Saturday, May 05, 2012

The Serial Fabricator Strikes Again

[Update, 6 May, 10.33am: As of this morning, the comments section in which Adjunct Prof. Murphy made her false statements is not visible on the P-L website.]


[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.


Beyond the false statements, Murphy provided at least two misleading ones:

(1) North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper elected not to prosecute Mangum not because of what the parents said or wanted, but because, as he publicly noted on 11 April 2007: (1) Mangum's mental illness was so extensive that she might have believed her myriad false tales; and (2) he feared that prosecuting Mangum could delay the healing process in Durham. In any event, the decision on whether or not to prosecute Mangum had nothing to do with Nifong being prosecuted for criminal contempt, which involved his lying to a judge in open court about whether he had turned over all the DNA evidence to the defense.

(2) It's quite true that roughly 1000 pages of the case file never were released. But as Murphy well knows, no reporter ever saw that material because Judge Osmond Smith sealed the pages, which included the records of Mangum's mental health treatment. Murphy's insinuation that this material would somehow enhance Mangum's claims--as opposed to showing clearly why Mangum lied--is beneath contempt.


I have e-mailed the Patriot-Ledger's web editor to ask about the paper's policy regarding the posting of false statements by P-L writers, and will update this post if I receive a reply.

15 comments:

skwilli said...

Keep exposing Murphy whenever possible. Of all of the reprobates involved in this affair, I find her one of the worst. And the one that got away with the most. Whenever I see her on the TV I am tempted to break it. It seems like she is everywhere, on both right wing and left wing cable shows, radio, print and who knows where else?

If you get a reply from the Patriot-Ledger it will be a form letter from someone who has no clue who Murphy or you are. Such a shame.

Anonymous said...

Just more proof that more than six years after the lies were first told, and more than five years after the Attorney General declared the players innocent, their reputations are still damaged; and nationally known commentators can still accuse them of being rapists.

I hope the players' attorneys take note.

Anonymous said...

"have e-mailed the Patriot-Ledger's web editor to ask about the paper's policy regarding the posting of false statements by P-L writers, and will update this post if I receive a reply".

If I were you, Professor, I would not hold my breath waiting for any reply.

Anonymous said...

For all her pontificating about Crystal Mangum, Wendy Murphy has never offered her own legal services to Crystal. Where her own big mouth has been, there one does not find Wendy's money.

f1guyus said...

Now c'mon. You know the narrative is a lot more important than those pesky facts you so recklessly toss out.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for continuing to out Ms. Murphy's disdain for the truth. A goal for all who value truth and justice should be to educate talk show producers about this fraud who masquerades as an "expert" on sexual assault and other women's issues. Too bad the 24-hour news cycle rewards those who are willing to make themselves available for comment 24-7, even if they are wholly without credentials. Are the producers too busy or just too lazy to look for legitimate commentators??

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

Anonymous said...

One question I have not seen anyone raise on this blog:

What is the likelihood that Adjunct Prof. Wendy Murphy, Esq. is mentally unbalanced?

She comes up with so many false and flagrantly misleading statements that I have to wonder whether she (in addition to Serial Fabricator Crystal Mangum) has a screw loose.

By the way, can adjunct professors have tenure? My understanding is no, and tenure is the only (rational) reason I can think of for why she has not been fired.

-- Gus W.

Mark Orgel said...

Funny...the comments section of the story in question, which is where Ms. Murphy made these most recent statements, seems to have disappeared between yesterday and today.

Steve White said...

A question: has anyone asked the P-L what their rules are concerning the takedown of comments?

Anonymous said...

Cash Michaels googles his name 7 times a day. We are likely to see Cash again in about 3...2...1...

Jim In San Diego said...

I would bet Ms. Murphy is flabbergasted someone is actually monitoring her life of deceit and dogging her with the truth. This is so very, very unusual for any public figure. I know I am amazed. Hallelujah!

Here is a raw idea for a new social website: whenever a public figure chooses to write or speak, a link would automatically appear (if in writing), or be bannered under his/her talking head. The link would be to a collection of his or her previous statements on the issue, and published confirmations or contradictions to those statements, with attributions (nothing anonymous).

For starters, those with an interest in balance and truth would have a ready resource.

Yes, we see some problems with this. However,our effort should be, I would think, to get past the problems to a workable solution something along these lines.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

ACTUAL LSAT QUESTION: Wendy Murphy is to the law what a child actor on the Disney Channel is to ______.

A. Turkey giblets.
B. Turkey gravy.
C. Wavy gravy.
D. Acting.

Anonymous said...

Anyone interested in creating a Wikipedia page for Wendy Murphy?

Rodney Mesriani said...

Someone should really teach Wendy Murphy a lesson. Looking forward for the update.