Wednesday, May 02, 2007

More Murphy

Courtesy a DIW reader: more outlandish charges from adjunct professor Wendy Murphy. In a late April interview with Jim Braude of New England Cable News (scroll down), Muprhy says that bookers at MSNBC, FOX, and CNN brought her on their panel programs because they knew that she would offer a pro-Nifong view. How this explains away her pattern of inaccuracies and misleading comments isn’t clear.

In any case, that explanation would not seem to cover the NECN interview itself, which was a one-on-one, not a panel, discussion. Murphy now claims that she was “told” the defense has withheld 1200 pages of evidence. She dismisses allegations that Mike Nifong exploited the case for political purposes because he was a “shoo-in for the election.” Well, he was down by 17 points in a private poll completed the first day he commented on the case, and his campaign was so bereft of cash that he kept it afloat with a $28,000 personal loan. Perhaps Murphy was using “shoo-in” in a different sense than commonly understood.

Then, her most outrageous claim: “There’s a very good chance there was a payoff” to Crystal Mangum and Kim Roberts. Her evidence? A months-old claim in the Wilmington Journal that even Mike Nifong's investigators did not find credible.

She truly has no shame.

Hat tip: J.H.

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

good god, this woman is awful

Anonymous said...

She's just a higher-priced Mangum. Really, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

I am not certain she is worth any future attention. She is so delusional in her views that her utter lack of credibility is self- authenticating.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer / retired professor: She certainly deserves recognition by being named as an honorary member of the the group of 88.

Anonymous said...

She trashes the integrity of AG Cooper, insists there was a $2M bribe, and maintains that the "investigators" and others all could not be inept.

Whew!

Of course, She hasn't read the AG's report nor put a call into the defense attorneys for clarification on the "missing" evidence?

This is beyond the pale and there should be consequences as such.

--Lumpy Gravy

Anonymous said...

Everyone except her has admitted the 2 million dollar pay off was a lie. Nothing quite like a nut case trying to hold onto their reason of importance. She is a liar and is as stupid as Nifong himself.

Deklan Singh said...

So, I'm curious. How exactly is Wendy Murphy's profession listed on her resume? Does it say LIAR directly under her name in bold type, or is there a list of her professional engagements extending down the page where her different methods of fraud and deception are described in detail?

kgun said...

Part of me thinks she's just a spoiled brat.

I truly wonder which bothers her more; the fact that some "rich, white boys" were vindicated, or the fact that that she didn't get her way.

bill anderson said...

OK, lawyers who are reading this. Are Murphy's comments the kind for which someone can successfully sue her?

Cedarford said...

Oh please, the next time she comes up with her lie, let the interviewer ask her if there is a chance the bribe was the idea of defense counsel, paying Mangum and Roberts hush money from the families of the accused. And that there is a good chance Cooper knew about it.

Reputations besmearched, the attorneys slurred would be suing her faster than Alton Maddox got sued when he suggested DA and ADA involved in the Tawana Brawley false rape bribed her to recant.

Oh please, please, let Wendy elaborate further on her bribe charge...

Anonymous said...

I have a question, why do you think Mangun denied the $2 million payoff? Clearly, tons of people were willing to believe that racist Duke alumni would offer $2 million for her to drop the case and it would have kept the media on her side a lot longer.

So, why did she deny this when it would have helped her?

Just because she's crazy? Had she been expecting and hoping for a pay off and so wanted to make sure the world knew she was still waiting on it or what?

Stephen said...

Wendy just wants a litle more than her allotted 15 minutes of fame --

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

This is going too far.

Freedom of speech does not entitle you to go on television and label 3 innocent young men as rapists when the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has proven beyond a doubt that NO rape ever took place.

Wendy Murphy's words are evil. They have already triggered the suicide of a young mother. The fact that they haven't done the same for Collin, Reade and Dave does not excuse the horror of her words.

Wendy Murphy has gone too far.

Anonymous said...

You're confusing Wendy Murphy with Nancy Grace on the suicide.

I for one did send Murphy an email about her letter published in The Boston Globe, I would urge people who can write a civil letter that sticks to the known facts and refrain from calling her a feminazi, etc. to do the same. I wrote her earlier in the case expressing my amazement that she was still supporting the accuser and never got a response, so I doubt she will respond to anyone, but its worth at least knowing someone in her office will read the traffic.

Anonymous said...

As a lawyer and as an alumnus of the school where Ms. Murphy is an adjunct professor (I thank the higher power in which I believe that she was not one of my professors), I am truly embarassed and ashamed that she is a member of the legal profession. To counteract Ms. Murphy's comments, I choose to remember the noble and exceptional work done by the Defendants' lawyers in this case.

Anonymous said...

Precious wouldn't accept any bribe money because this case was about the principle.:)

Anonymous said...

Carolyn:

I think you'll find it was Nancy Grace's "guest" who committed suicide, not Wendy Murphy's.

Anonymous said...

I'm looking forward to the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

4:18

No but really, I'm serious. I always thought it was strange that she picked this one thing to tell the truth about especially when the media had already started picking up on the idea and running with it. Claiming some shady white Duke guy offered her a few million to drop the case would have FOREVER made her a legit victim in the eyes of the black community, so why did she tell the truth that it never happened?

It has never made sense to me.

Purps said...

Has Murphy been reported the Bar Association in her state? Do any of her colleagues care enough about the profession to do something about her?

Gary Packwood said...

kgun 3:58 said...
...Part of me thinks she's just a spoiled brat.

...I truly wonder which bothers her more; the fact that some "rich, white boys" were vindicated, or the fact that that she didn't get her way.
::
Well, you have a good point.

She has jumped into the anti-rape community with a vengeance with her speciality being rich white boys.

Suppose anyone ever took the time to explain to her that most rapes happened to poor young girls in their poor neighborhoods with the perpetrator being a poor boy who also lives in the poor neighborhood?

I guess some brats never let the truth stand in the way of a good story until they have spent weeks in depositions with attorneys who are trying to fish out a speck of truth...so they can defend her.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Her comments are now so far over the top that we need to seriously consider whether she's simply a troll, not motivated by anything other than the desire to provoke. She could be saying to those who'll have her as a 'commentator': "Look - what you want is an audience and ratings, and I can give you that. If people tune in and watch, do you really care whether what I say makes any sense?"

Anonymous said...

You might be right, I kind of thought she crossed that line when she was ranting about the broomstick being used when no broomstick was mentioned in the search warrant or in any of Mangun's various versions to law enforcement. She seemed to be running with nothing more than rape advocacy Internet rumors and I guess the crazy dad's statements, I can guess which side of the family the mental infirmity comes from.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Anonymous at 4:16 and 4:18:

You are both correct - I was wrong. It was Nancy Grace's 'guest' who committed suicide, not Wendy's.

Sorry. I have trouble telling them apart.

jamil hussein said...

Isn't it now pretty easy to sue her for defamation of character?

If this is not defamation of character, such thing does not exist.

Anonymous said...

My sugesstion KC, would be to forward Wendy Murphy's letter to Roy Cooper's office in the hopes that Cooper would write to the Boston Globe and shut down her speculations once and for all.

Anonymous said...

I wrote 2 letters to her State Bar complaining. I wrote to CNN and Fox News telling them I would not watch their networks if they continued to have her on for any reason. KC, you have documented precisely her lies, and yet we continue to hear from her.

The only way to get rid of Wendy Murphy is for the masses to again, write to her State Board and BOYCOTT the news stations that put her on. Write CNN and Fox and complain bitterly, I told them they undermine their credibility as news outlets by using her.

BDay MD

Anonymous said...

K.C. Murphy, like many others in this case, alligned herself on the wrong side and now cannot let go. She deserves and is getting a verbal ass-kicking.

However, I had mixed feelings when you published her phone number and FAX number in "A Question for Wendy Murphy". I think that this borders on harassment and intimidation. I know that some of your readers will disagree. However, I wonder how I would feel if my office were suddenly innundated with phone calls from some of our more rabid readers.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

They will drop Wendy (or Nancy, or whoever) when the ADVERTISING dollars stop. Period. That is all this is about. All the ranting in the world won't get anyone off the air until the advertisers say so. It's only about money.

Anonymous said...

concealed evidence? bribes? election tales?

The irony of a liar like her questioning the veracity of the AG Cooper, one of the few to speak the truth, is staggering.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't count on that happening any time soon. These legal 'experts' are asked on these shows to play a role. The former prosecutors are always pro prosecution and the defense attorneys are always pro defense. Only in very anomolous cases, like Natalee Holloway, where it was outside of the US system, did you see defense lawyers talking about suspects as if they are guilty. Nancy Grace thinks anyone the police charge is guilty and should get the max. That's what her show is all about, supporting the victims and being tough on crime.

Have you ever seen Mickey Sherman believe a defendant should be found guilty outside of a John Cuey type case? Nope. Same with Wendy Murphy, she obviously will never find a woman who has lied about rape as long as she lives if she still claims to believe this woman. I don't think she does believe her, but she's playing her assigned role.

Just another example of how far journalism, media and legal standards have fallen in this country.

Anonymous said...

Mike in Nevada

I disagree "that this borders on harassment and intimidation."

Murphy is a public figure and has made the choice to spew her venom across the airwaves. I think she deserves every single critical email, phone call or letter that she gets.

Anonymous said...

The only way Ms. Murphy will acknowledge the truth is to be publicy humiliated in a court of law. Her accusations need to be dissected by the plantiff's attorneys in a civil defamation action. At this point a civil action appears to be the only way to stop this woman from spreading lies and venom. I'm expecting a John Grisham ending to this and I wonder if the other shoe is about to drop. I bet there will be a number of civil suits filed and served on the same day - we can only hope...

Anonymous said...

I very much doubt Wendy Murphy is going to be sued by anyone. It isn't illegal for a third party to give an opinion about an active case, no matter how crazy and uninformed it is.

I doubt she ever called them rapists or said she knew for certain they were guilty.

Even her lastest pathetic letter in the The Globe doesn't make any accuastions it raises questions, of course the answer to her questions are already known....I don't see anything close to a lawsuit against Murphy over this case.

Anonymous said...

To 5:48:00

You said,

"Murphy is a public figure and has made the choice to spew her venom across the airwaves. I think she deserves every single critical email, phone call or letter that she gets."

It is hard to disagree with your point. The problem that I have is this; Wendy Murphy is an adjunct professor at a law school. The phone number which K.C. published appears to be her office number at the school.

Whether or not we agree with her vitriolic misguided opinions, we should not be calling her employer to express our disagreement. This, IMHO, is intrusive and could interfere with her employment.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

On behalf of the integrity of the Office of Atty. Gen. of NC, Roy Cooper should write a letter to the Boston Globe refuting these insidious allegations and lay the matter to rest once and for all. In fact, he should write every network that allow this trash mouth to appear and spread her lies. If she or the networks continue in this folly, sue all of them!

Anonymous said...

It is the end of the day.
Just guess who is still the DA?

Anonymous said...

Maybe rapeis.org is paying Wendy Murphy to utter those libelous statements. Maybe rapeis.org is all about defending accusers at all cost regardless of the facts. Maybe evil CGM funneled some of her pay-off money to rapeis.org. That last sentence is tongue-in-cheek.

Anonymous said...

A payoff? Based on what? According to the A.G., Mangum still wanted the case to proceed. Murphy is a joke

Anonymous said...

Murphy is just a joke. She makes money, by taking an outlandish position. She's laughing to the bank.

I'm waiting for the Durham report next week. Will they dump all blame on Nifong? Will they document how he overrode the system? Ordered police to rig a lineup and violate DPD procedures? If so that could be the opening for a criminal investigation.

Anonymous said...

re article in "The New Criterion"

I urge everyone to read the article. It emphasizes just how outrageous AAAS and Brodhead behaved. A must-read.

Polanski

PS The above magazine is 1 of the great culture magazines out there. Worth a look-see each month.

Anonymous said...

My prediction re: the DPD report:
it wasn't a line-up and so didn't break the guidelines, Gottleib's memory report is fine, arresting the cab driver was fine, working in tandem with a PI was fine, taking direction from Mike Nifong was fine.

Patrick Baker is going to find out its all good. No one can honestly expect a corrupt outfit like the DPD to criticize itself, giving ammunition to any future lawsuits?

Anonymous said...

We should all be writing to the AP and asking them where they got this information. If they did not talk to Wendy, then they could sue her, for using them as a reference.

Anonymous said...

For God's sake could someone please file a lawsuit against this woman!? And a bar complaint, even though Massachusetts seems to set ethical standards on the low side for veracity and the pursuit of justice. BA, the only way, I think, to figure out if she could be held accountable in a lawsuit is to give it a try and see. The standards for libel and slander are difficult to meet, but I think there is a fine argument that she knows what she's saying is false and she is saying it with malice. With the AG's statements there's not much room for arguing this is just her "opinion" any more. Someone would have to do this suit on a contingency basis, though, and the families or at least one of them has to be up for another miserable experience, which they might lose, even though they shouldn't...and I completely understand if they are not prepared for another legal tangle.

I have no expertise in defamation, which may be obvious, but how much more would the woman have to say...she is, in effect, defaming Roy Cooper and his office in addition to the exonerated defendants. And getting paid to do it.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:28:00 PM said...
They will drop Wendy (or Nancy, or whoever) when the ADVERTISING dollars stop. Period. That is all this is about. All the ranting in the world won't get anyone off the air until the advertisers say so. It's only about money.


As an adjunct to this I would suggest that any sponsor of any show upon which Ms. Murphy appears be contacted that we intend to no longer purchase their products or services. I would say further say you believe in freedome of speech and do not endorse any form of censorship. However, Ms Murphy is easily shown to be so fundamentally dishonest and disreputable that the advertiser must likewise have disreputable products if they are comfortable supporting broadcasts which continue to showcase spokespeople of her ilk.

Masculist Man said...

This, IMHO, is intrusive and could interfere with her employment.

Her lies could lead to loss of employment for those she is slandering.

Anonymous said...

To 5:59
KC's post from Dec. 2006 outlines many of Wendy Murphy's statements. Many of those statements were not predicated with "my opinion", but were made as statements of fact, when, actually, they were knowingly false. This is the basic defamation definition.
In addition, Ms. Murphy is (I believe, though could be wrong) a member of the Mass. Bar, which, subjects her to the rules and regulations of such membership. Whether the Bar chooses to look into Ethics complaints against her is their decision, but IMO, she has failed the ethics test in many instances.
Being a victims advocate is a good thing, doing it at the expense of honor, honesty, integrity and justice is not. Sadly, the MSM is not interested in any of the virtues I just mentioned, only money, ratings and stories. Hooligans they are.

BDay

Anonymous said...

A lot of people seem to have very idealistic views of 'the law' that its all about justice and common sense. It isn't, not anymore anyway.

Wendy Murphy can say 'we will never know what happened' forever and it isn't defamation. She can talk about the 1000 pages of defense evidence and that isn't defamation unless she knows for a fact it doesn't exist, she appears to be repeating heresay so you can't get her on that.

Her statement about a possible witness who corroborates that a rape took place appears to be calling Cooper a liar and the report false. There might be something here but its a long shot since she doesn't say a statement exists that was suppressed only that a statement might exist.

I think there used to be something in the ethical guidelines of professions like law about bringing the profession into disrepute, but not sure.

Even writing to the shows may backfire, a huge amount of emails about her may get her MORE airtime. Best bets would be to write to the Mass bar and the law school where she allegedly teaches about her unprofessional conduct, repeating rumors and falsehoods.

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to appear glib, but can someone tell me whether Murphy has any substantial credibility in the media? She's a 1-woman dog-and-pony show, right?

Shouldn't we be discussing something more substantial, like what to do with all that cash that once was earmarked for AAAS and Vulva Studies?

Virginia Woolf

Cindy said...

KC, it’s time to start a new thread, on more important issues. Good point, Virginia.

Personally, I think more than enough attention has been paid to this woman. She’s a show biz shill, a media prop – ignore her!

How about the digging into the complicity of rest of Duke's faculty, the silent majority, who stood by, quietly while their students got roasted by the press, hung out to dry by the Administration. How about the leaders of the University permitting (I hesitate to use the word “invite”, although that might have been extended by AAAS teachers) known racist groups on campus, the threat of violence against students in the air, putting so many people’s physical wellbeing at risk? The silent majority, the hundreds of Duke faculty that let the Gang of 88 carry their water, they should be excoriated for their inaction. Forget the lawsuits, however problematic they might be, against the Trustees, the Medical Center or the objectionable teachers. I am so disturbed by the resentment, the venomous disdain shown by the faculty toward their own students. The 600 or so faculty that have laid low are as bad as the Gang of 88 – they let these radical, racist teachers speak for the school. Broadhead and the Trustees have allowed the Gang of 88 to be the only real defining voice among the non-student population at Duke. Parents, alumni, prospective students – Wake Up! This is a school that, in a time of severe moral testing, has come up small. There has not been one word of repudiation of the Listening Statement, no official rebuke of the comments made by individual faculty members. I can’t imagine what the thought process is behind closed doors at Duke. Duke is emerging from this much the way the Soviet Union emerged from the Cold War. What we once considered a strong, formidable, monolithic power turned out to be a hollow, bankrupt, rusting old hulk.

P. Rich said...

BDay MD wrote:

"Write CNN and Fox and complain bitterly..."

Completely agree. Did that. I quietly explained that if I ever again saw Murphy or Al Sharpton on the channel as a guest, I would immediately cease to be a customer.

Verbose idiots without a public platform quickly become inconsequential.

Cindy said...

Over on John in Carolina, John is calling out the George L. McLendon,
Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences for the silence of the A&S faculty. Exactly my point - the Duke faculty silently supports the Gang of 88. For all the venting and speculation of litigation toward them, they are the tip of the ice berg. As despicable as their remarks and beliefs are, at least they had the balls to speak their racist minds. The rest of the Duke faculty and administration are just spineless, hand wringing fellow travelers.

David Brennan said...

"Slander."

If that doesn't apply here - where a woman is knowingly telling defamatory lies about people - then I don't know that there is any such thing as slander.

This particular woman is funded by the government, so you know that if you sue her, there are huge purses you can swipe from. (Which I guess means that I want them to sue the taxpayers, which means that, in a strange way, I'm asking them to sue myself.)

Anonymous said...

6:08: "It is the end of the day.
Just guess who is still the DA?"


Hey, Mikey, glad to see you're still checking in here. Some people have been speculating that you'd commit suicide, but I've never believed it. Narcissists like you rarely ever off themselves. (How can you kill the one you love best?). But you'd better not be spending too much time on the internet reading these blogs, Mikey. Your trial is next month, so you have very little time left to be D.A. in Durham (or to hold a valid license to practice law in NC). So you'd better get off the computer and get back to work ASAP. There's still time for you to frame a few more innocent defendants before your lawyers embarrass themselves in front of the Bar again, and you go down in ignominious defeat.

Anonymous said...

KC, I know that you must have the ear of the defense attorneys in this case as a result of your careful and detailed reporting of this hoax. PLEASE, PLEASE prevail upon them to shut this wench up. There must be a way to make WM and the Wilmington Journal (Cash the Trash) either put up or shut up. They are slandering the defense attorneys and the office of the AG of NC. First Amendment rights only go so far and when someone goes on national tv and spews the lies that WM continues to do, there must be some recourse by the three families, their attorneys and the State of NC to shut this ignorant bitch up.

Anonymous said...

yoddidy yo
yawzaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i got me dah honkies
now I's on welfah

Panties

Anonymous said...

When Ms Murphy seeks out oportunities repeatedly to go on national TV or to be quoted in the NY TIMES and makes all kinds of unsubstantiated comments, she should not be surprised when people seek her out to question her statements. It is true she even suggested one of the Duke players was probably abused by his parents? If so, and there are legal grounds she should be sued. But I suspect, just as I now (perhaps unfairly) questioned her
ethics, she will not be blameable because she qualifies her comments by saying "I would not be surprised if.....not I know for sure the player was abused"

I think she makes herself fair game for e-mails by deciding to be a public figure publically judging others.

I have sent her 3 civil e-mails. If she got them, she never responded.

Anonymous said...

6:08: "It is the end of the day.
Just guess who is still the DA?"

Uh, that would be the same guy who lost his motion to dismiss the Bar charges last month, and who is going to get his a$$ handed to him next month at his sure-to-be-an exercise-in-public-humiliation Bar trial.

Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of spineless hand-wringers, did you ever get a report from the Grant Fareed appearance at Williams?

bill anderson said...

It seems to me that she also is libeling the attorneys when she claims payoffs. Surely someone can deal with this by legal means. Do they really have to take this?

Jim said...

Thanks to Wendy, I think we have a new definition of Murphy's Law.

Old: "If something can happen, it will".

New: "If nothing happened, it did."

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Cindy said: "The 600 or so faculty that have laid low are as bad as the Gang of 88..."

Personally, Cindy, I consider the silent faculty to be 'good Germans'. They had a moral and ethical duty to speak up when their own students were being attacked but they chose not to. So let them live with the label. They earned it and they deserve it.

Anonymous said...

If Kim and the accuser had really been paid a bunch of money, there'd be some evidence of it, such as new cars, etc. I doubt they'd "lay low" until all the attention passed. If they waited for that, they probably would not be free to spend the money in their lifetimes.

Durham Lawyer

ExGC said...

Regarding the potential for a libel/slander - these torts require that the person make a factual assertion that is untrue and that damages the person's reputation. Statements of opinion in almost all cases don't count. For this half witted, opportunistic disgrace to my profession (all of which is purely my opinion)to be liable she would have to be stating these things as facts. In all likelihood, by using the "question" format and characterizing them as things she has heard, she is in the clear. Also note that with public figures, which Cooper clearly is and the others are to one extent or another, there is the added burden of having to prove that she made the statements with "malice". Any suit is likely a non-starter.

gwallan said...

Mike in Nevada said...
However, I had mixed feelings when you published her phone number and FAX number in "A Question for Wendy Murphy". I think that this borders on harassment and intimidation.

Actually no. She is a public figure who uses her position, the name of her employer and her "qualifications" to make controversial statements about controversial issues. She has every right to receive mail disputing her statements particularly if those statements are slanderous.

Deklan Singh said...

So, I'm curious. How exactly is Wendy Murphy's profession listed on her resume? Does it say LIAR directly under her name in bold type, or is there a list of her professional engagements extending down the page where her different methods of fraud and deception are described in detail?

I believe it says "professional liar".

Mike in Nevada said...
Whether or not we agree with her vitriolic misguided opinions, we should not be calling her employer to express our disagreement. This, IMHO, is intrusive and could interfere with her employment.

She uses her employer's name to lend weight to her statements. The employer has a right to know what she is doing and what impact she is having. Their good name is mud in her hands.

Gary Packwood said...

The Levicy Exam post from KC has 222 comments.

Good Grief.
I think we have a good idea now who is listening to Murphy...and wants to believe that someone is speaking for women.
And here I thought I was trying to speak in support of all people.

Anonymous said...

A message from Wendy Murphy, Esq.

I'm rich, famous, influential, and highly intelligent--you losers are not. Keep on posting, nobodies. I'm on a private jet typing this, while you wannabes are crying over spilt milk.

Anonymous said...

The AG of NC stated these kids were innocent. We all know people are called in to play devils advocate on these televisions shows. But this case is over. She isn't just playing devils advocate anymore, she is doing this personally for herself. She needs be sued or at the very least Bill O'Reily and other talk show hosts need to call her on her crazy statements and then tell her she is no longer welcomed on their program.

Anonymous said...

The solution is simple. KC just needs to put out a challenge to publicly debate anyone who still wants to defend CGM. Without cross examination, the Murphys and Petersons can say anything and a newspaper will print it bc it is controversial. Offer to debate them at Duke and if no one accepts, claim victory. If someone does accept the offer, I predict KC will throw a no-hitter.
Brant Jones

Anonymous said...

KC vs. Wendy Murphy on the O'Reilly Factor. Someone make it happen. Heck I bet she would no show, which I guess would be fine since we could doll up a paper cutout of her and we wouldn't have to hear her.

Anonymous said...

Wait, she's just a victim of the network bookers and bad information. No, wait, she forgot to take her meds. Oh well, no harm, no foul.

Eric said...

5:59, and everyone else who argues that she hasn't actually slandered or libeled anyone, check out http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/wendy-murphy-file.html

Specifically, look for the following:

(April 10) “These guys, like so many rapists—and I’m going to say it because, at this point, she’s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim.”

In other words, yes, she has called them rapists, and made clear that it was intentional by justifying it.

Anonymous said...

MURPHY: Yes. I mean, look, it`s the fact that they take an awful long time for the defense to come out and say anything meaningful. And the silence is deafening in terms of why they didn`t come forward right away and say, Look, we`re all innocent. What they did was clam up and say, Let`s stick together so we can get away with this.

Look, I think the real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists -- and I`m going to say it because, at this point, she`s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim. These guys watch "CSI," and they know it`s a really bad idea to ejaculate on or in the victim. And maybe what she said, which makes her particularly credible, is, These guys didn`t ejaculate on or inside of my body, which means she deserves extra credibility because no one`s suggesting that she lied about whether there would be DNA found on her person.

And Nancy, look, you know, why? Why do we live in a culture people are so willing to assume women are masochist enough to not only do all the things you describe but strangle themselves and tear their own vaginas to make, what, a false claim look good? We would let women be perceived as hysterical masochists rather than believe that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it`s a duck? Can we use a little bit of common sense here?

Forget respect and disrespect for a minute! How about common sense and decency? A DA who was not born yesterday has said, after two weeks of investigation, I believe this woman was brutally raped and attacked. And now, because of DNA -- which never tells the whole story, ever -- somehow, we`re going to just abandon the case and celebrate the boys as, you know, having had a bad night

It's amazing this woman can look in the mirror

Gary said...

I happen to know from experience that rape victims NEVER accept bribes. It's about power, not money.

Thus, if she took the payments, she could not be a rape victim. But since women NEVER LIE about rape, it must be that Crystal doesn't actually exist.

Therefor, Crystal was invented by Murphy, Nifong and the G88 to advance their careers. Case closed!

Soobs said...

On April 28, 2006 Murphy had already brought up the "pay-off" theory.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:BqI9HAsHzFUJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/28/pzn.01.html+wendy+murphy+duke+lacrosse+quotes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


"And, then, what I fear is going to happen, someone's going to say, here, how about you have a few bucks? Someone is going to offer her some money, as happened in the Kobe Bryant case, for her to take a dive. That's not justice. That's corruption. That's a two-tiered system, where the rich people walk free. The poor ones go to jail. I'm disgusted that that..."

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed this? Hasn't been updated lately.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~cyberlaw/wiki/index.php/Wendy_Murphy