[Update, 5 May, 11.39pm: Rule 8.4(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct deems it "professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." It is hard to see how Murphy's lengthy, and repeated, fabrications in her public comments about the lacrosse case do not violate this standard.]
Adjunct law professor and serial fabricator Wendy Murphy, Esq., is at it again, this time on the pages of the (Quincy, MA) Patriot-Ledger. Pressed on her pattern of fabrication in the lacrosse case, Murphy unleashed the following:
I also very much value bloggers who note the Duke case. It enables me to repeat things the public rarely gets to read about the case. Once again, I'll include a few key facts [sic] here:
The victim [sic] was offered 2 million dollars to recant a couple of months after charges were filed, AFTER everyone involved in the case knew what she'd told police - and AFTER everyone involved in the case knew the key evidence - including: statements from eyewitnesses at the scene and results from tests conducted on a broomstick that was seized by police because men at the party reportedly threatened to rape the victim [sic] with a broomstick. Test results on the broomstick have never been released, nor have thousands of pages from the investigation including eyewitness statements. After the victim [sic] was offered 2 million dollars to recant, she hired a very powerful attorney in Florida who has never revealed what legal services he provided. If she lied, SHE should have been prosecuted - not the district attorney - but parents of the men involved said publicly they didn't want her to be punished.
The public should be demanding full disclosure the entire file - or at least disclosure of all eyewitness statements and all reports related to forensic testing on the broomstick.Murphy has a remarkable ability both to outright lie and to issue highly misleading statements (for which she lacks evidence) but which also can't be disproved since it's impossible to prove a negative. That said, she manages at least four false statements in 217 words:
(1) There was no "forensic testing on the broomstick," because no evidence exists that the police ever seized a broomstick. How police could release testing that never occurred Murphy does not say. [A note: on 27 April 2006, on national TV, Murphy gave a completely different interpretation about forensic tests on this non-existent "broomstick evidence," asserting that the DNA tests showed no matches to lacrosse players "because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn't produce DNA when you put it inside someone."]
(2) No version of events--even any of the myriad, contradictory versions of events offered by false accuser Crystal Mangum--ever claimed that any of the falsely accused players "threatened to rape the victim [sic] with a broomstick." Two statements (those by one of the captains and the other dancer, Kim Roberts) referenced an unindicted player boorishly urging Roberts to use the broomstick as a sex toy in the dancers' "show"; both statements said Roberts took offense; and no one (except Murphy, it seems) mentioned the broomstick as an element of any crime.
(3) Mangum was not "offered 2 million dollars to recant." The claim originated from an article from "reporter" Cash Michaels; a subsequent investigation by the DPD not only found no evidence of the claim, but had Mangum herself denying it. Michaels' source, Mangum's "cousin Jakki" (a/k/a Clyde Young), subsequently admitted that months would pass during which she did not speak to her "cousin."
(4) Mangum never "hired a very powerful attorney in Florida." The attorney to which Murphy referred, Willie Gary, briefly offered to represent Mangum pro bono, but does not appear to have ever actually met her, and in any event quickly lost interest in Durham affairs. Moreover, Gary's involvement in the case (such as it was) occurred before, not after as Murphy claims, the false report of a bribe offer--rendering illogical Murphy's mention of Gary.