experiment didn't work' and one can't conclude anything."

That statement by Broverman is absolutely wrong, regardless of what you think about her silly analogy. The data does exist according to Cooper. Cooper did not just say, "no data, so we cannot conclude anything." Cooper said data does exist and we can conclude something: innocent, not just "not proven guilty," but innocent.

KC, you should be blasting this scum who, after all that has happened, is still saying that the three formerly accused young men might be guilty.

Broverman says that because of the way Nifong handled the case, we cannot conclude anything. The truth is (and even Broverman must know it, or she is as dumb as a brass-headed armadillo)that despite the way Nifong handled the case, we can join Cooper in concluding that the accused are innocent.

Retired Lawyer/Professor

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bella said...

I agree with previous posters when I say, why the need to use generalities? We are talking about a very specific case in which the data collected proved that no rape/assault occured. If she is not trying to imply in some way, shape, or form that "something happened in that house" then why bring up the larger issue of rape in the absence of DNA? Prof./Dr./whatever Broverman, if you're willing to bring your own agenda into the mix when speaking to a specific case, then you should almost expect to be "misquoted" or have your statements taken out of context.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Broverman's claims about rape being difficult to prosecute is that there are three types of rape:

1. Where the victim was clearly raped by someone.

2. Where the victim was engaged in some sort of sexual activity with the accused that went too far or did not have the outcome that the victim wanted. Thus, the charge of rape is a bargaining ploy on the part of the victim.

3. Where the victim simply uses a false charge of rape to avoid the consequences of their actions. The defendant might be wholy unknown to the victim or simply a convenient offendor.

Anonymous said...

Oh,no! Another clarifying statement. The PC disease, with its concomitant gibberish, is spreading from the liberal arts to the sciences.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me you've got completely suckered, KC. I googled her. She lists three recent publications total on her Duke page:

Recent Publications (search)

1. Ogwang-Odhimabo, R, and S.A. Broverman, Globalizing the Microbiology Curriculum, ASM News, vol. 71 no. 10 (2005), pp. 448-449 [author's comments].
2. Broverman, S. and G. Prestwich, Fast ion-exchange membrane purification of a microsomal protein., Biotechniques, vol. 19 no. 6 (1995), pp. 874-875 .
3. Broverman, S. and P. Meneely, Meiotic mutants that cause a polar decrease in recombination on the X chromosome in Caenorhabditis elegans., Genetics, vol. 136 (1994), pp. 119-127 .

Seems like a very long time since she has been actually doing experiments, KC.

Anonymous said...

These words by Broverman are damning. To her.

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact that charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward."

You see, this is what Collin, Dave, and Reade will have to endure. This is the kind of outrageous mentality walking around out there pretending to be a decent and thoughtful person.

I only wish there was some way to give this hag Broverman a swift kick through cyberspace. This woman is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

A Message from Wahneema

Howdy doody honkies! That sacka says I cant publish nothins.

Here I goes:

Wippity be, wippity ho
dat gad damn honky Imus
gots to go

Wheh's mah money?

Fuk dat Polanski Jew bitch

Anonymous said...

An explanation of Broverman's awful CV:

ASM News is a non-peer-reviewed newsletter something like your congresssman's mass mailing

No self-respecting scientist would list that as a paper.

Biotechniques (in 1995) was a throwaway journal for advertisers

Her 1 real paper (from her post-doc apparently) is in a good journal

It is troubling that she reports no publications from her PhD. It should be noted that only under the most extraordinary extenuating ciricumstances would someone be allowed to graduate without a publication.

That should have raised red flags in her hiring.

Given the cronyism at Duke, it would suggest that Broverman is partnered with someone who is either an academic star or well-connected politically.

(BTW a sign of her lack of distinction is how quickly the only google references to Broverman have become her quotes on the lacrosse case)

Anonymous said...

try spelling her name right, sherryl broverman with two r's in sherryl.

Anonymous said...

re Broverman

Her courses resemble the crap that is taught in black and women's studies. She is a pseudoscientist.

It is quite obvious that she has benefited greatly from gender affirmative action. She's probably 1 SD more intelligent than Lubiano, but still quite dull for a professor at an elite institution.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Professor Broverman should stick to her lab and her test tubes. I hope she will be more careful next time.

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick says, let's see, you can't utter the "N" word, can't say "nappy headed ho's", and now, something even worse, a word that will cause recurrent nightmares to every lefty, every black racist and self hating white,.... the "I" word. This Broverman dog just could not say that word. You got to love it.

Anonymous said...

that truly is the lesson, she should not have commented. Don't try to judge her courses if you haven't taken one.

Byung Soo Lee said...

Ha ha, I would laugh, were it not so sad that this moron is masquerading as a scientist.

Here's a quick lesson in responsible scientific research. Ms. Broverman meet Sir Karl Popper and Mr. Falsifiability. One of the main criticisms of the scientific process, as put forth by Popper, is that scientists try too hard to prove something by showing an abundance of evidence. This is called inductive reasoning. It is, no doubt, a useful process through which many great theories are formulated. However, it is not a process through which any responsible scientist would attempt to VERIFY the TRUTH of a theory. All statistical tools available to a scientist are designed so that the researcher may only reject a theory. Thus a scientist who is not stupid must not ask if a theory can be confirmed but whether it is falsifiable or not.

In the Duke lacrosse case, such an experiment has been conducted many times over. DNA evidence REJECTS the theory of rape. The various problems with the accuser's story REJECTS the theory of rape. The photo evidence REJECTS the theory of rape. The alibi evidence REJECTS the theory of rape. All these things things, by themselves, REJECT the theory that a crime was committed. Taken together, the evidence is practically beating your skull in with a hammer that has the world REJECT! written on it with bright yellow letters.

Ms. Broverman, please go back to school and retake Statistical Inference 101. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

The following is a passage written by baseball writer Bill James, as taken from robneyer.com

--begin quote--

"My little boy has just turned two, and he is trying to figure out a music box. It is a baseball music box, on which a small figure pivots with a tiny bat, swinging at a white cloth marble while the tinny sounds of “Take me out to the ball game” leak from below.

The music box has two operating mechanisms, an on/off switch which one pushes and pulls, but also a handle which must be wound to provide power. This is too much for a two-year-old boy to deal with at first. He pulls the switch and the music starts; he pushes it and the music stops -- but then, when the tension winds down, he pulls the switch and nothing happens. Isaac is frustrated. “Broke,” he says, handing me the worthless machine. “Ball payer broke.”

He will, of course, soon figure out the concept of two switches. But I am struck by this: that ideas are harder things than machines, and many people will never master the two-switch concept as it applies to a logical inference...

Indeed, the entire intellectual life of many sportswriters is a search for master switches. Baseball is 90% pitching, sportswriters argue, not because this makes any sense or because there is any evidence to support it, but because it reduces the terrifying complexity of the sport to a single switch..."

--end quote--

In essence this so-called professor is displaying all the intelligence of a two year-old. She has not mastered the "two-switch" concept as it comes to science. She, like the millions of morons in the anger studies industry, prefers to reduce the determination of truth to a single switch.

Scientist? Fraud is more like it. After Cooper's statement, I had hoped to avoid getting my blood pressure up again, but a self-proclaimed SCIENTIST of all people using FLAWED notions of scientific methodology in order to perpetuate a myth? I think I might have blown a gasket.

Anonymous said...

remember whom Broverman is really addressing:

Her diversity pimp buddies in women's and black studies.

P

Jack said...

From Ms. Broverman's curriculum vitae on Duke Biology Department web site:


Curriculum Vitae
Sherryl A Broverman
Click here for a printer-ready version, or download as a PDF file.

104 Bio Sci Bldg
Box 90338 668-0228 (office)
(email)

Education:

Ph.D Indiana University, 1990

Areas of Research

science literacy for non-majors; science education reform; the interaction of gender, education and global health

Areas of Interest

international public health
evolution and creationism

Further perusal indicates a typical day in the classroom does not involve much in the way of hard science, no microscopes, Bunsen burners or making frog legs twitch.

She may, however, be very well versed in how the ingestion of alcohol causes an imbalance in the vas deferens of the male suburbus priveleticus resulting in the inflammation of inherently violent tendencies toward female africanus stripasaurus.

Anonymous said...

I have a theory for Dr. Broverman,
with the deepest respect possible:

Crystal Gayle Mangum ingested
toxoplasmosis gondii when she
was an infant. Her father has
been infected, too. They
got it from feline feces.
Their mental illness comes
from exposure to the parasite,
making them, in turn, parasites.

That's my theory.

I would like to clarify my
comment, however, to include
that there may be a lack of
evidence for such assertions,
but it could have happened,
since there is no evidence that
the family WASN'T exposed to
infected cat poo.

Addendum: the group of 88
has also had significant exposure
to the parasite, which accounts
for their similarly parasitic
behavior.

Do I want this to be so?
Of course not!
Do I accept that there may
be insufficient evidence to
prove my theories? Sure.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Broverman

Yuck.

Anonymous said...

7:37

Good 'un.

Anonymous said...

"What does Broverman look like? If she's attractive, maybe KC thought about a score and is being nice to her after such stupid comments.
But if she looks like some in the gang88, then he might just be tired and not feel like arguing.
Don't know, but this bitch is a typical Duke professor who has sat back and has gone along with this injustice, and still can't acknowledge that these guys are innocent".

The ugly face of the anti-Nifong side. With friends like you, the accused players don't need enemies.

Anonymous said...

"I think it is clear why Lubiano has not appeared in print previously. She is speaking and writing total gibberish".

Since when has this been a bar to academic publishing?

Anonymous said...

7:45

Why hey there Karla! How's trix, baby?

Anonymous said...

From that photo, Broverman is a Bella Abzug just waiting to happen.

jamil hussein said...

agreed. If you cannot make meaningful contributions, better to be silent.

Maybe this also explains the lack of academic publications from her and the rest of Gang 88.

becket03 said...

A total BS weasel statement. I'm surprised KC gave it as much courtesy as he did.

beckett

Anonymous said...

"Professor Broverman should stick to her lab and her test tubes. I hope she will be more careful next time."

What lab and test tubes? She hardly has any publications. You would want to publish at least couple of manuscripts a year in order to get grants to do research.

Anonymous said...

7:37--

Bullseye. Best reply here.

Anonymous said...

Some people here need to grow up.

AMac said...

What is it with these unhinged anonymous comments? Why this cascade of disparaging remarks about Prof. Broverman's character, person, and looks?

Are you a few people posting repeadedly, or is this some high-membership Fight Club?

You make anti-Hoax people appear uncivil and uncivilized. I suspect some of you have forgotten and some don't care. And others are acting as goads for exactly that reason.

To the sincere anons: You're angry. We get it. You want to share your anger. We get it.

The 88 are chuckling as they read this thread.

Please find a more constructive way to channel your emotions. Please reflect on the value of civility in fighting Bad Speech.

Anonymous said...

Mac 7:37 re parasites

Yes, Mangum and Lubiano are parasites, but 1 of the brilliant postulates of the diversity pimp movement is to make the parasites feel good about their parasitism.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Shut up, amac.
You're just a Cash Michaels and 88 apologist. We've all read your obfuscating, lily-livered junk.
Broverman was bold enough to say what she did even after Cooper declared the guys INNOCENT.
She only backtracked a little when she was called on her ridiculous comments.
You need to know that these people are going to be shouted down whether you like it or not, you self-righteous pussy.

Jack said...

When you boil it down, as we assess the motivations, perspectives and agendas of many of the women associated with the Gang of 88, their sycophants and the circle of hand wringing interest groups weighing in on the "other" side of this issue, aren't we really just dealing with a hard core, decidedly anti male, militant lesbianism ?

AMac said...

Broverman's publications from PubMed:

Broverman SA, Prestwich GD. Fast ion-exchange membrane purification of a microsomal protein. Biotechniques, 1995. Methods journal, peer-reviewed, widely read but low-ranked.

Broverman SA, Meneely PM. Meiotic mutants that cause a polar decrease in recombination on the X chromosome in C. elegans.
Genetics, 1994. Highly-regarded journal, p.r.

Broverman S, MacMorris M, Blumenthal T. Alteration of C. elegans gene expression by targeted transformation. PNAS, 1993. Highly-regarded journal, p.r.

MacMorris M, Broverman S, Greenspoon S, Lea K, Madej C, Blumenthal T, Spieth J. Regulation of vitellogenin gene expression in transgenic C. elegans. Mol Cell Biol, 1992. Highly-regarded journal, p.r.

Shepard SB, Broverman SA, Muskavitch MA. A tripartite interaction among alleles of Notch, Delta, and Enhancer of split during imaginal development of Drosophila.
Genetics, 1989

Spieth J, MacMorris M, Broverman S, Greenspoon S, Blumenthal T. Regulated expression of a vitellogenin fusion gene in transgenic nematodes. Dev Biol, 1988. Highly-regarded journal, p.r.

Anonymous said...

Amac, I've never considered this board to be "anti-hoax"

I've been trying to analyze the concepts that have been in play. Parasitism by the black community is 1 of those defining concepts.

But I agree that ad feminam attacks are just dumb--and boring.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Yeh, it was Broverman who put her ugly ass out for all to read and later see.
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
She enjoys a "civil" forum where she still is insinuating that "something happened".

Snoop Duke Dog

AMac said...

Broverman as quoted in the 4/12/07 Newsday:

...For some at Duke, the possibility of dropped charges left as many questions as answers -- and a feeling that the full truth of what happened last March in the house on North Buchanan Boulevard may never be known, in part because the investigation was mishandled.

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened," said Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman. "The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward."


The quote is in jarring contrast to what Broverman wrote in her email to KC Johnson: "I made the mistake of trying to provide a nuanced commentary on the difficulty of prosecuting rape in general. Many cases, some of which are valid accusations, are dismissed for lack of evidence."

She seems to be claiming that she restricted her statements to general commentary on rape prosecutions, but that reporters Joseph Mallia and Bart Jones unethically twisted her words to make it seem as if she was speaking about Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann.

A pretty serious accusation to make against those two reporters.

If that isn't what Broverman is asserting, then I can't imagine what she is trying to say.

Anonymous said...

Source: American Heritage College Dictionary

"parasite": 1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing. 2a. One who habitually takes advantage of generosity without making any useful return.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

These young men are innocent and I would respect Broverman if she embraced the truth as Attorney General Cooper did. We still have a woman who is not connected empathically to the suffering forced upon these white, male students by the Duke 88, Durham police, Nifong. Hey, rape is a violation and so is slander.

KC Johnson, your support for Broverman's comments is disappointing. You abandon your calling. Why now?

Anonymous said...

Fun's fun - (and I had fun
with my last post!) - but
we don't need to be cruel.

Except to Mikey. Well,
maybe. Maybe not.

Dr. Broverman did
work with Drosophilla
and Nematodes. She should
have recognized one of those
by the mere fact that she
has an experienced eye.

She might be worrying - as
should we all - about the
fact of cryptobiosis,
where a rotifer or tartigrade
"closes shop" over a 3-day-
or so period, becoming effectively
dead. Like Mikey.
Trouble is, these critters have
a propensity to regain life,
even after all apparent life
signs are gone.

I'd say that anyone familiar
with such creatures, and the
similarities of such to Mr. NoFang,
should rightly be worried that
he should somehow be similarly
resurrected. Better to hedge
one's bets!

Sorry about the dribble.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Earth to (amac)---those exact quotes from Broverman have been printed here and gone over already. We don't need a DNA test done on them to know what the fool was saying about the lacrosse case.
Don't you get it yet? The fool had second thoughts and is now lying to C H A.

KT said...

Thank you, anonymous @ 7:41. Your link exposes that Sherryl A Broverman is an affiliated faculty member of the Women's Studies at Duke. She belies her true self as "Assistant Professor of the Practice" and her bias in this regard shows in her comments to Newsday. I criticize Broverman because she is misleading people with her statements about science and this case. It is intellectually dishonest, and I would rather people who aren't familiar with the scientific method not be mislead by her "clarification" to Prof. Johnson. This is probably one of only handful of times when I have disagreed with Johnson's take. I think it his generous nature to have given her the benefit of the doubt, and I agree with his doing so, however, I think he was duped by her clarification.

Anonymous said...

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened," said Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman. "The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward."
That's nuanced?
Isn't she talking about a very specific case against Duke lacrosse students? Somehow I doubt she claims that every rape case "hasn't gone through a normal legal process."

Jack said...

To Anonymous @8:32
YEs we know that she regrets the remarks she made in Newsday. The problem is her clarifying email to KC Johnson does nothing to dispel her previous assertion that she thinks there is a chance the Lacrosse player actually raped the stripper.

AMac said...

Anon 8:32pm --

What is your basis for judging that it is Broverman and not Mallia or Jones who is distorting what was said in the interview? Do you trust everything Newsday prints on the case?

IIRC, that question was not addressed earlier in the thread.

Anonymous said...

"Being a diversity pimp means never having to say you're sorry."

--Richard Brodhead on his elevation of AAAS (BTW, not 1 Tier 1 genius in the field) to full departmental status after the G88 eruption

Why aren't we discussing getting rid of this PC sleazeball?

Polanski

Jack said...

To Amac:
Certainly one should view the Newsday reportes as having their own agenda and bias (don't we all). But Ms Broverman took the time to email KC Johnson in an attempt to clarify the intent of her initial remarks, and did nothing but confirm the implications she made initially.

Anonymous said...

From her own words, you might as well say that Sherryl Broverman is #89.

Anonymous said...

To 8:39 pm. Read her clarification. She is using very similar argument to what was published by Newsday-there is insufficient evidence to proceed, so she agrees with charges being dropped. That's a far cry from saying the students were actually innocent. In fact AG said the students were innocent, but even in her clarification she won't admit that fact.

Anonymous said...

amac--the quotes about the case not being allowed to go forward, so we don't really know what happened--blah, blah, blah--have been posted over and over again. You can go back through the comments.

AMac said...

Anon 8:15pm --

What group's narrow-minded and arrogant style of discourse do you think you are imitating?

Anonymous said...

8:44--EXACTLY!!!

Anonymous said...

This equivocation on Broverman's part is kow-towing to the black community as well as providing a reason not to indict Precious Panties. Precious Panties is worse than a parasite--she's a virus.

All this BS is post-hoc defenses of Precious Panties. What do you suppose the scenario would be if the accused were black, "victim" white?

Give me a break. It's just not polite to openly address black parasitism in a public forum.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Note that she never uses the word "innocent"

Her "clarification" is simply "we'll never know the truth" repeated over several paragraphs of inane C.Y.A. science analogies.

She still believes they are guilty, but Nifong messed up the lynching party.

Kevin said...

I have followed this blog and liestoppers since early December and confess that I have been completely sucked in by this drama being played out daily. This is my first post, however, largely bcause I am very disturbed by the tone of the comments concerning Professor Broverman’s email response. This is a classic case of the “glass is half-empty, not half full”. She has gone about 75 % of the way towards producing an apology for her comments. KC Johnson knows exactly what he is doing by supporting her statement so fully. The Duke case is merely the tip of the iceberg. This is a cultural war to take back our leading institutions from the “Bolshevics”, and we need all the allies we can get. We need Professors of moderate political opinions both Republican and Democrat alike to get involved in the political life of our Universities. KC Johnson has relentlessly exposed the extent of the extremist lock on debate and freedom of thought and speech at our leading Universities.
In his own struggle to attain tenure, KC Johnson had personal experience with the extent of the “Bolshevics” control over university institutions . I had my own experience. 20 years ago, I was a grad student in Political Science. I lasted 2 years before quitting. The faculty was 90% Marxist, and the nature of discussion and debate in classes had more in common with a theological sermon where everyone shares an identical set of beliefs with the only thing in contention were the most trivial details (ie how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) Indoctrination in other words. Any attempt to introduce any outside opinions met with a silent shock, as if an acolyte of the late Adolph Hitler was in their midst.
People believing in the great principles of our country such as the constitution and the bill of rights, particularly individual rights need to work together to take back the media and the universities. The enemies in the struggle are both the extreme right of the Republican party and the extreme left of the democratic party. Let us not forget that it was the Republicans with their war on crime that created Mike Nifong and Scott Harshberger (Amirault case in Massachusetts). By giving the Prosecutor unlimited powers, they have totally undermined all of our civil rights. I could go on in this vein for a long time. My point is, let us not discourage each and every Professor at Duke University who earlier expressed either a negative opinion of Collin, Reade, and Dave, or were silent at a time when they should have come forward in their defense to come forward and explain or apologize in the manner of their choosing, so long as it isn’t a self serving rationalization. Professor Broverman’s statement is sincere and should be welcomed.

Anonymous said...

It's a slippery slope when
we tell someone their intent;
if it's unclear what they're
saying, or if it seems that
they're equivocating, it's
probably a good idea to ask
them to further clarify.

Like when someone says something
that might be outrageous:
don't most of us ask them
to repeat the statement?

I think it might be a good
idea to ask her - via KC -
whether or not she accepts
the AG's statement of innocence:
yes or no.

Mac

I still think she's afraid
NoFang will come back alive,
like a rotifer or a vampire
and attempt to bite her.

Jack said...

Kevin, your points on the larger institutional issues are well taken; however, Ms. Broverman's inability to concede the innocence of the Duke players, as well as her continued insinuation that "something happened" or at the very least one can not assert that "nothing happened" as the AG an Special Prosecutors decidedly have, leads any thinking person that she is not as well intentioned as KC Johnson believes.

Anonymous said...

9:13
I don't think it's necessary to try to get blood out of a turnip.
We all know what Broverman meant to do.
And she did it.
Her colleagues smile in approval.

jamil hussein said...

She has gone about 75 % of the way towards producing an apology for her comments.

You must be joking, right?
There is no 75% apology. It is apology or it is not. This was not. It was typical gang88 clarification.

Hmm..Maybe I could start using this defense: "Honey..I'm 75% sorry! I really mean it!"

Anonymous said...

KC
You've disappointed in a BIG way. You've totally missed this call... egg on the face doesn't become you, I hope you get well soon.

KT said...

Kevin @ 9:07, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but don't quite understand some of your points. You sound like you want to engage in meaningful discussion, suggesting that this is not a strictly Democrat or Republican issue (which I happen to agree with). If that's true, then why would you bring this up?

Let us not forget that it was the Republicans with their war on crime that created Mike Nifong and Scott Harshberger (Amirault case in Massachusetts). By giving the Prosecutor unlimited powers, they have totally undermined all of our civil rights.

I appreciate this blog for many reasons, one being that I have learned so much about people and history. I have seen many instances where discussion about this case has come from people who I suspect are very different from me, yet at the same time, I see that we have much in common. I hope that continues to be the case as we all move forward.

Professor Broverman’s statement is sincere and should be welcomed.

I don't doubt Broverman's sincerity at all, but her attempt at clarifying her remarks in the Newsday article only reveals her biases all the more, at least from my point of view.

Anonymous said...

KC-You are a real forgiving guy and it speaks well for you. Its a terrific trait. Lawyer Williamson said yesterday "that in this case, where there is DNA of other people and none of the Lax team,lack of DNA means lack of evidence." This guy is a genius. Broverman's half hearted explanation is full of baloney. Now that she has had her three seconds, can we put her back in the dust bin?

Anonymous said...

Much ado about nothing.

I'm sure KC regrets mentioning it. Who really cares what she thinks at this point?

Anonymous said...

Maybe the reason Broverman may have trouble understanding the DNA evidence in this case is that she hasn't published a freakin paper since Watson and Crick discovered the molecule.

No paper of any kind of paper (even Karla's Coda type BS) in 12 years.

Her quote in Newsday is the first bit of productivity on record. It is just a minor technicality that it is a slander against her own students.

What on earth is she doing teaching at Duke?

Anonymous said...

OMG,
Why can't people understand the word innocent !! It is way beyond we did not have enough evidence to prosecute or there was not enough evidence to move forward.
The AG concluded decisively that NONE of the allegations were true. For those simple minded people like professor Braveless, that means the woman in question (and we know you know who that is) LIED.
If she wants to debate the prosecution of rapes in general that's fine, but if one wishes to do that with the Duke case in the same context, it is best to be clear, the 3 men are and have always been innocent of the charges and the woman who accused them LIED (did I say that already?).

Bday

Anonymous said...

How come this biology teacher does not understand DNA, while those of us who watch or read about crime have a good inkling of what it is about? Not like Brad Bannon of course, but something. Another sad day for Duke. Anyone hear from Everett since his rape shield defense was shot down?

Kevin said...

KT 9:57 and Jack 9:18

Read both your appreciated comments. I want to make clear I am responding to Professor Broderman’s e-mail to KC Johnson and not her original statement to Newsday. When you say it is not an apology, I ask you to take into account the following comments by Pr. Broderman:

-I made the mistake of trying to provide a nuanced commentary on the difficulty of prosecuting rape in general.
- I think all of us would also agree that "normal legal procedures" did not happen under Nifong's leadership!
-Do I want the students to be guilty? Of course not
-Do I wish the lack of evidence had been acknowledged last spring? Absolutely! Who doesn't?
-However, I still maintain that rape is hard to prosecute, and that IN GENERAL lack of evidence does not mean a crime was not committed. However, I did not mean to suggest that I thought these students should be prosecuted.
-Listening to AG Cooper this afternoon, I accept that the data does not support the hypothesis, which in real life means that charges should be dropped.

Is this a full apology. No. I agree with many of the other bloggers. The words, INNOCENT, should have been used. However, it is a damm sight better than any of the group of 88 is expected to say, and we should appreciate that, in the interest of having more of the Duke faculty coming forth on behalf of Collin, Reade, and Dave, and of all of our civil rights.

Anonymous said...

I think I have this figured out. They want a mention in the book. Please KC, put them in under others. What is Boverman's CV?

Anonymous said...

While I agree with everything Broverman says I am still puzzled. Why when given a question in this format and at this time wouldn’t you give a simple answer like I’m glad they are innocent and I wish they hadn’t gone through hell?

There was no need to complicate that message and Broverman should have been bright enough to match her message to the medium and time.

Gary Packwood said...

Until now my experience with the concept of parallel university has been via the literature. Now, I've got a real member talking to me here and I am rather enjoying the opportunity to learn from the good professor.

I guess you can't belong to this parallel universe if you believe in ...innocent until proven guilty.

Or perhaps, innocence is not a concept at all.

Interesting. How much does it cost to join? Are their dues? A national organization?

GP

Anonymous said...

FUCK THIS--LET'S GET REAL:

THE BOYS AREN'T INNOCENT--THEY ARE CRIME VICTIMS!

By arguing their "innocence," you're playing into the pro-parasitism contingent's argument. This brutal beast--this Precious Panties--almost succeeded in destroying the lives of 3 innocents--and guess what?

Youe blog administrator sees no reason to punish this repulsive lowlife. Putting up with Precious Panties is the price you have to pay to live in "harmony" with black people.

That's the agenda--the brutal fart that knows not its own name.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

KC, you seem to give the professor a pass. Perhaps you are giving her the benfit of the doubt in hopes she is a bit more clear in the near future ? It is clear to me in her email that she has trouble with word innocent, and that the conclusion of the AG was not that the case did not have enough evidence, it did, enough evidence to conclude the charges were indeed false.

Thanks,
respectfully,
BDay

Anonymous said...

Nobody here has provided a convincing reason was Broverman was hired at Duke in the first place.

She got a first-rate post-doc b/o her names on few good papers.

then she fell off the map (likely because he flopped as a post-doc) and couldn't hack science (hey, it happens)

But then is hired as a professor at duke five years later with NO academic productivity.

That must be cronyism.

Who does she know? Who was she sleeping with?

(Sorry to be so blunt)

Anonymous said...

I am surprised this dope thought exposure of her lack of publishing (I thought this was a job requirement)was worth it to enter this debate. Particularly, after a three month investigation declares the boys innocent.

Anonymous said...

11:10

I've already answered your question:

In addition to race affirmative action, there is gender affirmative action for women. The preference given to white women, while not as huge as that bestowed on blacks, is substantial.

A good example of this is Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment to the Supreme Court. If she had been male, they would have laughed her out of the Senate at her confirmation hearing.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

a late comment on this topic: broverman states in her "apology" that she was unaware that charges were expected to be dropped when she made the comments for newsday. what vacuum was she living in? as a duke professor, she either should have been on top of such a pertinent topic or been willing to state that she had not been following the case and had no comment.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Broverman seems unclear on the notion of "falsifiable hypothesis." I'm not a scientist, but I understand that little concept as basic.

Perhaps she should not use science as a source for her analogies?

Second, that editorial apology by the female sports writer was profoundly welcome. It's the first full, frank, open apology I've read, and it comforts me to see it.

Dianna

Anonymous said...

JUNK SCIENCE!!! As a PH.D. in Chemistry, and a researcher for twenty years, I can tell you that good science involves drawing an hypothesis often from confliciting data. THE DATA IS THERE, and Broverman chooses not to believe it. And moreover, you don't need to be a PH.D. to figure out that NOTHING HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. Broverman is clearly not objective about this and is using science as a smoke screen to hide her stupid, personal feelings.

Anonymous said...

8:03 is right, for all those
who keep holding the belief
that there might be evidence,
but it hasn't been discovered.

It's like a pharmaceutical
company in Great Britain which
was testing TGN 1412, a so-called
"super-antibody" drug.
Let's say the test results were
described like this:

The test of TGN 1412 did not
have the desired results, and
it is possible that the test
subjects were unduly stressed
by the reaction to the drug.
More testing is needed.

(Note: that is NOT what they
said, just to be clear)

In fact, the test subjects
- (all except the placebo-guy) -
had horrific reactions, from
elephant-man-like symnptoms to cancer (which killed the fellow)
and extreme pain - (like the kind
of pain some people might choose
for Mr. NoFang.) Trust me, you
wouldn't want anyone have this
kind of experience.

Point is, the hypothetical
explanation for the horribly
failed drug test, the one
in which "more testing is
needed," is very similar to
the words of those who think
the boys ought to be subjected
to more doubt, more derision,
more "testing."

Dr. Broverman should read this
analogy - she doubtless has
seen the HGN results - and
understand that what the boys
need is for a clear answer
from people like herself, not
measured responses to her
own measured responses,
which only perpetuate the boys'
pain.

Please, Dr. Broverman: just
say that the boys are innocent.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Hey Kevin 9:07,
You say "Let us not forget that it was the Republicans with their war on crime that created Mike Nifong and Scott Harshberger (Amirault case in Massachusetts) By giving the Prosecutor unlimited powers, they have totally undermined all of our civil rights." If your premise were true, then this would be true in all 50 states. The war on crime was a Federal program.

I am familiar with NY , where such a hoax could not get pulled off by any DA. The black racists tried the opposite tact with Tawana Brawley and even that didn't work, in part because of the criminal procedure law that is in place. To begin, there is a written record of all NY grand jury minutes, In most cases, suspects have the right to appear and testify before the Grand Jury in which they are known suspects. It is also required they be notified of this right.

There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, but trying to blame the Republicans is ludicrous. In NC it was the Democratic voters in a Democratic state who elected Democratic representatives who passed the bills and a Democratic Governor who signed them into law. Come to think of it, same situation in Mass. So one could argue that we should blame the Democrats! Neither party is at fault for this. Politicians make the rules to the best of their abilities, but it is vermin like Nifong in both parties that manipulate them.

The main reason that Nifong was facing charges from the NC Bar before the criminal rape case was completed was because the lawyers feared a push for more oversight regulation if they continued to do nothing.

If you must blame politics, blame the “Old Boy” network or the fact that blacks vote as a block for Democrats. In NC it destroyed any possibility for checks and balances.

Jim

scott said...

Broverman said --

"Looking at how Nifong handled the case, 'the experiment didn't work' and one can't conclude anything. Listening to AG Cooper this afternoon, I accept that the data does not support the hypothesis, which in real life means that charges should be dropped."

Broverman gets herself into trouble by thinking of what Nifong was doing in any way, shape or form is comparable to an experiment. Experiments of the type commented upon by Broverman are based on the scientific method with certain control factors built in. In Nifong's case there were never any controls. He simply made up the "data" as he went along, ignoring or changing inconvenient facts to suit his purposes. When she says "the experiment didn't work", is she implying that the experiment Nifong was conducting consisted of trying to prove he could railroad 3 innocent men into jail for a crime they didn't commit by lying and manipulation? And that because it didn't work, we can conclude nothing?

Broverman gets back on track in the next sentence, however. This case was nothing about an experiment that didn't work and everything about data not supporting the hypothesis, so Nifong's hoax (not experiment) didn't work and from that we can reach many conclusions. Broverman ultimately and correctly concluded that Cooper's position was valid.

One point that should be pointed out is to look at the source for Broverman's comments -- NEWSDAY. This rag has been putting out anti-LAX pieces from the beginning and as recently as a hatchet job from Marcus just a few days ago. This appears to be another slimy attempt to support the metanarrative of privileged, white male athletes by twisting Broverman's words. I hope Broverman learned a valuable lesson. When anyone from publications like Newsday come calling for a comment, hang up the phone.

Anonymous said...

How were her words twisted by Newday? Did you read her "clarification?" It appears to me she says nearly the same thing in her clarification she told Newsday. She agrees with Cooper dropping charges if there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Does she even once mentions that in fact there is not just "insufficient evidence to procced," but Cooper said these defendants were innocent? I don't think so. What is so different in her clarification from what is reported by Newsday?

jamil hussein said...

You say "Let us not forget that it was the Republicans with their war on crime that created Mike Nifong and Scott Harshberger (

WTF?? No mention of Karl Rove or George W Bush? There is cure for BDS?

Let's face it: Nifonf (D-corrupt) tried to win democratic primaries. Democrats have absolute control in Durham. Governor and AG (who enabled the hoax) are democrats. All community activists, potbangers, Gang88 racists and outside professional racists (Al/Jesse/Black Panthers) are part of the democratic party.

jamil hussein said...

You say "Let us not forget that it was the Republicans with their war on crime that created Mike Nifong and Scott Harshberger (

WTF?? No mention of Karl Rove or George W Bush? There is cure for BDS?

Let's face it: Nifonf (D-corrupt) tried to win democratic primaries. Democrats have absolute control in Durham. Governor and AG (who enabled the hoax) are democrats. All community activists, potbangers, Gang88 racists and outside professional racists (Al/Jesse/Black Panthers) are part of the democratic party.

Anonymous said...

Sad to say, but Jamiel Hussein
is right about this one.

I guess some people who want
this to be a Republican
(and therefore not a Democratic)
event have had their own goose-
stepping toes stomped, once the AG
made everything Crystal-clear.

One of the things I have admired
about most of the posts, BTW,
is the fact that so many people
of all spectra - conservative
and libertarian - have seen the
Hoax for what it is: a calumny,
perpetuated by left-wing idealogues, instigated by racists
and motivated by those who had
personal gain in mind.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Here is the thread in the Chronicle.

Anonymous said...

Yes, womens rights are trampled all over the world, but not in the USA. Why are the folk who are so concerned about WR over in the sand countries trying to help real women who are abused. They are to afaid to confront the crazy men who would kill them in a heartbeat.
BTW, how did the paper find Boverman? Did she call them - its not like she has a high profile reputation.

Anonymous said...

Broverman is now the +1 in the G88+1. She has the added distinction of being either so stupid or so out of touch to publicly take an indefensable and revealing position on this sad affair at this late date.


The press probably found her by looking for faculty affiliated w/ an Angry Studies dept. who was not in the G88. She was set up, but exposing her was a public service. She has earned the condemnation that has come her way.

Note that this is the result of a diversity hire. She is clearly not qualified for her position, at least on merit.

Anonymous said...

She is really being taken to tsk at the Duke Chronicle - and deserves it - Has not published anything since 1995 - Is it really worth for these women to come out of the woodwordk and trash these fine young men? Collin - London School of Economics 0 hope you wind up at Chicago getting an MBA.

Vietnam tour operator said...

Exotic Ho Chi Minh City, still referred to as 'Saigon' by many, has preserved its distinctly Asian feel and ancient culture, where monks pray in the numerous pagodas, temples and mosques. The capital Hanoi, is a pleasant and charming city of lakes, shaded boulevards and public parks. The old quarter, built around the Hoan Kiem Lake, is an architectural museum-piece characterised by its narrow streets. Ha Long Bay, with its 3000-plus islands rising from the clear, emerald waters, dotted with beaches and grottoes created by waves, is one of Vietnam's natural marvels.