Sunday, June 17, 2007

Williamson Remarks

Below is the full text of Lane Williamson's remarks from yesterday's hearing:

Thank you for your patience. The hearing committee has deliberated and we are in unanimous agreement that there’s no discipline short of disbarment that would be appropriate in this case given the magnitude of the offenses we have found and the effect upon the profession and the public.

I do want to make some remarks as to why we reached our conclusion. This matter has been a fiasco. There is no doubt about it. It has been a fiasco for a number of people, starting with the defendants and moving out from there to the justice system in general. We’ve heard evidence over the last several days of how that came about. Though we are lawyers and a school administrator — we’re not psychologists — you have to ask yourself, “Why? Why did we get to the place that we got?”

It seems that at the root of it is self-deception arising out of self-interest. Mark Twain said that “when a person cannot deceive himself the chances are against his being able to deceive other people.”

Well, what we have here, it seems, is that we had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class, a situation that if it were a plot of a John Grisham novel it would be considered to be perhaps too contrived. At that time he was facing a primary and yes he was politically naive. But we can draw no other conclusion that that those initial statements that he made were to forward his political ambitions. But having once done that and having seen the facts as he hoped they would be, in his mind the facts remained that way in the face of developing evidence that that was not in fact the case.

And even today one must say that in the face of a declaration of innocence by the attorney general of North Carolina, it appears the defendant still believes the facts to be one way and the world now knows that is not the case.

We are required under our rules to consider certain aggravating and mitigating factors — under Rule .0114W. And those are set forth in the rule and I’m going to say what aggravating and mitigating factors we have found.

We have found as aggravating factors dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct — in the respect of the handling of the DNA evidence; we do find that he has made some acknowledgement of his wrongful conduct in regard to the pretrial statements — the vulnerability of the victim — or the victims in this case and primarily the victims are the three young men who were wrongfully charged. And we find also as an aggravating factor substantial experience in the practice of law.
As mitigating factors we find absence of a prior disciplinary record, a reputation for character. We expressly find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.

This matter appears to be an aberration in a couple of respects. It appears to be an aberration in the life and career of Michael Nifong. It appears also to be an aberration in the way justice is handled in North Carolina. It’s an illustration of the fact that character — good character — is not a constant. Character is dependent upon the situation. Probably any one of us could be faced with a situation at some point that would test our good character and we would prove wanting. And that has happened to Mike Nifong. But the fact that it has happened and the fact that we have found dishonesty and deceitful conduct requires us in the interest of protection of the public to enter the most severe sanction that we can enter, which is disbarment.

I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina and elsewhere. And indeed prosecutors — honest, ethical, hard-working prosecutors throughout the nation — as we’ve heard through anecdotal evidence are victims of this conduct. And in particular the justice system is a victim of the way this was taken out of — this Mr. Smith testifying — taken out of the courtroom and put in the hands of the public and not only the public in general but into a media frenzy unprecedented in anyone’s experience.

As I think anyone who has sat through this entire proceeding — we’ve been here now on the fifth day — that you can’t do justice in the media, you can’t do justice on sound bites. The way to arrive at a determination of the facts is to hear in a fair and open proceeding all of the evidence and then for the trier of fact to determine what the facts are. And we’ve done that this week.

That did not happen and was not going to happen apparently in the Duke lacrosse case. The justice system righted itself somehow so that at the end of the day there was indeed a declaration of innocence of these three young men. But it was done with backup systems in a way that was never designed to work as the justice system should work. Perhaps that was set in motion by the state bar’s initial complaint, filed on December 28, 2006, that shortly thereafter led to the recusal of Mr. Nifong from the Duke lacrosse cases. That was a controversial decision, I believe. Certainly unprecedented that the state bar would take disciplinary action against a prosecutor during the pendency of the case when indeed the presiding judge had concurrent and coextensive disciplinary jurisdiction. That was the step — although we were not privy to the decision to do that — I am sure that was a matter of serious debate as to whether to do that because that in itself took the justice system off track.

The other mechanism by which the system more or less righted itself was the involvement of the attorney general and the special prosecutors, who looked at it from a standpoint of prosecutors who were cognizant of their duty — the duty that was described here by Marsha Goodenow of the Mecklenburg County district attorney’s office and whom we found to be a very persuasive witness. And that led to something really very extraordinary, a declaration of actual innocence of the three defendants — something that could never have been accomplished even if the criminal case had proceeded before Judge Smith. And while we don’t know, it seems reasonably clear that one would predict that at the suppression hearing in February the case would have been dismissed. But it would have been dismissed with no declaration of innocence and indeed this entire controversy regarding the wrongful prosecution still hanging over the heads of the defendants and the justice system of North Carolina.

So perhaps that was the good thing that happened if one can find much of anything good out of this situation.

But the fact that if these extraordinary had not come to pass, leading to that declaration of innocence, raises another point that we should all be aware of, which is that the person who is the most powerful in the criminal justice system is not the judge and except at the end of the process it’s not the jury, it’s the prosecutor who makes the charging decision to start with.

The prosecutor, as any defense lawyer will tell you, is imbued with an aura that if he says its so it must be so. And even with all the constitutional rights that are afforded criminal defendants, the prosecutor merely by asserting a charge against defendants already has a leg up. And when that power is abused, as it was here, it puts constitutional rights in jeopardy. We have a justice system but the justice system only works if the people who participate in it are people of good faith and respect those rights.

And Mr. Nifong it must be said for whatever reason it does appear to us to be out of self-interest and self-deception, not necessarily out of an evil motive, but that his judgment was so clouded by his own self-interest that he lost sight of it and wandered off the path of justice and had to be put back on course again by again very extraordinary means.

This is also a case where due to the initial strong statements, unequivocal statements, made by Mr. Nifong, there was a deception perpetrated upon the public. And many people were made to look foolish because they simply accepted that if this prosecutor said it was true, it must be true.

When I think back to those early days in the spring of last year and we think of how public opinion was so overwhelmingly against these defendants and you think of the public aggravation that they suffered and then you look at how the truth came out slowly in small increments and look at the situation now as to what public opinion is there is a 180-degree turn. And those who made a rush to judgment based upon an unquestioning faith in what a prosecutor had told them were made to look foolish and many still do look foolish.

It is very difficult to find any good in this situation that brings us here. I can only think of a couple things. One is that there are very few deterrents upon prosecutorial misconduct. For very good policy reasons, prosecutors are virtually immune from civil liability. About the worst that can happen to them for the conduct of a case is that the case can be overturned. The only significant deterrent upon a prosecutor is the possibility of disciplinary sanction. And here the most severe sanction is warranted.

I want to briefly address a matter that was actually included in Mr. Nifong’s initial response to state bar briefings, which was to the effect that the word on the street was that the state bar was out to get a prosecutor and cited a couple of well-publicized cases in recent years involving prosecutors where it was widely perceived that there was insufficient discipline imposed.

And I just want to step back for a moment and speak not as the chair of this panel but as the chair of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission and note that in those two cases the situation was very different, although you could look at it and say that the harm that was caused by the conduct was graver. In both of those cases someone was actually wrongfully convicted of a capital crime. But in one of those cases where it was prosecuted there was no contention that there was any misconduct on behalf of the prosecutor that extended beyond loss of privileges. In other words, there was no allegation or proof of intentional wrongdoing and under the restrictions that we are under ... probably the maximum discipline that could be imposed was imposed. And indeed under the particular provision, the same one that we are dealing with here, Rule 3.8D as it was previously worded, the panel felt that there was a nondelible duty to know what’s in your file. And under most jurisdictions or the majority view, actually no discipline would be imposed.

In one case, which has recently been affirmed by the court of appeals, there was a dismissal based upon essentially the running of the limitations rule and we did not address the merits. But we applied the rules. We applied the rules in both of those cases and reached, in my opinion, the correct result. And in this case we have applied the rules and again we believe we have reached the correct result.

Every case is different but the case we have here is a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct. So in addition to this being a deterrent to any prosecutorial misconduct, I would say that this should be a reminder to everyone that it’s the facts that matter. It’s not the allegations. And if you sit as a juror or if you sit at home watching your television about court proceedings, you have to carefully consider the facts and the evidence before you make a conclusion about something and not just trust someone who tells who it is so because that is someone who’s in a position who is supposed to know.

The other thing that may be good about this is to say that this is another opportunity to acknowledge based upon the actual testimony that we have heard over the last several days and to remind everyone — other than the testimony of Brian Meehan on Dec. 15, 2006 — no one had given testimony in a public hearing under oath in this matter until this week. This has given an opportunity to air some but not all of the evidence that may relate to this matter. After all, our purpose is limited to the disciplinary matter before us and the specific allegations only involve the law license of Mike Nifong. But we’ve had an opportunity over the last several days to hear additional evidence — and while it is really not within the purview of the panel to make such a pronouncement — I want to say again that we acknowledge the actual innocence of the defendants. And there is nothing here that has done anything but support that assertion.

Finally, I want it to be noted and it may seem to be a subtle distinction but it’s an important one, it relates to this underlying case, which is when this is recorded it should be noted not that the state bar disciplined Michael Nifong but that the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar, particularly this panel of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission disciplined Michael Nifong. That is important because it should illustrate to everyone that there has been a process here. The state bar in secret did not decide to take away the license of Michael Nifong to practice law. The state bar decided that they had evidence sufficient to go forward and seek to prove to an independent tribunal of triers of fact that his license should be taken away. And it took a long process culminating at this point in order to do that. And that’s due process. And that’s what was nearly hijacked in the case of the Duke lacrosse defendants.

Those are the only things that come to mind that are good about this entire situation. It’s been truly — a fiasco is not too strong a word. But it could have resulted from a lapse of character of practically anyone, not just in particular Mike Nifong. We’ve heard anecdotal evidence of the harm that it has caused. The actual harm is very difficult to get one’s arms around. But I certainly hope that this process will help assuage the harm and stop the ripples that seemed to start when the stone was thrown in the pond. They just got bigger and bigger. But hopefully they will ebb from this point forward.

We expect to enter a written order in the near future. I won’t put a timetable on it. It will take a little time. But again that will be a final order and I understand the defendant has waived his right to appeal.

So unless there is anything further for us to address, this proceeding is concluded. Thank you.

163 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only result possible. I know it's becoming cliched now, but am I the only one who is rubbing their hands together at the discomfort certain Duke employees will now be feeling as attention turns away from Nifong to them?

Anonymous said...

Those folks believe they have nothing for which to atone. Nifong felt the same way but there was a process available to hold him accountable. No such process exists for the G88. Those of us who are alums should withhold contributions and make it clear to the university why we are doing so.

But so long as the University leadership and the media refuse to shine the spotlight on the G88, they will remain ensconsed in power at Duke.

David M. Brooks said...

very case is different but the case we have here is a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct. So in addition to this being a deterrent to any prosecutorial misconduct, I would say that this should be a reminder to everyone that it’s the facts that matter. It’s not the allegations. And if you sit as a juror or if you sit at home watching your television about court proceedings, you have to carefully consider the facts and the evidence before you make a conclusion about something and not just trust someone who tells who it is so because that is someone who’s in a position who is supposed to know.

An important lesson that, sadly, most media commentators are going to ignore.

Anonymous said...

"An important lesson that, sadly, most media commentators are going to ignore."

And also those Duke groupthink professors.

They said they were listening in March 2006. Are they listening now? Tell us.

Anonymous said...

Williamson said Nifong was not "evil." Is he kidding? Nifong epitomizs the word!

Anonymous said...

Good bless his son! Couldn't be easy on the boy.

Anonymous said...

Very certainly there is a process for the Group of 88 ... it's called civil litigation. They made libelous statements and created a manifesto as a catalyst for arousing social disorder and racial fractures. They had intent to malign these boys and each and every one of them (and, yes, Nancy Grace too, please!!!) can be held accountable for their Manifesto of Hate. They might keep their careers and operate in near academic obscurity, but their financial assets should be tied up in court for their libelous hate filled letter which, in light of all the evidence, created exactly what they claimed to abhor.

miramar said...

Williamson's extemporaneous remarks were extraordinary. It makes me think back once again to Nifong's comment that if he were a lawyer he wouldn't want to go up against himself, but he must have been thinking of the public defenders that he knows. Every time that he has faced a real attorney--Williamson, Cooney, Cheshire, Bannon, and many others--he was weighed in the balance and found wanting. Let's not forget that this was a man who couldn't get a job out of law school and started working in the DA's office on a volunteer basis.

Finally, I appreciated this comment from Williamson: "And those who made a rush to judgment based upon an unquestioning faith in what a prosecutor had told them were made to look foolish and many still do look foolish."

They will continue to look foolish until they admit their mistake and apologize, but that's not going to happen, so I guess the best punishment for them is to continue to look like idiots.

Anonymous said...

I guess this blog will end soon, so before you all get away I just want to thank KC and all you other terrific bloggers.
You have made this past week ultra entertaining for me. Almost feel like I know some of you, who have used names.
And I cannot forget the one(?) blogger, who right from the very beginning, at least once a day, asked if anyone knew if nifong was a communist. I chuckled everytime I saw that.
Thanks again everyone and have a great one.

Anonymous said...

Anybody heard from Cash Michaels?

Anonymous said...

. . . or from Wendy Murphy?

Anonymous said...

Why would this be over so soon? Has justice been served? Nifong was but one man. There are others...

- Group of 88
- Duke U. & Brodhead
- Durham P.D.
- NC AG
- African-American Panthers
- Nancy Grace
- DNA labs
- NYT
- The girls and boys who held the "castrate" sign


and, lastly, who can forget the cause of all of this, Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum.

Anonymous said...

This situation should be a cautionary reminder that the entire foundation of EVERYTHING in our country is "We the People."

We MUST speak out when we see or suspect injustice (denial of due process, etc.) We must teach our children that lying and cheating aren't okay, and we must, more importantly, model that ethos in our own lives.

The Internet is a great blessing for such communication; we're not dependent on the MSM.



gotc

Anonymous said...

I know Nifong could face criminal charges, but sould anything be worse than the spectacle of a national audience of millions watching Nifong being castigated by his own peers?

Anonymous said...

10:43

It's a start.

Looking over the AG report, one small aspect that I'd like to commend is that Ms. Mangum was treated with respect and care from the moment the possibility of an assault was raised. Had she been a real victim, that is the way I would want the system to work.

However, I hope that this case puts to rest the nonsense that "women don't lie about being raped."


gotc

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

-nothing is going to happen to the group of 88, some of them may be sorry and may reexamine their views, others will never admit the truth and never apologize nor change their view of the world.

-nothing is going to happen to Brodhead from a legal perspective, he MAY end up stepping down early depending on how much pressure and outrage there is among Duke alumini and how much "no $$" answers are tied to his behavior.

-Yes, they need to be investigated, especially Gottlieb.

-What did the NC AG do? If not for him we would be going to trial?

-They are disgusting racists, but thats not a crime in America, what is going to happen to them?

-Nancy is a media person, she may or may not have learned something from this fiasco, probably not, but again, what do you expect to happen to her? NO ONE in the media is going to get sued for defamation or libel.

-DNA Labs. I would hope and guess after the dispariging remarks made by the committe about dr. Meehan's credibily that he will soon retire to be with his family, any reasonable corporate CEO or CFO would consider him a liability in terms of getting any more LE contracts.

-NYTimes is not going to change, if they haven't changed yet, after all the scandals about lack of reporter oversight, Judy Miller and Jayson Blair, they aren't going to change, at least not until Sulzberger steps aside for a successor and since he's pretty young, the Times may not live to see it.

-This is tricky, it was a threat and intimidation which is likely prohibited under Duke University's code of conduct, but its pretty late to go back and find them and charge them, and all they would probably get is a warning from Duke not to do it again. Outside the University's code, Freedom of Speech will win out over something that isn't specifically a 'fire in the theater' type of incitement.

Anonymous said...

so what is to stop the media from becoming an indirect vehicle for all future Nifong-wannabes and corrupt DAs if they can't be held accountable for what they say? The media has a freedom and responsibility to report the truth.

You have then, in effect, given them more power to disgrace whomever they choose by letting them push a little bit further each and every time.

Brett in Cherry Hill said...

Truly thoughtful, well reasoned and eloquent comments. Hopefully restores confidence in the legal system.

I would look forward to the Durham courts further proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Anonymous said...

to the anonymous poster st 10:49am: That's a good analysis. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Williamson was wrong. Nifong is evil, pure evil. His personality is very much like Adolph Eichman. Good until caught.

And I doubt he had any love for blacks either. He is a good ole southern boy who found himself in a black dominated city and saw his opportunity to ingratiate himself to those who controlled his election but whom he deemed inferior.

I am certain he and his buddies had lots of laughs at the blacks' expense until the worm turned.

Anonymous said...

Duke University is a private institution, formerly associated with the Methodist church but no longer.

Anonymous said...

I was initially stunned that Williamson spoke to Nifong's record of truthfulness and that this episode was a "lapse" in judgement premised on self-deception.

Then it dawned on me, he was speaking to the NC Legal community, ie - no matter how strong your record/reputation, break your ethical obligations and you are 'toast' in NC.

At least, that's the only way I can allow his words to pass - Nifong's actions were the most cynical form of evil - and there was NO self deception, but pure power lust - IMO

Anonymous said...

On the contrary Anon 10:49 ... the media can and should be sued for libel and defamation of character. This wouldn't be the first time or the first successful suit. There is no constitutional amendment to hide behind for defamation of character.

Anonymous said...

11:04

I agree. Williamson also said something about it doesn't matter what your reputation is; it's the current actions that matter.

I keep saying this (just put up with me, please), but this is a modern version of "Macbeth," but at least no one was actually murdered.

gotc

Anonymous said...

10:49 says ...-nothing is going to happen to the group of 88, some of them may be sorry and may reexamine their views, others will never admit the truth and never apologize nor change their view of the world.

Not true at all. They will all be civil litigants, unprotected by the University and personally liable for their slanderous, libelous acts. And they will fold , like a deck of cards. Count on it, the process has already started.

Anonymous said...

a private school? good. Must have some kind of endowment for these innocent boys to dip their cups into.

Anonymous said...

Duke is a crumbling house of cards. A one-time wannabe Ivy, now just another sports school.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Williamson will make a wonderful judge. A role model for the judge-pretenders who permitted Nifong to do such horrendous damage to the justice system.

Anonymous said...

I keep asking myself why the 88 were so eager to publish their piece before the DNA analysis came through. What was to be gained by not waiting? Surely they knew that there were substantial risks inherent in such a strategy. Negative results would make them look foolish and perhaps even expose them to legal action. Positive results, on the other hand, would have greatly strengthened their case. So why not wait a few days?

The only reason I can think of is that they wanted to incite violence against the young men whether they were guilty or innocent. People such as Bill Chafe study the history of racially motivated violence and they know how it worked in the past. Thanking the people holding “castrate” signs was their way of saying, “go ahead and hurt them; they deserve it merely because of who they are and we will support you no matter what you do.”

In a truly just world, Chafe and company would be put on trial for attempting to incite violence.

Anonymous said...

Duke is really known for its sports teams, not so much its scholastics. It's a good school but certainly not a great school. For example, look at the quality of the writing, critical analysis, and philosophy of the "Gang of 88". A bunch of lecturers pretending to have some profound sociological insight.

Cindy said...

It was interesting that David Evans, in his testimony yesterday, characterized the party as a “tradition”, and that his son was merely continuing the practice of predecessor lacrosse captains.

“See, my Dave was just getting the boys together for a little team building”.

Did young Dave tell his father about the tradition before the event, when he was named captain of the team? Or his mother? Would any of the players?

Does the “tradition” always include hiring strippers?

Is this “tradition” observed periodically during the season?

Had any former lacrosse team captains come forward to confirm this?

Certainly Mr. Evans, the elder, was a sympathetic and convincing witness yesterday, and any challenges to his statements would likely backfire on Nifong (as if anything worse could have happened).

Despite his attempt to play down the proximate cause of the entire fiasco, no one will ever really know if his assertions are true.

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with a tradition of holding a little soiree at the end of the term?

So they hired a stripper, that wouldn't violate the tradition. Oh, here is a question you forgot to ask: "What is the traditional beer to drink and why weren't they drinking it?" .. or .. "who sits in what order according to tradition?"

Screw you #89 in a gang of 88. its too late for you, you missed the whole show. get lost.

Anonymous said...

11:06

You don't understand slander and defamation law in this country if you think the Group of 88 or any media person is even going to be sued, let alone win.

People are free to say "I think he's a rapist" about someone who is charged with rape. I am free to say "I think OJ Simpson is a murderer" since there is a host of evidence to prove he is a murderer. All anyone in the media has to do is say "The Durham distirct attorney said a rape was committed and he believed the accuser and her ID" Period. That is all the defense they need.

Now, if someone TODAY goes on TV and says they still think they are rapists, then you might have a case.

The "Listening Statement" is in no way libelous and slanderous from a legal perspective, it never even names the players. It was very artfully written in a way to be able to increase condemnation without crossing the line, this is what allows them now to say they never 'meant' for it to be seen as a presumption of guilt, of course that is bogus and exactly what they meant, but since they did not say it outright, they can get away with it.

Anonymous said...

In at least one article it says that Nifong will not be able to pratice law for at least 5 years. I know that if you are a nurse and you have your license pulled that at some point you can attempt to restore your license. Can anyone familiar with NC law tell us what kind of procedure there may be in NC. Is it possible that he could get his lic reinstated years down the road?

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ -- Duke is known primarily for its scholastics (though ANY institution with a basketball program like Duke's is going to find itself in a certain spotlight for much of the year). This is a university U.S. News & World Report ranks higher than most Ivies. It's a university with students whose SAT average hovers around 1500. It's a university with Nobel-, Putlizer-, Rhodes-, and NEA-winning faculty. It's also famous for inspiring resentment among those who feel a world-class academic institution shouldn't be able to brag about world-class athletics, as well. Anyone arguing otherwise is jealous.

Anonymous said...

"I want to briefly address a matter that was actually included in Mr. Nifong’s initial response to state bar briefings, which was to the effect that the word on the street was that the state bar was out to get a prosecutor"....

He was right on that.

What a snake. He certainly did a slithering act getting into his car yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Some departments at Duke are quite good. Believe it or not, the psychology department is considered solid. They weren't the ones who were part of the Group of 88. It was faculty from the humanities and identity studies programs.

Anonymous said...

11:09, I think they did it because they ENJOYED the moment that fed into their mindset so well.

11:12 According to the AG report, it was NOT Dave Evans who hired the dancers (although he may well have know of it).
While serving alcohol to underaged students is illegal, hosting a party and hiring dancers is not. According to the AG report (if you haven't read it, click on the link to the right) if anything, the dancers did not fulfill the duties for which they were hired.

Mangum was obviously impaired from the get-go.

I don't agree that the party was the proximate cause. There's no evidence that any of the LAX players were drunk. Granted, the one with the broomstick was incredibly rude and vulgar, but he did nothing illegal. The party's hosts were trying to keep things under control to avoid disturning the neighbors to the point that they would call the police.

gotc

Anonymous said...

I personally find the hiring of strippers to be repugnant, however, once the woman is at the party, buck naked and simulating or performing a sex act on herself or the other stripper, is it really that far out of bounds to suggest a broomstick?

I agree it is rude and vulgar, but do we expect men to treat women who take their clothes off for a living to be treated respectfully?

It may or may not have upset and angered Kim Roberts, she may have used that as a pretext to get the hell out of there becuase she saw that Mangum was unable to perform and wanted an excuse to extricate herself from the situation w/her money in tact. She is on record saying she never was afraid or felt physically threated, I believe I am remembering right.

We can condem hiring strippers and not blame the hiring of strippers for the false rape allegation...that kind of thinking is NO BETTER than blaming the woman who gets raped becuase she got drunk on her own or left the party with her rapist. The boys bear zero responsibilty for being falsely accused of rape. None. Nada. Zipo.

Cindy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I still don't understand the way some people are clutching (by their fingernails) to the idea that a party which included strippers is so bad. The implication from some is still that all the lax players were racist and sexist for holding this party - just not necessarily rapists.

Am I not right in saying that the female lax team had male strippers at their party? What about every bachelor and bachelorette party, ever, period that has had some nudity from the opposite sex? Which college students genuinely don't know a single person that ever had a drop of alcohol under the age of 21?

The worst you could say is that in an academic context, surrounded by gender feminists and the political correctness that pervades US college campuss, it was ill-advised.

However, anyone still clutching at straws about the presence of strippers (black or otherwise) will have to condemn every male and female who has ever been party to a striptease. The idea that men watching women strip is somehow different to women watching men strip is absurd. Unles yo subscribe to the usual oppresor class theory........yawn.

Anonymous said...

11:18

I'm not a lawyer, and suspect that you're not either. The issue for me with the G88 is that they did from their perches as faculty of Duke.

They're free to do whatever they want as individuals, IMO. However, in their capacity as academics and representatives of Duke, they stepped over the bounds. Academic freedom is for the pursuit of knowledge and truth in developing your field of study, not shooting your mouth off.

That, like the far left that's hijacked the democrats, is what's wrong with higher education.

I do not for a minute believe that the same type of bad behavior could or would NOT happen at any other school.

Anonymous said...

Cindy, are you suggesting that the LAX got what was coming to them for hiring strippers?

I simply do not agree.

Remember, they specially hired white strippers (see AG report). The mistake was accepting the black ones intead. THAT's what precipitated the whole race-based mess.


gotc

Cindy said...

to anonymous @11:33


It would be wrong to construe from my comments that I am implying the lacrosse players were racist or sexist in hiring strippers, only that they were stupid. And by pointing to that party as the proximate cause should not mean the players deserved what happened, only that one event caused the other.

Anonymous said...

11:33

That isn't really the point though...there is a lot of reprehensible behavior that is perfectly legal.

The only reason that colleges for the most part stopped enacting 'hate speech' laws prohibiting students from expressing 'hateful/racist/etc.' opinions that ranged from displaying the Palestinian flag to making disparaging remarks about female students to dressing up like 'gansta's for Halloween..is because every time they got challenged in court the schools lost.

The schools desire to prohibit what they believe is 'wrong thinking' on campus by censoring their students...only the court system has prevented and stalled this silly exercise.

However, that doesn't make what the Group of 88 did illegal, just wrong. You could make a case against them for ethical violations of their teacher responsibilities but it would be a weak case that could never be won, not even in civil court.

Anonymous said...

11:32:00 AM - you nailed it.

The smug virtucrats that hold these kids to such a ridiculous standard are deceitful.

Look at how many bridal showers and birthdays organized by girlfriends have male strippers nowdays.

Michael said...

re: 10:33

Cash Michaels is interested in writing a book.

Anonymous said...

I read early in this case that the tradition was that the team went to a strip club during spring break when everyone else was gone and they were still on campus. As some of the team members were underage (and didn't have IDs), they brought the strippers to them.

Anonymous said...

Calling the party the 'proximate cause' of a false rape allegation is like saying me getting in my car is the 'proximate cause' of a drunk driver hitting me, or that a woman going to a party is the 'proximate cause' of her getting raped.

This kind of thinking is an illogical use of 'cause and effect' The proximate cause of the false allegation was that the stripper lied. A secondary proximate cause is that the stripper herself, was already a menance to society: drugged up, crazy as a loon and a criminal.

Clarencedarrow said...

To Cindy:

That's absolute rubbish. The thing that caused the fiasco was a substance abusing prostitute making false allegations. I'm tired of this so-called "feminist" nonsense trying to absolve CGM of any responsibility. In fact, if you want to carry your "logic" to the end, it's society's fault for enabling people like CGM to pursue her criminal activities without any repercussions. I don't approve of strippers, never have been involved in any situation with strippers but to blame it on the party is absolutely ludicrous. If sexual crimes are to be properly and legitimately prosecuted then those women who make false allegations must be exposed and prosecuted as well. CGM deserves not only jail time but should have heavy financial liens placed on her future earnings.

Anonymous said...

11:24 ...

Ranks higher for what?! Because students score over 1500 on SAT? A poor argument. If a school is selective it doesn't mean it is an Ivy, or even "good".

I'm selective with many things in life but it doesn't make me better than everyone else. I'm selective in my choice of women but that doesn't put me on par with a George Clooney. lol My employer is highly selective with whom we hire, yet we don't run the world.

You may be a Duke grad, which is great! It is a good school with a lot of potential and you should be proud of your college degree.

Anonymous said...

KC,
I hope its not too late to get these latest developments into your book, which I have already ordered. Love a good ending!

Anonymous said...

Cindy:

"Actually, the party itself would not have caused this catastrophe, it was hiring the strippers!"

Your comment is absurd. The mere act of hiring a "stripper" in no way connected with what happened.

What you had was a psychotic who happend to be a stripper. She could just as easily cried "rape" at a nightclub or another party with the same results (she has a documented history of doing just that).

The justice system is supposed to identify these folks and prevent them from doing harm to others. In this case, the system failed.

Ken
Dallas

Cindy said...

To 11:39

There is nothing smug about (correctly) connecting the dots. One can make a determination that if the strippers were never hired, this whole mess would not have occurred. Such a conclusion does not "blame" the players or judge their morality or common sense, only that their actions caused other events to occur.

Anonymous said...

"CGM deserves not only jail time but should have heavy financial liens placed on her future earnings."

would that be a gross percentage, or a simple fee-per-trick?

Anonymous said...

Cindy,

You are not making sense. The party did not make the stripper falsely accuse the boys. Hiring the stripper did not make the stripper falsely accuse the boys.

You are connecting dots that don't connect.

Do you also believe that if a woman attended a party and she is raped at the party that the 'proximate cause' of her rape is going to the party and not the act of the man who raped her?

Michael said...

re: Cindy

You are implying a causality with certainty. By your reasoning, Columbus was at fault for the false accusation.

Anonymous said...

Cindy, you are adopting the exact same thinking as all of those in years past who said women who were victims of rape got hurt because they were asking for it. If they had just stayed home and dressed more demurely, the thinking went, the rapist would not have targeted them.

Blaming the victim is always an ugly, ugly path to take and always wrong. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Duke IS a great school. That is if you define a great school as being in the US News TOP 10 rankings for the last 10 years. A good school would be UNC-CH. A great school would be Duke.

Cash was on Court TV the other night. Listening to him, you'd think he worked for the defense all the time. I almost barfed listening to his self righteous commendation of Mikey.

Kemp

GlenfromCT said...

Anon at 11:43am, people from Duke suffer inferiority complex. They so desperately want to be Ivy. It is a need to identify with an elite club. Too bad for them they are in the South (you too Vandy & Clemson!!) And we see what differentiates the South from the more educated regions.

But consider Stanford (i welcome the arguments) the best institution in the United States is inarguably not labeled a classic "Ivy".

Anonymous said...

"11:06. You don't understand slander and defamation law in this country if you think the Group of 88 or any media person is even going to be sued, let alone win."


What about the tort of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress instead of libel or slander?

Clarencedarrow said...

To Cindy @ 11:39

Let me get this straight, you're saying that it was inevitable that CGM would make the false allegations since the party was thrown in motion. Again, that is total and complete rubbish. you are blatantly stating that CGM has NO responsibility because she was predestined. Do you realize how completely stupid and over the top that argument is. It would be far more accurate to state that the reason the fiasco happened is because people like you have no common sense.

Anonymous said...

So, from Cindy's perspective - if I go to the convenience store, pause to look at some unsavory magazines on display at said establishment, and then get killed by a robber of this same store a few minutes later because of my dalliance - it's all my fault.

Nice - but anything to shift the narrative back to "this wouldn't have happened if the boys weren't such horrible people", I suppose.

Is that you, Wendy?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Cindy,
If I get into my car right now and drive down the road and a car runs a red light and crashes into me, am I to be blamed for causing the accident? If we "connect the dots" then certanily if I decided not to drive then the accident would not have happened. Saying that my actions "caused" the accident is absurd.

Cindy said...

Why must one consider it “blaming the players” if I say that without the strippers, no false rape charges? Does anyone think that those players haven’t thought or said among themselves “Gee, if only we didn’t hire those f*&#in’ strippers”? Do you not believe that David Evans or whoever actually transacted with the escort service does not regret his actions? Don’t you think they all wish they had not done that, hire the strippers? Of course they can not be blamed for the false accusations, but I doubt very much that any of the players or their parents wouldn’t mind taking Crystal or Kim Roberts out of the equation.

Anonymous said...

Lawyer Williamson made the point "first time anyone but Meeham has testified under oath." Nurse Levicy testifies she had two meeting with LE - ten months apart. The Bar did not challane that - Nifong's lawyers did not challlange her statement. A few bloggers want to claim she lied - obviously this is not true - as the statement attribituted to her are apparently not true. Most bloggers are leaving her alone now, but she is owed an apology. anngleta

kenb said...

First 11:25 - is that you, Mike?

Anonymous said...

Cindy,

The issue isn't even 'blaming the players' though that is what you are doing it is that the logic of blaming the actions of one person [false rape accusations] on the actions of other people [hiring strippers] doens't pass muster.

You may be one of those people who are just a victim blamer all around...some people blame Lana Clarkson for getting killed becuase she went to Phil Spector's house, some blamed Nicole Simpson for staying w/OJ for so long, many people blame rape victims for their actions prior to the rape. To take the analogy to its utmost degree, it is no different than blaming the 9/11 victims for being in the WTC that day, if they had been somewhere else, they would be alive and well. While true, it is a false analogy.

None of it is correct. The only person resposnible for a criminal actis the criminal. Nobody else.

Anonymous said...

Cindy's position, intentional or not, is becoming very similar to that of Shadee Malaklou. Michael Gaynor wrote:"Ms. Malaklou really is "thankful" that a prosecutor is misusing his power to punish the Duke Three for alleged gender and racial prejudice by prosecuting them on bogus rape, kidnapping and sexual assault charges. There really ARE people [like Malaklou]who would use the criminal justice system to punish sexism and or racism real or imagined, regardless of the facts and the law, to serve a supposedly "higher purpose"".

I repeat (from my 11.32am post), there are some who wished(and still do) to see some/any males punished for indulging in what they believe to be racist and sexist behaviour by having a party with black strippers. That these charges might be rape charges and carry life sentences matters not. Some, not all, feminists would have no problem with this scenario.

This is not a reactionary, soundbyte post on my part. People like Malaklou, Murphy Curtis et.al. genuinely appear not to be concerned with the facts. Fortunately via Google, these "opinions" are recorded for future posterity.

Fot those who are still hand-wringing over apparent under-age drinking, perhaps they could show the same level of concern for ALL under-age drinking. Not that which just happens on college campuses.

Michael said...

re: 12:08

Your reasoning is faulty and has been pointed out by many here through examples.

Perhaps an undergrad Introduction to Logic course would clear things up for you. Trying to simplify the explanation for you doesn't seem to be working.

Cindy said...

If someone were to catch, or has caught, a sexually transmitted disease from Crystal or Kim, how would you connect those dots? If you don’t bang the hooker, you don’t catch the clap. Does one try to collect from Crystal for the medical expenses? Would you hold Kim Roberts responsible? The lacrosse players were not engaging in something so serendipitous as “driving down the street and being struck by a random car”. They contacted an “escort service”, just a cover for women who will, if asked, engage in sex for cash. A seedy business anywhere, but, from all accounts, this one in Durham was no “Gold Club” or “Pure Platinum”.

Again, I never said they deserved what happened, only that if they had not hired the strippers, it would not have happened.

Anonymous said...

Jeez - the analogies from Cindy now include "banging the hooker". Could you be any more inappropriate given the case we're talking about?

I think you're now just enjoying this. No-one could possibly be so stupid. (Apologies if you are actually are!)

William Jockusch said...

Mr. Williamson gave a wonderful summary of the entire affair. He thoughtfully discussed the points of view of many people.

I disagree with only one of Mr. Williamson's findings. We know about all of this because the victimes Mr. Nifong chose were less vulnerable than average. If he had tried the same thing against more vulnerable victims, he might have gotten away with it.

Anonymous said...

'Though we are lawyers and a school administrator — we’re not psychologists — you have to ask yourself, “Why? Why did we get to the place that we got?”'

Answer: He got caught.

Anonymous said...

"The lacrosse players were not engaging in something so serendipitous as “driving down the street and being struck by a random car”. They contacted an “escort service”, just a cover for women who will, if asked, engage in sex for cash"

Again, the facade cracks. These guys must be PUNISHED!!! (for something/anything)

Anonymous said...

Cindy - We all indulge in this kind of magical thinking in our heads - if I'm in a car accident I think - "if only I hadn't had that second cup of coffee and left home 5 minutes earlier, I wouldn't have been at that fateful intersection at the moment of the accident."

But when you are thinking clearly and rationally you realize that it's not Folger's fault. You ain't thinking very clearly about this. You seem to be "stuck on stupid" with the "whatever they did is bad enough" crowd. Nifong held on way too long, calling Mangum the "victim" even as he himself was on trial. At some point you have to cut your losses - the first rule of holes is to stop digging. If Nifong had displayed some kind of self-awareness - "I've been taken in by a lying drug addicted stripper. I was fooled. In the future I'll think twice before I accept the word of the scum of society." then maybe he could have gotten away with a 5 year suspension instead of lifetime disbarment. So stop digging before you and your friends end up in the same kind of jam as Nifong. At the beginning of this case, the boys received all kinds of threats that were (thank God) just hot air - dead man walking, etc. Even at the hearing, that woman got expelled for running her mouth. The boys and their families OTOH maintained their dignity at all times, but one of the mothers said something to the effect of "you have messed with the wrong people and you'll live to regret this." She was not threatening - she was just stating a fact, and the events have borne her words out. So take heed - the bandwagon has crashed and burned. It has turned to ashes. And yet you are so blind that you're still trying to ride it. Get off before the flames lick you too.

Anonymous said...

I forgot about the "Thankful Nifong is doing the right thing." This is what my mother called "Stewing in your own juices." Could Shadee be more discredited - like the Duffer, Gail, AG Rud, the tenured radical and the rest. I don't forgive Geraldo, Guilfoil, Gooslee or the rest of the MSM dopes. Thanks Dan and Tucker for helping the cause.

Anonymous said...

Cindy appears to be fully bereft of any logic.

I guess according to her if a stripper IS raped, its her fault for being a stripper or going to the party....nice.

Whoever said blaming the victims is wrong, always, every time got it right.

lm said...

Blaming the boys for hiring the strippers IS blaming the victim. Is there anyone left who isn't clear on who exactly the victims are in this case?
Sounds like someone, in the guise of trying to make
others look as though they would paint REAL rape and murder victims as responsible for their own murders and rapes, is still working the last thread of the "whatever they did was bad enough" condemnation. If that person thinks hiring a stripper is in the same category as BEING a stripper, he or she should ask themselves which one they would want to hire - a member of the lacrosse team or the poster child of the Duke AA and Women's Studies departments - Crystal.

Michael said...

re: 12:24

You are resorting to tortured reasoning.

In your hypothetical, it would have resulted in an extra two hours of testimony from Meehan resulting in Williamson calling out to Starbucks for extra-large coffee for the whole courtroom.

Michael said...

re: 12:32

You mean you can't sue Juan Valdez?

This person seems like a high-school kid with too many PC teachers.

fmfnavydoc said...

Michael @ 1239 - I'd sue both Juan and the mule - there's something about that mule that I don't like... ;-)

Greg Jefferies brought this up yesterday - is the state AG for the DOJ going to look at the actions of the other members of the Durham DA's office? I would find it hard to believe that nobody else in that office didn't know what Nifong was doing.

Nifong's replacement - should an outsider be brought in to take over, or will someone in the office or Nifong's opponent in the election be selected to replace him?

Any word if the Duke Board of Trustees will be looking into the University's actions during the last 15 months?

KC - Bravo Zulu (good job) on your work on this blog and you efforts over the last week...this is, as Winston Churchill once said, "is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning".

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

My view and comments:

1. Nifong should be either sanctoned by the judge or legally prosecuted. He should in my view spend at least a short time behind bars.

2. Others that need investigating for criminal behavior include:

A. Gottlieb for his long after the fact report on his interview with Mangum that changed the descriptions to match particularly Finnerty and for witness intimidation of the cabbie.

B. Wilson for suborning perjury from Mangum in December and again witness intimidation.

If either was ordered to do what they did by and wants to turn on Nifong, Nifong can do more time and maybe they can retire.

3. Although we can not be completely sure, no one else, including Himan and Levicy, appears to have done anything of a criminal nature. Of course a full honest investigation should be open minded and look into any the evidence takes them to, but it should check on the specific actions I mentioned of the two specific individuals, Gottlieb and Wilson.

4. Possible tort actions go against Duhram, Durham County, NC, Duke, Mangum and individuals that worked for the institutions named. The individuals that worked for them include Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson, Brodhead, the Duke Dean of students, and individual faculty members. What this boils down to is what duty of care did they owe the lacrosse team members NOT just the three who were ultimately charged. Nifong slandered them all, there is much low hanging fruit for a medium sized town with two law schools, another 7 miles away, and thus a surplus of attorneys.

5. The TRADITION among lacrosse teams were to go to a strip club during spring break. The captains in 2006 reportedly decided because so many of the team were underage and thus used fake IDs to attend this traditional function in the past, it would be better, more legal to have a private party and hire a couple of strippers. Alas is was more legal, but you know how it turned out.

6. Kemp, academics don't consider the US News ranking very useful. Would you consider a US News or any other media ranking of the top attorneys in the US very seriously or would you look for alternative measures? In academia or at least among economists, we like rankings based more on scholarly work or some other more objective measure not US News surveys.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

My view and comments:

1. Nifong should be either sanctoned by the judge or legally prosecuted. He should in my view spend at least a short time behind bars.

2. Others that need investigating for criminal behavior include:

A. Gottlieb for his long after the fact report on his interview with Mangum that changed the descriptions to match particularly Finnerty and for witness intimidation of the cabbie.

B. Wilson for suborning perjury from Mangum in December and again witness intimidation.

If either was ordered to do what they did by and wants to turn on Nifong, Nifong can do more time and maybe they can retire.

3. Although we can not be completely sure, no one else, including Himan and Levicy, appears to have done anything of a criminal nature. Of course a full honest investigation should be open minded and look into any the evidence takes them to, but it should check on the specific actions I mentioned of the two specific individuals, Gottlieb and Wilson.

4. Possible tort actions go against Duhram, Durham County, NC, Duke, Mangum and individuals that worked for the institutions named. The individuals that worked for them include Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson, Brodhead, the Duke Dean of students, and individual faculty members. What this boils down to is what duty of care did they owe the lacrosse team members NOT just the three who were ultimately charged. Nifong slandered them all, there is much low hanging fruit for a medium sized town with two law schools, another 7 miles away, and thus a surplus of attorneys.

5. The TRADITION among lacrosse teams were to go to a strip club during spring break. The captains in 2006 reportedly decided because so many of the team were underage and thus used fake IDs to attend this traditional function in the past, it would be better, more legal to have a private party and hire a couple of strippers. Alas is was more legal, but you know how it turned out.

6. Kemp, academics don't consider the US News ranking very useful. Would you consider a US News or any other media ranking of the top attorneys in the US very seriously or would you look for alternative measures? In academia or at least among economists, we like rankings based more on scholarly work or some other more objective measure not US News surveys.

Anonymous said...

Hey Cindy,

Which came first...the chicken or the egg?

Anonymous said...

The G88 certainly will be held liable. It is not a requirement that an illegal act be committed to win damages.

Legal Eagle said...

Based on the available records, Mr. Nifong appears to be the first “active prosecutor” to ever be disbarred in and by the state of North Carolina. More, the effort required the unprecedented actions of an attorney general, a state bar, and the countless hours of private attorneys and concerned citizens. Also the considerable efforts of KC Johnson (and others), who initially became alarmed by the rush to judgment by members of his profession – professors who are well paid to “think,” not simply react.

The result of the Bar proceeding represents a seminal event in the annals of jurisprudence, not because the conduct of a prosecutor was so egregious, but because there was simply no way to hide the truth in the new age of the Internet.

Even in his closing statement, Williamson alluded to previous actions against prosecutors which produced very different results. In a very real sense, this was his chance to right his panel’s ship, the ship created to sail in circles… on a sea of decimal-citations.

Now it’s up the Judge Smith - who came only on the 6th month and 11th hour to raise concerns - to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. Nifong.

Anonymous said...

1:11

I recently sent the following email to Grant Farred, Karla Holloway and Wahneema Lubiano on my company's email address:

Subject: Karla Holloway gets me horny [that way I know they'll open it--LOL]

That's the good news; the bad news is that, thanks to the listening statement, Caucasians are fast becoming fed up with financially supporting a "study" that hosts no Tier 1 geniuses.

Yours,

James F. Clyne

Anonymous said...

1:00

Nifong should spend "a short time" in prison. Hey, Billy Bob, are you a shyster?

A man who almost successfully railroaded 3 innocents for 30 years to get elected should do Martha Stewart time?

This guy should do the same amount of time that the young men would have done had that asshole had his way with them--30 big ones.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Duke is not a great school, especially given its cost. Duke suffers from a lack of top-notch professors.

Best school for the $ in US?

Easy:

University of California, Berkeley

P. Rich said...

Late arriving, I feel nevertheless compelled to comment re Cindy's "logic."

Get a dictionary. Look up:

1. subsequent
2. consequent

From the first it is not valid to infer the second, a fundamental point of logic many in politics, the media and elsewhere - especially on the radical Left - would benefit from learning.

/end

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: Polanski

If you had read through my entire post, you would have a hint as to what I do. But I guess that was too much to expect.

As for Nifong, no I dont want to pay for his long term care. Let him take care of himself. He is no longer a prosecutor, that means HE CAN NOT DO IT AGAIN. I only want him jailed a short time as a shot across the bow of other prosecutors.

Mangum is a different matter. She can do it again. She has done this twice maybe three times if that claim that her child was molested was false. She is a danger to the public. If she is too mentally ill to have mens rea, then lock in a mental institution her up as the very real danger to society she is.

Bella said...

Berkeley?? Hahahaha. You can't honestly tell me that, if a similar situation had occurred at Berkeley, the reaction would not have been similar, if not the same or worse.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: Cindy

The 2006 lacrosse team is as responsible for their being falsely accused as they would be if they had scrubbed the strip club event, held an afternoon volleyball competition including a bit of underaged drinking and a drunk or high Crystal Mangum delivering a pizza they ordered drove her car into a group of them playing volley and injured or killed three of them.

My senario has all the elements of the party:

1. alternative entertainment to going to a strip club.

2. possible underaged drinking.

3. hiring Mangum to come to the house for something legal in Durham.

4. Mangum out of control.

5. lacrosse players injured, maybe permanently by Mangum.

We likely would not have had the press libel and Nifong slander after the event, but that has all the elements of the party. The guilty person in my example in real life is Mangum and Mangum alone.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Duke a state school? I think so...it should be considered among the best values in the U.S. right up there with UNC, U S. Carolina, UTexas, UVA, and most Big-10 conference state schools.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of discussion on who/what should or could also be held responsible for their actions.

What about the Escort Service?
- Are these places licensed?

Do my hairdresser, restaurants and bars, even the manicurist have more State oversight (and common sense) than this Escort Service?!

CGM apparently has a history of mental health problems, including prior false accusations. Can the Escort Service be liable for inadequate supervision of their employee, thus endangering the consumer public?

If they can be held liable, who has standing:

1. The Duke LAX player(s) who made the reservation, and then did not receive the service as advertised?

2. CGM's partner. She was put in a bad situation by the Escort Service expecting her to perform with CGM that night.

3. The State of NC for business license violations and/or employee-employer regulations? Possibly also the City of Durham.

X. Other WHO and WHY could have standing against the Escort Service?

Bella said...

And Cindy...although it's been argued quite well in the proceeding comments, I have to speak to your comments. While I can in some respect kind of understand where you are coming from, I do not agree with what you are saying. Although you say you aren't blaming the lacrosse players, that is exactly what you are doing by making comments like "if they hadn't hired the strippers, none of this would have happened". That places blame solely on those boys and takes it entirely away from CGM, who is the perpetrator in this whole fiasco. If not for her false claims, none of this would have happened. It is the false claims of rape, not the act of hiring strippers, that is the regrettable situation in this case. And responsibility for those wholly untrue claims lies solely with CGM.

Enoch said...

It's time to move forward. Nifong has been disbarred. The families will make their own decisions about whether to pursue further legal actions against Nifong, DPD and Duke itself. However, life does go on. The falsely accused have lives to lead and things to accomplish. Duke will continue as a major university. Durham must provide for its citizens more fairly than in the past.
What we need to decide is the basis for moving forward. What are the prerequisites to being able to move past the nightmare of the past year. Let me suggest.
1. People involved in the hoax, its cover up and it's use for political purposes must acknowledge that they were wrong. Without this first clear step, moving ahead means nothing because nothing will have been learned. This means DPD, the Herald Sun, the writers at the N&O, Broadhead and the professors at Duke.
2. People who did damage to the three falsely accused should apologize. The apology should be at least as public as the original offense. If that means a front page article or a full page ad in the Chronicle,so be it. The apology should be unqualified. No Nifongesqe half way apologies.
3. The communities involved must take corrective action to be sure that there can be no repeat of the hoax and its aftermath. Law change, people leave their jobs, discipline is enforced.
With these three steps in place the Durham and Duke communities can move forward.
Are you listening Durham? How about Duke? Media? This is the only reasonable basis for "moving forward". Otherwise, we are just sweeping bad behavior under the rug and hoping that the public will forget. The Bar has taken the first step. How about the rest of the institutions involved?
Those of you who followed the last year should have clear criteria for what is needed to move ahead. Don't let the leaders off the hook with less than a full and complete accounting.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Duke is .. so can they sue both the state of NC and a state supported school at the same time?

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school? It's in a state. Are you currently teaching there? Part of a group perhaps? Or just a wee troll?

Anonymous said...

>Best school for the $ in US?

Easy:

University of California, Berkeley<


The best school for the dollar is Cooper Union, a top-notched school that is tuition free and highly competitive.

Berkeley is a bargain only for Californian residents. Out-of-state students pay a heftier fee, and the scholarships are meager.

If you consider the generous need-based scholarships offered by the richly endowed Ivy League schools, I would rank the best bargains as Princeton, Yale, and Harvard, in that order. These three schools are on-par academically, with Princeton gaining a slight edge recently (because of a windfall of endowments to pay for better facilities and endowed professorships.) It is the scholarships and endowment/student ratio that make the difference. To put it in perspective, the combined endowment of these three schools is more than half of the recently passed war funding bill.

Duke is competing in a far less competitive league.

Anonymous said...

2:54

Re Duke's endowment:

You might want to take a gander at this...

http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf

Anonymous said...

But you are missing the most important stat - Marxists as a percentage of total faculty. Which school wins that race?

Anonymous said...

12:05
Cash was a true believer. That Ho was not his friend and the Fong done wronged all the Blacks in Durham county.

JLS,
Your point is well taken, but MOST people, including Univ admin's take the US News Ranking VERY seriously. Brown, Cornell and other second trier Ivys have worked their asses off to get a higher ranking.

I am also very prejudiced, having just finished spending $160K on my Son's degree. I'd like to think it will be the best damn school in America when Brodhead leaves!!

Kemp

Anonymous said...

I've come to the conclusion that 90% of the 'black community' are delusion, I just read an article by some nutty African American Studies professor claiming that the Greeks got their ideas from Egypt,which was black...

Hmm, I'm thinking the Egyptians were semetic not negroid and that Black Egypt is a fantasy.

I'm also thinking it would be pretty bizarre for a culture based on reason and logic to owe any debt to African culture, which with very, very few exceptions was tribal, anamistic bearing no resemblance on any level to Greek culture.

You have to wonder how someone like that gets a job let alone any academic credibility.

Anonymous said...

cindy - got your number. I don't approve of what happened to those kids, but....

Enough said.

Anonymous said...

I have heard that same "Cindy" line of reasoning around Durham. From leftist prudes. Anti-religious Puritans. Carry Nation nanny-state meddlers. I cannot wait until they take over - shouldn't be long now, eh?

Oh the horror! Underage drinking! For shame - they really should do 30 years for that, conveniently forgetting their own misspent youths.

So "Cindy", ever hoist a cold one before you were 21? Ever get together with your gal pals and attend a naughty party? Feel free to turn yourself in at the nearest reeducation center.

Anonymous said...

Virtucrats like Cindy have no past. Their position is always one of rigid moral rightousness. Whatever they did in their youth, doesn't count.

It's why they ae so dangerous.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

I agree with Cindy.

Look at it the other way. Suppose CGM's accusations were true (which I never believed from the beginning.) The fact that she was a stripper would not have excused her rape, but one could reasonably say that mimicking sex acts in front of a lot of drunk 20-yr-old men with no one to protect her was pretty dumb. I think there are lots of circumstances in which one party is criminal and the other is stupid - see Mike Tyson.

I am thrilled and ecstatic that these kids have been exonerated of their rape charges, and that Nifong has had this long-overdue smackdown. I still, were I the parent of any of these boys, would be irritated at them for being at a party with this vulgar and immoral stuff going on. Extremely disappointed at their lack of sense.

Anonymous said...

Laura,

Well done - lump a convicted rapist into your excuse of false prosecution.

And thank you for illustrating your rigid Cindyism. I for one welcome our new morally superior overlords.

Now get back to raising money for democrat oppressors.

Bella said...

Lack of sense doesn't mean they caused it. CGM is to blame here...why is that hard to understand? Whether or not you approve of hiring strippers (which I don't), CGM started this fiasco (with much help along the way). You may not approve of the party but to say that the boys could have prevented this puts some of the responsibility on them. And none of them are responsible for the false claims of a nutty stripper.

Anonymous said...

Laura,
And how would you feel were you Nifong's mother? Or CGM's mother?
What about any of the female lacrosse team's mothers after they had male strippers at their party? Would you be equally irritated at their vulgar, immoral and in the case of Nifong and CGM, illegal behaviour?

Like I say, too many women who can't quite articulate why they are uncomfortable that these boys "got off", but just know that they're unhappy with it.

Let's be honest, you wouldn't be averse to a wee bit of slapdown for these boys too as well as Nifong, eh?

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I'm thinking the Egyptians were semetic not negroid and that Black Egypt is a fantasy.

Black Egypt as the source of Greek philosophy and culture is a fantasy.

So is thinking that Egypt was semitic. (do learn to spell it correctly)

Anonymous said...

Jun 17, 2007 4:43:00 PM wrote:

>I still, were I the parent of any of these boys, would be irritated at them for being at a party with this vulgar and immoral stuff going on.<

Immoral? Isn't hiring strippers legal in Durham county? If hiring strippers is an immoral practice by the standard of that community, why does it not outlaw the practice, and only after the party did it condemned the suppposed immorality of these students? Further, if the students are so immoral in hiring the strippers, what does that make the strippers themselves, who are the only party to have financially profited from the transaction?

Anonymous said...

This may have already been covered as I haven't had time to read all the comments today. If so, I apologize in advance. Of the criminal charges that Nifong may be facing, are any of those a felony? If so, if convicted of a felony, would that prevent him from ever having another license to practice law in NC or in any state for that matter?

Anonymous said...

Plenty of disbarred convicted felons have gone on to great careers, mainly as democrat congressmen.

Anonymous said...

5:03

It is generally considerd rude to correct another poster's spelling as a way to make yourself appear smarter, but thanks for the pointer on 'semitic.

Anonymous said...

re: 11:42 -- "Cash Michaels is interested in writing a book."

Crayons sold separately. ;)

Anonymous said...

Ah - I have done that - complained about spelling corrections and included another typo. Typos happen. The anonymous comment world is indeed a harsh place. Pull on your big boy pants if you are going to play.

Anonymous said...

Hey Cindy and Laura,

Remember Billy Clinton and his sexual indesgressions with Ms. Lewinsky? Had he not gone down that path then the mean old Republicans would never have had their impeachment opportunity.

Oh,I almost forgot. Ms Lewinsky was a campaign donor and a government employee. Ms. Mangum was self employed - an independent contractor - a Capitalist.

Oh well. Caveat Emptor

Anonymous said...

OK, to take Cindy, and now Laura's, argument back a step further -

If CGM hadn't decided to be a stripper (or worse?), then she never would have been at the party, and none of this would have happened. So, in fact, it is her fault after all.

Is anyone else having issues with being lectured to about "morality" when said lectureres are willing to give a pass to a woman with 5+ DNA samples in/on her person?

Anonymous said...

5:35

With all due respect, it's all George Bush's fault.

Vitruvius said...

It has come to my attention that some people here have postulated that the act of hiring an exotic dancer (and if you don't like that, tell it to Cleopatra) is the cause of this abrogation of justice now just starting to be corrected.

Nonsense. If the agency had sent a different dancer, this would not have happened. Ergo, it is not the hiring of the dancer that is causative, it is the dancer that arrived, and then the packs of lieing scum who jumped on her (admittedly slippery) bandwagon.

Anonymous said...

Ewww - that's a mental image I didn't want - Crystal's slippery bandwagon! LOL!

Anonymous said...

5:55

Exactly, Mangum was a ticking time bomb, she'd already made one or two false allegations of rape, it could have happened anywhere any time, she could have accused a customer of rape, accused a cop who arrested her for being drunk/on drugs of rape..

SHE is the reason for this tragedy, she is the causative agent.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can become so wedding to ideas that just don't make sense, all the time arguing about how 'logical' their position is...

Its scary really.

Anonymous said...

You have to admit, however, that she knew her audience. She knew the police, knew Nifong, and knew the Duke students were "rich". She played them like a banjo. Nifster wasn't the sharpest cutlery, however, and ran into real (tm) lawyers who handed him his hat.

Anonymous said...

I have a hard time as seeing her as a truly sinister figure. She's heavily medicated for her mental problems, she has a substance abuse problem of some kind, she's working as a stripper and allegedly a prostitute, she has two kids, no baby daddies in sight, a criminal record and she is 27.

I'm sure she was schooled in the idea of whitey keeping her down and she saw a chance to get out of trouble by blaming rich white kids...

But, the ultimate villain is Mike Nifong, a decent prosecutor would never even have indicted the boys, let alone continued with the charade for almost a year. He would have said, 'hey, your stories are inconsistent, your record is going to be a big problem w/a jury, and I can't go forward w/this case..'

She would have gone home and gone on before, probably at some time in the future hallucinating a 3rd, or even 4th 3 man rape and beating.

Anonymous said...

How does one explain the 5 DNA samples in her vagina and rectum, with possibly 7 or 8 others on her person or clothing, without dropping the "alledgedly" from prostitute? I don't know what your personal life is like, but most folks tend to avoid becoming a petri dish of genetic material unless they are earning money in the process.

Anonymous said...

Oh I do think she was a prostitute, but strictly speaking, it hasn't been proven, there is the circumstantial evidence of the male DNA she didn't admit to, her work as an 'escort' and there is testimonial evidence of her strip club colleagues saying she stripped to get her prostitution clients...but nothing has been proven and our gal hasn't been charged with prostitution and probably never will be though any man that would come within 50 feet of her is nuts.

Anonymous said...

How could she be charged by her customers? Will the DPD arrest her? Will Nife prosecute her? She has a long history in this city and has played the "gang rape" card before.

As I have written here before, if Nifong was so certain that a rape was committed, why did he not track down the "real" rapists? Perhaps for the same reason that OJ is still looking for the "real" killers. Nifey might have gotten into real trouble by doing that - do not upset the corrupt status quo. Some of those players are mean and well armed.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Remember Billy Clinton and his sexual indesgressions with Ms. Lewinsky? Had he not gone down that path then the mean old Republicans would never have had their impeachment opportunity."

Absolutely.

If my 20-yr-old daughter attended a party with drinking and male strippers I would be angry and disappointed. I think CGM ought to be prosecuted for making a false accusation. I will compare her to Mike Tyson in that I think both performed criminal acts for which they ought to pay. I'll compare the LAX 3 with Desiree Washington, for being stupid enough to put themselves in a vulnerable position with total strangers. Glad they are exonerated. Hope they straighten up.

Anonymous said...

Tell me, Laura, if your 20 year old daughter attended a party with drinking and male strippers and one of the strippers raped her, would you tell her to 'straighten up' and explain to her that if only she hadn't gone to the party she wouldn't have been raped, and would you go on to remind her how stupid she was to make herself vulnerable?

Hope not.

Anonymous said...

Laura,

That clarification helps. We agree that putting oneself in a position to be charged with a crime is a stupid thing. Unfortunately, being the victim of a crime is a bit harder to avoid, especially here in Durham.

Ms. Mangum should be treated if she is truly the mental basket case that it is said she is, and she should not be raising her children or producing more until she is better. I think she should at a minimum, be charged with making a false report. But alas, that is not up to me, and Roy Cooper, who will no doubt need the black vote in the future, is responsible for that call, and he will not press charges against her. Once again, he knows his audience, even tho', as a democrat, he is assured of 90% of the black vote.

Speaking for myself, I made some bad decisions as a youth, fortunately nothing ever turned out badly, never got arrested, but as you say, it does require that one straighten up. I did, and now only fear malicious prosecution by the next rogue prosecutor that rules Durham.

Neal said...

LOL!

Thanks, Laura - yet another variation on "yes they were innocent, BUT.........".

It must be nice to have such moral clarity, such crystal clear vision into the hearts and souls of your fellow man to be able to pronounce that they need to "straighten-up" because their actions don't meet with your approval. They did nothing illegal, were completely exonerated, but their character and moral core is not up to your lofty standards of perfection.

Has your 20 year old daughter had sex yet? If so, is she married? Has she ever had a drink, perhaps while engaging in said activity? If she's had sex out of wedlock or engaged in underage drinking, are we to conclude that she needs to straighten up while being wildly condemned for her moral failings?

To see people attempt to continue to smear 3 INNOCENT people so they can continue to hide behind some facade of political correctness and "morality" is funny at best, disgusting at worst.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Point out to me the wild condemnation.

Anonymous said...

Laura,

Must be nice to have a perfect daughter. Please share with all of us how you were able to rear perfection.

Michael said...

re: Laura

[Suppose CGM's accusations were true]

Why? The stats say that it doesn't happen.

[....in front of a lot of drunk 20-yr-old men....]

Did you see the picture of those "drunk" men?

[I still, were I the parent of any of these boys, would be irritated at them for being at a party with this vulgar and immoral stuff going on. Extremely disappointed at their lack of sense.]

How many college aged kids do you have?

Immoral? What is your basis for that claim?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

In my universe, for women to strip down and simulate sex acts in front of men is immoral. For men to engage them to do it is immoral. Maybe it isn't in yours. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

My, my. The old provincial self-righteous and tedious bitches are coming out of the woodwork today.

They need to choke on their advice and holier-than-thou kibitzing. The kind of stunted and rigid kids they talk about rearing are usually the type who end up like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy or Andrew Cunanan. Not well-rounded or grounded at all, and often have kept everything inside due to over-protective parents or parents who are clueless.

Get a grip. I haven't seen better families in one place EVER than the Seligmanns, the Finnertys, and the Evans.

No matter the socio-economic level, you always have a family--or many of them--who have gone through a divorce or have some other pathologies and dysfunction which would not have provided the strong support that we all witnessed with respect to these three families.

If we have seen anything, we've seen that Mangum picked an unusually great group of people to falsely accuse.

Rarely do you see young men as bright and as poised as these three.....which only underscores the hideousness of what was allowed to occur.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Laura,

I see, so if you engage in one
'immoral' act then if you are the victim of an immoral and ILLEGAL act, you bear some responsibility, that it?

You are a nice reminder why I so dislike the religious right and there intolerant, judgemental attitude.

Neal said...

"In my universe, for women to strip down and simulate sex acts in front of men is immoral. For men to engage them to do it is immoral. Maybe it isn't in yours. Whatever."

And there we have it - you feel it to be wrong, therefore it must be wrong. In my universe it is wrong to be judgemental and hypocritical. Maybe it isn't in yours. Whatever.

Michael said...

re: Laura

[In my universe, for women to strip down and simulate sex acts in front of men is immoral. For men to engage them to do it is immoral. Maybe it isn't in yours. Whatever.]

Why? Morality has to have a baseline or else it is totally subjective. And then your opinion if immoral is really useless.

Michael said...

re: 7:57

She hasn't even resorted to a religious defense yet. So it is unclear as to why she takes her position. But without a basis for why she considers it immoral, then we will have to consider her point of view subjective and worth no more than any other point of view.

If one wants to make an argument on immorality. Then one is obligated to define what they consider immoral and why.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Neal and Michael: I also believe it was immoral for CGM to lie, and continue to lie, about what happened at that wretched party. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Michael said...

[Neal and Michael: I also believe it was immoral for CGM to lie, and continue to lie, about what happened at that wretched party. Do you agree or disagree? Why?]

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Anonymous said...

5:11: you don't need to worry about Mike Nifong being able to get his law license back in N.C. That ain't gonna happen. You also don't need to worry about him practicing law in any other state. I promise you, every Bar Association in the U.S. will recognize the name "Nifong" on an application. Even if they somehow missed it, any lawyer applying for licensure in a state has to submit a detailed biography, along with "Certificates of Good Standing" from any other state(s) in which they have been licensed. For obvious reasons, Mikey would not be able to obtain such a certificate.

Neal said...

Oh, I agree that it was wrong for her to lie. But it has nothing to do with any sense of morality, or lack thereof, that I might have. It was wrong for her to lie because giving false testimony to the police is a crime. Not immoral, illegal. Whether or not there is a moral aspect to it is immaterial. As has been pointed out - morality is frequently in the eye of the beholder, and should have no place in the objective evaluation of guilt or innocence.

It makes no difference that you believe CGM is/was immoral. What is important is that it was illegal. Your insistance that "the players may be innocent, BUT" denigrates the entire process, because you put the actions of CGM and the LAX players on equal footing - blaming the victim as has been pointed out.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Well, no, I didn't. I actually stated that I am extremely gratified that the LAX players have been cleared, and that I think CGM ought to be prosecuted. If you think that amounts to "equal footing" then you need to think a little more. I also suggest that the next time you use the word "judgemental" you might look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

The definition of morals on its own is in the eye of the beholder--of course there are community standards, and in this case, Durham does not feel they(escort services) are immoral if they are allowed to be in business there. Otherwise, people could be accused of being immoral because they are unwed mothers, gay, drink, smoke, divrced, etc.and not considered victims if they are hurt or attacked--because, after all, they are immoral! I also notice that as long as most people thought the 3 guys were "guilty", she was refered to as an exotic dancer. No one wanted to make her look bad. Now that the truth is out, there's an effort to deflect she is a liar, by blaming them for hiring her and being immoral.

I guess if all the mothers had not had their boys, none of this would have happened--or the if the boys all had had bad grades and been high school drop-outs they could have avoided attending Duke.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Williamson talks about factors that contributed to the system "righting itself". Jeez. The only thing that saved these guys was having parents who were in a position to buy them justice. Before we cumbaya - understand that if these were three middle class white guys from a state college, they'd be doing 30 years in rison. Nifong is evil. Just like those banal Nazi clerks who murdered millions of people. Comprende? No pass. No mitigating statements allowed. This black woman....mental illness? Spare the details. She's a whore and a hustler. Her course of action was a premeditated ploy for money. To think any different demonstrates pathetic weakness. America better snap out of it. 90% of black people in this country would love to see these 3 guys rotting in prison - right now. Regardless of innocence. People need to quit deluding themselves thinking that someday, with enough AA, blacks and whites will live together in harmony. This espisode, much like the OJ Simpson trial, Katrina points to the contrary. There is racial hate seething beneath the surface. And there are plenty of white and black people willing to stoke it. Look no further than those 88 reprobates.

Neal said...

LOL!

I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with letting those who read these comments decide which of us is being judgemental. I suspect they'll find it is the person who fells the LAX need to be "straightened out" because they do not conform to a certain level of morality.

That's OK, though - keep telling yourself that it's nice that those boys didn't got to jail BUT...... if it makes you feel superior.

Michael said...

re: 12:44

Maybe the system righted itself but it sure wasn't pleasant for the people that it righted itself on.

If you haven't seen the interviews after the trial, I recommend viewing them as it was only two threads as to how they avoided a trial. I do think that the blogs helped one of the threads along.

As far as being judgemental goes, we're all judgemental. But we have to ask ourselves everyday is our judgement reasonable. And what yardstick do we base our judgement on. And do we really understand that yardstick? If your yardstick is vague, then your judgement will be vague and subjective and you'll just make it up as you go. And that's where racism, classism and sexism can wander in and foul our judgement.

Seems like there was a lot of that in Durham the last 1.25 years.

Anonymous said...

The vitriol directed at Nifong and others will shift the public sentiment. You people have gone way overboard, and it will soon turn on you and against you. Mark my words.

Anonymous said...

All of you who want to keep your kids out of Duke are doing the school a huge favor. It will make Duke a much better school when the likes of you disappear. That was the problem with the partying laxers--no boundaries about how to entertain themselves. Ever heard of he who troubleth his own house will inherit the wind?
They brought it on themselves.
Just desserts, all y'all.

Michael said...

re: 9:42

[All of you who want to keep your kids out of Duke are doing the school a huge favor. It will make Duke a much better school when the likes of you disappear.]

Duke runs on the money of the northeast. Duke cannot afford to treat
that money poorly. It's a maxim of trading and investing. Money will
flow to where it is treated well.

[That was the problem with the partying laxers--no boundaries about how
to entertain themselves.]

I think that a little thought should show you that there were
boundaries.

[Ever heard of he who troubleth his own house will inherit the wind?]

Pro 11:29 He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool [shall be] servant to the wise of heart.

Barnes:

He that troubleth ... - The temper, nigardly and worrying, which leads a man to make those about him miserable, and proves but bad economy in the end.

Clarke:

Shalt inherit the wind - He who dissipates his property by riotous living, shall be as unsatisfied as he who attempts to feed upon air.

[I don't see the lacrosse team in the riotous living category. If you want to tell me that they were riotous in that party based on the picture, then you've got a pretty odd conception of riotous living.

Gill:

His family, his wife, and children, and servants; by being bitter to the one, and by provoking the others to wrath, and continually giving out menacing words to the rest; or through idleness, not providing for his family; or through an over worldly spirit, pushing on business, and hurrying it on beyond measure; or through a niggardly and avaricious temper, withholding meat and drink, and clothes convenient for them; see Pro_15:27; or through profuseness and prodigality. Such an one

JFB:

troubleth--as Pro_15:27 explains, by greediness for gain (compare Pro_11:17).

[They brought it on themselves. Just desserts, all y'all.]

As Cooper and Williamson said, they are innocent.

As to bringing it on themselves, you have the same logic problems that
the other two ladies demonstated.

Michael said...

re: 9:38

[The vitriol directed at Nifong and others will shift the public sentiment. You people have gone way overboard, and it will soon turn on you and against you. Mark my words.]

Public sentiment was wrong for a long time. Now it is shifting the other way. Why would you want public sentiment to shift back to the obnoxious lie when it was wrong? Unless you liked the lie.

Anonymous said...

"They brought it on themselves. Just desserts, all y'all" and "The vitriol directed at Nifong and others will shift the public sentiment. You people have gone way overboard, and it will soon turn on you and against you. Mark my words."

I guess that shows what some of us suspect - there are a few females on here who wanted the prosecution to proceed, sans evidence, just to punish these men/all men/men in general.

I suppose from my point of view, one of the best things that will come out of this is the serious hit to credibility that US campus feminists and Womens Studies courses in general have taken over this whole affair. It could be 10-20 years before people even start to forget this case.

When you have the "pot bangers" and the "Group of 88", who prior to this case were ostensibly serious/credible students and professors revealed as dogma driven zealots, who would put "gender justice" ahead of legal justuice, you have a microcosm of American campus gender politics.

The question that the zealots on here who are still blaming these 3 guys should ask is this: How long until anything we ever say again as students or WS professors is taken seriously? How devastated are all the women over the years who fought for rights/equality to see people like you turn feminism into a gender supremacy camapaign, and by default, ridiculous? How much damage have we done to anyone who is ever genuinely raped/assaulted on campus in the future? What are my job prospects when I reveal that I attended WS classes at Duke?

I guess at parties/get togethers forever more there are going to be people like you who blurt out anytime the Duke case is discussed "Well, y'know, something happened and you reap what you sow etc etc..". At that point, people will nod uncomfortably, slink away and then behind your back make a "loony" sign at their heads while nodding in your direction.

Finally, I suppose this case will reclaim a bit of US college campus life for the normal, non-hate filled (primarily) men and women. The hit that WS courses, professors and campus feminists have taken over this case will hopefully put them back in their hate-filled boxes for a while. And when they re-emerge, there is going to be a whole lot less tolerance of their excesses....

Michael said...

re: 1:34

I had a look at Laura's blog and her concerns seem more religious based then WS-based.

I'm quite happy to debate those with religious arguments against the lacrosse players and the party. Many use vague religious arguments for or against something where investigation indicates that there is no basis for the argument.

On the other hand, those with non-religious arguments generally decline to provide a moral position to put forth a morality-based argument which is house of cards.

I submit that it is the WS and feminists that have gone overboard on the legal side and that they are seeing the backlash. Perhaps they will advocate a reasonable position at some point where the scales of justice are balanced. Any kind of imbalance seems to open up opportunities for arbitrage (hoaxes); similar to trading the financial markets.

dkelder said...

Do not confuse judgmental with ‘Thou shall not judge.” The meaning of the quote from the Christian Bible is that we should not judge anyone’s righteousness in the eye of God. We are to judge men by men’s rules. Therefore it is not only allowed to be judgmental but is required by the Christian faith and by common sense. We all make judgments every day as well we should. But if we judge before the facts are available and tested, we are guilty of a rush to judgment which is always wrong. The fact that there way underage drinking and the hiring of a stripper has nothing to do with the accusations of CM. I have now made the following judgments.

1. CM is a liar.
2. Nifong is a liar
3. CM’s motive was probably greed or was the result of mental problems and substance abuse
4. Nifong’s motive was to garner public support in the black community for his election.
5. The LAX team did not represent Duke university in a positive manner
6. The G88 was wrong and should publicly apologize.
7. Broadhead should have made it clear that the G88 did not speak for the university
8. The DPD should be investigated and chastised for the improper photo array
9. Nancy Grace -- Lets just forget her.
10. Those who shouted this was a racial issue were self serving
11. The media fueled the fires without regard for the truth

These are my opinions and are open to debate. Show me where I am wrong.

One more opinion that I had before this incident and continue to have is that Duke University is a great one. The elements for a great education are there and it is up to the students to make the most of their opportunity. There are many great schools and universities.

Anonymous said...

Even the most successful feminists would trade it all for a pretty face.