Saturday, November 18, 2006

"Counselor" Crowley Hangs His Shingle

Demonstrating a Nifongesque ability to adapt new facts to fit old, discredited theories, the resident legal expert of Duke’s earth systems science department, Thomas Crowley, has launched an aggressive e-mail campaign to defend his widely ridiculed Herald-Sun op-ed.

Crowley wondered if one correspondent was suggesting that he “should not be writing letters to question throwing out the case.” Actually, this criterion came from Crowley himself, who commented in his op-ed about “the number of letter writers . . . who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out before even it goes to trial.”

In the event, the earth systems science professor has abandoned the view he expressed in the Herald-Sun. He now maintains: “I do not believe someone has to be a total expert in a particular matter before they can express their view in a newspaper letter.”

The Crowley Criterion seems to be that only “total experts” (Jim Coleman? Susan Estrich? Stuart Taylor?) can express views that oppose Nifong’s wishes; while, to achieve some sort of balance, non-experts can defend Nifong, even if they publish error-filled, illogical op-eds to do so.

Crowley also has retreated from his suggestion that the accuser was “possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink.” He admits that “it turns out that yes indeed I was wrong on the toxicology report”; he also notes that the accuser had a record of previously passing out; and he further recognizes that the accuser was taking a drug (Flexeril) that, when used in combination with alcohol, can produce blackouts.

In true Nifongesque fashion, however, Crowley asserts that these new revelations have no bearing on his overall interpretation of the case. For Nifong, the DNA would “immediately rule out” the innocent—until it offered no matches, at which time it became irrelevant. Or the attack lasted 30 minutes—until Reade Seligmann produced alibi material showing he had left the premises at 12.14, at which time the attack suddenly lasted no longer than 10 minutes.

For “Counselor” Crowley, in his Herald-Sun piece, the accuser passing out implied that she had been slipped a date-rape drug. But now that he has learned of a toxicology report that contradicted his claim, the passing-out suggests a new theory of guilt: the episode “may have been related to something that just happened to the woman.” Why didn’t he float this novel theory in his op-ed? Perhaps he’ll explain in a future Herald-Sun column.

To one correspondent, Crowley admitted that he went out of his way to identify himself as a Duke professor in his op-ed, despite having “never” done so before on any commentary he wrote “not directly related to [his] area of specialty.”

Why did he take this unusual practice? “My motivation was based on the fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community about the innocence of the lacrosse team.”

The last I looked, the “lacrosse team” wasn’t on trial, despite Mike Nifong’s best attempts to make the case about symbolic justice.

In any event, I wonder what world Crowley has occupied for the past seven months. Indeed there has been a “fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community”—beginning with Houston Baker’s open letter, moving on to the Group of 88’s statement; continuing through the diatribes of Peter Wood, Karla Holloway, and Orin Starn; including Richard Brodhead’s remarkable statement after the arrest of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty (“If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough”); and more recently featuring Grant Farred’s assertion that Duke students were attempting to project their racism onto Durham by voting while Education professor Joseph Dibona’s suggested (in the Herald-Sun, of course) giving the accuser $1.5 million to withdraw from the case.

Balanced against this record? James Coleman’s call for a special prosecutor. Kerstin Kimel’s defense of the lacrosse players’ character, and the later remarks of interim men’s coach Kevin Cassese. Steven Baldwin’s letter in the Duke Chronicle. Commentary from Michael Gustafson.

On the one side, then, stands 92 people. On the other side are five. And Crowley considers the opinions of the five to constitute “fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community about the innocence of the lacrosse team”?

Joining the likes of Karla Holloway as a victim of this case, Crowley complains that he has received selective condemnation: “I certainly have not heard,” said he, “of anyone being bludgeoned by emails and letters from [a] lawyer for mis-stating some fact on the case when the writer was in favor of throwing out the case.”

Some people, of course, might consider what Crowley did—suggesting that a date-rape drug was used despite a negative toxicology report; or asserting that defense lawyers were attempting to “manipulate” the public and the law despite admitting that he possessed no evidence to substantiate the claim or, indeed, couldn’t even identify the defense lawyers by anything beyond the status of their facial hair—to go well beyond “mis-stating some fact on the case.”

But Crowley’s claim of selective treatment might be aided if he provided any evidence for it. In neither his op-ed nor in his subsequent defenses of his action has Crowley pointed to errors in Herald-Sun letters from writers critical of Nifong. It’s almost as if Crowley believes that contending that the case should be dismissed in and of itself means that the writer is operating from faulty premises.

The earth systems science professor is also ruminating on the outrage his op-ed has generated. His explanation? The powerful criticism indicates the strength of his argument. “I even wonder,” he mused, “whether the vehemence of the reactions reflects not so much righteous indication but the possibility that my statements hit just a little too close to home.”

I have an alternative explanation for Crowley. Perhaps—just perhaps—people are outraged that a Duke professor would publish an op-ed that defended a procedurally tarnished case brought against three of his own institution’s students; and that he would produce a piece in which he admitted that he was so reckless that he didn’t even take the time to determine if some of his attacks on the players and their attorneys were true.

Crowley says that he considered it critical to identify himself as a Duke professor in the op-ed. Does such intellectual sloppiness reflect the vision of the Duke professoriate held by President Brodhead? Thus far, we’ve seen nothing to suggest to the contrary.


Anonymous said...

How could Crowley be a professor at Duke University?

Anonymous said...

He doesn't sound any worse or more ignorant of any of the other 88.

Anonymous said...

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself: he is typical of liberal college professors at colleges all over the nation. He likely has published and is respected in his field. Does that mean he has common sense? No!

Journalism, academia, and the government are all examples of the careers of choice for the 60s hippie crowd. In all 3, they can live in their own little imagined world and not have to face the hard realities of truth, facts, getting fired for incompetence, etc.

Additionally, Duke has no corner on these types. Yale had to return a $20 million gift to the Bass family b/c they wouldn't establish a Western Civ curriculum as designated in the gift, Penn had the "Water Buffalo" incident, Harvard had Summers and Cornell West, and on and on! David Horowitz wrote a book about it. It is not news unless you haven't been paying attention.

Anonymous said...

Let me point out (before someone else does) that there are many college professors who are NOT like the ones I described above. Profs Anderson and Johnson are but 2 examples of academics with brains and sense + the courage to speak out.

My son has also had some fantasic professors at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Will Dr. "I'm thinking as good as a rock!" Crowley, please crawl back beneath the substrate, and let another of the "Dumass Duke Perfesers for Nifonging Duke Studints Kuhlectiv" (Ima Dick Hed bro' President presiding) take a shot at making a case against the Innocent Three? If the D.A. was not smart enough to get into Duke, I don't think we have to worry too much. Oh My God-- You say that Carolina people are even stupider and more venal than Dukies and they run the entire system? UH OH!

Anonymous said...

The recent out-bursts in this blog and others of overtly race-based commentary is a melancholy event. But I cannot keep from thinking that the actions of the PC crowd at Duke made it inevitable.
Foremost of the sins of that crowd has been completely to fail to appreciate a reasonable sense of porportion. As in, "One or more of the LAX guys may have used a racial slur, therefore ruining the lives of a random 3 of them seems fair, doncha think??"
30 years in prison as a convicted rapist is not like being censured in the faculty senate. But one gets the impression that the Dukeoids don't get this.
When OJ was acquitted for reasons of racial pay back it was annoying but no great principle was put at risk. The whole Tawana Brawly thing exploded without doing anyone much damage. But this time, the PC - race consciousness warriors are trying to destroy the lives of innocent white guys for the sake of "pay back". That is quite a different thing.
Brodhead/Dukedom failed conspicuously to emphasize the importance of the processes of the rule of law. Faculty lounge prejudices were confused with the real world of what actually happens to persons indicted (or G.. forbid convicted) of rape.
In other words, if the PC crowd starts down the road of saying that proper proceedures do not matter and that the act of saying the N word makes whole group deserving extreme punishment regardless of the law: What will happen in return is that the targetted group (Non African Americans) will say in response "Well, the N word is what you are, you lying skank whore and all of your useless disease ridden parasitic fellow travelors. And after that, the really serious insults begin.
The point is, civilization itself requires a lot of restraint of base emotions and a lot of respect for protocol and proper proceedure. Folks who spend their lives in the artificially safe environs of the Ivory Towers should not be so eager to "Deconstruct" the safeguards of "innocent until proven guilty.
Or how is this? If it were a son of mine indicted by Nifong and betrayed by Brodhead - in essence putting his life at risk for their weasely agendas - I would blow their effing heads off!! So I could face jail instead of him - and do righteous justice withal.
Forget the N word. When proper Constitutional safe-guards get de-emphasized, there is hell to pay and having tenure is not a bullet-proof thing at all. Against actul bullets, I mean.
This thing goes way past PC.

Greg Toombs said...

The good professor apparently wants to keep adding rocks to his collection, but however many he adds he's still dumber than his box of rocks.

Has anyone read one of the papers he's written concerning his field of expertise? This can't be the first time he's publicly displayed this particular quality of thinking.

Anonymous said...

Well, searching hard (and I mean HARD) for a positive characteristic in all this, I guess you can say Crowley stands by his opinions. So he is consistent. Sort of like my golf game - consistently not hitting the ball where I should.

Anonymous said...

While most of the other actions by the 88 are despicable, it seems to me that Crowley attaching his name and profession to such a poorly researched piece of anti-Duke-student propaganda finally does cross the line. Perhaps he can be the Mike Pressler - the sacrificial lamb for the President to show that he is taking the faculty problem seriously.

I think I will go bang some pots outside Crowley's house tomorrow morning.

Anonymous said...

12:42 said:

"I am getting tired of having to repeat myself:...It is not news unless you haven't been paying attention."

Millions of students at these universities have not been paying attention. Millions of everyday working parents have not been paying attention. The fact that Horowitz has written a book means nothing. The fact that this is known by SOME scholars and thinking people is not enough.

It IS news if it enlightens Americans to what is happening within our culture. One should not have to read a book to figure out that this propganda and PC based education is exactly why three innocent young men are heading to a courtroom where they will be judged by the color of their skin, the name of their university, and how much money their parents make.

It should be news shouted from the housetops in every city in this country, spewed from every media outlet, repeated on every blog.

If it bores you, go read another book. I think a new one is out by someone named O.J. Simpson.


Anonymous said...

Academics at most universities lean to the left. That isn't news. What is news, is that a significant number of the faculty at Duke have rushed to condemn their own students and don't care at all about their due process rights. To make matters worse, if that's even possible, many of these professors don't even seem to have knowledge of the basic facts of the case. Their condemnation has been completely out of line and their comments are totally irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

The Duke case just makes me wonder why there are so many idiots dominating this world. If they weren't idiots, they would see the truth for what it is, and rightly conclude that Nifong is a criminal and that the case has no merit whatsoever. Sick.

Anonymous said...

I know I wasn't paying attention, but with two soon to be college age kids, I am now. I had no idea.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Joe T. And I definitely think you should publish your piece. After all, as Cash Michaels has taught us, "balance" is the ultimate goal of every good journalist. Not truth, but "balance." And hey, nobody has actually ever proved that the earth is round. Sure, there have been a lot of pictures taken of the earth from space, but we all know that pictures, like DNA results, can be doctored. Yeah, "balance" is what it's all about.

tlxcross said...

My God! The more I read about the idoicy of Duke's professors, the more I'm amazed that parents would send their children to school at Duke.
Can you just imagine this guy standing in front of a lecture hall speaking to your kids? He cannot even present logical discourse in a written essay.
By the way, how do you get to be a professor at Duke? I suppose it just takes being 1.)liberal, 2.) racist, 3.) immoral, and most importantly, 4.) blind to the most obvious facts (I wonder what novel ideas Crowley presents in his "earth science" classes. Perhaps he also believes that the earth is made of a fine mix of pudding and angel dust. I can see him actually defending this just as he defends Mike Nifong).
Another disgusting example. When will the Board of Trustess step in?

Anonymous said...

I agree this guy is a total buffoon. Hey professor Crowley: I'm an attorney and I think this case should be dropped. I guess my opinion counts for more than yours, hey?


Anonymous said...

Crowley's Earth Sciences "profession" is something that sprang up much like the race/gender/class studies organizations. Earth sciences as taught today basically is a product of environmentalism and, like the departments that produced people like Karla Holloway, are deconstructionist in their outlooks.

Now, one would think that something labed "sciences" would not be deconstructionist, but the "science" that often is pursued in "earth sciences" is aimed at achieving certain politcal outcomes that environmentalists have been demanding. Thus, I am not surprised to see something like Crowley's repositioning of the "facts" in order to achieve the outcomes he wishes.

If you ever have dealt with the "deconstructionist" side of academe, then you can understand people like Crowley. The guy has no interest whatsoever in justice, due process, and the like, unless he thinks that justice and due process will produce a political outcome that he likes.

Since the facts of the case clearly are against the prosecution, he simply restates the facts differently in order to make us think that the Duke 3 are "guilty of something." Indeed, that is Nifong's approach.

By the way, "earth science" is not to be confused with soil science or botany, or other much older scientific divisions. People in those professions tend to be much more scientifically-oriented and are much less willing to bend to the political winds.

My guess is that students in Crowley's classes are subjected to a lot of propaganda of environmentalism. If the guy is not honest in his correspondence, I really doubt that he would be honest -- or at least act like a true scientist -- in the classroom setting.

Now, I stand to be corrected on that last point, and if someone who has been a Crowley student says differently, I am willing to retract what I said. But for now, I am observing the unethical behavior of yet another Duke faculty member.

Anonymous said...

another duke mom: You are comparing apples and oranges there.
Duke professors are condemning their students.
2:11 nails it.

Btw, Houston Baker was involved in the "Water Buffalo" incident at Penn. So, maybe Duke DOES seem to have the "corner on these types?"

Anonymous said...

Further to my comment (7:59) above, Larry Moneta was involved too. Hmmmm...

AMac said...

Prof. Johnson:

In the post, you don't link to any sources for what Prof. Crowley has written in his "aggressive e-mail campaign to defend his widely ridiculed Herald-Sun op-ed" (beyond the direct quotes from his email to you in the immediately prior post).

Has Prof. Crowley or any of his correspondents made the text of his remarks available for inspection by interested readers?

Anonymous said...

"The powerful criticism indicates the strength of his argument. 'I even wonder,' he mused, 'whether the vehemence of the reactions reflects not so much righteous indication but the possibility that my statements hit just a little too close to home.'”

Do you suppose the earth sciences professor thinks that vehement opposition to those who doubt global warming is an indication of the strength of their position?

Anonymous said...

I said before that Crowley reminded me of the old quote from Mark Twain, "'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

I feel now that I owe all fools an apology. Crowley does not seem to have risen to the level of fool yet.

Anonymous said...

Let me take Crowley's logic out of the legal realm and into his world of science.
If he published a paper in a scientific journal that the world was flat he would immediately come under attack by other scientists citing relevant data suppoting their arguments.
Would he have the gall to say that strengthens his argument?

Anonymous said...

When a person (ie. Professor Crowley) continues to dig their own grave after the opening is clearly above their head it further confirms my original description of that person:

"Blooming Idiot".

I am more amazed and saddened all the time by the lack of quality in the Duke U. administration and faculty. It is sad to see such a formerly fine institution being destroyed from within by such incompetence.

Anonymous said...

It may be worth pointing out again to Professor Crowley that actually numerous legal experts have gone on record highly critical of Mike Nifong. In fact, I am not aware of any still defending him--aside from his cronies in Durham and Irving Joiner, of course. The ones who used to defend him seem to have switched sides or become very quiet.

Anonymous said...

I am not bored with the subject of liberal professors. I have "shouted it from the rooftops" (as you say) over and over - particularly during the last 9 months.

You misunderstand my point: Our colleges are chock full of such people. It is perpetuated by the culture of academia and this is not unique to Duke. I gave several examples of similar incidents at other elite institutions.

Posters on this forum and others keep saying "How can this guy teach at Duke?" or "If I had a child at Duke I would yank them right out". Those are the posts I take issue with.
1) There is much more to Duke than the 88 far lefties. 2) Deciding which college to attend is a complex process that involves much more than whether the school has liberal professors. As a matter of fact, if you limit yourself and your children to schools with no liberal professors, your choice is easy- there are about 2 such schools in the entire nation.

Anonymous said...

Liberal professors enforcing PC speech codes have also spoken out against students at other schools. This is not unique to Duke.
It is just as despicable - but not unique.

Anonymous said...

I for one am glad Crowley printed his letter and that KC called him on it.

Last I heard science was based on facts. Crowley's letter was certainly not based on a scientific approach. Once he identifed himself as a Duke Science Professor (which he did to get the letter accepted becuase it wasn't all that well written) he was held to that standard.

Any parent that paid or is paying for a course that Crowley teaches at Duke should demand a refund!

Anonymous said...

To another duke mom:
What makes it unique is that there aren't 3 kids facing 30 years in prison at the other schools with liberal professors "who are enforcing PC speech codes."
I thought that was obvious...?

This is not a matter of "liberal" professors or "speaking out"---it's about heightening public condemnation against 3 kids facing prison (which is possibly a death sentence.)

Saying it happens at other schools just doesn't cut it. Prospective students and their parents are quite capable of making that distinction.

Anonymous said...

I know nothing about Crowley's scholarship, but I would guess that he's a second or third-rate intellectual who finagled his way into Duke by publishing PC stuff on trendy issues like global warming and ozone depletion.

I just can't imagine that such a sloppy thinker could be a first class scientist.



Anonymous said...

OK, it is morning now and certain homicidal fantasies are under better control. So it is time for a more subtle analysis.
Here is the core mystery demanding an explanation: The Duke LAX rape story is a nationwide story with potentially serious consequences for Duke yet when various tenured Profs have entered the debate they have shown up un-prepared. They have been quite un-informed as to basic facts and attempt arguments that nobody would use if they even re-read them a few times. And the writing has generally been worse than first-draft sloppy.
What gives? This is a sign of deep laziness, I would say, rather than of stupidity. Even stupid people show up prepared if they are reminded often enough that they must.
No, the PC environment has shielded these delicate creatures from the rigor of actual debate for so long that they cannot even imagine having to defend their assertions against a counterpart that is not afraid of them and does not mind breaking taboos.
It seems to me.

Anonymous said...

^^ Very interesting point...

Anonymous said...

I think Hman has a very insightful point. The people who have been the most vocal and the same ones who have not had to engage in the same kind of intellectual rigor that many people in the hard sciences have had to face. The English journals today, for the most part, are so PC as to be an insult to the good people who remain in that profession. And don't even get me started on some of the other "disciplines" (for which there is not real academic discipline).

Because earth sciences is an arm of the environmental movement, you can count that "discipline" in with the race/gender/class studies category.

Anonymous said...

You have nailed it! Their lives are so sheltered, they don't know how to react when they are challenged. Those that post here are well informed of the facts of this "case" and can easily refute nonsense such as Crowley's piece. His mistakes were so obvious to us as to be laughable! (If only it were truly funny...)

BTW, Prof. Anderson: What do you teach? You quite clearly have not just intelligence but real world sense.

Anonymous said...

You people will have to figure out another line of argument once the case goes to trial. It is so clear that this potential panics the heck our of you.I wonder why this is the case? All your biased predictions of Durham juries only indicates your bias. Exactly what are you afraid of coming out about these three and that night? Then again, considering what you don't want anybody to learn, you are probably right to be worried over this. If you had the confidence of your convictions, you'd let justice determine the matter. But noooo. Instead you want the case dropped midstream--so that nothing that invalidates your frenetic assaults on people like Wood or Starn or Holloway or Crowley gets attention. You can continue to evade the subject if you want to, but thank goodness the DA, Nifong, (whether you like it or not), continues to press forward. Your attacks on deconstructionists or earth scientists or whoever else you try to target are as ineffective as these pathetic posts. Get over it. You all are headed for a very interesting spring. And all those faculty you are so obsessed with will continue to be employed by Duke, high salaries, perks and whatever else it is that drives you all nutty. Your complaints have no weight, no value, and no impact. So write on people, this is the only place where there are a few somebodies who care what you think. The courtroom will be a different matter entirely.

Anonymous said...

To 3:31 - I don't think this prosecution should be stopped mid-stream. I think it should never have started. I also think that just because something wrong has started is not a valid reason to allow it to continue.
As far as the trial is concerned, the accuser bears all the weight of a successful prosecution on her shoulders. There is no forensic evidence to support a rape. The identification is tainted and probably illegal. Two of the accused have alibis. The accuser picked four rapists, but one of them wasn't even in Durham. The accuser's criminal, medical, employment, and emotional history will be examined and it's not pretty.
I hope that you hold Nifong accountable for a failed prosecution. He has ravaged the lives of many people and made a mockery of justice in Durham.

Anonymous said...

4:12 Agree with you. The shit is going to hit the fan when they bring up her background and her "real"profession.

As far as no one knowing where she is its B.S. I'm sure the welfare checks are being sent somewhere. Is she still pole dancing?

When things get too hot, at some point she will disappear into the woodwork. She will be another Tawana. I just hope this time NC's garbage doesn't fly north.

Anyone contacted the IRS yet? We all know her name.

Anonymous said...

The courtroom will be about evidence, credibility, and constitutional rights--just what has been discussed here primarily and, I suspect, will continue to be discussed here for some time. The comments of professors and administration will not, of course, be relevant to the case. Those comments, however, have offered all of us a window into the souls of some of the people to whom we entrust the education of the country's most intelligent and able children. Some of us are appalled at the apparent ease (dare we say eagerness) with which those so entrusted betrayed these students and the shockingly shallow understanding of the case indicated by professors' comments. What the professors and administration have done in heightening public condemnation and remaining silent in the face of their own obvious misstatements of fact, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations strikes many of us as profoundly immoral. Mainstream media and most newspapers have largely missed this story. But I doubt history will miss it, thanks to these devoted bloggers. They have provided an invaluable service. We are deeply in their debt.

AMac said...

anonymous 3:31pm--

You seem sincere, so thanks for commenting. Although your perspective is not widely shared here, clearly a plurality of voters in Durham more-or-less agree with you.

A couple of questions (I hope you "Choose an identity" so that readers can identify you, if you respond):

(1) "considering what you don't want anybody to learn, you are probably right to be worried over this." KC Johnson and most readers are clear about what happened the night of 3/13, or more importantly what didn't happen: no felonies and for that matter no misdemeanors. Johnson has extensively sourced the evidence behind the reasons why many people have so concluded. What do you think "happened that night?" What's the evidence? Can you link to it? (Fair warning, every other pro-Nifong commenter has flunked these evidence and links tests.)

(2) If one member of a group (say, a sports team) has done something obnoxious (say, be noisy, drunk in public, or respond to an epithet with an epithet), do you think that other members of that group should be charged with a felony (say, rape)? If your answer is "yes," should they be convicted? If "yes," should it matter if they have alibis proving they were somewhere else?

(3) If you answered "yes" to one of #2's questions, do you think these rules should apply generally to other groups in society? Who should decide when "social justice" rules trump criminal justice procedures?

Anonymous said...

To 3:31
Given that NC has an open discovery law, your scenario about "surprises" being pulled out at trial is entirely in the realm of fiction. Plus, Nifong basically put a stop to evidence gathering right after taking over the process.
You did not know any of that did you? Appropriately, you take your place alongside Crowley et al as a member of a gang that speaks about this subject without having bothered to learn even basic facts.
Given this, who of us is in for more nasty shocks to our beliefs about this case?

Anonymous said...

To 3:31 - I'm not particularly panicked. I don't feel the case should go to trial because in order for the case to get that far a prosecutor would have to believe he has enough evidence to convict each defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think Nifong is anywhere close to that. All he has are a bunch of inconsistent statements from the accuser, none of which are supported by any person or any physical evidence, and a rigged "pick a player any player" line-up. I'm disturbed about the procedural misconduct in this case and that a case as weak as this this could make it into a courtroom in the US but I wouldn't say I'm panicked by it.

I guess I feel that society in general loses if this goes to trial because if these three defendants' rights can be violated like this I feel anyone's can.

johnny-rhetoric said...

To be honest, I kind of hope this case does go to trial. I realize it would be a burden to the accused' families and quite a scare to the accused. I feel that even the farm-animal like black population in Durham can figure out that this is a hoax. The truly militant-racist blacks wont make it on the jury. I feel there is a ZERO chance of conviction.

A trial will show first hand that this case is based on nothing. This case will prove that Mike Nifong used these three men to pander to an ignorant and racist base of black voters in Durham. It will show that the accuser is a drugged-out ghetto whore fully representative of the community she lives in. It will show that the rush to judgement was fueled by hate-filled fools that want these three locked up because they had the audacity to be born to a white intact family that raised them to excel . Their anger comes from the fact that the accused are smart, white and successful and they.....well....are not.

These boys will come out of this smarter, stronger and rightfully cynical of those who tried to bring them down. Many whites who still wear racial rose-colored glasses will have them polished a little clearer because of this. Stereotypes will be reinforced. A parade of black strippers, baby-mamas, sex workers, drug addicts, drag queens and unemployed felons will represent Durham just fine thank you. Real rape victims will not be believed as readily. Law enforcements' reputation will be tarnished.

Yes indeed, I look forward to the spring when the pots will be put back in the drawer and people like ANON:31 will be working the reparations gambit again.

Anonymous said...

Johnny-Rhetoric : I have a hard time with agreeing with you, but if I have to be 100 percent honest with myself- I do. And I'm sure I'm not alone, in agreeing with you and also finding it unfortunate.

johnny-rhetoric said...

Very good point. Most middle and upper crust (your term) kids have an insulated life. Mom and Dad want to give the kids the best life possible. In that quest, many parents dont educate them about the predatory human trash they will encounter and how to insulate yourself from them. The fact is that there are people like Precious and her posse just waiting for the naive to predate upon. Most parents teach their kids to be nice to everyone when the fact is you must make judgements on people in order to protect yourself. Is it any wonder that rich men tend to marry rich women? Or that rich people tend to have rich friends? That is for a reason. Poor people tend to look at that as "snobbish", but in reality human nature is covetous and resentful. That has been demonstrated in this case for certain. Nifong using the term "rich daddies". The potbangers using terms like "privilidged" and "snobbish" when they had never even met any of the accused.

This thread got off the "counselor Crowley" vein and I apologize for that. Its been a good discussion and I guess we just follow the flow.

Anonymous said...

And I hope this farce of a case does not go to trial. There is no use in pursuing a lie any farther. Yes, the three were "privileged," but that does not give Nifong the right to use his powers in promoting lies.

If there is anyone "privilged" here, it is Nifong, who has legal immunity. You tell me who you would rather deal with personally, the Duke 3 or a liar like Nifong. Give me Reade, Collin, and Dave anytime.

Anonymous said...

Johnny R:

I immediately picked up on Evans words "sheltered life" on 60 Minutes. I have used that word to describe my own childhood. My parents didn't have a lot of money, but we never felt deprived either. By sheltered, I meant I grew up in a suburb and only went into the city a couple of times a year for special ocassions. We didn't have a good public transporation system, so you walked, rode your bike or your parents drove you. I attended a school that excelled in education and sports. We didn't drink, take drugs or engage in sex as teenagers. Our friends were just nice kids.

I didn't know people like the accused victim existed. I didn't grow up, go to school with or work with these kind of people. It is all so foreign to me. To me that's what "sheltered" means. Now I say my kids lead a sheltered life, just that we have more money than our parents.

Anonymous said...

I both agree and disagree with 3:31. 331 is correct that no one other than those of us here care about what is written on this board. the overwhelming majority of polite white society is afflicted with affirmative action/diversity/multicultural disorder - they have either come to believe it or are too afraid to say anything about it. they have abdicated their responsibility to their own by allowing the cult of diversity to dominate the academy and take strong root in the american political system (eg. gerrymandered districts that produce minority winners artificially). And this prosecution as well as OJ and unfortunately probably more false prosections will be the price of this abdication of responsiblity. Many more white kids will have to go through this tragedy before polite white society accepts that the diversity agenda was wrong and contrary to their well being.

I have to disagree with 331 that anything significant will come out at trial. we know what will come out. a pitiful tale, which version we're not sure, since there are 5 now if i recall correctly. and a wicked cross examination. there won't be any medical evidence and there won't be any corrborating witnesses. but, 331 has a point. a black jury in durham (and maybe a couple of liberal whites) will find this sufficient to convict these kids. this isn't so much about what happened that night, but more about taking vengence on whitey. i think whitey is about to get it. my prediction is a conviction if the case is tried in durham. it will have to be appealed before the conviction is reversed.

it takes a demonstration like this for people to see that diversity will not work. too many different interests cannot resolve their differences. they're just too busy trying to get the last lick in.

kc or prof anderson: i know this is out of your area, but you're a scholor so you might know. has there ever been a successful multicultural/multiethnic society?


johnny-rhetoric said...

You bring up an excellent point. Far too many people see what is happenning and say "what a shame" then go into their comfortable basements, put in a DVD and hope it doesnt happen to them. They are either too lazy in their comfortable life, or they are too scared to emerge from their shell and risk being called a racist by those who dont have fear. They placate themselves by saying "well those Dukies shouldnt have had strippers in their home" or "Im sure they wont be convicted". It helps them feel good about turning away from the ugliness. The Germans in 1930 did this also. It worked for a while.

White society has become slothful and indulgent. We will let the crocodiles eat others and say nothing until we are personally being drug under the water. White people are afraid of black people plain and simple.

I see this case going to trial and after an acquttal many blacks will march, scream racism and threaten those who dare disagree. I also predict many whites will march with them.

Anonymous said...


I'm not KC or Bill Anderson, but I would suggest look at the state of Hawaii.

Anonymous said...

It's funny that people here are mentioning Hawaii as a successful multi-ethnic society! Hawaiians are incredibly racist against whites. Last year there was a bill (Sen Akaka) that nearly succeeded in the Senate that would have established Hawaiians as a seperate people. It would have given only "natives" voting rights and most believe, would have led to Hawaii declaring itself a soverign nation. (The bill's sponsor admitted as much on NPR).

This is an exert from Betsy's Page discussing it:


And here is what the Akaka bill would do. Once it was signed into law, a commission of nine native Hawaiians would be established. Their job would be to compile a roll of all eligible adult native Hawaiians. They would have to determine what exactly a native Hawaiian was. The proposed definition would be someone who is a direct descendant of the aboriginal people who resided in the islands of Hawaii before it was annexed in 1893. People would have to present genealogical records and birth certificates to prove their lineage. I wonder if those who freak out about having to show a photo ID in order to vote in Georgia like the idea of having to present proof of your ancestors' ethnic heritage in order to vote. Imagine the litigious mess that this could become. Once this list was compiled, they can hold elections and create what the bill so felicitously calls the "Native Hawaiian Governing Entity." That entity would be empowered then to negotiate with the local, state, and national governments for the transfer of lands, natural resources, and all other assets that they claim to the control of the Governing Entity which would decide how to exercise authority over those assets for the benefits for those on the roll.

Think of the diversity of Hawaii. The population is intermarried to a great degree. People live intermixed in non-segregated communities. We would have a situation where neighbors, perhaps even spouses, would live under different rules and governments simply because of their ethnic backgrounds.

Anonymous said...

I think my household is a pretty multi-cultural place. My wife and I are from the South, my two boys are Ethiopians, and my little girl is Guatemalan. (My oldest daughter is 29, married, and makes a lot more money than her old man.)

We have a woman living with us who grew up in England and married an Egyptian, and her son is living here, too. We get along pretty well, although my kids do have me in their back pockets. And I make the money, and my wife tells me what I am allowed to spend. Works for me.

The irony of any "multi-cultural" society is that people get along much better of the government is not insisting on making them "get along." For that matter, Iraq is multi-cultural, and as bad as Saddam might hav been, at least he kept people from murdering each other the way they are doing it now. (I am not in the Saddam fan club, but we can see just how these "multi-cultural" societies can be when they are competing for the same halls of power.)

For all the talk of "racism" and the like, Americans get along pretty well compared to what we have seen in the Balkans or the Middle East. I think we'd even do better if we did not have the government doing its multicultural thing.

The situation in Durham is more the result of a person with political power making hay out of causing divisions than it is the result of blacks and whites living in the same town. Things generally get ugly when there is political power at stake. Anyway, food for thought.

I'm angry at the black leaders in Durham because I think they are pursuing what they know is a massive injustice. I'm also angry at white ministers and other leaders in places where blacks are railroaded into jail cells. It is not color, but rather the issue of right and wrong.

johnny-rhetoric said...

Mr. Anderson; Your post, while heartfelt, is a little naive. If you look at Iraq and the Balkans, it took a hard-line brutal leader (Saddam and Marshall Tito) to keep the different ethnicities from each others throats. Once the strong men were gone, they tried to kill each other. Not a good example of multi-culturalism at all.

To those supporting the lovely Precious it is about race and only race. It can be about nothing else. There is no evidence here whatsoever. NONE. Bombshell after bombshell has come out showing this woman is a liar and Nifong is a political opportunist but IT DOESNT MATTER! NOTHING WILL. Nifong and his supporters want to put the white boys through a trial, they know they cant win but just bleeding the families a little and putting the fear of jail into these white boys is enough for them to feel just a little better about themselves and their situation.

You read ANON;31, "ha ha these boys will go to trial and the group of 88 will still have their jobs". Quite a victory indeed. He/she is obviously too stupid to see the negative fallout for blacks and women. He can only see as far as the first petty victory. He is representative of quite a few in cyberspace and in Durham. The only winners in this will be the white racists who sit on the sidelines and say "See, I told you so". Society will be the big loser.......well no, actually Nifong and Precious will vie for that crown.

Glad to see your family is going smooth. That money thing sounds familiar.......wouldnt have it any other way.

Anonymous said...

The modern industry of academic multi-culturalism is about everyone having a different appearance, but all thinking alike. In short, it is a fraud.

Real diversity is just that: diversity. And what we see on college campuses today is an attempt to enforce a monoculture. The people who most loudly shout "multi-culturalism" and "diversity" are the last people who want real diversity.

They are best at setting people against each other, and then trying to move into positions of power when vacuums are created.

What is happening at Duke is an inevitable occurance of the modern "diversity" movement. And see what it has accomplished: three young men are falsely accused of what used to be capital crimes, and the people in Durham and on the Duke campus are at each other's throats.

This is not a case of people not being able to get along. This is a case of certain devious and dishonest people doing those things that are guaranteed to create strife and hatred. There is much more I could say about this matter, but I think for now these comments suffice.

Anonymous said...

To those of you who offer Hawaii as an example of successful multi-ethnic/multiculturalism, I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble. I've had several caucasian colleagues who have each worked for 3 to 5 years in Hawaii. All of them returned to the mainland with the same story -- never before in their lives did they experience racism and structural discrimination like they did in the "Aloha State." According to them, being "round eye" was an obvious burden in that society.

-- SteveDinMD

Anonymous said...

I just read Michael Gaynor's piece about Professor Crowley's response to an e-mail from Mr. Gaynor. Professor Crowley sounds pretty reasonable, even likeable, and then you get to the part where he explains essentially that he does not believe the case should be dismissed just because all the evidence is one-sided. What an unbelieveable, stunning comment. Perhaps he could bounce that idea off of the criminal law and procedure profs at Duke Law next time for some feedback before he agitates the pro Nifong group and aggravates the rest of us with an opinion better kept to himself.

Anonymous said...


If you tell me that I believe you. I'm trusting person. I was basing my commenton Hawaii based on my own travels there and my blond, blue eyed, causcian friend who was born in Hawaii, spent her life there except when she went to Yale. She is the daughter of missionaries who went to Hawaii in the 1940's. She described her life as living in paradise and her elderly parents still live in Honolulu. But then that is only one person's life.