Monday, October 29, 2007

Why the Civil Suit Matters

Boston’s WGBH is, in many ways, the crown jewel of the nation’s Public Broadcasting System. WGBH oversees three of PBS’ most successful programs—“Masterpiece Theater,” “Mystery!,” and “Nova.” In the 1980s, the station produced what was undoubtedly the best local TV newscast in the country, “The Ten O’Clock News.” WGBH Radio also has a reputation for high-quality, intellectually stimulating programming.

WGBH’s current lineup includes a program called “Greater Boston,” which

examines the region's top news and newsmakers. Hosted by Emily Rooney, Greater Boston, combines feature reports and in–studio interviews, providing a fresh approach to and in-depth analysis of timely news, politics, and public affairs issues of local interest.

A team of contributors provides commentary on topics ranging from breaking news to community concerns, politics to media, education to the environment. The week ends with Friday’s Beat the Press, a lively discussion of what the media covered that week, and why.

Last Friday’s “Beat the Press” featured a roundtable discussion of the “Jena 6” case, focused on a Christian Science Monitor article from Craig Franklin, who edits Jena’s local weekly paper.

The panel had an intelligent discussion of the article, noting the holes in Franklin’s coverage, but also admitting that the article also raised some serious questions about how the national media had approached the case.

Around six minutes into the segment (which is available in streaming video, and so can only be linked to at the start of the broadcast—scroll around three-quarters of the way through), former Globe columnist Eileen McNamara brought up the media’s handling of the Duke case. The following exchange occurred:

McNamara: We’re not going to get an answer [about Jena] until we have the facts. I mean, let’s remember the Duke case. [Putting herself in the mindset of reporters from spring 2006]: It is easy enough to speculate what might have happened, but something did happen, let’s find out what it was before we rush to judgment—

Rooney: We don’t know what happened in the Duke case. We never will.

Mark Jurkowitz [panelist]: But history sort of rendered its verdict on that one.

Rooney: Something happened.

The conversation then returned to the Jena issue.

The Attorney General's report produced a minute-by-minute time line asserting that nothing happened. The Disciplinary Hearings Committee chairman, Lane Williamson, asserted at Mike Nifong’s ethics trial that the evidence in the case showed that nothing happened. Indeed, Nifong himself has now admitted that nothing happened.

Rooney, it appears, chose to sit on a major story. In asserting that “we don’t know what happened in the Duke case. We never will . . . something happened,” Rooney was implying that she either:

(a) was privy to information that the Attorney General and the State Bar did not possess; or

(b) that the Attorney General and the State Bar had engaged in a cover-up to prevent the “truth” from being known.

After the program, I e-mailed WGBH for comment on Rooney’s assertions, and asked if she would be willing to share her evidence publicly. I did not receive a reply; if one arrives, I will post it.

It’s worth noting that Rooney is a well-regarded journalist, hardly a Wendy Murphy-style ideologue. She also has a personal connection to the news program whose prize-winning work exposed Mike Nifong's misconduct to the country, 60 Minutes. (Rooney's father is 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney.) Her remarks, therefore, were especially disturbing.

Rooney's comments serve as only the latest example of the “something happened” crusade. Recall, for instance, the stunning immediate post-exoneration assertion of another figure of considerable national prestige, sports columnist John Feinstein:

Since “everything but rape” included the other false charges (sexual assault and kidnapping), Feinstein, like Rooney, was asserting that the Attorney General and the State Bar had engaged in some sort of cover-up to prevent the “truth” from coming out.

In the end, nothing can prevent figures such as Feinstein or Rooney from allowing personal biases, prejudices, or simple journalistic sloppiness to override the facts. But the continued willingness of prominent media personalities to engage in the “something happened” charade has direct bearing on the three players’ civil suit against Durham, Nifong, and DSI. The comments of figures such as Rooney and Feinstein show the continuing harm to the three players that Durham’s improper actions caused.

For instance, would Feinstein, Rooney, and like-minded figures be able to engage in their ill-founded speculation if:

  • DPD Cpl. David Addison had not repeatedly made false statements about the evidence in the case;
  • DPD official spokesperson Kammie Michael had not, falsely, stated on March 28, 2006 that the DPD knew for certain that Kim Roberts had not made the first 911 call;
  • Nifong had not engaged in his slanderous pre-primary publicity crusade;
  • Nifong and Mark Gottlieb had not conspired to violate the DPD’s official policy on lineups and run a third, suspects-only, lineup;
  • Gottlieb’s superiors in the DPD had not stood aside as the lineup was implemented, and than rationalized the decision thereafter;
  • Gottlieb had not given false testimony to the grand jury, to the effect that Mangum gave consistent stories after her initial encounter with SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy on the night of March 14th;
  • Dr. Brian Meehan had not agreed to produce a report that specifically excluded mention of the multiple unidentified males’ DNA found in Crystal Mangum’s rape kit;
  • DSI owner Richard Clark had not sat idly by as Meehan prepared his report, which violated both state law and DSI company policy;
  • Nifong had not repeatedly lied to the court about the scope and content of his conversations with Meehan.

Without this pattern of misconduct by Nifong, DPD employees, and DSI, there would have been no case—and thus no possibility for the likes of Rooney or Feinstein to continue to float their theories.

In an interview last week, former Duke and current Cal football player Zach Smith noted, accurately, “Anytime somebody’s accused of something there’s always going to be some doubt, regardless of what the outcome is. They’re always going to be known as the accused lacrosse players, and it’s something they’ll have to carry around a long time.”

Only a small fraction of the public accepting the Rooney/Feinstein version of events would mean that millions of people would occupy the “something happened” contingent. The responsibility for that outcome is Durhams and Durhams alone.

Hap tip: T.N.

163 comments:

Anonymous said...

It’s worth noting that Rooney is a well-regarded journalist, hardly a Wendy Murphy-style ideologue.

K.C.,

I'm not sure that's accurate to say that. If Rooney's going to make wild-ass assertions like that publicly, then she's just another Nancy Grace wannabe and deserves to be described as such.

Walter Abbott
"abb"

Anonymous said...

I would sure like to know what Dr Manly, the other three physicians and four nurses had to say about their encounter with Crystal. SANE stands for Sexual Assualt Nurse Exam. As Dr Manly did the physical and collected the materials for the rape kit - in no way was this a SANE exam. It was the usual Physician exam and RN do the checklist. I wish I knew what was said to the GJ. As yet, none of them have told us.

Anonymous said...

I don't know which is more important to note--KC's work on the Duke lacrosse case or KC's exposure of so many "mainstream media" icons as the complete imbeciles they have always been.

Anonymous said...

For anyone who would like to read Craig Franklin's entire Christian Science Monitor article online

Click Here

Anonymous said...

Several comments have been made to the effect that Pressler's grounds for voiding his settlement agreement are minor, insignificant or trivial. It should be noted that the standard for violation of a non-disparagement agreement is much lower than say his grounds for defamation. It's his underlying case that is strong and important. Bot to expose the extent of wrongdoing and to rehabilitate his reputation. All the civil suits are important.

Anonymous said...

In the intelligence community this is known as the "suppression function", i.e., the ability in a non-totalitarian state to suppress reporting on a specific scandal or event. The most effective form of suppression is, of course, ommission, e.g., for two weeks as far as the New York Times was concerned, Israel had not executed a preemptive strike on Syria.
The second most effective tactic available, if ommission is no longer an option, is "spin", e.g.,
MSM reported fake contributions from New York's Chinatown neighborhood, but not one media outlet bothered to investigate the true source of the funds, or even to speculate thereon, because, apparently, Hillary's campaign fundraising machinery is mysteriously exempt from serious scrutiny........
It's no surprise to see the liberals who populate most of America's MSM outlets continue to "spin" the Duke LAX case, prosecutorial malfeasance notwithstanding, solely because it supports their fundamental ideological viewpoint. In other words, it would be a huge mistake to consider MSM's treatment of the LAX case an atypical aberration, when it more ressembles standard operating procedure.
Ergo, the blogosphere.

Anonymous said...

The real significance of Rooney's remarks is not to show that some people are morons -- we know that -- nor even that certain people in the media elite are too bigoted and/or ignorant to let go of the "something happened" myth.

No, the significance of Rooney's bullshit statement -- and of similar looney and fictitious reporting, ongoing -- is that it is Exhibit "A" in the civil case, on the proofs of of DAMAGES.

Because the City of Durham -- whose wholly-owned crooks and drones labored so hard for so long, to prove that a racist hoax was "real" -- will now be motivated to argue that, oh well poo, of course NOBODY on Earth really STILL believes anything bad about those boys, right? So what is the harm? Where are the damages?

Answer?

Plaintiffs' Exhibit A: Rooney -- freaking idiot, liar and nut-job. And nonetheless, a major media spokesperson, trusted and believed by millions.

There's yer damages, boys. Back up the Brinks truck, and say thanks that there are people as stupid and mendacious as Rooney.

Anonymous said...

I think if I were the Lax player's, I'd have my attorney's contact WGBH and threaten to sue. In fact. I'd probably start filing lawsuits against a number of media outlets. Why have they largely escaped scrutiny in this mess ?

Michael said...

In Boston, Wendy Murphy is on Tom Finneran's morning show on Thursdays. When she brings up the Duke Lacrosse case, a few callers usually bash her over the head with her from her early treatment.

Fortunately for Murphy, they've been spending more time talking about the Boston Red Sox than the Duke Lacrosse case.

Maybe Rooney just needs a copy of UPI.

Anonymous said...

For what is basically a meaningless phrase, "Something happened" is a dangerous term, insinuating and wrapped in seemingly intuitive knowledge. It's a crutch used by lazy and vindictive journalists who have no command of facts.

It demands a quick on the spot retort, "Exactly what happened? You seem to know something the rest of us don't. What is it? Please tell our viewing (listening)audience what did indeed happen. You said something did. Don't make us guess. Tell us, please." But the written and safe interview formats journalists use do not allow for questioning of their statements, which are left to dangle and incriminate.

I'd love to see Ms. Rooney's father, Andy, do a humorous segment on the use of "something happened" in today's journalism, using his daughter's statement about the hoax as one example.

Anonymous said...

A party happened. Under-age drinking happened. Those are somethings. So something did happen.

Renowned Duke Professor of Law Karla Holloway explained this last year.

Anonymous said...

Ya'know,I understand that the Duke Case was not the topic but it was brought up and how supposedly educated people could sit there and STILL believe "something happened" is dumbfounding. Don't get me wrong. Heck,I EXPECT reporters/media-types/talking heads to NOT do their homework on every detail of every issue. But she clearly thought she had enough info to make that comment so it's incumbent upon her to back up her opinion. An "opinion",by the way,that she delivered as if it were a "fact." One other thought...I quickly scrolled to the portion that included the lax comments. Was there or was there not an African-American man on that panel? He got a sheepish lookin' grin on his face when Duke was mentioned. He also said exactly "jack" and "squat" about it. Hmmmmmm.....

m said...

I've wondered about these types of comments before, and having no legal background, wonder if someone who does might be able to tell me whether the lacrosse players have any legal way to go after those making such statements? Something to do with defamation, libel, etc.?

Anonymous said...

Rooney's "something happened" is even more incredible given that WGBH had a ringside seat for one of the most spectacular cases of prosecutorial misconduct of the 20th century, the Fells Acres child-abuse witch hunt. If one is looking for evidence that journalists simply do not learn from their mistakes, look no further.

Anonymous said...

I was just so . . . annoyed at the end of this post. Though I am more inclined to believe that Rooney's comment was the result of journalistic laziness and of making a statement on a case upon which she does not possess all of the facts than assuming she brings a personal bias to the subject. Nevertheless, it is a sad commentary on the continuing decline of journalistic standards. It is also sad to note that KC's conclusion is correct; the civil suit is needed for the players to "get their reputation back".

Anonymous said...

Is Rooney a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Once the HBO movie comes out, the radicals and neo-leftists will quiet down. It won't be a pretty picture when their heros (Nihlfong, Brodheadtothehills) and heroines (Cro-Magnum, Nancy Graceless) are fully realized on the small screen

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Excellent job of shining lights where lights must be shone.

In this case, an apparently top-of-the-line PBS station is relying on the gut feelings implanted in its on-air staff by all the distorted chaos produced by MSM in the first six months of the case. They've made no fact checks, no attempt to precisely determine what actually happened and report that to the public. No, they learned that 'something happened' and that's good enough for them - now that the story is 'over', by current media standards.

In other words, the biases, or intellectual laziness of the on-air staff, take your choice, are clearly exposed in those few lines of discussion.

Ingrained but unfounded assumptions like those, about other people or events, come out at worst in horrible forms such as racism or intolerance. When acted on, such feelings can cause society serious damage. Some serious self-examination at WGBH is clearly called for, if it is to claim the mantle of honest intelligent news production.

Let's hope that having received Dr. Johnson's inquiry, they'll figure out that there's more to the story than they know, and make with the self-examination.

Anonymous said...

The only surprise about this behavior of National Public Radio is that anyone is suprised about it.

Remember, though, that in the case of NPR, your tax dollars are being used to slander the Duke lacrosse players.

Jamie said...

Durham can and should pay for this travesty, but no settlement is going to make the Rooney-tunes stop claiming that something happened. Nothing on earth will stop that.

Even the ones who don't have to cover their butts for having publicly rushed to judgment will continue to make this absurd claim, because these boneheads actually think it makes them sound intelligent. Unprejudiced and intelligent. Virtuous. Canny. Not to be fooled. Steadfast.

Amazing, but true.

Anonymous said...

This behavior is "endemic" in the newsrooms of this country. It would seem that the only thing that most of these so-called news people can report is rumor and hearsay. The owned Boston Globe is The New York Times at a short distance. The fear of multi-media ownership is only matched by the singularity of journalistic rumor mongering. It is pitiful. These people do not seem to have enough experience or education or character to report in a balanced way, and they bend to the narrative . . . the way they are taught in their own hot house environment. Their reporting and opinions are often very narrow and bigoted and often parochial . . . not much more than the gossip of the in-group, which unfortunately did not include the Duke lacrosse team . . . too white male and whatever else could be attached to the story without looking at the facts of the case. It was a lynching not unlike what the media attempted with Clarence Thomas.

One Spook said...

KC writes @ 12:01 AM Alpha Time:

"It’s worth noting that Rooney is a well-regarded journalist, hardly a Wendy Murphy-style ideologue. ... Rooney's comments serve as only the latest example of the “something happened” crusade."

Apart from the obvious fact that Emily Rooney is lazy like a lot of journalists and doesn't do her homework, an earlier interview with Rooney (scroll to near the end) gives us a very telling hint of why she might make such comments.

In this interview on Sep 6, 1998 with with John Koch for Boston Globe Magazine, Rooney was asked, "You've accused TV journalism of liberal bias."

Rooney replied, "Journalism, television in particular, embraces causes that have more of a liberal slant to them. I think most people in our business are advocates, and that's good: They are energetic, and they are moved by ideologies, and many happen to have a more liberal ideology. I do, too, which always surprises people when I admit that. It's just that I recognize that we often march down the same path. Other points of view are often characterized as ridiculous or off the beam because they are off the ideology that we subscribe to. And we all run to the same cast of characters [for quotable comments]."

Apparently, this time she didn't recognize her "march down the same path."

Months ago I chided KC regarding his incredulity about the New York Times deplorable reporting on the lacrosse case. I allowed then that if you are truly knowledgeable about a subject, you will probably be quite amazed by what you read about that subject in most media.

Rooney's comments are yet another example ... she simply bought into the agenda du jour about the case. This happens all too often in the media --- I'm not surprised at all.

One Spook

AF said...

Hopefully, Duhmb will subpoena Rooney and Feinstein to try to salvage their reputation in the civil suit. Since these two "distinguished" commentors (not journalists) obviously have information not available to any other attorneys or law enforcement agencies, Duhmb needs it to save it's citizens from having their children's inheritences taxed to the max.
I used to think Feinstein had a clue. Evidently he lost the address.
Journalism is in dire need of an honesty overhaul. The average man has no idea of where the truth lies. In general, journalism has too many Jayson Blairs. It isn't reporting any more. It's pontificating.
Thanks KC for being a breath of fresh air in an otherwise tainted world. I still mis your daily+ posts but am willing to demonstrate a little patience. You may not win the honors of the likes of Al Gore, but we know we can trust that what you put out there is thoroughly researched and always accurate.
Thanks again. Your work is as deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize as Gore's. More so for it's accuracy.

Anonymous said...

KC: regarding your comment about the reputation of WGBH for its "high-quality, intellectually stimulating programming." To that I say, "only by comparison."

When I was a Democrat in my past, I used to watch those same type of PBS programs and conclude same. But then I grew up.

For example, I can watch a Charlie Rose segment and recognize the identical type of slanted approach that was used nationwide for the lacrosse "narrative". The only difference between a "Greta" and, say, a "Charlie" is the veneer of respectability, the softness of tone, the lack of crosstalk, and the absence of the fake debate format. What lulls the viewer is a personal lack of grasp of the topic that was/is rampant throughout the lacrosse mess. Also, the nodding, groupthink agreement between Charlie and guest without a fluent, challenging counterpart.

The average PBS offering is something akin to a panel of NY Times and Boston Globe editors talking about the Duke case ... but without KC Johnson present. To the unwitting viewer with only a passing knowledge of the topic, the smart, witty, soft-voiced panelists would come off like experts. But - informed in depth - we know better.

PBS thrives on that formula, only an inch less shallow than its commercial competitors.

jim2 said...

KC -

Great catch!

Certainly, if the civil suit process goes through to the jury, the city of Durham will have gone through the discovery process and many individuals will have taken the stand (perhaps to take the 5th?!). If the jury produces what appears to me to be am appropriate verdict, the damages numbers will be national news in their own right. Certainly, the continued "something happened" pronouncements would seem to strengthen the damages case.

After all that, perhaps the "something happened" crowd will shut up.

don t. said...

Surely Barry Schreck(sp)or someone equally talented can find a way to shut these clowns up. Defamation of character should not be covered by "free speech".

trinity60

Gary Packwood said...

There are people who want to believe that highly visible male athletes of the paler race are the source of all evil.

I believe that Zach Smith is telling us that we are only beginning to understand the 'Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002)' and we need to be vigilant in our attempts to hold Durham's feet to the fire.

We made want to hold Duke's feet to the fire, also.
::
GP

no justice, no peace said...

These revisionist, progressive approaches to the truth will not go away. This example as well Burness revealing his colors regarding Coach Pressler demonstrate why the law suits must continue.

The Internet is forever and all of the young men's reputation are at stake with the dishonorable media.

They and the 88 members of the Klan will continually attempt to rewrite the truth.

They should be stomped into the ground, sued into oblivion, and in unambigous terms reminded that the truth matters.

no justice, no peace said...

A reminder, the Blue committee comments regarding review of Duke President Richard Brodhead are due tomorrow.

If you have not provided feedback, please do so.

We can do better, we must.

Dan Blue's email is:

danblue@duke.edu

Anonymous said...

In addition to the "something happened" contingent, I imagine there's also the "he's not worth the trouble" contingent. Cornell journalist Josh Perlin may be a person of little consequence; but his line of thinking is likely not completely unique. A future potential employer with a similar mindset would be signifigant damage. It might not even be something provable: just a case of a choice between hiring one of the accused and some other person of similar qualifications and choosing the other person because that person never made national news.

Anonymous said...

Can you quickly send Ms. Rooney a complimentary copy of UPI? Ignorance is surely behind her remarks. And unless she has the whole scenario spelled out for her in fine detail, she probably cannot imagine the scope of the misconduct. Of course if she is going to talk about the case, Ms. Rooney really should learn these details on her own--the fact she presumably has not done so shows something of a lack of integrity on her part, frankly.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Crystal Gail Mangum has never been prosecuted for her false accusations. We can thank AG Roy Cooper.

Perhaps that is why the 'something happened' group continues with their accusations.

Anonymous said...

KC:

Excellent post.

Emily Rooney's comment "something happened" is why I choose never to listen to NPR.

Ken
Dallas

Search for Meaning said...

“Something Happened” is very imprecise language and gives the speaker lots of wiggle room. Remember Karla Holloway’s famous “drunkenness happened.” If responsible people want to state that “Something Happened” they need to state what they think happened and then be able to defend their opinion.

Rooney: We don’t know what happened in the Duke case. We never will.

She might be able to wiggle out of this one also by stating that we don’t know the full extent of involvement of the DPD and Durham government officials. This is true as it is the basis of the civil suit.

This is what makes it tough for the Lacrosse team a complete vindication and yet professional supposedly responsible people are free to make innuendos at will.

cathyf said...

In the same spirit as Zack Smith's comment, the problem with the "something happened" construct is that it is, of course, fatuously true. The team captains threw a party, and hired strippers, and there was some rowdiness and underage drinking. That qualifies as "something" -- so the "something happened" construct is techically true.

By phrasing things that way, the propagandists successfully convince the poorly informed that something terrible happened, while leaving themselves an out when confronted by someone knowledgeable -- "well that was something."

Jim in San Diego said...

There may be a psychological reason that most people, including well-intentioned non-idealogues, assume that "something happened" when a woman accuses a man (or men) of sexual assault.

It is hard for most people to fathom that there are those who will just plain lie if given the opportunity. It is unusual to accuse someone else of a violent crime based on a bald lie, unless -----the accuser is a bald-faced liar.

However, it is the experience of most of us that most accusers are not bald faced liars. The problem in the Duke caseis the failure to use our critical factulties to sort the unusual case in which the accuser really is simply a liar. Virtually no one has followed the evidence of the Duke case in enough detail to understand that here, yes, is the unusual case where the accuser is a bald-faced liar

Debrah said...

This was quite an effective post.

A vivid illustration as to the magnitude of damage something like this Hoax can do to innocent lives.

Once a seed is planted....especially the inciteful variety of race and class, most media hounds won't let go of the bone.

Emily Rooney is well on her way to dismantling Daddy Andy as the next careless curmudgeon.

Debrah said...

Everyone needs to link over to John in Carolina for the excellent video which Locomotive Breath has devised.

Good job.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

Professor Johnson you need to face it, the PC left crowd when in doubt blame certain groups. That is the groups you tell us you vote with.

Unless forced to face up to the move of the Dem party from the party that stood up for the falsely accused to the party that falsely accuses based on race, no reason people like Rooney will do anything but go with a knee-jerk PC leftist racial/sexual lens. By staying in a party that encourages such bias, you encourage it.

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised by NPR and their comments. They are always slanted in their views, and if there is a racial issue involved, they are anti-white. If it's right-left, they are left. If it's GOP or Dem, they are for the Dems.

I agree that they have excellent dramas, etc. It's the opinions disguised as news that is suspect.

A great example is the way they discussed the Generlow Wilson case. Whether you read /listen to NPR or the MSM, 99.99% of all reporting is very supportive of Wilson. They use words like honor student, excellent athlete, cheated out of a promising future, and his mother even said he “should be held as an example” to other young people.

Interesting that 99.99% of the MSM did not use those words to describe Dave, Collin and Reade.

Here are some facts: Six young black men rented a motel room, brought liquor and marijuana, and invited a 17 and a 15 year-old. (There is a dispute as to the race of one of the girls- some say white some say black.) One of the guys brought a camera to film themselves having sex with the 2 girls. They taped the sex. The next day the 17 yr old accused them of raping her. (She has never changed her story.) One the tape the PD discovered one on the girls was 15. The 17 had regular sex, the 15 had oral with 4 of the guys. The 6 guys had a total of 40 prior arrests and one of them got a 12 years old pregnant while waiting for this court case.

Wilson has now said he is a different person. Said he used to drink, smoke pot, and had been sexually active since he was 13. Compare him to any of the Duke lacrosse 3.

The most amazing phrase used is “consensual sex”. Mangum was a “pro”, and advertised for work, so one would think her being there was “consensual,” but no, it has been described as demeaning to a mother just trying to earn extra money. I guess 4 guys inserting their pe…s inside of the mouth of an intoxicated 15 year old and filming it, does not rise to the level of demeaning behavior. I wonder where the feminist are hiding?

elena

Anonymous said...

Where there is smoke there is fire—except in those instances where there are mirrors instead. It is banal to say that “something happened” at the lacrosse team’s party. Of course something happened. Until the laws of physics are repealed and all motion of the molecules ceases, there will always be something happening everywhere. In the context of the discussion of a criminal case, Ms. Rooney belief that “something happened” might seems to imply that she thinks that something ILLEGAL happened. That is apparently the way that K.C. Johnson and doubtless others take her remark. But that is by no means the only logical or linguistically responsible inference to be drawn. Rooney may mean that at the party something happened that was so unpleasant, unsavory, sordid, or simply bizarre as to help explain what is otherwise dark and mysterious—a false charge of forcible rape. The Attorney General of the State of North Carolina went out of his way to say that the three indicted players were innocent. They did not commit the ILLEGAL acts for which they had been indicted. Possibly remembering a freshman physics course, he did not deny that “something happened”. Ms Rooney is hardly alone in her opinion that “something happened”. The President of Duke University made the statement, never retracted so far as I know, that although he didn’t know what happened, he did know that whatever it was was “bad enough”.

This case has been pretty exhaustively studied from the point of view of the three indicted men. It has been barely investigated at all from the point of view of the false accuser. For indeed “something happened”. A woman made a fraudulent claim of rape. That is a remarkable thing to have done. According to several of the experts whose testimony floated in and out of discussions of the case, false claims of rape are rare or nonexistent. The following suggestions as to “why” have been offered. (1) The woman habitually makes false charges of rape. (2) The woman was intoxicated. (3) The woman was mentally ill. (4) The woman desired to avoid the temporary consequences of being intoxicated. (5) The woman hoped for financial gain. Each of these proposed explanations is by itself or in combination with others at least plausible, but it would be rash on the basis of known facts to claim certainty. Since there appears to have been only the most perfunctory police investigation of her motive, and practically no journalistic investigation at all, and since there is little prospect of further investigation now, we are left to say with Ms. Rooney that something happened and that we shall probably never know what it was.

Anonymous said...

Who cares about SANE In Training - The nurse was preforming her function as a Registered Nurse in doing the QA. Dr Manly did the exam - The Rape exam was done the old fashion way - A Medical Doctor with ten plus years of experience and training, an RN assistant. The confusion is around the nurses who tried to make this Rape Kit exam look like the second comming.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.32:

I did not mean to assert definitively that Rooney (as Feinstein clearly did) unequivocally asserted that something "illegal" happened--it's conceivable, as you point out, that she meant "something happened that was so unpleasant, unsavory, sordid, or simply bizarre as to help explain what is otherwise dark and mysterious—a false charge of forcible rape."

But, of course, the AG's inquiry went well beyond the three players--it reconstructed the entire party, including interviews with Mangum as well as 19 people who attended the party. Rooney's claim that we'll never know what happened at the party is contradicted by the AG's report--unless she's willing to state in what ways she found the AG's report wanting.

KC Johnson said...

A note: comment policies at other blogs are off topic.

Anonymous said...

1:32 Well - that just ain't true. The stats point to almost half of the rape claims are false. Nothing remarkable about that - although you make it look like false rape claims are an exceptional event - its not. THere are about forty minutes to be accounted for - every second of that time is known - lots of pictures with time frame on them - More importantly, there is electronic evidence that two of the defenedants were not even in the house over the time period of the false rape claim. Yes, it was a tough year for the guys but no one was injured, killed or put in a concentration camp. Plus got several million dollars to compensate them for their trouble.

Anonymous said...

This is a perfect example of the tenacity of the Left even in the face of contradictory evidence.
When the "Black Book of Communism" first came out in Paris several years ago, describing the various slaughters organized by various communist regimes, the French Left furiously debated the veracity of the text.

AF said...

Elena--great post. How eloquently you stated your case. The nail was pounded squarely on the head.

Point for the MSM--sloppy "journalism" (and that's using the term loosely) have become the norm. No wonder most people are running from print journalism. It is there to reread and review and SEE the obvious fallacy. The problem with tv is that it is too often a subliminial indoctrination. One hears this jibberish so often that it becomes fact after a while.
As to the "something happened" theory, yes, something did happen. The foundation was laid for liars and anger pimps to jump again to the forefront on their agenda. Something did happen--a hooker thought she found a way to make an "honest" living--extort money from some rich kids. That, unfortunately, has become the American way for those who don't have the education or honesty to earn a living. Sue over fabricated accusations or extort money to keep them quiet. Ambulance chasing lawyers who take their cases are just as guilty (can we say John Edwards)? The tide will turn. As a child, I remember the small local paper ran a simple statement under it's byline----A child's among you taking notes, and, faith, he'll print it. Well, it's been printed lately. Unfortunately, it is not statement of fact but spin of fact. Selective reporting. Blairing.
Something happened. Maybe it is the exposure of the MSM for the liars that they are. Maybe it is the exposure of some police agencies for the liars that they are. Maybe it is the exposure of academic activists for the liars that they are. Maybe it is the naive public for the gullible followers that they are.
As many have stated, the case for the civil suit is made almost EVERY time a comment on the case is made. Duhmb is going to pay. Sadly, most of the residents were probably not willing accomplices. They did, however, elect the idiots that were the puppeteers pulling the strings.

A Duke Dad said...

Something Happened ?
Something Happened ?

As a WGBH journalist, Ms Emily Rooney, tell us:

Who
What
Where
When
How
Why

Certainly you learned those words in Journalism 101, on the first day of class.

Or is your motto:
"All the Gossip that Fits, We Print".

Are there facts that YOU know that the NC Attorney General ignored?

Who did this 'something'
What was this 'something'
When did this 'something' happen.
Where did this 'something' occur.
How was this 'something' done.
Why was this 'something' a crime.

Tell us ! Tell us !
After all, it's a "Something Happening" event.

traveler said...

I think the “Something happened” thought will always exist because Crystal Magnum was not arrested, and brought to trial. If she is mentally ill, then she needs to get help in a court ordered situation, until she is well. I cannot understand how anyone can do the damage she has done, and then just ‘dance’ away. No one takes her to task for her misdeeds, why?

Just what exactly is a “well-regarded journalist” these days? I know no one that holds print journalism in high esteem. I think liberal newspapers have some sort of death wish. The New York Slimes in a good example.

And, just how many people listen to NPR?
‘The Phoenix’ writer ADAM REILLY says this:

The strange dust-up over ‘Beat the Press’
“In case you missed it — and you probably did — A VERY SMALL SEGMENT of the Massachusetts media was aflame with controversy this week. Aflame”
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid29741.aspx

miramar said...

Oh, well, I guess the Flat Earth Society is alive and well in the Duke hoax case.

Off topic but interesting: Guess who did the player introductions at the annual Blue-White basketball scrimmage? None other than Dick Brodhead! Is it me, or is this guy groveling to keep his job in a venue he knew would be full of Duke alumni?

He should resign while he still has a shred of dignity left.

traveler said...

Flashback: G88 Stalwart: Karla Holloway

I have imagined a paintball match for the G88 team.
Karla Holloway is going to be my first fantasy player.

On the paintball course:

Karla is hiding behind a black shield.
She sees Justice Clarence Thomas. (Uncle Tom)
Splat, she hits him with white paint.

She sees Secretary of State Rice. (Aunt Tom-alina)
Splat, she hits her with white paint.

She sees Bill Cosby. (Conservative blowhard)
She comes from behind her black shield wearing a skirt.
Splat, she hits him with white paint.

She sees Barack Obama (Hmmmmmmmm)
Splat, she hits him with gray paint.

Rats! My ace player exposed herself a little too long making that last decision.
Splat, Karla takes a direct hit.
KC Johnson, who gave you that pink paint?

Game over- next player

Anonymous said...

I think it should go to trial to. To explain where the money came from for that other dancer y'all don't like to mention got the money to be driving around in a new BMW.
And for discovery. All the lax conduct, all the character (which will be relevant) all their earned reputations on campus, all the heretofore undiscoverable records. Put it all out there. Agreed. Come on with it.

Anonymous said...

Juan Williams from NPR also made a number of ill-advised commentaries about the lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

1:32

"According to several of the experts whose testimony floated in and out of discussions of the case, false claims of rape are rare or nonexistent."

Please cite your source(s).

You make an unbelievable extraordinary claim.

If "soemthing happened," why did precious NOT exhibit a behavior associated w/ trauma directly after the "something" occured?

QED

scott said...

It’s worth noting that Rooney is a well-regarded journalist, hardly a Wendy Murphy-style ideologue.

There is a wide gulf between a well-regarded journalist and a Wendy Murphy. Based on Rooney's remarks, absent the over-the-top comments Murphy is known to favor, Rooney's at best one-notch above Murphy.

That Rooney, after all the evidence of a hoax that has been presented, can still insist "something happened" doesn't equate to a well-regarded journalist. It seems obvious the acorn didn't fall far from the tree in the Rooney household. Every story is framed by an agenda, the facts be damned.

Anonymous said...

Anyone have Rooney address? I want to send her a copy of UPI today!!!

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 6:38 said...

...I would sure like to know what Dr Manly, the other three physicians and four nurses had to say about their encounter with Crystal. SANE stands for Sexual Assualt Nurse Exam. As Dr Manly did the physical and collected the materials for the rape kit - in no way was this a SANE exam. It was the usual Physician exam and RN do the checklist. I wish I knew what was said to the GJ. As yet, none of them have told us.
::
Nice try but no dice. SANE = Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

Crystal was provided a sexual assault exam by a physician.
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

elena 1:03 said...

...I am not surprised by NPR and their comments. They are always slanted in their views, and if there is a racial issue involved, they are anti-white. If it's right-left, they are left. If it's GOP or Dem, they are for the Dems.
::
NPR speaks? Hardly. People speak.

Sweeping generalities add little to the debate, IMO.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

I have read several articles on the Jena 6 case written by people who were actually from the Jena area, or who went to Jena and investigated the facts (yes, it seems that a few reporters still actually do that). All of these writers concluded that the noose-hanging incident, and the 6-person attack on the one white student which happened months after the noose incident, were not causally related. Yet many MSM outlets, including CNN, continue to refer to the gang beating as something that happened “in response to” or “in reaction to” the noose incident. Just as in the Duke LAX case, the black community reacted to the Jena controversy by refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the black actors and casting the blacks as righteous “victims” of racist, villainous whites. The MSM blindly accepted this version of events, and continued to run with it even after numerous facts emerged demonstrating that it simply was not true. Before the Duke LAX fiasco, I probably would have attributed this type of inaccuracy to journalistic laziness or sloppiness; however, I now believe that there is something more nefarious at work here.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think until their is a civil suit and considerable payment made out to these young men that the idea that "something happened" will continue for the rest of their lives. If those involved and not made to pay large sums those who wanted something to have happened will continue to slander those boys. Crystal also must be made to pay by jailtime as "nothing happened" except a big fat lie. That is what happened. A big fat lie by a twisted, drug addicted psycho who should be locked up. The AG made a big mistake allowing her to go scott free, because without punishing her, the "something must have happened" mantra will continue.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see people call WGBH, to pressure WGBH to, in turn, pressure the eminent Ms. Wendy Murphy to go down to North Carolina and defend Mike Nifong pro bono. She has been very vocal about the three lacrosse players and their attorneys and the State of North Carolina concealing evidence. This would be her opportuity to get it out.

I am hoping a public call by WGBH for Wicked Wendy to put her money where her mouth was would leave her very uncomfortable and embarrassed.

Debrah said...

Lawyers express interest in DA job

BY JOHN STEVENSON : The Herald-Sun

Three lawyers with extensive prosecutorial experience already say they will run for district attorney in Durham next year, all claiming to have learned insightful lessons from the Duke lacrosse scandal that destroyed the career of their former boss -- Mike Nifong.

They are Chief Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline, Assistant District Attorney Mitchell Garrell and former assistant prosecutor Freda Black, who was dismissed by Nifong two years ago and now is in private practice.

A fourth person, lawyer Steve Monks, said he might run for the top prosecutorial job if not elected to City Council in the interim. He was an unsuccessful write-in candidate for district attorney in 2006.

The district attorney's chair has been warmed by three people in the past four months.

Nifong occupied it from April 2005 until June of this year, then resigned and lost his law license for mishandling the Duke lacrosse case, in which three athletes were falsely accused of raping an exotic dancer during an off-campus party.

Former District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr., now a judge, came next.

He returned to his old job on an interim basis until September, when longtime assistant prosecutor David Saacks received a gubernatorial appointment to hold down the legal fort until next year's election.

But Saacks has made it clear he will not seek to become Durham's permanent district attorney. He isn't eligible because he lives in Wake County.

That means the Bull City will have a district attorney election in November 2008 without an incumbent for the first time in memory.

When Saacks recently moved up temporarily to the top prosecutorial job, Tracey Cline became his chief assistant.

Now, she aspires to be the boss in her own right.

"I've thought about it, talked to my family about it, prayed about it," Cline said. "I think it would be good for me and also for the community if I became district attorney."

A 1989 graduate of law school at N.C. Central University, Cline joined the District Attorney's Office in 1994 and has remained there ever since, except for a brief venture into private practice. She has prosecuted numerous sex-offense and homicide cases.

"I am what I would call a common, simple person," said Cline. "I understand it's a privilege to be district attorney. I think I would be a district attorney for all people. I'm a hard worker."

According to Cline, a major lesson was learned from the Duke lacrosse scandal: "The people of Durham expect one thing from the DA -- to do the right things for the right reasons. It's not a popularity contest. It's not doing anybody a favor. It's knowing you have done the right thing and being able to sleep on it."

Lesson No. 2: "You need to be transparent when you are district attorney. Everything should be out in the open. People might not agree with everything I do, but they should at least understand why I did it."

Some suggested during the lacrosse meltdown that Nifong's assistants dropped the ball by not reining in their boss, halting the scandal in its tracks.

Cline agreed last week that attorneys have a duty to report unethical conduct among their colleagues.

But she said she lacked insights into what Nifong was doing.

"I didn't have any personal information about what went on in the lacrosse case, other than what the media reported," she said. "My job was to keep the courtrooms running. That is what I was focused on."

District Attorney candidate Mitchell Garrell is a 1994 graduate of law school at UNC and has been a local prosecutor for more than 12 years.

Like Cline, he believes he is well qualified for the top job.

"I've devoted all of my legal career to prosecution," he said last week. "I think I've developed a good relationship with the Police Department, the Sheriff's Office and other law-enforcement agencies. The same is true with the judges and defense bar. I believe that trust will serve me well as district attorney."

Garrell has successfully prosecuted numerous murder cases.

He echoed Cline in saying he was unaware of what went on behind the scenes in the Duke lacrosse affair.

"I had nothing to do with that case," he said. "I was carrying in excess of 15 homicides at the time and had my hands full with other things. I thought then, and I still believe, that my duty was to prosecute the cases to which I was assigned and give them my full attention."

Garrell vowed that nothing like the lacrosse foul-up would happen on his watch.

"My past conduct would be the best indicator of how I would act in the future," he said.

Freda Black is a 1985 graduate of law school at Campbell University. She joined the local District Attorney's Office in 1991, remaining there until Nifong dismissed her for unexplained reasons in 2005 -- a year before the lacrosse case arose.

Best known for her 2003 nationally televised role in helping to convict novelist Michael Peterson of fatally beating his wife, Black ran a close second to Nifong in last year's Democratic primary race for district attorney.

She repeatedly took back-handed slaps at Nifong last week.

"I believe a DA needs to use their common sense, morals and good judgment to make tough decisions," she said in an interview. "I believe some of those qualities were lacking in the past [Nifong] administration. Ulterior motives won't do. A person with a hidden agenda does not need to be DA."

In Black's opinion, Nifong's assistants should have called him down before the lacrosse case backfired.

"As a practical matter, they no doubt wanted to keep their jobs and pay their bills," said Black. "But the Rules of Professional Conduct [for lawyers] don't see it that way. Because nobody spoke out, our District Attorney's Office was criticized nationally."

Anonymous said...

Rooney should be supeanoed. She must know something the AG doesn't. If "something happened" please let us all know. If she is just using that phrase to make it seem like she knows something than she is an ass.

Debrah said...

Lacrosse case questioned as root of racial violence

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun

Local leaders asked whether the Duke lacrosse case could have triggered racial violence in the spring of 2006 talk more of undercurrents than actual threats, but insist it was something they had to guard against.

Mayor Bill Bell has acknowledged that he urged police to complete quickly what turned out to be their ill-fated investigation of a stripper's false rape allegations, partly because he was worried about the possibility of unrest.

But he hasn't pointed to a specific threat, save for the possibility that the media firestorm that began soon after police gathered DNA samples from 46 of the Duke team's 47 players might have touched something off.

"It could have gone entirely different from what it did," Bell said late last month. "And I'm convinced the reason it didn't was because key community leaders didn't let it."

The mayor -- who's running for re-election and on the campaign trail has claimed credit for helping "defuse what could have been an explosive event" -- is among those who say there were hints that violence was a possibility.

"You heard some rather off-handed remarks about what should be done -- 'taking justice into our own hands' -- but they were muted to a certain extent and you didn't hear a lot of that said publicly," he said.

Other sources close to the situation say officials took the possibility of violence seriously from the outset, and that it figured in the meetings Bell and school President Richard Brodhead had with leaders of the black community twice in the early stages of the Durham Police Department's investigation.

At the time, Bell publicly downplayed the possibility of violence.

In speaking to national media outlets, he said the investigation would be thorough, voiced confidence in the professionalism of then-District Attorney Mike Nifong and said he was "very confident" there wouldn't be any violence because local leaders were giving people outlets that allowed "them a chance to vent."

The problem, however, was that the police investigation was far from thorough and, according to the N.C. State Bar, Nifong's professionalism was missing in action.

The key turn in the investigation came on April 4, 2006, when detectives used an against-policy photo lineup to secure identifications of the three men who were eventually indicted, David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

Lead detective Ben Himan later told the State Bar that when authorities decided to indict Seligmann, police weren't even sure he'd been at the now-infamous team party that led to the stripper's false allegations.

Meanwhile, in the days leading up to the lineup, Nifong played up the racial aspects of the case in numerous media interviews. Police also contributed a March 28, 2006, CrimeStoppers bulletin that without qualification said they were investigating "a horrific crime that sent shock waves throughout our community."

For all of that, there was only one actual report of racial violence. Two Duke students told police a group of black men confronted them outside a Hillsborough Road hamburger stand early on March 31, 2006. The men invoked the case, and one allegedly struck one of the students in the back of the head. Police never arrested anyone in connection with the report.

Beyond that one incident, there is only uncertainty.

Later on March 31 -- the same day, as it happens, that Nifong and police agreed to the against-policy lineup -- Duke Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta issued an all-students e-mail warning of unsubstantiated reports of a threatened drive-by shooting of the lacrosse house in Trinity Park.

Sources say Moneta was reacting to events that began that morning when a police officer visiting the magistrates' office in the Durham County Jail overheard someone say there'd be a drive-by in the neighborhood.

A police captain relayed the report to patrol officers later in the day, telling them authorities didn't really believe it but thought they should watch out anyway.

One of the patrol officers, in turn, warned a group of Duke students he saw sitting on a porch in Trinity Park. They used their cell phones to call or text-message friends with the news, which quickly reached Duke's student newspaper and eventually Moneta.

The only person who reports hearing anything close to an actual threat during the early days of the case is Melvin Whitley, an East Durham activist and minister who's helping Bell's campaign.

Whitley said he twice met with men who were angry about the case. One was with a group of 21 to 22 men, some of them gang leaders, some of them tied to the Project Strike jobs program launched two years ago by City Manager Patrick Baker and then-Police Chief Steve Chalmers.

The get-together was partly sparked, Whitley said, by loose talk among gang members "about doing something with Duke students."

But "when I left the meeting, I had no fear they were going to go out and do something dumb," said Whitley, who isn't sure whether he relayed what he heard to Chalmers but is sure he didn't tell Bell about it. "They needed somebody to listen to them, is all."

Another minister, Carl Kenney, said he heard secondhand about threats but was never able to substantiate them.

Kenney believes officials were right to worry about the possibility of violence, indeed that the city was "ready to erupt" had they done things differently, but also says rumors about potential gang violence are commonplace.

"You hear about a gang riot once a month that's going to happen ... and that never happens," he said.

Baker has denied that worries about racial unrest led police to cut corners. But Kenney said "it's very clear local authorities were being pressured to do something fast" lest they appear indifferent to the accuser because of her race or economic status.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Rooney: We don’t know what happened in the Duke case. We never will."

Thus demonstrating the combination of ignorance and arrogance characteristic of the media.

The truth of the Duke and Jena stories will never be completely known in perfect detail. But journalists' willingess to make pronouncements on subjects they haven't thoroughly studied is why the public will even less information than exists, and much of what they get will be wrong.

Ralph Phelan said...

"No one takes her to task for her misdeeds, why?"

We never found out whose numbers were in her cell phone. We never found out whose DNA was in her ....

Most likely she has protectors at high levels in power structures of Durham and/or Duke.

Anonymous said...

8:13

One of the dancers is driving a new BMW? I thought Crystal had her license revoked when she stole the cab and tried to run down a LEO.

Perhaps you are referring to Kim? Perhaps she bought it with the 20k 'bonus' she received at one of her earlier jobs.

Ralph Phelan said...

"According to several of the experts whose testimony floated in and out of discussions of the case, false claims of rape are rare or nonexistent."

One lesson to draw from this case is the danger of assuming a self-proclaimed "expert" really is. Whether emplyed by the media or the courts, most "experts" are hired guns, like Nancy Grace or Brian Meehan, with an obvious financial interest in saying the right thing to get themselves consulted again. Many are ideologues of one sort or another. Many are less than competent, and are consulted because they're cheap and/or easily available, or simply because their name is already in a rolodex.

And as we have also seen, that an "expert" is a tenured full professor with an endowed chair at a well-known university is also no guarantee of honesty or competence.

Ralph Phelan said...

This is why I really want to see a civil suit against the media. If any case could inspire a little much-needed rollback of Times vs. Sullivan, it's this one.

Jim in San Diego said...

To 1:32, and several "anonymous" (hate that blog anonymity):


If anyone has references to any credible studies of the percentage of rape accusations which are false, please provide them. I have been unable to find any such studies.

I have seen studies that rape is a very underreported crime, perhaps the most under reported of all.

If there is one thing we have learned from this case, facts are necessary to rational argument.

Anonymous said...

Gary - Whats the beef???

Anonymous said...

Even if Crystal was charged with a "false rape claim", the fine is 500 buck and no jail time. Why bother?

Anonymous said...

To anon at 8:06PM 10/28/07, Karla Holloway is not a Law Professor; rather, she is Professor of English. If you're a Group of 88er or a sympathizer, please do not misattribute anon's comments to KC.

Anonymous said...

SOMETHING HAPPENED in Durham! It sure did.

Because of the lacrosse scandal, our nation got further divided.

We are divided across racial lines, educational lines, and truth versus spin lines.

What happened in Durham was that innocent WHITE young men got railroaded by media, politics, and power and those opponents cannot BEAR admitting they were wrong.

Something happened in Durham. Our illusion that a good name can be cleared by being renedered INNOCENT died. They guys were right. Their names will forever be under a cloud of suspicion because of these charges. There are some people who would look right in your face on a sunny day and sware it is raining... because they do NOT want to believe FACTS.

Rooney was right. Something happened in Durham. And those of her ilk are a part of perpetuating the evil.

Shame on her.

Journalistic ethics, if there ever was such, also took a BIG hit.

You would think they would be eager to regain some credibility.

Not so. They would rather have a following than to be faithful to the integrity required of TRUE journalists.

Write on KC. Keep on showing them up for what / who they are.

BTW... does anybody still take NPR seriously? THEIR fault!

W. R. Chambers said...

Both Feinstein, a writer, and Rooney, a journalist, have a professional obligation to provide either accurate information, or opinion based on fact, to their respective audiences.

If KC were to send a letter or email addressed to both of them, reciting their respective observations about the Duke case which sugggest that they both are singularly ill-informed, provide them with accesss to accurate information about the Duke case and then invite them to comment using their respective platforms, it would be interesting to see how they respond, if at all, and to compare their responses.

As people who make their livings on speaking to the public and whose credibility therefore is of particular importance, one would think both Rooney and Feinstein would welcome the opportunity to explain or correct their views of the Duke case after reviewing the extensive public record.

As things stand now, their professional credibility is open to question.

I realize KC has emailed Rooney and quite likely as also contacted Feinstein. I'm just suggesting gong one step further by writing to both of them, giving them access to the public record and asking them to reconsider their comments. Yes, one would have hoped that they would have informed themselves before lending their not inconsiderable public influence to the view that "We'll never know what really happend," and "Something happened," and "Everything but rape happened."

If either one or both of them don't accept the invitation to re-think their comments, and to correct their respective records on the Duke case, what conclusion could one fairly draw about their professionalism?

I suspect some people have already made up their minds about Rooney and Feinstein, but I think it fair to give them the opportunity to repair the harm they have done to the defendants, the team and Pressler.

Anonymous said...

Sorry - SANE - Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner - Can we assume the examinder does the exam? Because in this case, a Physician did the exam - not a nurse. In spite of writing to the contratory, a Physician who had twelve YEARS traing as oppossed to the nurse who had two years RN experience and took an 84 HOUR Certification course. In prior posts, the nurse was quoted by liar Gottleib as saying "the exam was consistant with rape" = now that is modified to "Her story was consistant" The fact is we do not know, if Gottleib even refered to the nurse = who was and is a nobody in this event. Nifong did not bother to take a deposition from her.

Anonymous said...

1:32 says.. According to .. experts whose testimony floated in and out of discussions of the case, false claims of rape are rare or nonexistent.

I have never read that anywhere. What I have read is that it is both an over-reported and under-reported "crime". Many rapes go unreported, and those that are reported are between 15 and 40 (!)% false. (Comprehensive Studies are rare) Many cases are dropped before trial, many more are proved false. Some are just he-said , she-said, and too often innocent men are convicted.

Crystal's level of egregious mendacity and fabrication are fairly rare, but there are several reasons for a woman to lie (ie.. embarrassment, cover up of bad behavior, ashamedness, malicious revenge, etc), and they do lie... Which of course doesent mean women aren't raped way too often, just that nobody innocent of a felony like this should be punished. And due process should be respected, even for men!

Stu Daddy said...

Six months after the players' exoneration I haven't yet read that John Feinstein has sought forgiveness for his "something happened" commentary that the the players "were probably guilty of everything but rape." Feinstein's last prominent article on the topic may have been in May 2007. (I could have missed something more recent. I listen to him announce college football games on the Navy Sports Radio Network. Wrong venue.)

In his May Washington Post column, Feinstein rehashes his earlier criticism of Duke's athletic administration (not only Brodhead, Trask, Burness and Alleva, but past president Nan Keohane) and notes that no one at Duke has apologized for throwing the lax players under the bus:

"There is a lesson in all this: It isn't about over-zealous prosecutors or media running amok. It's a lesson about a society in which no one ever admits they're wrong, especially allegedly smart people. Smart people make mistakes too. Mistakes are forgivable -- but only after you admit them. No one at Duke has admitted to a single mistake yet. Until they do so, they don't deserve forgiveness."

I agree with my former classmate on this point. Others on this blog have eloquently commented on the importance of sincere apology as the foundation for healing and moving forward at Duke. Dick Brodhead's carefully crafted apology is duly noted. Feinstein could begin to redeem himself by apologizing for his intemperate remarks. Until then, his preaching to Duke rings hollow.

Anonymous said...

11{31 Like we know who "Jim in San Diego" is - taking a handle is annonymour also. Who Cares - most of us are not looking to "do lunch" with each other.

bobo1949 said...

Anonimouse @ 8:13AM
said
"I think it should go to trial to. To explain where the money came from for that other dancer y'all don't like to mention got the money to be driving around in a new BMW.
And for discovery. All the lax conduct, all the character (which will be relevant) all their earned reputations on campus, all the heretofore undiscoverable records. Put it all out there. Agreed. Come on with it."

________________

You attempt to suggest that great and secret issues have been withheld from inquiring minds. Well lets start with the Attorney General investigation which developed a timeline for the incident. It explains what happened step by painful step.
Then you suggest that the second dancer was paid off and driving a BMW "procured" with her ill gotten gains. Where is your proof that this happened? The last I heard she had gone to California to avoid her "manager" who had some questions about the distribution of funds she had received.
Finally, you seem to have forgotten that Duke University settled with the players and with their coach. Duke knew the reputation of the three indicted players. The rest of the team doesn't count in this case. Duke also has access (translation alert - Duke owns those records) to the "heretofore undiscoverable (sic) records" AND THE UNIVERSITY SETTLED ANYWAY. So, what makes you think there is a big secret hidden in the files of these 3 students? There is no evidence to that effect of which I am aware.
Please share with us all. As I said earlier, inquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Is Rooney a Communist?

10/28/07 8:33 PM

The post did not provide us with sufficient information with which to make a determination on that question. It did provide us with sufficient information with which to determine that Rooney is either:

a. Lazy (She did not research the subject of her judgmental comment enough); or

b. Stupid (She did the requisite research, but she failed to correctly differentiate "innocent" from "something happened"); or

c. Bigoted (She knew that nothing happened but her personal views led her to say that something did).

Anonymous said...

Re: 7.50pm:
Andy, that rusty curmudgeonis just as biased as his duaghter. Icannot understand whynhe is not let go; he'll probably drop dead at his desk.

don t. said...

To 9:30am

Save your money and time. You cannot seriously believe that these clowns are really interested in the facts.

trinity60

Ralph Phelan said...

"As people who make their livings on speaking to the public and whose credibility therefore is of particular importance, one would think both Rooney and Feinstein would welcome the opportunity to explain or correct their views of the Duke case after reviewing the extensive public record."

The Wall Street Journal makes its living selling accurate and timely information to folks who use it as part of their professional duties. All other news media are better understood as part of the entertainment industry.

When Rooney and Feinstein stop bringing in eyeballs they'll lose their "professional credibility" - until then they're doing their jobs successfully.

The bologosphere may be able to help bring such a day about, by spreading the word about how little value these people really add.

Anonymous said...

Rather than write as a Duke alum, let me respond as someone who makes a decent living by thinking about the formation of public opinion.

The human mind is wired to form an opinion on the basis of the first things heard. The mind, when confronted later with contradictory information, first works overtime to disregard the new information. When a lie is the first information, it tends to persist - the truth seldom wins out in the real world, and the facts seldom speak for themselves.

The reporters' persistence in holding to the original "facts" (that "something happened") is typical of how most people respond.

This is why the inaccurate first reports by the media are so damaging. It is why the media's defense of their initial inaccuracies - "well, if it's wrong, we'll run a correction" - is so inadequate and so cynically destructive of the underpinnings of our democracy.

Anonymous said...

to gary packwood

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I meant that almost 99% of those at NPR (people) are as I described.

I bet 99% of those who read my comment understood it. But I'm glad to clarify it for you. Please, I'm not looking for a fight. It's a beautiful day, and I'm celebrating Boston's many wins this weekend.

elena :>)

John said...

Ms. Rooney's comment surely was ignorant, gratutitous, and lazy from a journalistic point of view. It may also reflect her personal bias about the likely probabilities when sex crime charges are made. (Assuming arguendo that any such probabilities even exist, they have certainly been conclusively dispelled in this case.) But, I think KC goes a bit too far when he impliedly labels Ms. Rooney a co-conspirator by stating her comment is another part of the "something happened" conspiracy. Conspiracy requires intent and agreement, which require thought. What Ms. Rooney has shown us is no more than a lack of the latter. That is exactly what makes the civil suit so critical, since the false impression still lingers among those who have not paid the same attention to this case as the protagonists. If Ms. Rooney still spouts the same lie after reading her complimentary copy of UPI, I retract the above and will vote for her indictment as a co-conspirator post haste. The true conspirators are the crowd, Holloway, Piot, et al., who will say anything to save their irretrievably tarnished images.

cathyf said...

This case has been pretty exhaustively studied from the point of view of the three indicted men. It has been barely investigated at all from the point of view of the false accuser. For indeed “something happened”. A woman made a fraudulent claim of rape.

In this case, the only woman that we know made a fraudulent claim of rape is Tara Levicy. And there were some men who made fraudulent claims of rape too -- Nifong, Gottlieb. We know very little about what Mangum claims, since everything we know about her purported claims of rape consists of hearsay which has been reported to us by known liars.

Anonymous said...

Cathyf No - We do not know that at all.

Gary Packwood said...

Ralph Phelan 11:23 said...

...One lesson to draw from this case is the danger of assuming a self-proclaimed "expert" really is. Whether employed by the media or the courts, most "experts" are hired guns, like Nancy Grace or Brian Meehan, with an obvious financial interest in saying the right thing to get themselves consulted again. Many are ideologues of one sort or another.
::
You mean like those people who are trying to create a RAPE INDUSTRY replete with paid nurses, counselors, victim services, protective housing and of course, transportation!

And do you suppose that Rooney sees those associated with this emerging Rape Industry as her customers/listeners? You bet she does!

This new Rape Industry needs customers who are victims if they are truly going to be an INDUSTRY and ...therein lies the rub.

The Duke lacrosse rape hoax calls into question the size of this sexual assault 'market' for those trying to get traction as a Rape Industry.

But it is somewhat amusing to see how desperate the Rape Industry folks are when their numbers are called into question.

Follow the money.
::
GP

Jim in San Diego said...

to: anonymous (of course): "like we know who Jim in San Diego is"

1. the blog name "Jim in San Diego" uniquely identifies this writer as the source of blogs under that moniker. This helps address comments to or from JiSD. Over time, it should also affect the credibility or lack of same, of the blogs under that name.

2. "anonymous" does not have either of these advantages.

3. I have not invited anyone here to "do lunch" with me.

4. I HAVE asked anyone who can to identify verifiable sources for the wide ranging opinions expressed on this blog, today, about the prevalence of false claims of rape. Thus far, no response.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

"I think it should go to trial to. To explain where the money came from for that other dancer y'all don't like to mention got the money to be driving around in a new BMW."

I don't know of anyone who "don't [sic] like to mention" Kim Roberts Pittman.

"And for discovery. All the lax conduct, all the character (which will be relevant) all their earned reputations on campus, all the heretofore undiscoverable records. Put it all out there. Agreed. Come on with it."

That's what you say now, Connie, only because by definition, you don't even have to pretend that you can back it up. When the discovery comes back the same way the Coleman Committee report did, saying that there was no basis for these young man to be viciously slandered by the tongues of false witnesses calling them racists and rapists, you will turn in your slime and say "Well someone must have been paid off, that's what; whenever the evidence says what I want it to say it's real and whenever the evidence doesn't support me then it's the result of lies and payoffs. I never have to be humble and acknowledge that I misjudged someone."

Anonymous said...

"In this case, the only woman that we know made a fraudulent claim of rape is Tara Levicy. And there were some men who made fraudulent claims of rape too -- Nifong, Gottlieb. We know very little about what Mangum claims, since everything we know about her purported claims of rape consists of hearsay which has been reported to us by known liars."

False. We know a great deal about Mangum's claims of rape from the special prosecutors, who interviewed her and are hardly "known liars".

Anonymous said...

Jim in San Diego --

Since I am not any of the anonymi who posted the 50% figure I can't say where they got it. However, one frequent source for claims of the false rape accusation rate being in that neighborhood is the research of Eugene Kanin. One of Kanin's studies examined rape reports in a particular Indiana town in a nine-year period and found that 41% of them were, by the accuser's admission, false.

Of course I don't think Kanin ever claimed that the results he got from one Indiana town could be used to conclude a general statistic on what false rape accusation rates are; that seems to be the invention of others. However, it is fairly hard to refute what Kanin did conclude and since there's no apparent reason to think the rate would be higher in that one particular town than elsewhere -- it suggests that the doctrine that false rape accusations are rare is dangerously false.

mb said...

Jim in San Diego: There's a section in DIW - in the "Feminism" chapter I believe - that discusses some of the good peer-reviewed research into false allegations of rape, so see that chapter. In a nutshell, it's nowhere near the "2%" number offered up by professional feminists: Most good studies indicate that the rate of false allegations of rape hovers in the 30 - 50% range (e.g., Eugene Kanin at Purdue), with some as low a 0% and some as high as 100%. As you can see, the numbers are all over the map, but as I said, it appears to be much, much higher than advocates claim.

Anonymous said...

cathyf said...at 2:37PM

"In this case, the only woman that we know made a fraudulent claim of rape is Tara Levicy."

I'm confused by your statement. CGM never testified under oath but on April 6, 2006 she did give the DPD a written statement. She described her "rape" in excruciating detail.

What do you call this statement?

Anonymous said...

KC:

The one truly good thing to come out of the Duke lax hoax is the bright sunlight that has beamed down on all the participants.

It reminds me of lifting a rock in the back yard and watching all the bugs and insects scatter.

It's a wonderful thing.

Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

2"37 Well - The Durham Access nurses know Crystal said "She was raped". That is why the cops took her to DUMC - like Officer Sheldon. The four Doctors and five Nurses who were part of her care at DUMC know she yelled "rape." The female Officer who sat with Crystal for five hours plus knows she yelled "rape." Looks like a lot of folk and we have not gotten to the liars yet.

bill anderson said...

Several comments have been made to the effect that Pressler's grounds for voiding his settlement agreement are minor, insignificant or trivial. It should be noted that the standard for violation of a non-disparagement agreement is much lower than say his grounds for defamation. It's his underlying case that is strong and important. Bot to expose the extent of wrongdoing and to rehabilitate his reputation. All the civil suits are important.

10/28/07 7:08 PM


I can guarantee you that had Pressler made similar statements to the press, Duke would have made the same accusations. The level of arrogance I have seen from some quarters in this case is astounding, but if there are no consequences to lying and lawbreaking, then we can expect lying and lawbreaking.

AF said...

Saacks, Garrell, Cline, and Black
Four prosecutors with demonstrably wonderful powers of observation. All were so "busy" with their own workload that they couldn't part their lips to Mikey Liefong. Give me a break. This is a group that will bring a renewed sense of confidence in the legal system in Duhmb. Yeah, right.
These four need to go into private practice. Maybe between them, they can find some help for Precious. The "Teflon Madame" will undoubtedly need help at some point in time.
What happens twice happens thrice. Well, old Precious has cried rape (falsely) twice. Beware if you are male (especially white, and especially rich). She'll be at it again before too long!!!!!

Anonymous said...

KC,

You are amazing. The boys attorneys couldn't have laid it out better. Frankly, the more journalist make these reputational damaging comments the better for the cival case.

One question, off topic, but it concerns me. Why has so little of your tremendous energy exposing wrong doing been directed at Steele.? No substantial Duke response was made without his knowledge, indeed he likely developed the administration's strategy to give the students up for the university's reputation.

Jack

One Spook said...

cathyf @ 2:37 PM writes:

"We know very little about what Mangum claims, since everything we know about her purported claims of rape consists of hearsay which has been reported to us by known liars."

Oh my ... READ the Blog! Read the AG's report at the link KC provided.

This is from AG Roy Cooper's statement on April 11, 2007:

"The prosecuting witness [Mangum] in this case responded to questions and offered information. She did want to move forward with the prosecution."

The seriously deluded Mangum continued to claim she was raped (giving to the AG investigators yet another version of the "attack"), and in fact wanted to go forward with her complaint.

And, speaking of "deluded," ... Shirley you can't be serious ...

One Spook

no justice, no peace said...

Did Rooney graduate from Duke?

Anonymous said...

Another example of the Duke LAX case entering the lexicon.

In a KRDL radio interview with William Neal, a juror in the Holy Land Foundation mistrial, the following exchange took place:

KRLD: Do you think [the large number of charges] was by design?

Neal: Oh course it was by design.

KRLD: The reason I ask is that the more confusing it is the harder it is going to be to get a verdict and you have to wonder, “Well is it by design because we realized after we started this thing, we’re Mike Nifong here? We can’t make the case? They didn’t say the stripper is a nappy headed ho? Or is it a case of, we will just throw so much out there they’ll be so confused, they’ll have to go with us because they don’t want to take a chance.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018877.php

traveler said...

Rooney Is Amongst Friends-

Speaking of “off-the-wall’ media types. I was watching an ESPN sports show, and a black ‘SPORTS’ commentator said, “I am going to pull a Mitt Romney flip-flop on what I said earlier.” Say What?

I started paying closer attention to all the commentators, and ESPN certainly is into ‘closet’ politics.

ESPN is owned by ABC(Absolute--Bulls**t--Channel.) How dumb am I, that I just now see these verbal covert actions? Where is Dennis Miller?

Anonymous said...

Just an example of the way the MSM has treated Dave, Reade, and Colin. Most of the time when they are named, it's included that they were cleared of a "rape" accusation--where we'll never know what happened. Three kids WHO DID NOTHING!

I like Jay Bilas, but most of what I saw on ESPN mirrored the bias against the Duke 3.

Well, ESPN have outdone themselves. Incredible! They have a piece on Generlow Wison. They NEVER mention what he went to jail for. They call him a "victim" and someone who was wronged! He's being treated like a rock star.

It is amazing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=genarlowfree&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1

elena

mac said...

I think KC's point is pretty clear: Duhh should be sued into insolvency. Perhaps if Duhh is relieved of its assets, others could be next.

I like the idea of seeing Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy (and now, perhaps, Ms. Rooney) sued into oblivion.

They remind me of a program I recently saw on the Salem witch trials; it is amazing how alike the 88 , Wendy and Nancy (and the dumb denizens of Duhh) appear to be - and continue to be.

Maybe this case will end up with the same level of infamy as those trials.

Anonymous said...

I think the big point with this case, was the exposure of how the Justice System can be run over. It took five million dollars, nine of the best defense attorney in NC, thousands of bloggers and DIW to bring a halt to Nifong and the judges. I do not think the judges have been punished for their roles in this event. Can this happen again? Has enough punishment been doled out to Nigong?

Julian said...

8:42
"This is where he went from high school student to disgraced 17-year-old who got a 10-year sentence for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old."

The article does state the reason Wilson was in jail.
While he's no hero, Wilson's sentence was excessive.

becket03 said...

The "something happened" crowd won't be silenced until Mangum gets put under oath. The whole world needs to see her testify, needs to hear the obvious fabrications in her story, and needs to be able to assess her character on the witness stand.

I don't favor prosecuting Mangum, necessarily, as that runs the risk of making a martyr out of her. But I strongly believe, and have said so for many months, that Collin, Dave and Reade won't be able to claim complete and total vindication until Crystal Mangum's credibility is utterly destroyed, as it surely would be, on the witness stand, under cross examination, in public.

Somehow the boys' lawyers need to make that happen.

beckett

becket03 said...

jim in san diego: If anyone has references to any credible studies of the percentage of rape accusations which are false, please provide them. I have been unable to find any such studies.

All you have to do is read Until Proven Innocent. Johnson and Taylor present several pages worth of data on this very subject, pp 373 - 376.

They cite a study by Purdue sociologists examining 109 rape complainants which found that 41% eventually recanted.

They also quote Linda Fairstein, the storied sex crimes prosecutor from NYC, who wrote in 2003 in an article in Cosmopolitan magazine, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half did not happen."

beckett

Anonymous said...

mac @10:29 10:04 AM

They remind me of a program I recently saw on the Salem witch trials; it is amazing how alike the 88 , Wendy and Nancy (and the dumb denizens of Duhh) appear to be - and continue to be.

At least Judge Sewall apologized for the Salem witch trials.

dave

Anonymous said...

to anonymous @10/29 7:07 AM:

The reason I ask is that the more confusing it is the harder it is going to be to get a verdict and you have to wonder, “Well is it by design because we realized after we started this thing, we’re Mike Nifong here? We can’t make the case?

Thanks for the link. I'm trying to collect these. "Nifong," indeed, has entered the lexicon. We have examples from the legal and journalistic professions of the word's use as both a
transitive verb ("I couldn't find any evidence on those hooligans, so I nifonged 'em and they got twenty"); and instransitive verb ("Judge, I wasn't born when that crime was committed! I've been nifonged!"); and also as a noun ("Did you see that guy making a pass at Mandy? Acting like he's the captain of the football team and he can't even walk and chew gum at the same time, what a nifong!").

And now you've given us (cradling the precious object)... nifong, the adverb. "So when she asked me to prove where I'd been last night all I could come up with was that lame excuse, I was so nifong." Some lexicographers might regard this as a variant of the transitive verb form: "to go nifong" ("So when he couldn't answer my arguments he just started inventing straw men and went all nifong on me.") But I think you've made a valuable new discovery.

Jim in San Diego said...

to: anon 4:50; mb; Becket 03

Thank you for the information.

What a great blog.

Anonymous said...

face it:

1.Many people not in Durham also believe something happened because the defense version does not make much sense and therefore Cooper's version which is a dictated version of the defense's positions does not make sense,IMO

2.to the unbiased observer, Cooper's report is scanty and was far from being exhaustively investigated. For example, some key witnesses like BISSEY were not even re-interviewed!

3.Cooper's report seems to discount any testimony from any source besides the Lacrosse team. This is a puzzling stance, since there are statements from Kim and the agency booking the dancers that reveal the players were lying about the number of men at the party, calling it a bachelor party and lying about the team identity. They were serving alcohol to minors. These are facts. The men also hid from police that night and did not answer the door when the police and Duke PD came over;others left the scene at a rapid pace. Somehow, these people are suddenly above reproach for their depositions according to Cooper. WHY? Once a liar=suspect testimony as far as many people are concerned and that applies to the Lax team just like it applied to CGM. Obviously, Cooper was following the Jim Crow legal standard that white testimony outweighs black testimony and black testimony should be disregarded when the two conflict(JMO).

4. IMO,anything CGM said that was corroborated by evidence was ignored in the report: she knew what color the rugs were in the bathroom and strangely knew there was fresh ejaculate by the side of the toilet AND KNEW WHICH SIDE IT WAS ON. This is not in Cooper's report at all. The semen was fresh,unlike the samples in the underwear the defense made such a fuss over which were so degraded they were MISSED IN THE ROUTINE SBI TEST FOR DNA. The semen matched a player at the party 100% perfect match. CGM maintained the team referred to themselves by numbers and nicknames; this was discounted on this blog and not mentioned in Cooper's report yet we have evidence the team DID refer to themselves by numbers and nicknames in the Mcfayden email. This odious email referred to both numbers and nicknames so this is evidence the players did so on a routine basis among themselves, yet this was discounted by Cooper's report and by this blog.

5.Cooper's very first statement, that CGM arrived significantly impaired was at odds with Kim, Bissey and her driver; the only people maintaining this so called "fact" was the Lax team and the defense. refer to point 3 and the Jim Crow rule operating, IMO.

I could go on and on but Cooper's report was sketchy and biased IMO so the assertions in there could definitely be questioned on a cross examination if the case had gone to court so of course legal professionals who are not biased are questioning it and of course, people on this blog are angry as Cooper is supposed to be God or something and his report is the new 10 commandments according to you people. However the report IS NOT HOLY WRIT AND IT IS DEEPLY FLAWED,IMO, AND HAD THIS GONE TO COURT THE CROSS WOULD HAVE BEEN ROUGH FOR THE LAX MEN and their alibi witnesses like ELMO( who had the wrong car color and testified the yard was full at a time the Duke PD and Durham PD were at the house reporting an empty house with only a keg visible) but this is JMO and of course this will never come to court in a manner in which a cross of any Lax team member could occur.

This case should have gone to court and not been handled the way it was; the men would have been vindicated if there was no evidence but now no one will know for sure and Cooper's report is not detailed enough, IMO. The defense strategy of not going to court worked well enough but they lost the chance for a true vindication, IMO.

Anonymous said...

10/30 11:36 PM --

Thanks for reminding us why the falsely accused players are going to receive $30 million dollars, because the racist citizens of Durham still can't restrain themselves from spouting lies. "The semen matched a player at the party 100% perfect match" -- what bullshit! Are you proud of yourself for committing false witness?

Anonymous said...

"[Taylor and Johnson] also quote Linda Fairstein, the storied sex crimes prosecutor from NYC, who wrote in 2003 in an article in Cosmopolitan magazine, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half did not happen.""

However, in the errata you'll find a correction:

"p. 374:

“Fairstein also wrote, ‘There are about 4,000 . . . .”: Linda Fairstein informed us after the book had been printed that that this statement is incorrect, and that she has never said that about half of the reports of rape in Manhattan did not happen. Rather, Fairstein estimates that about 10 to 15 percent of rape reports are false, still a much higher rate of false reporting than for other crimes. Stuart Taylor included the erroneous quotation in our manuscript after seeing it on many web sites. He contacted Fairstein when he was unable to verify it. We regret the error."

inman said...

11:36 is brain dead. No need for life support.

mac said...

11:36 pm.

Hey, Tara, guess you didn't get your copy of UPI yet?

Let's see:
There was plenty of DNA to be found on the person of CGM - just none of it was from the lacrosse players; the DA/Meehan intentionally/deliberately withheld this information. So who was messing with the evidence?

Roberts lied on several occasions; she attempted to capitalize on the case. And she's credible?

The Dee Pee Dee destroyed evidence (the tape of Roberts, lying about being verbally assaulted at the lacrosse house.) So far, the lynching isn't going the way you might like it to, is it, babe?

Most of the police who thought the case was a fabrication (Sgt. Shelton, for example) were either shut-up, ignored or subjected to an internal investigation. How's that? You didn't hear that?

So far, looks like your little conspiracy theory is...silly.

No need to refute your comments further, but it would help if CGM was prosecuted so that your imbecilic assertions about an incomplete job by the AG were put to rest. I hope that this eventually happens, and that CGM is given a long time on the stand to defend her many irrational, inconsistent and contradictory statements.

Now just run along and hide under the park bench over there and scare some kiddies for halloween.

And buy yourself a copy of UPI. Of course, it was written by white persons, so I guess that means - to you - that it can't be true.

How do you spell "racist?"

Anonymous said...

to julian at 6.36

Wilson was in jail because he was convicted of aggravated child molestation. That was the law. The prosecution and the jury and the judge just followed the law. They did not make it.

Somehow group oral sex on a young girl who has been given liquor does not sound minor. They escaped drug and alcohol charges. He accepted the 10 years, he was given the chance to plead. He refused. Smart move, he's now a rock star. He's making the rounds on the tv shows.

elena

Debrah said...

TO 11:36 PM--

Al McSurely?

Irving Joyner?

Cash Michaels?

Anonymous said...

re 11.36

How does it go? If you argue with a fool, what you have is 2 fools arguing.

elena

becket03 said...

9:18 AM

The correction you so kindly informed me of is duly noted.

beckett

Anonymous said...

I've been trying to post a response to 11:36 but I simply can't. In a blog spanning a year and a half with tens of thousands of Comments, I think we have a new winner for the stupidist, most uninformed, most fraudulent post. All in one! Kudos!

GP
T '68

Anonymous said...

When KC is long dead, the "received wisdom" of the Lax case will be that propounded by 11:36 PM.

Why? Because KC and so many of you folks are afraid of being called "racists".

RRH

R.R. Hamilton said...

elena said...

to julian at 6.36

Wilson was in jail because he was convicted of aggravated child molestation. That was the law. The prosecution and the jury and the judge just followed the law. They did not make it.

Somehow group oral sex on a young girl who has been given liquor does not sound minor. They escaped drug and alcohol charges. He accepted the 10 years, he was given the chance to plead. He refused. Smart move, he's now a rock star. He's making the rounds on the tv shows.

10/31/07 11:05 AM


Excellent post, elena. Also, I think the Georgia Sup Court violated separation of powers when it ordered Wilson freed recently.

If you think the Wilson case is bad, check out the black football star at Oklahoma State who's been charged with raping a 12-year-old white girl -- proved by DNA. You think Ok State canceled the football season? Think the guy was at least kicked off the team?

Anonymous said...

1.the fresh ejaculate found at the scene by the toilet belonged to one Matt Zash and was a perfect match. Zash was a Lax player at the party and was even pictured in one photo talking to CGM so that is not B---S---. Your statement is the B----S---t; I am talking a fact--you can check it in the News and observer!

2.The things I stated about the players lying about the team identity,number of men involved and the part about a bachelor party was stated by CGM, Kim AND corroborated by the agency booking the strippers. This also is a FACT

3.You are all the uniformed and stupid people perpuating a fraud IMO as you are trying to pretend that the Cooper report is some kind of perfect document when it is full of holes and some of the statements in there would have been shredded on cross and you are mad that someone of Rooney's caliber is not fooled like you all were.

Debrah said...

TO RRH (2:05 PM)--

I predict that KC will begin to change his mind a bit--if he hasn't already--as a result of working on this case.

My thoughts on KC are still that he is more Patrick Moynihan-esque......choosing truth over PC dictates.....and weathering the criticism that follows.

And he will be respected for it by all.

inman said...

The anonymouse 2:38 is beyond brain dead. To be brain dead, one must first have had a brain,...and that drivel and drool is a clear indication that 2:38 does not and never did have a brain.

Hence, no need to pull the plug on pluperfect irrelevancy.

Jim in San Diego said...

re: responses to 6:36, also 2:38

I strongly favor responding to incorrect facts with correct facts, and leave out the ad hominem adjectives.

This is clearly someone who has tried to marshall facts as they understand them. We do not yet know the source of those facts.

However, it is so unusual for someone to try to argue the anti-player case with facts, we should respect that and respond in kind.

The ad hominem pejoratives, on both sides, frankly leave me cold.

Anonymous said...

2:38 --

Wow, you just don't know when to stop making yourself look stupid, do you? It was Matt Zash's bathroom. Now, Matt Zash's DNA being found where there isn't a reasonable and obvious explanation for Matt Zash's DNA being there, that might be indicative of guilt. Matt Zash's DNA being found in Matt Zash's bathroom is non-significant.

Many thanks for the good laugh you gave us in number 3; I do in fact happen to be technically "uniformed" right now, though it's just a work shirt. Is the Cooper report a "perfect document"? Probably it isn't because few things in this world are perfect. It is, however, the product of actual investigation, the way that the various documents that purported to prove that something happened to Mangum were not. You actually try to make a big deal out of the fact that Cooper didn't reinterview Jason Bissey, for God's sake -- yet you would have been perfectly okay with a prosecution being pushed through by Mike Nifong who never interviewed Mangum. "Someone of Rooney's caliber is not fooled"? Bullshit. The fact is that only one person ever claimed to have first-hand evidence that "something happened" to Crystal Gail Mangum in that bathroom. That person is Crystal Gail Mangum, who had showed up to that house having already taken a combination of booze and muscle relaxant; who also claimed that she was dancing with three other girls, not one; who also changed the number of her supposed attackers between five and twenty and three; who also claimed that she'd been dancing in the master bedroom and that the photos clearly showing otherwise must have been doctored; who also claimed that she was helped into Kim Roberts' car by two people who were known not to have been there when she left the party -- in short, it's Rooney, and any other idiot who still insists that "something happened" because the clearly delusional and even more clearly self-contradictory Mangum said it did, who has been thoroughly fooled.

Anonymous said...

debrah said...

TO RRH (2:05 PM)--

I predict that KC will begin to change his mind a bit--if he hasn't already--as a result of working on this case.

10/31/07 3:08 PM

I think KC knows the truth, and I don't think he needed this case to learn it. But KC isn't going to commit professional suicide by telling the truth. He has seen the president of Harvard lose his job for saying that boys and girls are different, and more recently a Nobel laureate humiliated for saying the same thing about blacks and whites.

The myth of racial equality is yet too powerful. KC realizes that compared with a Harvard president or a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a little Brooklyn College professor would be small potatoes for the all too real teeth of the equality myth.

RRH

AMac said...

Anon 11:36pm & 2:38pm --

In the spirit proposed by Jim in San Diego (3:28pm), I have a question:

Is it physically possible for the something that you suspect happened to have taken place in the bathroom at 610 N Buchanan?

I've never been to Durham. But 'John in Carolina' has, and he's asked the owner of the house some pointed questions about this issue.

Alas, the owner never saw fit to answer.

Some people are seduced by a siren calling the narrative was right, but the facts were wrong. To them, none of this matters.

Jim in San Diego said...

to 6:38, 2:36

I respect your attempt to marshall facts.

If you return to this blog tomorrow, I will try to respond to your questions, and explain another view of the evidence. Do not have time tonite.

Jim Peterson

Jim in San Diego said...

To 6:36 & 2:38:

This is an attempt to respond with evidence to your numbered comments about the evidence in the Duke case. Keep in mind, I am just a blogger, and fallible.

1. The AG's report does not appear to be a "dictated version of the defense positions".

I recommend you read the entire report, which is the first document listed at this blog, on the right side of the page. The investigative methodology is described beginning at page 4:

- 7,000 documents were reviewed
- 600 photos were reviewed, including 25 photos and 2 videos taken at the party
- experts verified the data imbedded in the photos and videos was accurate (i.e. time they were taken)
- 47 people were interviewed, including 17 lacross players at the party, including the black member of the lacrosse team.
- Note, Kim declined to talk to the AG without a subpoena.

The AG then put together a narrative, at pages 5-7, based on the evidence the AG's team uncovered. This narrative appears to make sense. If it does not, please explain why.

2. To the unbiased observer, the AG's report appears to be exhaustive, not scanty. Note, it was endorsed not only by AG Cooper, but Senior Deputy AG James Conan and Special Deputy AG Mary Winstead.

It is 21 pages long, and lists and examines most of the key evidence in the case.

3. The AG's report examines all the evidence, not just testimony, whether from lacrosse members, or others. In particular, it examines physical evidence including photos and videos, phone records of the accuser and the accused, and DNA evidence, or lack of same. This starts about page 8.

The report states that Dan Flannery, who set up the party, did not identify himself, and did not say there were 40 members. Dan Flannery, of course, was not one of the accused. It is not clear whether he just failed to say how large the party was, or said it was a small party. Nowhere in the AG's report is there any indication any major conclusion of the report was based on Dan Flannerys testimony, alone.

It appears that party goers were gone by the time police arrived. They did not "hide". In any case, such behavior is not illegal, and is not sexual assault.

The AG reportgoes into great detail in evaluating the credibility of Mangum, at pages 14-17. The list of credibility weaknesses reads like a legal text on the reasons not to believe a witness - changing stories, contradiction to previous statements, contradictions with the medical report, the early police reports, and others. Please read this again.

4. CGM changed in the bathroom. She saw the rug. Dna in the bathroom belonged to Matt Zash, who was a resident of the house. CGM did not identify Mr. Zash as anyone who ever assaulted her. That the DNA "matched a player at the party" thus appears to be irrelevant to the case against the accused.

The Mcfayden email was stupid and insensitive. It was an immature regurgitation, however, of a story that was required reading in several courses at Duke.

5. It is not clear at what time you are referring to about CGM's being impaired. At the party, in addition to the testimony of party goers, there is a video showing her apparently impaired, and a photo showing her lying on the porch. When CGM showed up to be interviewed by the AG, she appeared to the AG to be impaired. She admitted to taking "multiple prescription drugs".

In order to take a case to trial under our judicial system, it is necessary that there be evidence to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the purpose of a trial for the defendants to prove their innocence.

You do not discuss the gross misbehavior of Mike Nifong, which led to his disbarment and sentence to jail. But that figured into the decision, also.

Thank you for your patience.

Debrah said...

TO RRH (4:04 PM)--

Do I think that KC has spent his adult life inside the academic world just to be the gravedigger who would dig his own grave?

No.

However, I have a kind of Diva clairvoyance when it comes to KC.

Not only does he have the goods, but he has now--through events of the past year--been cast into a role for which he can either go for the Oscar or remain a bit player...as his envious "collegial" colleagues would prefer.

I agree with you that it will take some soul-searching on his part and a fire in the belly, but he is in the position of being able to affect real change.

This "race thing" is like a cancer. No hyperbole.

Only in the 1990's did I begin to come out of that insanity.

Example: Around 1998, I was living in a house with glass and wooden beams making up most of the architecture. The glass in the middle section of the house extended from floor to ceiling....leaving the den/entertainment area open to an outside wooded area.

I had the habit of staying up late--as I still do--reading and getting things done I missed during the day, etc.....until 2AM or later.

One night while I was lying back in a chair--dressed in a VS sleep shirt that I always wear around home.....

......I was suddenly startled as I looked up from the paper I was reading by a black guy standing out on one of the decks just looking in and smiling....actually with a huge taunting grin.

I screamed!.....because the lot was in a wooded subdivision where I could--and did--walk around the house nude anytime I wanted. No one was ever around.

I called the police, of course, but he was long gone.

Here's my point: I grew up with such a Liberal mindset....layered still with a Liberal Arts education.....layered still with living in a town that Jesse Helms called a Liberal zoo.....

.....that I was even reluctant to give the officer the race of the man, concerned that people might think I was slamming a black person.

What insanity!!!!!!!!!!

The officer said to me calmly: "Debrah, we have to have a description and we have to have the race of the man in order to conduct our investigation."

So, I know what this disease is all about....and I know how it harms and unravels everything positive and productive in this world.

But the truth also is that the black community does enjoy a pass in almost every realm. Most enjoy this not-too-often-discussed aspect which makes life quite a free ride for many......despite the outcry that so many black men are in prison. Why would that be? Hmmmm......

The hysteria now is the dogged determination to keep the insanity going......at the expense of their own dignity.

So much of what Bill Cosby has been saying addresses this issue.

We all must begin to recognize the beast and fight it.....for the sake of everyone.

(And I think that with a few Diva touches, KC could very easily be a Harvard president.)

:>)

Anonymous said...

It's not a crime to leave semen, or any other bodily fluid, in one's own bathroom. It wasn't left on CGM. There was no rape, no evidence of rap, and no need for a rape trial.

Man, these looney bin folks don't know the difference between a crime and a party.

Wonder what they do on Saturday nights////

Anonymous said...

The City of Durham should hire Karla Holloway as their defense attorney. She is a lawyer, isn't she? (At least that's waht I keep hearing).

Jim in San Diego said...

To: 6:36, 2:38

If you are still following this thread, I ask you to answer honestly the following question.

After reading all the reasons that CGM is not a credible witness, at pages 14-17 of the AG's report:

If CGM were white, and the accused men were black, would you believe her? If the black men were indicted on the basis of her testimony, would you feel they were being treated wrong?

I ask you this, as you are virtually the only person ever to appear on a blog I have seen who has tried to argue the anti-Lacrosse case with facts. Therefore, I value your opinion.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

Gosh...I haven't thought about WGBH since I lived up in New England, and the Federally funded television station was caught sharing their donation lists (names and addresses) with the Democratic National Committee.

Cheers,
JR

Anonymous said...

I do not care what color folk are - to believe a rape, the DNA has to match. Iven if they use a condom, the lubricant and latex show up in the rape kit. The one who claims to be raped has the responsibility to get a rape kit done within the day - not weeks later. Or go from the Bahamas to Seattle - Is this a joke?

Anonymous said...

1.Matt Zash lived at 610 buchanon but how would CGM know that semen was where she alleged? A small amount of semen near a toilet is not the first thing one sees changing casually in a bathroom. Also, CGM's alleged names used by her attackers: Adam, Brett and....MATT. It is certainly a coincidence that she named a Matt and a Matt had semen at the scene. The odds againist that are infinitessimal.

2.Similarly, it is againist the odds that Evans just happened to be named at 90% and his Dna was a 97% non-exclusion on a fingernail AND he is pictured helping CGM into the car to leave and CGM alleged one of her attackers helped her dress and helped her into the car. Then Evans either left his own home at 2 am or did not answer the door for Law enforcement( why?). Either action is suspicious,IMO, especially since Evans alleges it was a non event. In fact the rapid and noisy exit of the team(per Bissey) defies the defense version of a non-event. Criminology 101 states that the criminal always puts distance between himself and the incriminating event. Thus, the team's rapid exit(also corroborated by Elmo and Duke PD and Duke PD) is evidence that something untoward went on and the team was trying to distance itself from it. Reade would not even wait on the same side of the street to catch his cab which is also suspicious for someone trying to leave the scene of a crime, IMO, and Finnerty was also making tracks that night apparently; certainly the court transcript of his actions in DC record Finnerty as running away from the site of the altercation before being apprehended by the police in THAT case so that is what he did in the past when there was trouble so why would this time be any different?

3.if the accuser was white, there would have been a trial and she would have gotten the chance to speak. There would not have been this attempt to discredit the DA and imply that the accuser could not be a victim because of who she is which is what the defense did in this case. CGM was a poor black woman and so she was villified and made to seem she could never be raped because she was mentally ill, black and in the sex trade.

4.As to the no DNA match, rape can be a non-ejaculatory event and the SBI lab has been wrong in the past about the presence of DNA and ?lubricants. Nifong should have sent his samples to the FBI not Meehan, which was a lab with contaimination and any expert witness could have shredded Meehan on cross when his own DNA contaiminated the samples! Any results he had could be dismissed, including the multiple degraded samples in CGM's underwear as they too could be simple contaimination.
Only the rapists would know if they wore condoms( sometimes the woman is not sure).

In short, there are a lot of things not discussed in Cooper's report and that could have been debated on cross had the thing gone to court, IMO.

Anonymous said...

"1.Matt Zash lived at 610 buchanon but how would CGM know that semen was where she alleged? A small amount of semen near a toilet is not the first thing one sees changing casually in a bathroom. Also, CGM's alleged names used by her attackers: Adam, Brett and....MATT. It is certainly a coincidence that she named a Matt and a Matt had semen at the scene. The odds againist that are infinitessimal."

A coincidence is exactly what it is, and not a terribly meaningful coincidence, either. Matt is hardly an uncommon name; out of 46 white lacrosse players three of them were named Matt. That's odds of one in fifteen. There are three lacrosse players whose DNA would be absolutely unsurprising to find in the bathroom and that are the three who lived there; again, three out of 46 is odds of one in fifteen. The odds of two one-in-fifteen events happening together is one in 225. Is that, as you claim, "infinitessimal [sic]"? No. Consider this: how often have you discovered that someone you met shared your birthday? Would you say "oh wow, the chances against it being a coincidence are infinitesimal, there must be some significant meaning to us sharing a birthday"? No, you'd say "hunh, interesting coincidence, but not meaningful." Yet, the chances against sharing a birthday with an arbitrary other person are 1/365 -- worse than the 1/225 chances that you're claiming are so significant here.

Here's some other reasons why the seminal DNA you reference is insignificant:

a) even though Zash possessed one of the first names Mangum claimed her attackers called each other by, she never identified him as one of her attackers. Not in the first two lineups, which were predicated on the assumption that the attackers really were named "Adam", "Matt", or "Brett" (this was of course before she changed her story to claim that the attackers also used the name "Dan", and that two of the attackers used two or three names each). Not even in the lineup that produced the indictments -- a lineup, as you know, that so thoroughly violated the standards established to keep the mentally ill or the money-grubbing from picking "offenders" at random that the police had to pretend it wasn't a lineup at all. Perhaps this is why Matt Zash and his lawyer Kerry Sutton were informed by Nifong even before the first two indictments were handed down that he had been cleared.

b) The DNA sample on the floor which contained Zash's DNA did not have Mangum's DNA. Remember, a semen stain from Matt Zash on the floor of Matt Zash's bathroom means absolutely nothing unless that semen was the semen that one of Mangum's alleged attackers allegedly ejaculated into her mouth which she then allegedly spit on the floor. If it could not be semen from that alleged event, it is absolutely insignificant, and the logical explanation for it is that booze-and-Flexeril-impaired Mangum, taking a professional interest in such things, saw the semen stain and incorporated it into her delusions, just as she also incorporated two more girls at the party than there actually were. Now, if you're trying to claim that that semen on the floor actually was Zash's semen from the event that Mangum alleged, are you actually claiming that after receiving an ejaculation into her mouth, Mangum could have spit it out on the floor without managing to get a single drop of her own saliva mixed with it? Now that is infinitesimal odds!

Anonymous said...

"2.Similarly, it is againist the odds that Evans just happened to be named at 90% and his Dna was a 97% non-exclusion on a fingernail AND he is pictured helping CGM into the car to leave and CGM alleged one of her attackers helped her dress and helped her into the car."

a) He was named at "90% if he had a mustache", which they proved he had not had before the party, during the party, or after the party. Therefore he was identified at 0%.

b) There was a 98% non-exclusion between Evans' DNA and the mixture of DNA samples that was collected from the fronts and backs of a number of false fingernails. How significant is that? Not very. A 98% non-exclusion means that if you picked an individual at random, there's a 98% chance that you could say definitely "no, this isn't the person the DNA came from". Conversely, of course, if you got a group of about 50 people, the chances that you wouldn't have at least one person who couldn't be excluded would be only about 36%. Even in a sample size of 40, the chances are still better than half that there'll be someone who can't be excluded. There is of course some idiot who keeps claiming that the "98%" means 98% of the sample DNA matched Dave Evans' DNA and that's just completely absurd; it's like claiming that a score of 90 on a test and scoring in the 90th percentile on a test are the same thing. Even without that, however, one of the fingernails was recovered from David Evans' own bathroom wastebasket. The DNA could have easily be transferred from his trash to the fingernail. If you don't believe so, then I will go to your house, drop a fake fingernail into your bathroom wastebasket, pull it out and then test it for DNA. If I can find your DNA on a fingernail that's mingled with the tissues that you've wiped yourself with, then you go to jail for thirty years. Does that sound fair to you? If you actually believe what you're saying, it should.

c) Mangum said that one of her alleged attackers helped her into Roberts' car, and Evans is confirmed by photographic evidence to have helped her into her car. However, Mangum has also claimed that Seligmann and Finnerty helped her into "Nikki's" car, at a time when it is established they were both elsewhere. Even discounting her two false claims about who helped her into the car, holding up her ability to identify one such person correctly as if it supported her claims of other actions taken by that person is a classic fish-river argument. That's when the fisherman is boasting to his friends that the other day, he went fishing in the river on the west side of town and he caught a fish that must have been ten feet long. When his friends get skeptical and demand to see evidence, he piles them into his truck and drives them over to the west side of town. "There!" he says. "There's the river -- just as I said it would be!"

"Then Evans either left his own home at 2 am or did not answer the door for Law enforcement( why?). Either action is suspicious,IMO, especially since Evans alleges it was a non event. In fact the rapid and noisy exit of the team(per Bissey) defies the defense version of a non-event."

You keep using this term "non-event". Since I can't remember ever seeing the term used in any of the statements, neither from the defense nor from the prosecution, I regard it as a non-term. As for it being suspicious that an individual who was already facing charges for the minor crime of a noise violation would want to not be at home shortly after an angry stripper initiated a loud exchange of racial insults just outside that home at a late hour (about which she would later make a false call to 911, pretending that she was not the initiator) -- it's not. It's got a very simple and obvious explanation.

"Criminology 101 states that the criminal always puts distance between himself and the incriminating event. Thus, the team's rapid exit(also corroborated by Elmo and Duke PD and Duke PD) is evidence that something untoward went on and the team was trying to distance itself from it."

Criminology 101 should only be taken after Logic 101 has been completed. In Logic 101, you learn that statements of the form "If p, then q" do not logically imply statements of the form "If q, then p". Suppose I take a stink bomb and toss it into a house where you're attending a party. Wouldn't everybody be vacating the house pretty damn quick? Would your rapid exit be evidence (according to Criminology 101) that you had committed some sort of crime inside the house that you were trying to get distance from?

"Reade would not even wait on the same side of the street to catch his cab which is also suspicious for someone trying to leave the scene of a crime, IMO, and Finnerty was also making tracks that night apparently; certainly the court transcript of his actions in DC record Finnerty as running away from the site of the altercation before being apprehended by the police in THAT case so that is what he did in the past when there was trouble so why would this time be any different?"

See, here you go again showing a complete ignorance about deriving cause from effect. Your argument is "IF the three people that Mangum finally picked out of a massively-procedure-violating lineup had committed a violent half-hour-long gang rape, THEN they would be trying to get out of there as fast as possible. SINCE they were trying to get out of there as fast as possible, THUS they committed a violent half-hour-long gang rape." That argument, of course, could only hold up as valid if there was no other reason in the universe why they'd want to get away from there. How about the fact that one of the dancers had arrived disgustingly falling-down drunk and the other was choosing to put on a rather tasteless display of simulating lesbian sex on a drunk woman? Seligmann and Finnerty weren't the only ones who left at that time; are you claiming that every single person who left at that time was a participant in the alleged assault? No? How could leaving at that time be evidence against Seligmann and Finnerty but not against the others?

mac said...

11:39

Hi, Tara!
Still trying to make your case?

Anonymous said...

Mac --

No, I'm pretty sure Levicy is more coherent in her writing and accurate in her spelling than 11:39. I believe 11:39 is "Courthouse Connie", who claims to work at the Durham courthouse and thinks the gossip she gets there is the kind of high-quality evidence court cases should be built on.

mac said...

7:10
Good call.
(My radar is in need of adjustment.)

Anonymous said...

"3.if the accuser was white, there would have been a trial and she would have gotten the chance to speak."

The accuser did get a chance to speak. She spoke to the newspaper, which credulously printed the things she told them such as that "this was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group," which is completely BS considering that the audience she shook it for regularly at the strip clubs certainly constitute "a group" for almost anyone's purposes. She had the opportunity to speak to the police, albeit they held back most of what she said because it would have made it clear that she was either lying or deranged (just as, come to think of it, the newspaper also suppressed pieces of what she said so as to hide the fact that she couldn't keep her story straight.) And even though she didn't get to speak to the prosecutor, no one can accuse him of not doing enough to get her accusations out to the world.

As for there being a trial -- no. Whether the victim was black or white or Asian or Native American, no honest prosecutor would have brought such obviously false charges to a trial. Prosecutors are supposed to bring charges only when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. When there is only one person claiming that a crime occurred, and that person's story keeps changing and it conflicts heavily with the physical evidence, and the person is well-known to have psychological problems and to be using both prescription and illegal drugs -- no honest prosecutor would try to claim that was "probable cause".

Of course, if you wish to argue that every charge supported solely by the constantly-mutating word of a mentally ill drug addict should be brought to a trial, please try to make your argument with some consistency. For instance, would you argue that young black college students should have to stand trial any time a bipolar stripper shows up for an arranged gig already drunk on alcohol and Flexeril and comes out with a constantly-changing story of them raping her?

"There would not have been this attempt to discredit the DA"

In case you haven't noticed, the DA was discredited because he was breaking the law and the canons of professional ethics of his profession. Such a DA should always be "discredited". Again, if you disagree, please phrase it in terms of why a DA who was bringing charges against black defendants should be permitted to:

* issue indictments against those defendants before even being sure that those defendants were even ever at the scene of the alleged crime during the only time it could have happened;

* go on national TV and perform a supposed re-enactment of how an alleged act was performed when in fact he has never spoken to the one witness who claims such an act took place and is in fact relying on his imagination for all the details he's giving;

* lie to the defense and to the court by illegally withholding exculpatory evidence and committing criminal conspiracy to conceal it.

Again, if you want to argue that these are things a DA should be allowed to do to white defendants based on the non-credible word of a black complainant, please argue why the DA should be allowed to do them to black defendants based on the non-credible word of a white complainant.

"and imply that the accuser could not be a victim because of who she is which is what the defense did in this case. CGM was a poor black woman and so she was villified and made to seem she could never be raped because she was mentally ill, black and in the sex trade."

'which is what the defense did in this case'. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're talking bullshit. I would put down a thousand dollars without hesitation on a bet that you could pore through every single one of the defense filings and every single one of the defense's public statements and not find a single one that says that Mangum "could not be raped" -- much less one that cites her mental illness, her race, or her profession as a supposed reason for it.

What the defense did say, which apparently some people with prejudices and poor reading comprehension might have misread as "the accuser could not have been raped", was "the evidence proves that a rape could not have happened in the manner that the accuser said it did. Since she was the only person who alleges that was a rape occurred, and since her mental illness and her drug abuse certainly don't leave us without answers to the question 'why would she be telling us something that isn't true' then these are not credible charges."

If you think that the defense should be prohibited from making any such statements, please explain why the defense lawyers for black defendants facing the prospect of multiple decades in jail should be prohibited from actually defending their clients against the accusations leveled at them.

Anonymous said...

1.you are an idiot that does not understand DNA testing. What a 98% nonexclusion means is that the DNA matched ALL the alleles of Evans's samples tested except for one on the standard test and they usually test 15 to 17 alleles. It means that Evans fits into the 2% of the population that has all the alleles but that one; again another coincidence. This is such a close match that it definitely would have come up in court; they are trying court cases right now with rapists with less positive partial matches than that, which is why the defense DID NOT volunteer this info(the exact percentage did not come out until AFTER Cooper dropped the case). The public was told that there was a partial match but the percentage was not revealed until after the fact and with good reason: The next thing to a 98% nonexclusion is a 100% nonexclusion, also known as a perfect match!

2.the defense did state that the accuser could not be raped because of who she is; Cheshire even said that statement in his press conference. They smeared her; white females are never treated in that fashion and you know that. I have never seen a white accuser so degraded in NC by attorneys defending someone black; that is not done and it is a moot point to compare the two instances as white accusers are NOT treated like this here in NC( what happened in The Kobe Bryant case is not what would happen here).

The defense leaked info saying CGM was mentally ill,they had private detectives all over Durham paying for any negative info on her, they dug up her military record, had hearsay evidence on the TV,engineered a 60 minutes infomercial with no opposing viewpoint allowed, you name it they did it. A lot of what they were saying and leaking to the press was not going to be allowed in court due to rape shield laws or was protected medical info and that is why the judge sealed her record at one point as the defense was leaking protected info right and left.

A lot of what was said( and bought and paid for) was totally made up. One of the main stories was by Fats Thomas, the biggest pimp and drug dealer in Durham, yet according to the defense and this blog, he was supposedly credible when he told all that about CGM passing out and saying she was going to get paid by the white boys,etc. The defense even helped Fats with his last trial for cocaine possession with intent to distribute(his NEW attorney was Bill Thomas, part of the Lax group of lawyers). I guess these defenders of the truth were happy to help Fats try to stay free because after all, he is only causing a problem in Durham's black community( and the defense certainly did not give a damn about the black community, who they also smeared with their change of venue b.s, saying that jurors' safety would be lost when nothing like that has ever happened here. Ever!)

What a bunch of hypocrites! I guess as long as you are helping someone white you are credible if you are black but are not credible any other times according to the defense and the people on this blog and Cooper(IMO)! That kind of skewed thinking is from the Jim Crow era and it is time to move into the 21st century whether you and the defense team like it or not. The fact of the matter is that the Lax case should have gone to court and that Cooper's report is sketchy and reads like a defense lawyer's brief and contains all the defense talking points and people like Rooney, etc, who are not up on this Jim Crow thought process have not swallowed it and so they will persist with "something happened". Of course that is the penalty you pay when you avoid court at all costs. Your clients will lack true vindication because the public will not see all of the process and the whole thing smacks of circumventing the legal process and special treatment, ie, rich man's justice.

3.Nifong's "crimes" were trumped up by the defense and were part of their avoid court at all costs strategy, period, IMO. They planned this from the jump, with Osborne filing an order to recuse Nifong early on in an attempt of get Nifong off the case. The early reports stated that there were no matches to the team and that there were other profiles in the Dna report, her boyfriend was mentioned in many reports. All that pretended upset over the number of profiles was a big act as the defense knew that back in April and it did not change the facts of the case that those were older degraded samples and that Meehan's analysis was flawed as Meehan's own DNA was in the profile! The case was also in preliminary hearing stage and was not in court yet so this accusation that Nifong hid all exculpatory evidence before trial is weak as they were still in discovery and preliminary hearings; the defense obviously had the report with the results and the main result was already known. What changed was that despite the defense and Lax supporters funding the recall effort, Nifong won the general election and the defense needed a new strategy to "get" him off the case and Meehan being in court that day was the opportunity and they took it; they made a big deal about a technicality they already knew. The defense then did a lot of political maneuvering to get the Bar to act contrary to precedent( the decison to charge Nifong DURING the ongoing case passed by only one vote it was so controversial) and interrupt the case and have Nifong recuse himself; the whole thing was politcal and illegtimate in the extreme. That is why the judge only gave Nifong one day in the jail; had he given more, the Durham community would have risen up and protested.

mac said...

3:40
Yeah, and I guess three men - two of whom were demonstrably elsewhere - levitating CGM in a too-small bathroom while simultaneously penetrating her verious orifices? That's credible?

You obviously have CRS disease.

The Duhh community can go ahead and rise up, too: if it were any dumber, they wouldn't be able to find their mouths with their forks; if they were any more paranoid (Victoria Peterson, for example) they'd have to be declared mentally ill en masse.

I hope they do rise up. And grow up. and stop letting themselves be patsies for people like you and Nifong.

Anonymous said...

"1.you are an idiot that does not understand DNA testing. What a 98% nonexclusion means is that the DNA matched ALL the alleles of Evans's samples tested except for one on the standard test and they usually test 15 to 17 alleles. It means that Evans fits into the 2% of the population that has all the alleles but that one; again another coincidence. This is such a close match that it definitely would have come up in court; they are trying court cases right now with rapists with less positive partial matches than that, which is why the defense DID NOT volunteer this info(the exact percentage did not come out until AFTER Cooper dropped the case). The public was told that there was a partial match but the percentage was not revealed until after the fact and with good reason: The next thing to a 98% nonexclusion is a 100% nonexclusion, also known as a perfect match!"

Wow. Just ... wow. You're an amazing moron. Let me repeat one of your sentences to demonstrate why.

"It means that Evans fits into the 2% of the population that has all the alleles but that one"

Okay. So, even if you are right (which you are not) that a "98% non-exclusion" means that 98% of the portion of his DNA that was tested matches the sample and not that 98% of the population would be excluded as a possible donor of DNA and 2% of the population would match the sample even if they have nothing to do with it...

... you still admit that 2% of the population would match the sample even if they have nothing to do with it. For God's sake, 14 people at the firm that did the DNA testing matched the sample too. And this is what you're claiming is big significant evidence? That's what in your world of delusion and denial is called a "close match"? News flash, honey -- a close DNA match is when you've excluded somewhere on the order of 99.999%, if not 99.9999%, of the population. But then again, you'd know that, if you actually knew as much about DNA testing as you think you know.

Of course, the whole notion that the fingernail DNA had some great significance is pretty much a hoax by the prosecution anyways -- I notice that you showed no eagerness to take up the bet I offered, where you gamble thirty years of your own life in prison based on whether a fingernail tossed into your bathroom trash picks up your DNA. The fact is that even if a DNA sample was picked up from those fingernails which could be matched to David Evans alone, it would be meaningless, because there would be a simple and obvious explanation of how it got there -- it got there by rubbing against the trash in David Evans' own bathroom wastebasket. Again, you show no grasp of basic logic and you employ a classic "fish-river" argument, where instead of defending the extraordinary claim (that you caught a ten-foot-long fish in the river on the west side of town) you defend the non-extraordinary claim (that there is a river on the west side of town).

Anonymous said...

"2.the defense did state that the accuser could not be raped because of who she is; Cheshire even said that statement in his press conference."

That may be what you think you heard, but it is not what he said. As I said before, I would put a thousand dollars down without hesitation on a bet that you could not find one such statement in all the defense filings and all the defense public statements.

"They smeared her; white females are never treated in that fashion and you know that."

What nonsense. When white females bring false charges that clearly arise from mental illness the defense can and should present evidence of the falsity of the charges in every venue where the defendants' reputation is being unjustly taken away from them by the false charges. If you never saw the mental illness of a white false accuser being publicized in this fashion it is because most prosecutors don't act as the convicted criminal Mike Nifong did by publicizing the groundless charges in the first place.

"I have never seen a white accuser so degraded in NC by attorneys defending someone black; that is not done and it is a moot point to compare the two instances as white accusers are NOT treated like this here in NC( what happened in The Kobe Bryant case is not what would happen here)."

See, I don't know what the NC court system considers "normal"; whether it's actually as fucked up as it looks from here. What I can tell you is that if false accusers black or white are allowed to publicly savage the reputation of innocent parties black or white, with the aid of corrupt prosecutors black or white, and those falsely accused are not allowed to similarly publicize the information that shows the charges against them to be groundless delusions, then the system isn't working. But then again, the system that NC has where judges have to curry the favor of district attorneys is just begging for trouble.

"The defense leaked info saying CGM was mentally ill,they had private detectives all over Durham paying for any negative info on her, they dug up her military record,"

If black defendants were falsely accused by a woman who was indeed very mentally ill, whose psychological history constituted a ten-inch-thick file, who was exhibiting classic paranoid symptoms, whose military history showed inappropriate behavior, whose criminal record (I noticed you left that out of what the defense dug into) included theft and attempted deliberate vehicular homicide -- are you suggesting that black defendants should be prohibited from trying to find out anything like that about their white accuser? Or are you only saying that white defendants should be placed under such obviously unjust restrictions.

"had hearsay evidence on the TV,"

As if Nifong didn't pack plenty of hearsay evidence into his 50 to 70 press appearances.

"engineered a 60 minutes infomercial with no opposing viewpoint allowed,"

See, somehow I doubt that you have the slightest connection whatsoever with 60 Minutes and thus absolutely no facts to back up your claim that, instead of 60 Minutes investigating the evidence and reporting truthfully that all the evidence indicated the charges were false and the continuing prosecution a frame-up, that it was somehow "engineered" by the defense, and that "no opposing viewpoint [was] allowed" rather than that no opposing viewpoint was able to back up what it said. You sound like a four-year-old screeching when he loses a game of Candyland that whoever he played against must have cheated.

"you name it they did it. A lot of what they were saying and leaking to the press was not going to be allowed in court due to rape shield laws or was protected medical info and that is why the judge sealed her record at one point as the defense was leaking protected info right and left."

I suspect your claims about the defense "leaking" the information are on the same level of quality as your claims about the defendants being able to "engineer" one of the foremost newsmagazine shows on television -- i.e. a product of your imagination and denial. Regardless of that, however, rape shield laws and laws about protecting medical information were intended to protect people from unwarranted invasions of privacy. The idea that it's unwarranted for defendants who know they are falsely accused to know anything about whether a history of mental illness might be behind the false accusations is frankly stupid.

"A lot of what was said( and bought and paid for) was totally made up. One of the main stories was by Fats Thomas, the biggest pimp and drug dealer in Durham, yet according to the defense and this blog, he was supposedly credible when he told all that about CGM passing out and saying she was going to get paid by the white boys,etc."

I guess that Fats also dressed himself as Mangum and videotaped himself doing Mangum's pole-dancing routine at the Platinum Strip Club during the same time period where she was going to multiple hospitals and begging for additional prescriptions to deal with the terrible, terrible pain. I guess that the defendants must have also bought off Industrial Light and Magic, hmmmm?

Let's pretend for a second that Thomas' testimony is crucial to the case. I know that, because Thomas' testimony conflicts with the image you want of Mangum, you'd like us to believe that Thomas is a liar. The difference between Thomas and Mangum, however, is that Mangum is already proven to be a liar. (Out of curiosity, which do you believe -- that Kim Roberts was torn away from Mangum at the door of the bathroom and was raped herself, or that Roberts was working with the players to hold Mangum down? Whichever you believe, how do you explain away Mangum's other story?)

"The defense even helped Fats with his last trial for cocaine possession with intent to distribute(his NEW attorney was Bill Thomas, part of the Lax group of lawyers)."

Hmmm, I'm confused, because you're contradicting yourself here. You're saying that one attorney, who represented one of the unindicted players in the lacrosse case, also represented Fats Thomas in a different case. Are you claiming that any action taken by any attorney who represented any of the falsely accused lacrosse players, is therefore an action attributable to "the defense"?

"I guess these defenders of the truth were happy to help Fats try to stay free because after all, he is only causing a problem in Durham's black community"

I see -- so you think that, based on your word that Fats Thomas is a bad man, he should have been deprived of his Constitutional right to effective counsel of his choice. Well, it's somewhat heartening to see that there's one thing on which you can actually be consistent.

"( and the defense certainly did not give a damn about the black community, who they also smeared with their change of venue b.s, saying that jurors' safety would be lost when nothing like that has ever happened here. Ever!)"

The community of Durham chose to throw out very basic principles of civilized behavior, such as "don't threaten castration to someone whose guilt has not been established," "don't show up in the middle of the night banging pots and pans in order to harass someone whose guilt has not been established," "don't allow death threats, either on the street or in the courtroom," "don't turn the Constitutional right to a fair trial upside-down by pretending that it's the accuser, who already has the power of the state on her side, that that right belongs to," and "don't stand in front of a crowd of angry people and advocate arson." Now if you're saying that happens on a regular basis, and it never results in actual violence to defendants or to jurors, we can discuss whether that means there's an actual hard and fast limit to the barbarity of Durham's lunatic fringe or whether you've just been lucky so far. If, however, such a trial had never happened before, your argument that violence by an angry and stupid racist mob would not have followed because that never happened before is pretty pathetic and weak.

"What a bunch of hypocrites! I guess as long as you are helping someone white you are credible if you are black but are not credible any other times according to the defense and the people on this blog and Cooper(IMO)!"

What a hypocrite you are. I've challenged you multiple times to come up with a good argument why the injustices which were done to white defendants based on the false accusations of a black accuser, all of which you approve whole-heartedly, would be equally acceptable to do to black defendants based on the false accusations of a white accuser. You have not stepped up to answer even once.

"That kind of skewed thinking is from the Jim Crow era and it is time to move into the 21st century whether you and the defense team like it or not."

It's time for you to move into the 21st century where evidence counts for something.

"The fact of the matter is that the Lax case should have gone to court"

The fact is that it made Durham the laughingstock of the nation that the case even went to indictments, let alone to trial, when it was based solely on the word of a mentally ill drug addict who could not even keep basic details of her story straight.

"and that Cooper's report is sketchy and reads like a defense lawyer's brief and contains all the defense talking points"

What Cooper released to the public was the Summary of Conclusions. And you are objecting to the fact that it is a summary of his investigation's conclusions? If you object to the fact that his conclusions don't match the prosecution's version of what happened, well, gee, that just might be due to the prosecution's version of what happened failing to match up with the evidence. Tell us, if you were the Attorney General, would you write your conclusion that Kim Roberts was also a victim on that night, or would you write that she was aiding the assault by holding Mangum down? How would you try to explain away Mangum telling the opposite story?

"and people like Rooney, etc, who are not up on this Jim Crow thought process have not swallowed it and so they will persist with "something happened"."

Oh, give it a rest. "Jim Crow" is not a magic "abracadabra" word that you can wave around to magically change reality. Those who persist in believing that "something happened" are those who either haven't looked at the evidence or are deep in denial.

"Of course that is the penalty you pay when you avoid court at all costs."

So you think that a mentally ill white woman should be able to falsely accuse as many black defendants as she wants, and force them to either pay the penalty of massive legal fees well into seven figures, or pay the penalty of having their reputations permanently stained by false accusations -- is that what you're saying? Or is it only right to do that to white defendants?

"Your clients will lack true vindication because the public will not see all of the process and the whole thing smacks of circumventing the legal process and special treatment, ie, rich man's justice."

Here's a flash of reality for you: every single day police and prosecutors hear accusations from the mentally ill and they say "this is the only person who claims there was a crime; this person can't keep basic details of their story straight; and their story conflicts with all the known evidence. There is simply no probable cause here to believe that a crime was committed," and they decline to bring the case. That's not circumventing the legal process, that is the legal process. The one who circumvented the legal process was Nifong, who purposely avoided looking at all the evidence so that he could press ahead with his bogus case.

"3.Nifong's "crimes" were trumped up by the defense and were part of their avoid court at all costs strategy, period, IMO."

Bullshit. Nifong had a legal obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence. He not only did not comply with that obligation he willingly and knowingly lied to the court in order to withhold that evidence. He committed the crime.

"They planned this from the jump, with Osborne filing an order to recuse Nifong early on in an attempt of get Nifong off the case."

For the very good reason that Nifong was willfully ignoring his obligations as a minister of justice by refusing to examine exculpatory evidence.

"The early reports stated that there were no matches to the team and that there were other profiles in the Dna report, her boyfriend was mentioned in many reports. All that pretended upset over the number of profiles was a big act as the defense knew that back in April"

Not only are you wrong there, your theory doesn't even make any sense. You are basically alleging that the defense, who you have previously accused of "leaking" protected information, had bombshell information that not only showed the state's star witness to be lying about her recent history of sexual activity (without which the finding of vaginal edema had no significance whatsoever) but also showed that the DNA testing which didn't show a trace of DNA from any of the players was sensitive enough to pick up DNA from at least four previous sexual encounters and thus served as evidence of absence and not just absence of evidence -- and they withheld it?? Even by your standards that's nonsense! And what about your precious Nifong? If he gave the defense the information they were entitled to in a report in April, why didn't he -- when he was on trial specifically for withholding that information and lying about it -- simply produce that report for the court and say "this is how I informed the defense in a timely fashion in accordance with my professional obligations"? He didn't show the report where he informed the defense of the additional DNA samples because there was no such report.

"and it did not change the facts of the case that those were older degraded samples and that Meehan's analysis was flawed as Meehan's own DNA was in the profile!"

Man, I hope that someday you actually get a clue and you go back and you read what you wrote her and realize how utterly illogical you are. You're basically acknowledging that the DNA analysis found:

* DNA from at least four sexual encounters that could only have preceded the purported assault;
* DNA from Dr. Meehan that obviously could only have entered the samples after they'd been given to DNA Security for testing after the purported assault;
* NO DNA FROM THE ALLEGED ASSAULT

and you're arguing that somehow that supports the alleged assault??

"The case was also in preliminary hearing stage and was not in court yet so this accusation that Nifong hid all exculpatory evidence before trial is weak as they were still in discovery and preliminary hearings;"

A pathetic argument; Nifong tried it and the courts shot it down hard. What you're arguing is that if a white prosecutor wants to see a black defendant put in jail, he can bring him up on the most obviously false charges and threaten him with thirty years in prison and withhold evidence that he knows shows the defendant to be guilty -- and if he coerces the defendant into taking a plea-bargain, it's all okay because he didn't withhold it at a trial?

Or, again, are you saying this is something it's only okay to do to white defendants?

"the defense obviously had the report with the results and the main result was already known."

Obviously not.

"What changed was that despite the defense and Lax supporters funding the recall effort, Nifong won the general election and the defense needed a new strategy to "get" him off the case and Meehan being in court that day was the opportunity and they took it; they made a big deal about a technicality they already knew."

They didn't know it and it is not in any way, shape or form a technicality.

"The defense then did a lot of political maneuvering to get the Bar to act contrary to precedent( the decison to charge Nifong DURING the ongoing case passed by only one vote it was so controversial) and interrupt the case and have Nifong recuse himself; the whole thing was politcal and illegtimate in the extreme."

Illegitimate in the extreme? What's illegitimate is not punishing prosecutors who are brazenly abusing the power of their office for political gain and committing illegal acts under the color of law. Sadly, Bar associations do have a precedent of letting some absolutely shameful violations of professional ethics go unremarked; that is what is shameful, not that they actually did the right thing in the case of Nifong.

"That is why the judge only gave Nifong one day in the jail; had he given more, the Durham community would have risen up and protested."

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was Judge Osmond Smith who was posting here, who can tell us Judge Osmond Smith's reasoning. Tell us, Judge, how afraid were you of the Durham community rising up and protesting? Do you usually base your legal decisions on the probable reactions of the mob? I thought that you earlier claimed that the defense's change of venue motion was self-evidently a smear job because obviously there was never reason to believe that the Durham community, or at least the bigoted and stupid portions of it, would rise up and try to take the law that they don't understand into their incompetent hands?

And see, I thought all this time that Judge Osmond Smith sentenced Mike Nifong to the minimum time in jail because then if Nifong tried to appeal, he couldn't possibly argue that he had received a sentence that was excessive; he would have tried to argue that the finding that he was guilty of contempt of court for withholding and lying about the DNA evidence was incorrect. Which, remarkably, Nifong failed to do even though according to your claims, he could easily just point to some report he gave the defense in April and say "see? there it is!"

Anonymous said...

7:10 What case? Levicy just did the checklist and assisted the Doctor, who did the physical and collected the materials for the rape kit. Jim Cooney did not even mention her name when he talked at Vanderbilt. People call it a SANE exam - it was not - it was a Physician exam - done the old fashion way with a Doctor and RN assist.

Anonymous said...

Can't resist - Is Fats Thomas a Communist?

Anonymous said...

I think most folk have been educated enough in this case that now it is frequently called the DUMC/Manly/Levicy exam. The entire 84 hour certification SANE balloon has been punctured.

inman said...

OK...

I'm going to agree with 3:40 that truth is irrelevant because I am just tired of hearing these blatant attempts to interject race into the understanding of fact.

So here:

I will not ever believe a black women who cries rape. Facts are irrelevant and you have told me so. In stark relief.

There.

Are you satisfied, 11/4/07 3:40 AM?

The next escalation in this debate is to never refer to a black woman as an African-American, but as negress.

3:40 doesn't respect truth, -- why should I respect those who don't respect truth? Wanna call the bet 3:40?

Anonymous said...

6:08 That is ugly - I will believe there was Contact if DNA is present - without DNA, I would not believe there was even contact. Proof of rape is a different matter. There would have to be a thorough investigation done by the cops and good evidence.

Anonymous said...

I wish you wouldn't do that, inman. As you point out, 3:40 has no respect for truth, and will never be convinced no matter how obvious the evidence -- but remember that 3:40 is not the only one who will see this discussion. It will also be seen by people who have only heard the nonsense spouted by 3:40 and her in-denial ilk. Let's let them see us giving the facts and 3:40 giving the nonsense, not 3:40 giving nonsense and us descending to 3:40's level.

Anonymous said...

1.The above at 6:08 am is typical of the white supremacy ideology on this blog; like I said, you guys' reasoning is stuck in the Jim Crow era and you just proved it for the whole world with the above post. The word negress has not been used since 1960 but I guess that is news to you people on this blog, just like it is news that testimony from a black person is admissiable even if it conflicts with testimony of a white person.

2.As for Fats being a bad person, I am not the only one saying that; his long rap sheet with multiple CONVICTIONS for drug offenses is enough to qualify for the category of bad person. However, because he was paid to say a lot of b s about CGM, according to you guys and the defense, he is 100%credible. Yeah right. You people need to go back to your Klan rallies and screening Birth of a Nation. The rest of us will be in the 21st century and calling out racism and hypocrisy.

3.All the b.s. above about the Bar is a foolish argument when you boil their actions down to one basic fact: The Bar in NC has not ever brought charges in an active case since Reconstruction. The Bar has always brought charges AFTER a case. The very fact that this was done=illegitimate. Also Nifong was punished more severely than prosecutors who concealed evidence in a death penalty case,so that is also illegitimate.

As to bets, I do not bet with members of the KKK.

Anonymous said...

"As to bets, I do not bet with members of the KKK."

Thank you for confirming that the "something happened" crowd cannot back up their position with facts and must instead resort to baseless slander.

Anonymous said...

"5.Cooper's very first statement, that CGM arrived significantly impaired was at odds with Kim, Bissey and her driver; the only people maintaining this so called "fact" was the Lax team and the defense. refer to point 3 and the Jim Crow rule operating, IMO."

By the accuser's own admission, she had already taken a combination of alcohol and muscle relaxant that would significantly impair her:

"Police notes also indicate the the accuser said she had one or two large-size beers before the party and had taken Flexeril, a muscle relaxant, which might have contributed to her inebriated condition later when officers first encountered her and thought she was drunk." WRAL

"Avoid drinking alcohol, which can increase some of the side effects of this medication. Flexeril can cause side effects that may impair your thinking or reactions. Be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be awake and alert."Drugs.com

Anonymous said...

The police were talking to the accuser AFTER the incident and that she was intoxicated in some way later on is not what I am disputing. What I am talking about is significant visible impairment/intoxicatin BEFORE the incident, which is what Cooper(and the LAX defense statements) stated but which the witnesses I listed above refute as they maintained she was pretty normal in actions and appearance until AFTER she drank something handed to her by a member of the team at which time she THEN became incoherent and with poor balance. None of the witnesses like Kim, Bissey or her driver describe CGM as slurring her speech, unable to stand. etc when she ARRIVED at the party. Bissey even observed her walk into the house and did not mention any balance impairment, etc; Bissey's testimony should have been especially relevant to the people on this blog and Cooper, IMO, as Bissey was not connected with either the team or the strippers and because he was white( refer to what I said abouve re: the Jim Crow rules of testimony apparently operating in this case report and this blog, IMO). Kim said CGM was OK on arrival and that they talked about their pending performance, etc and then Kim maintained that CGM detriorated rapidly after the drink was given. Significantly, Kim was also given a drink but hers was spilled.

The only people who said the accuser was visibly impaired from the BEGINNING were the Lax team and their defense lawyers but as you can see, other witnesses said the exact opposite but Cooper took only the LAX version into account.

Anonymous said...

What is significant is that before she got to the party, she had already taken a combination of alcohol and medication which the manufacturer specifically warns should not be taken with alcohol.

Everything you say above about how Bissey didn't notice any signs of impairment when she arrived and Kim didn't see any signs of impairment when she arrived and her driver didn't see any signs of impairment when she arrived is absolutely meaningless on an evidentiary level, unless we knew exactly how long before the party Mangum mixed her booze and muscle relaxant and knew exactly how long it would take the side effects of that combination to show.

IF we knew that impairment from combining alcohol and Flexeril would have to show within an hour and IF we knew that Mangum had combined her alcohol and Flexeril more than an hour before the party THEN we would be left without an explanation for Mangum's impairment at the party (disregarding only for purposes of argument the obvious possibility that Mangum drinking more alcohol might have produced more impairment than combining Flexeril with "one or two large-size beers" alone.) But that's not the case. We have a perfectly good explanation for Mangum's impairment at the party that comes from Mangum's own statements.

So, is it because you have no grasp of logic, or because you are just that prejudiced, that you are trying to invent a new 'they're-guilty' explanation --supported by absolutely no factual information whatsoever -- for something which is already explained by the accuser's own admitted actions? I can just imagine how shrilly you'd be screeching if someone was employing the same processes of "logic" to try and frame a black defendant:

Bigot: It's obvious that the defendant is guilty of murder! He was the only other person there at the bus stop when the victim died of asphyxiation! He must have covered the victim's nose and mouth to cut off his air!

Sane person: Actually, the victim was eating a sandwich made with thick-cut ham before he even got to the bus stop. He asphyxiated because an insufficiently chewed bite of ham lodged in his throat and cut off his air. The coroner found that bite of ham still lodged in his throat. The coroner also looked for any signs of foul play, including any signs that anything had been placed against the victim's nose and mouth, and found nothing to support that theory.

Bigot: Well... uh... just because there's a reasonable explanation for all the evidence doesn't mean I can't still insist on my unsupported explanation also being true! I think that the black guy covered up the dead guy's nose and mouth at the same time that the guy was already asphyxiating from the ham sandwich! It explains nothing that needs explanation, and there's absolutely nothing supporting the theory, but it makes the black guy guilty!

How do you feel being the spiritual cousin to Mr. Bigot?