Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Murphy's Latest

The government-funded Centers for Disease Control describes the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) as an organization that identifies and disseminates information, resources, and research on all aspects of sexual violence prevention and intervention.” The NSVRC itself obtains part of its funds from the federal government, through a grant from the Center for Disease Control (though it is careful to point out that its website’s contents do not necessarily reflect the government’s viewpoints). The groups honorary board includes Pennsylvania State Treasurer Barbara Hafer and former Syracuse University quarterback Don McPherson.

On January 9, the NSVRC posted an item called “Talking Points: Duke University Lacrosse Team Rape Case.” (Of course, the rape charges had been dropped 18 days before.) According to the NSVRC’s accompanying statement, “The following talking points offer some context and facts about this case in an effort to help support advocates in responding to the media.” Two voicemail messages left for NSVRC communications director Susan Lewis to ask which unidentified NSVRC figures “reviewed” the document before its posting received no reply.

As Bill Anderson pointed out at the Liestoppers Board, another victims’ rights group forwarded an earlier missive, this one dated December 21—ironically, the day that the accuser dramatically changed her story.

The author of both the “talking points” and the e-mail? Wendy Murphy. Her statements bring together a collection of Murphy’s distortions and outright inaccuracies (reviewed earlier in this post). It is almost as if she believes that she has the right to make defamatory public statements without consequence.

Reade Seligmann

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “In fact, the guy Seligman [sic] who claims his cell phone calls ‘prove’ his innocence actually lends support to the theory that he was the first guy to assault her—which is what she claims—and that it was oral—because he could have assaulted her for the first few minutes—then thought to himself ‘I’ve got to get out of here’—which explains why he frantically and repeatedly called a cab. who frantically calls a cab to see if they’re coming—in a space of five minutes—especially considering that the guy went to an ATM and a pizza place when he left—no real emergency there. Isn’t it convenient that he just happens to be one of the guys she accused?”

Of course, on December 21, the accuser wholly changed her story, and contended that Seligmann did nothing to her, because he said he was getting “married” the next day.

Contrary to Murphy’s statement, Seligmann called a cab not “frantically and repeatedly,” but once, at 12.14am. The cab arrived five minutes later. This information has been in the public record since May 1, when Seligmann’s attorney filed a motion laying out his alibi. The media has widely reported this fact.

Until the Murphy e-mail, no one, as far as I know, has ever claimed that Seligmann went to a “pizza place.”

At no point in any of her myriad, mutually contradictory stories did the accuser claim that one of her assaulters was using the phone at any point during the attack or left the scene during the attack.

Defense “Spin”

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Remember that all the information we are hearing is coming from the defense side and spinners.” [emphasis added]

She wrote her e-mail partly to respond to revelations from the Dec. 15 court session, in which Dr. Brian Meehan admitted that he and Nifong entered into an agreement to intentionally withhold exculpatory DNA evidence. The hearing was open to the public—it was not confined to the “defense side and spinners.” Reporters from the N&O, Herald-Sun, WRAL, FOX, Duke Chronicle, and Los Angeles Times were present; I was live-blogging the hearing. A transcript of the hearing was made publicly available, and I posted it on the website.

Most people do not consider court documents to constitute “the defense side and spinners.”

Murphy (Jan. 9 statement): “The actual discovery documents turned over to the defense number in the many thousands of pages, yet approximately a thousand pages have been withheld by the defense. That is, the defense has shared some, but not all of the evidence provided to them by the prosecutor.”

This statement is the first I’ve heard of the defense withholding anything in the case, much less “approximately a thousand pages.” If Murphy has evidence of such a conspiracy, she should present it publicly.

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Defense attorneys can lie with impunity—prosecutors can’t even tell the truth without getting in trouble.”

In fact, Rule 4.1 of the state bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct holds, “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.” Nothing in the provision excludes defense attorneys from its terms.

December 15, 2006 Hearing

Murphy (Jan. 9 statement): “One can argue that Nifong’s withholding of this information was proper because the [accuser’s] sexual history, like the sexual history of the defendants, is constitutionally protected private information. It is improper for any prosecutor to disclose this information without a hearing at which a judge must make a ruling to decide whether sexual history is relevant to an issue in dispute.”

Murphy appears unaware with North Carolina law, passed in 2004. The state’s open discovery statute requires all results of forensic tests to be turned over to the defense. The prosecutor does not have the authority to withhold any information, anywhere in his file, from the defense.

Speedy Trial

Murphy (Dec. 9): “The simple point is—the defense COULD demand an immediate trial, right now—but they’re not . . . In short—if this were truly a weak case with no evidence, the defense would be pushing for a speedy trial.”

Once again, Murphy appears unaware of both the facts of the case and North Carolina law. In fact, Seligmann’s lawyer, Kirk Osborn, specifically asked for a speedy trial, a request that Judge Ronald Stephens denied. (Ironically, the other arch-Nifong defender, Georgia Goslee, cited this request to flail the defense, saying it was improper for defense attorneys to seek to rush the state.) Osborn then filed a motion to this effect, which was never ruled upon. North Carolina’s state constitution has no speedy-right provision, and the state operates instead under a “case management” system.

The “Bribe”

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “The defense would have the public believe that this was a false report made to get money, but remember that according to a well-sourced news report by the Wilmington Journal in June 2006, the [accuser] rejected a payment of over 2 million dollars last spring to back out of the case.”

Yet again, Murphy appears unaware of the facts of the case. This allegation came via the accuser’s cousin and sometimes spokesperson, “Jakki” (who has complained at various points in the case that months have passed without speaking to the accuser) and the scarcely more credible Cash Michaels. The Durham police—no friends of the lacrosse players—investigated the claim. On June 30, the accuser told police that she had never made such a claim to her cousin, and police found no evidence to substantiate it. So Murphy is making a claim that neither the accuser herself nor the Durham police consider truthful.

The Workings of the Judicial System

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Defense attorneys can spin, distort, and omit facts while the prosecution must remain silent until trail.”

This statement, of course, is absurd. Nothing has prevented Nifong from filing responses to any defense motions. He has not done so.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “When defense attorneys unfairly taint the jury pool against the interests of the victim, there are no similar sanctions against them because a judge cannot punish the accused for the bad behavior of his lawyer.”

Yet again, (a familiar refrain), Murphy appears unaware with the facts of the case. Since July 17, both sides have operated under a gag order, which has limited what either Nifong or defense attorneys could say about the case to the media. Indeed, Nifong’s pre-election comments would seem like the most blatant violation of this order. But had the judge deemed any defense action a violation of the gag order, the judge could have held them in contempt of court. Even Nifong never asked for such any sanction.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Defense attorneys are well aware of their right to ask the judge who handled the DNA issue to punish Nifong for suppressing evidence by dismissing charges; the fact that they did not complain to the judge strongly suggests an obvious understanding on their part that Nifong did nothing wrong.”

The Nifong-Meehan conspiracy only came to light on December 15; a full transcript of the hearing wasn’t available until several days later. Shortly thereafter, the Linwood Wilson “notes” appeared and the accuser’s story dramatically changed, setting into motion the chain of events that culminated in Nifong’s departure. Defense attorneys still have the right to seek sanctions against Nifong, a right they must balance against the need to create collegial relations with the new prosecutors.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Criticism has surfaced concerning the fact that Nifong did not interview and talk to the [accuser]. We do not know the history of his interaction, or his offices’ interaction with the [accuser].”

In fact, Nifong stated in court on October 27 that neither he nor anyone from his office spoke to the accuser about the facts of the case. And he admitted on Dec. 22 that the previous day’s session with Linwood Wilson constituted the first such interview. Both events, which laid out the “history of his interaction, or his offices’ interaction with the [accuser],” received extensive media coverage.

Change of Venue Motion

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “If this case is as weak as the defense attorneys would have us believe, and if there is so little upon which to build a case, then it is indeed interesting that they were concerned enough to have filed this motion for change of venue. This suggests that in fact the defense is taking the case seriously and doing all it can to do battle on behalf of their clients.”

This statement is, simply, bizarre. Can an attorney actually be criticizing a defense team for “taking the case seriously and doing all it can to do battle on behalf of their clients”?

Electoral Analysis

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Nobody seems to care that despite claims that the prosecutor brought charges so he could win the 'black vote,’ he didn’t win the majority of black votes in the primary and more important, he lost a ton of wealthy white votes—something he surely knew would happen if he brought charges—yet he brought the charges anyway.”

In fact, Nifong, who appeared to be dead in the water before the case broke, won a convincing plurality of the black vote (by somewhere between 15 and 18 points, compared to a 3-point margin of victory) against a black candidate endorsed by Durham’s major black PAC and a white nominee (Freda Black) who had aggressively courted black voters. “Wealthy white votes” are few and far between in Durham, and the 20 percent of Durham voters who were Republican couldn’t vote in the primary. Losing those voters posed no problem for Nifong in May.

The Evidence

Murphy: “It is not unusual for there to be minor inconsistencies in victims recalling traumatic events.”

In this case the accuser has differed—among other things—on:

  • the number of alleged attackers;
  • the number of other dancers present;
  • what each of the alleged attackers did;
  • what time the alleged attack occurred;
  • the names by which the alleged attackers called themselves;
  • the name by which she called herself at the party;
  • whether the alleged attack was a rape or a sexual assault;
  • whether she was intoxicated;
  • whether she was punched;
  • whether she was kicked;
  • whether the second dancer was an accomplice in the rape;
  • whether the second dancer stole her money.

The accuser has also identified people with 100 percent certainty as attending the party who could prove that they did not attend the party and in one case did not even spend the night in question in Durham.

Such a list extends beyond “minor inconsistencies.”

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Additionally, there is some indication that the [accuser] may have been drugged; there were reports of her going from sober to totally unaware and then back to not-intoxicated by the time she reached the hospital.”

Yet again, Murphy appears to have demonstrated her unfamiliarity with the case. A toxicology screen on the accuser was negative; and the accuser admitted taking Flexeril with alcohol despite instructions not to do so.

Imagined Events

Murphy (Dec. 21 email): “The line-ups were not unlawful. According to the president of Duke, ‘many’ players were not at the party—and many NON-players WERE.”

Duke president Richard Brodhead never claimed to know who and who did not attend the party; Murphy is simply making up the statement.

In any event, her point is irrelevant. On March 31, Nifong instructed the police to confine the lineup to all 46 white lacrosse players—each of whom had been publicly labeled a suspect eight days before. Durham procedures—as have been widely reported—require five filler photos per suspect.

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “It is also important to remember that the defense claims NOW that they wanted to meet with the DA to show him evidence of their innocence—but the simple truth is—a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was scheduled BEFORE charges were brought and at the last minute, the defense CANCELLED the meeting. Thereafter, the evidence was brought to the grand jury. The defense has no business complaining about not having a chance to show evidence to the prosecutor.” (CAPS in original.)

Not even Nifong has claimed that “a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was scheduled BEFORE charges were brought.” In fact, until this Murphy e-mail, I’m unaware of anyone commenting on the case in any forum who has made such a claim.

Moreover, Murphy appears unaware of Rule 3.8, comment 2 of the state bar's ethics code: “A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.” A prosecutor refusing to meet with defense attorneys to examine evidence they claim will prove the innocence of their client obviously violates this rule.


One victims’ rights advocate with whom I spoke said that the movement as a whole would be loath to criticize a prosecutor who was standing up for the complaining witness. But posting inaccuracy-laced material such as Murphy’s undermines the movement’s credibility. How could anyone who has closely followed this case hereafter trust any statement from the NSVRC, knowing that the organization disseminated Murphy’s “talking points”?

As for the Centers for Disease Control, perhaps it would be worth knowing how the federal government could, even indirectly, be funding the dissemination of Murphy’s assertions on the case.


Joe said...

woot! new post. now i can go to sleep happy.

Anonymous said...

Had a feeling it was going to be Murphy tonight...

Anonymous said...

I wonder if she has a sign on her desk:

"The nut stops here."


Joe said...

Dear God.

And I don't mean that lightly.

Good night.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see Murphy defend her slander and defamation in court.

Anonymous said...

So, you're saying this lady is a bit....biased? Hmmm.


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

KC: And what was the point about filing an appeal of an interlocutory decision on the sanctions issue?

Did you catch that? Can a Defendant file an appeal of such a decision in NC? Most states would hold the answer to be no, and that a final appealable order is required to file an appeal.


Anonymous said...


" Since July 17, both sides have operated under a gag order, which has limited what either Nifong or defense attorneys could say about the case to the media."

KC, I thought that Judge Smith lifted Titus' gag order at the Sept hearing, and that the 'order' he inserted was simply a reminder that both sides should adhere to the NC Rules of Professional Conduct?

Anonymous said...

I don't know how many people here visit the FODU website or even post there, but the moderator will kick you off in a heart beat, if you have any disagreements with him/her or a member of the Duke faculty . I found that out first hand, so beware to all that post on FODU. I just hope you are listening, I went after Karla Holloway and got booted off that site for NOT supporting her, only because she is a member of the Duke faculty, supported by the same members of that faculty, that claim to support Dave, Colin and Reade, even though they disagree with her. I just wonder who the Duke faculity members are really supporting? To me it is a biased site, that supports only Brodhead, and the "Group of 88". To me Dave, Collin and Reade deserve our support, not Karla Holloway, as DukeEng83 wants to infer, according to him she is being picked on by the bloggers. I just hope all remember that it was her that signed the first statement from the "Group of 88".

Anonymous said...

wendy murphy, the person who knows everything about nothing...

Anonymous said...

12:14 Your language is disgusting -There are women on this board who ynlike you, have class and breeeding. Cursing is the sign of a limited education and mind.
In ant event, Murphy looks and sounds really crazy. I hope there is a lawsuit in this piece for the team.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Two points on this:

1. Professor Johnson there was early on in this case a meeting scheduled with the DPD that the team members after retaining representation decided not to attend. That is probably what Murphy is confusing on that point.

2. Where do Murphy and others like her get this constitution right associated with prior sexual activity? If it were a constitutional right, there would be NO need for rape sheild STATUTES.

Anonymous said...

Here's a tip to any pundit wishing to comment on the Duke Lacrosse case in the future. Think and write linearly. Develop your point by marshalling your evidence and double check those facts against the public record. If there are contrary facts, address them. Failure to do the above will result in your clock being cleaned by KC Johnson.

kcjohnson9 said...

12.25--agreed. I deleted the comment.

JLS: It's possible the early meeting is what Murphy was referencing--yet that meeting was postponed, not canceled; it didn't involve prosecutors; and its postponement did not result in the state taking the case to the grand jury.

Essentially, what she seems to have done is vaguely recalled this event, and decided to reinvent some of the facts to explain away Nifong's refusal to meet with def. attorneys.

Anonymous said...

12:19 Bill A and KC will need to answer this post. From what I have read there, I do not believe your statements can be supported.

Anonymous said...

"At no point in any of her myriad, mutually contradictory stories did the accuser claim that one of her assaulters was using the phone at any point during the attack or left the scene during the attack."

There is still time...let's not rule out Sexual Assault 8.0 being issued before the case is over.

kcjohnson9 said...

FODU has gotten quite a few attacks over the last several months, but this is the first time I've seen it characterized as a staunch defender of Karla Holloway :)

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Professor Johnson, I posted awhile back relating the Nifong defenders and rape nazis to fans on sports boards I participate in.

When your team is struggling, you tend not to pay as close attention as it can be painful. Similarly as this case has clearly become known as a hoax advocates like Murphy and Goslee have paid less attention to the facts.

In sports this is no big deal. In important policy areas like the functioning of the criminal justice system behaving like a fan of one side or the other rather than the truth is harmful to us all. Murphy is both a nut and harmful to society.

Anonymous said...

KC 12:37 -

WJD has posted the same exact comments on multiple threads. Methinks he's guilty of being inflammatory.

WJD - calm down.


Anonymous said...

I note that Monica Johnson-Hostler also has material on the NSVCR site.

Her early statements on this case were little more than feminist propaganda. She has recently stated that police departments are polygraghing rape victims. A statement that couldn't be verified by NC17 who did the report. Curiously information from an organization she heads has been posted on potbanger websites. It's really odd how the same names keep popping up. Am I just paranoid?

Anonymous said...


Excellent post. I think that if you were to contact the national office of the ACLU (think it's in NYC) you would discover that NOT ONCE in its history has it advocated for false accuser's civil rights.

I'd bet my right testicle on that.


Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Fontes (loved your Niners), you're not paranoid. It's a concerted effort to ignore the facts to further one's agenda - I believe her agenda is named misandry.


Anonymous said...

I'm asking this as a non-attorney:

Is Wendy Murphy vulverable to any disciplanary action from the Bar Association for these kinds of statements? She is definitely mis-stating the law and obfuscating the known facts in this case. As such, she damages the image and reputation of lawyers everywhere.

And if these aren't actionable offenses, how much freedom to misbehave is a person representing themselves as a legal authority allowed? Jayson Blair was fired and disgraced from the profession of journalism for this kind of behavior.


Anonymous said...

Ignoring the truth has made this woman a TV personality of sorts, so she is convinced there is no need to worry about the truth. In the category of "despicable human beings," Karla FC Holloway, the William Rand Kenan Professor of English and all-purpose court jester at Duke University, can't hold a candle to Murphy.

Cochise's Enchilada

Anonymous said...



meant to write "falsely accused's" civil rights

ACLU is a pro-feminist entity


Anonymous said...

12:51 - In Taxachusetts? Probably not. Murphy can weasel her way out by pleading ignorance, I suppose. There is more going on here than meets the eye, and why she is a "former" prosecutor IMHO.

The Bar battle is not something I see as worth fighting. Now a law suit, that's something different. I would sue her for everything she's worth.


Anonymous said...

KC - Thank you -- this crap from Murphy was driving me nuts tonight. fwiw - I sent Ms. Lewis an email, directing her to your post.


Anonymous said...

MP at 12:51 AM,

Not only is Murphy not "vulverable," I'm pretty sure she is not vulva-able.

Anonymous said...

Michael Gaynor makes hash of Murphy's email here:
Duke case disgrace: wicked Wendy Murphy
"Ms. Murphy is so invested in the myth that the Duke case is a noble prosecution instead of a perverse persecution by a rogue prosecutor championing a person whom even liberal feminist Susan Estrich has described as a liar that she embarrassed herself greatly."

Anonymous said...

i wonder who raped wendy. kc should run a Holloway on her.

Anonymous said...


Off-topic for this post, but I just want to let you know how much I appreciate your coverage of this story.

I've read your blog from the beginning and have found it to be by far the best and most comprehensive source available.

Thank you for all your work and please, when this is over (hopefully very soon for the sake of the three so wrongly accused and their stalwart families), write the definitive book on this case.

It'll be a bestseller and more importantly it will bring this massive miscarriage of justice to an even wider audience. And then maybe there will be a movie...

Anyway, thanks KC. You've done great work here. I'm actually considering enrolling at Brooklyn College (post-grad) just so I can take classes from you. You've singlehandedly elevated the status of that institution.

Anonymous said...

Where *does* she get this stuff? In another Cash Michaels laugher, she goes deeper into this phantom March 22 meeting that "got called off."

Really, not an idle question -- from what possible meeting did she create this distorted recollection?

Anonymous said...

She forgot she was choked!

The choking only appears in the statement to Himan on March 16, that appeared in all the search warrants. It had never appeared before and it never appeared after. One would think one would remember a good choking!

Just another lie.


Anonymous said...

I have seen enoguh! It's very obvious that this Murphy woman is secretly in love Nifong!

Anonymous said...

I have been intrigued by the duty of disclosure imposed on the state. I did some quick research on North Carolina criminal procedure (emphasis on quick); if I have something wrong, someone please correct me. It appears that several authorities guide a prosecutor’s actions. N.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) (Special Rules of a Prosecutor) mandates that ”(d) after reasonably diligent inquiry, (a prosecutor) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure, or court opinions including all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.” Comment 4 to that rule states: “[4] Every prosecutor should be aware of the discovery requirements established by statutory law and case law. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A-903 et. seq, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). The exception in paragraph (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.” Thus, it appears that if a prosecutor feels the information should not be disclosed for some reason, the prosecutor then can bring a motion for a protective order. As to the evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, and as referenced in the quoted Comment to the Rule, NC General Statute §15A-903 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to: (1) Make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term "file" includes the defendant's statements, the codefendants' statements, witness statements, investigating officers' notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Oral statements shall be in written or recorded form. The defendant shall have the right to inspect and copy or photograph any materials contained therein and, under appropriate safeguards, to inspect, examine, and test any physical evidence or sample contained therein. (2) Give notice to the defendant of any expert witnesses that the State reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the State shall furnish to the defendant, a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The State shall also furnish to the defendant the expert's curriculum vitae, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The State shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subsection within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court.” In addition, disclosure of specific material is mandated by the Supreme Court’s 1963 holding in Brady v. Maryland. From this landmark case came the designation of certain matter as “Brady Material.” Brady Material consists of matter that is exculpatory or impeaching in nature and that is material to the guilt or punishment of the defendant; failure to produce same violates due process. In cases decided after Brady (such as Kyles v. Whitney), this duty of disclosure is not limited solely to evidence in the prosecutor’s possession; it extends to evidence held by other government offices.

Anonymous said...

Great job, K.C. I had a relatively sleepless night, so here I am at 4:30 on this site.

When I received the email, I was pretty outraged, as I recognized immediately that Murphy was spinning half-truths and some outright fabrications. This is par for her.

Murphy has been a big advocate of "recovered memories" in which people -- adults, usually -- suddenly claim that their parents or someone sexually abused them as children, but they "forgot" about it until a therapist helped them to "recover" their memories. As you can imagine, prosecutors in Massachusetts and elsewhere have jumped on this as a way to throw people into prison. There have been some outrageous cases in Massachusetts, and although Murphy was a peripheral figure, nonetheless she was outspoken in the press and widely quoted.

This woman is someone who has built her phantom career on lies. I will say it again, lies. The "recovered memories" nonsense has been fully debunked by reputable psychologists and simply was yet another dishonest tool with which prosecutors bamboozled juries.

While there are many, many good and honorable people living in Massachusetts, unfortunately, that state has been the site of numerous miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, unlike Florida and North Carolina, which at least exonerated people falsely accused and convicted of the child molestation "witch hunt" charges, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said that the Amiraults would stay convicted because of the "need" for "finality." In other words, truth did not matter, that the trial was a travesty did not matter. What mattered was that the state would not have to deal with wrongdoing on its part. The state was right becaues it was the state.

I would urge all of you to read what Dorothy Rabinowitz has written on this subject. We saw her go after Nifong, but that has only be the tip of what she has written. In her excellent book, "No Crueler Tyrannies," there even is a reference to -- you guessed it -- Wendy Murphy. (Albeit, a small one)

Anonymous said...

The wilmington journal/cash michaels is quoting Murphy on the cancelled meetings, talking to police etc.

"I disagree somewhat with the point that uncooperative witnesses who hire lawyers deserve deference rather than pressure and suspicion,” Murphy says, later adding, “If the players refuse to talk, the public can, and should infer that they have something to hide.

What a piece of half truths. So much for presumption of innocence. These people are lawyers?

Only Coleman saids "The students have the right to get lawyers.

cash michaels

Anonymous said...

"The prosecutor has told us almost nothing about the strength of his case. Irrelevant and constitutionally protected private information is often unveiled during rap kit exams — which is why I have long advocated AGAINST doing any testing without a court order — and I teach those who deal with such evidence not to test the evidence or ask victims questions about their past sex life unless and until a judge orders specific testing to elucidate particular information. As it stands now, nobody has protocols in place to protect victims' privacy in this regard so there's far too much gratuitous harm going on — caused in part by the Debbie Smith Act — that urged all evidence be tested and tons of money wasted to look at victims' private biological material. ..."

This is another crazy part. Is she suggesting that a hospital get a court order before doing a rape kit exam on a rape victim? Is she also unaware of rape shield laws?

Anonymous said...

Yep, Get rid of the rape kit. Take the accuser word, no matter how impossible. Women never lie. They never pick wrong people in line up by mistake.

No rape kit no having to release innocent people from jail because of DNA tests.


Anonymous said...

I realize that 12.59 is a failed attempt to find humor in the Freudian illiteracy of 12.51, but such comments (to which you can add 3.01) do nothing to advance the discussion or to bolster the site's claim to moral and intellectual seriousness. This is not a brief for glum humorlessness. God knows, there are many aspects of this cae for which laughter is an appropriate response. But misogyny ceased to be funny long ago.

Anonymous said...

Any victims' rights group that allows Wendy Murphy to speak on its behalf with her apparently ungovernable propensity to distort facts and law and her apparent devotion to defending prosecutorial wrongdoing, sacrifices its own credibility, relevance, and mission. Surely someone associated with these groups (Susan Estrich, for example) has an interest in helping them adhere to something closer to the truth. I just hope someone goes over these lies with Ms. Murphy carefully in a courtroom someday and she is held to account for the damage she has caused. Thank you KC and BA for pointing out the e-mail and highlighting again Ms. Murphy's scurrilous nonsense.


Anonymous said...

Please can any one here confirm whether the SMURF can be sued for these untruths?

When can the families slap a writ on her?

Anonymous said...

You have to understand Wendy Murphy's way of thinking. Once a woman makes a claim of rape, it ALWAYS is credible. In fact, she believes that no one should be able to defend himself against rape charges. Once they are made, the person automatically is guilty.

While she has not said those exact words, that is precisely what she has been advocating for years. There really is no other interpretation.

A lot of us have believed that these advocates simply were protecting women or helping make it more likely that women would report rapes when they occurred. But, as Murphy has demonstrated, her agenda is to have all men live in fear of being accused of rape, and once the claim is made, no matter how obviously false, the person is guilty and goes to prison.

And don't think she stands alone. There are many feminist prosecutors out there who believe the same thing and are looking for every way possible to keep from being constrained by the law. On the other side, we have many people trying to change the law so that it no longer conforms with our own historical criminal law and becomes something out of Stalin's Show Trials.

People think I am kidding, but Wendy Murphy IS the face of the Politics of Rape.

Anonymous said...

It all boils down to credibility:

Mangum, "I haven't had sex in a week".

DNA shows up from 5 different men. Certainly it isn't unreasonable for the defense to question her claim.

Nurse in training, "There appears to be some swelling in the vaginal area".

Again, it is more than reasonable for a defense lawyer to question this "diffuse edema" by bringing up her multiple recent partners she may have had as a possible explaination.

To say otherwise is so bizarre. Murphy really makes no sense. No one is talking about what she did in high school or what kinky fetishes she does with her boyfriend.

Anonymous said...

You have to understand what Murphy wants: the suppression of ALL exculpatory evidence in a rape case. One a woman makes the accusation, according to Murphy, nothing else needs to occur but a show trial, conviction, and imprisonment.

Joe said...

Bill Anderson,

Please read my response to your post on the last entry. I hope you'll decide to remove your post.


Anonymous said...

The fact that the CDC is sending federal tax dollars to an organization that allows Wendy Murphy to speak for it is very troubling. This woman has repeatedly demonstrated that she has no understanding of either the law or the facts of the Duke case. She makes a complete fool of herself every time she opens her mouth. Cable "news" producers may find her ignorant rants "entertaining," but most sensible people do not. The CDC must be held accountable for allowing federal tax money to be wasted on an organzation that would associate itself with such an incompetent and incredible person.

Anonymous said...

To KC: Nitpicking

I bother to pick nits only to help you maintain the high quality of this site.

"Aware" normally takes "of" not "with:" at least twice, you say "aware with the facts" instead of "aware of the facts." That odd locution stopped me dead in my tacks both times.


PS Isn't it great to get proofreaders for nothing? Of course, you get what you pay for.

Anonymous said...


I disagree that "Wendy Murphy IS the face of the politics of rape."

I think that most advocates in this realm want police and prosecutors to approach rape claims with a presumption that the complaining woman is telling the truth. The key is that a presumption is rebutable - if the victim says the attacker didn't use a condom and there's no DNA it should absolutly call the accusers account into question.

I think this is a good thing. Just this morning I was reading about a rape that occured on the upper east side of manhattan on December 29 (two blocks from my girlfriend's apartment, so I do have some bias here). The attacker used a condom and the police weren't able to recover much, if any DNA evidence. If they ever catch this guy, the main evidence will likely be the victim's testimony.

In the more common senario of date rape (where the issue is consent) the issue is usually the same - the only real evidence is the victim's testimony. Where that's the case rape victim's advocates have stongly encouraged prosecutors to go ahead with these prosecutions on the grounds that the vast majority of rape claims are true. In the past, I think prosecuting decisions in these sorts of senarios turned on the sexual past an promescuity if the victim more than they should have.

As I see it the Duke case is a different situation entirely. Here the account of the woman is totally inconsistent with the physical evidence and the statements of multiple witnesses to the surrounding events. The accuser has made several inconsistent statements and wasn't able to identify her alleged attackers without the deeply flawed lineup.

Assuming the evidence is what we all expect it is, I don't think many rape victim advocates would want a prosecutor to move forward with this case. Since even ardent feminist prosecutors would drop the case if the only facts were those presented by the defense, a lot of victim's advocates have speculated (and quietly hoped) that Nifong had something more. In the last few months most have accepted that he does not and turned the volume down considerably - shifting to effort to minimize the damge of the hoax to real victims. I think Wendy is the exception rather than the rule here.

With all that said, it's a true shame that this otherwise valid and comendable organization has bought into Murphy's misleading and dwonright wrong assertions as a self-proclaimed legal expert on the case.

Anonymous said...

Well said Bill Anderson. Your 6:50 comment is on the mark.

Many don't understand what lies beneath the surface of someone like Wendy Murphy. They hide under the mask of "equality" but are truly far from it. Here are a couple of quotes.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

Feminism has become very dangerous. I stood with my women friends in protest in the 70's over issues like financial discrimination and job discrimination. That is now a thing of the past. We now have a very different set of feminists who are intent on the ruination of the family and of men. Rape and domestic violence are two areas you can see this bigotry clearly.

Anonymous said...


There are many things that I look forward to with great anticipation, and some would equal, but none surpass, the slander and defamation lawsuit to expose the charlatan witch Wendy Murphy.

Bring it on!

Anonymous said...

8:18: If you think financial discrimination is a thing of the past, you are quite wrong. Women still make considerably less money than men do for the same job. True, the gap is not as large as it once was, but it still exists, and it is still unacceptable.

Anonymous said...


The are no shortage of crazies on both the left and right. But just because one nutjob hates men or encourages wrongful prosecutions doesn't mean the belief is widely held, even among victims' rights advocates. It's like imputing racism to the whole lacrosse team because one of them made racist comments on a single occasion.

Frankly, I think there are a lot of similarities between these feminist victims rights advocates and conservative death penalty advocates who know damn well that their tough-on-crime policies lead to innocent people being killed by the state. Both are willing to accept a level of "collateral damage" that I find objectionable. In both their minds you can't make an omelot without breaking a few eggs. But when the eggs are innocent lives I'd rather forego the omelot and have cereal instead. (Was that analogy strained and painful enough?)

But I don't assume that every advocate of the death penalty wants to see innocent people fry and I think its a mistake to assume that about rape advocates too.

Anonymous said...

Wow... Now can the Feds step in?

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that laws like the Violence Against Women Act treat rape as a POLITICAL crime. Rape, according to that act, is a crime against a class of people, not against individuals.

In essence, what these people want is for anyone accused of rape to be a political prisoner. I know that sounds farfetched, but if you read the language of the act, as well as people like Murphy, you can see where this is headed.

Remember Yolanda Carrington's piece in the marxist publication? Rape clearly is a political act with them, and, thus, one does not have to prove that it actually happened. (With people like Karla Holloway, it is contained within a metanarrative.)

Again, you have to understand where this thing is headed. Many of the G88 signees penned articles that, in effect, accused the lacrosse players of POLITICAL crimes. Grant Farred and Holloway are two, but William Chafe's piece in the Chronicle bordered on that, too. Most of us do not understand the state of mind under which these people work, since it is foreign to us.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Seligman thought , "Ive got to get out of here before I catch some sort of disease, these dancers are sleezy."

Anonymous said...

8:46 - The wage gap has been exposed as a myth. Read Warren Farrell's book "Why Men Earn More" for details. Basically the wage gap has been determined by comparing a woman's median income to a man's median income. This is a primitive measure to begin with but it is also completely useless in determining discrimination. This fact does not impede feminists from spouting the .76 on a dollar mantra. What Farrell shows us is that the gap is related to the choices people make in their employment. Women tend to choose jobs that have flexibility, safe work environment, family friendly sorts of places. Men choose more often for reasons related to income. It's a fascinating read.

Here's a link to a CNN article about this.

Anonymous said...

To Joe Bingham:

I see now that you were quoting someone else. (I should realize that italicized print is done for a reason.)

My defense of Sowell stands, but I see your point in that you were quoting someone else, so my message to KC is that he can take down my post if he wants. If we are able to take down our own posts, I don't know how to do it. (Showing my age, I guess....)

That post did make me curious, so before I made the statements, I went to Sowell's list, and found a ton of his stuff still in print. Now, let me assure you that his "Black Rednecks" book in no way is going to be in the same class as "Knowledge and Decisions," which remains a classic in many ways. (It is based on F.A. Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society," which appeared in the September 1945 issue of American Economic Review. I assign that article to my graduate students.)

Anonymous said...

She needs Seroquel !!!!

Anonymous said...

Huesofblue said: But just because one nutjob hates men or encourages wrongful prosecutions doesn't mean the belief is widely held, even among victims' rights advocates.

I pray that you are correct. I fear that my experience over the last 5 years in working towards an equitible and compassionate solution for all victims of domestic violence says otherwise.

Bill Anderson is absolutely correct. Things like rape and DV have been transformed into political crimes. This sort of transformation doesn't happen as a result of one or two "nutjobs."

Anonymous said...

Does Murphy remember Nifong saying, these two dancers would not be my first choice to have sex with. Maybe the 3 boys thought the same thing.

Anonymous said...

to 8:46
The notion of a gender based "wage gag" lives on as an honored part of the PC canon but in the real world it has been extensively debunked. If women go at their careers with the same will-to-sacrifice as the typical guy, they do at least as well. This fact is somewhat buried by the large percent of women who make other choices. This is nicely illustrated by the work patterns of female Physicians in Great Britain and Canada (places where such data is easily found). 10 years after completion of training, only about 1 in 4 work full time. Around half have gone home altogether. Men Doctors characteristically work until they are pushed out.
Besides, if you really believed that hard working women could be hired for less than guys, you would not be typing on the internet, you would be organizing a business to take advantage of this. It success should be guaranteed, yes? Hire only women, pay them 15 % less, enjoy their harder working and retire to Florida. A complete no-brainer.
That is, if you really believed in a meaningful "wage gap."

Anonymous said...

WJD 12:19 am post

To set the record straight, you did not get banned from the FODU board because of your views on Karla Holloway. You got banned because you registered under at least 13 different names posting as 13 different people and causing a great deal of trouble on the board.


Anonymous said...

Breaking news wral- DNA withholding added to the Bar complaint.

Anonymous said...

Murphy gets my vote for spinner of the year.

Anonymous said...

KC -

Not sure if you've followed this case at all, but thought you may find it interesting as a reversed situation:

Anonymous said...

Nifong on Fox
2 new charges


Lying in statements

Anonymous said...

Just want to let Ms. Murphy know that the FA sexual history is relevant to this case. All the DNA found on the FA could be the rapists.

Anonymous said...

Well Murphy may think not turning over the DNA info is ok.

But the NC Bar just filed charges against Nifong, because he did not turn it over.

Maybe Nifong should hire Murphy to defend him.


Anonymous said...

And this woman actually teaches aspiring law students. What a frightening thought!!!

Anonymous said...

Now that the Bar is charging Nifong with withholding the DNA results and mis-statements to the court.

Is the Judge going to act, or just let it go?

Anonymous said...

I initially read the part about DNA testing as suggesting that samples be taken (the "rape kit") but then the prosecution should be allowed to decide what (if any) testing to do on the samples.

This means they can come up with a report that intentionally omits things they choose not to test for (other DNA) or no report at all, should they somehow decide that the report would be unfavorable. Instead of no DNA, it becomes a matter of no test results.

This is totally ridiculous and strikes me as actually worse than doing away with taking the samples all together. This way, the prosecution gets to have it both ways -- no results when they are unfavorable and results when they are. Would the defense be allowed to test any samples? Somewhere down the line, the argument would be no, this is a violation of privacy of the possible victim.

Do rape shield laws prevent the defense from obtaining information or do they focus on the release of information? To me, it seems as though she wants to use these laws to cut off access to any potentially exculpatory evidence in all cases involving allegations of rape. This is very dangerous stuff!

I think the common perception is that rape shield laws apply to the press or other public release of information but they actually apply to the defense and it is being argued that they apply to everything involving the accuser, at all times other than the period where the alleged crime occurred.

Anonymous said...

gs said...

Nifong on Fox
2 new charges


Lying in statements

9:42 AM

It's the lead story on the Fox News web site. The CNN site has nothing.

Anonymous said...

I know this is off topic, but I could not not contain my joy...

Mike Lifong has been slapped with additional ethics charges by the state bar association.

Mike Lifong Ethics Charges

Trinity '88

Anonymous said...

As much as I appreciate Johnson's detailed rebuttal (dare I even say polite Fisking), the people who have hooked their cart to Nifong's, UMBUTU's and the rest of the Lynch Mob's horse, have to accept Murphy's fictionalization of events. It speaks to their Higher Truths. The evidence in this case, much of which favors the defense, is a triviality.

They have never been interested in the facts, details or specifics of this case, and I imagine even with these talking points presented by Murphy are as distant and irrelevant to them as repeating the same Mass over and over and over.

More importantly to question a conviction for rape in this instance, and not the current charges, would nullify their stand on violence against women, race, class, and "athletic culture." To question the fact that the Duke 3, or if a rape indeed occurred here is to question that ANY rape occurs.

I think one pro-Lynching commenter on this blog made the point very very clear last week. Quoth he, "Duke 3 are guilty of raping America" (emphasis mine -- That's America, not the Alleged Victim).The Duke 3 now are every rapists that ever existed. Therefore they have to be guilty. We know that rape is real, we know that the Duke 3 are real. Therefore they must be guilty. Their whole inverted worldview relies upon that simple capital T-truth.

M. Simon said...

Re: 9:32AM

Anonymous said...

Kevin understands the mentality behind this whole case. We are seeing the manifestation of what we call "feminist law." It was marketed as a way to protect women who fell through the cracks of the law, but, as we now see, it is an entirely different approach to law, one that was manifested by Lenin and Bukharin in the Russian Revolution.

Ultimately, his "new" approach to law did in Bukharin, as Stalin had charges trumped up against him, too. People like Murphy twist the facts, but because it serves a larger agenda for her and other feminists.

Not all feminists think like this, but many of them do, and we can be assurred that law in the future will move in this direction. A frightening thought, given the carnage that such "law" created during the 20th Century.

Anonymous said...


To the extent it bolsters my credibility on these other issues we're debating, I mainly agree with you on the wage gap issue. The students in any engineering and computer science department are predominantly male, while the psychology and art history departments are predominantly female. Feminists say this is due to sexism, and to an extent they're right. I just don't think it's the insidious breed of sexism they suppose. It's possible that women don't go into engineering or or finance because there's a sexist conspiracy to keep them out, but I've always thought it more likely that women avoid these fields because they are mind numbingly boring. (I say this as a mergers and acquisitions attorney who majored in engineering).

There are exceptions of course, but in our society the worth of a man is often determined by his job and his bank account. Men are encouraged to sacrifice their interests and personal life in the name of career and cash to an extent that women are not.

But even though it might make me a sexist, I'm not sure that this is a 100% bad thing. You might make a lot of money, but working in finance unequivocally sucks. You never see your family or friends. Everyone is incredibly stressed out all of the time. Ect. It's a wretched way of life that you're constantly balancing against the financial rewards.

Women tend to be socialized to value other things above money and career, but I'm not convinced that they're the ones on the wrong track. The world might be a better place if men were raised the same way.

(Obviously I don't practice what I preach - but I'm constantly jealous of my female friends who turned down big firm jobs to work as prosecutors or judicial clerks. They make a fraction of the salary, but it's by choice. And at least for now, they seem so much happier. But maybe the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence)

Anonymous said...

other shoe falls (on Nifong). check WRAL website.

M. Simon said...

huesofblue 10:23AM,

Engineering boring?

I get to work with the basic forces of the universe.

Exciting stuff.

OTOH mergers and acquisitions? Boring. Bigger money than engineering though. Am I being discriminated against? LOL

Anonymous said...

WRAL story does not mention that Nifong has now not only been charged with witholding evidence, etc., but with lying to the Bar Grievance committee itself! Read last pages of amended complaint.

Anonymous said...

The other shoe indeed. Whoever said NC would not be hammering Nifong should reconsider their statement.

The rails have been laid, and the train for disbarment has just left the station.

And Wilson, according to N&O, has been the subject of previous complaints regarding his honesty. That's also quite important. It calls into question every interview and fact gathered by him. Coman would be out of his mind to rely on anything this man collected at this point, including the later changed story by the accuser. Was it tape recorded, or was it based upon notes?

The final throes of agony are upon us ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully this entire mess gets resolved within the next couple of weeks. An hour from now would be even better.

Dismiss the remaining charges with prejudice, Coman. Make yourself look good, give a statement that based upon your review of the evidence the case lacks evidence to proceed, and wish the press a good day. Do the right thing.


AMac said...

Perhaps somewhat off-topic. An excuses-for-the-88 op-ed in the Duke Chronicle provoked an eloquent comment by Duke grad (Masters in Liberal Studies '04) Angela Perez. It is timestamped 1/23/07 @ 3:20pm.

--begin excerpt--

...These doctors at Duke [faculty signers of the Listening Statement] are masters of rhetoric. No one better understands the power of what rhetoric can do and for them to now claim, "Oh my -- we had no idea that our published document would be taken the wrong way" is absolutely preposterous.

These are professors who have devoted their lives to the written word -- who know that once the spoken or written word has been released in the universe that it takes a life of its own, never to be controlled by its author(s) again. And because they have this knowledge, they have an incredible responsibility and accountability for what this document that they released on the world during this chaotic and insane time. They cobbled this document together with no thought about the consequences other than to promote their own agenda. It's they that got together in the Ivory tower and said, "Ah, dear doctors, let us type up and sprinkle down Word documents on the masses and incite their deepest fears and dredge up their deepest pain -- and let's do it quickly while we have some lacrosse players to focus it on."

I resent your manipulation.

What smacks more of tyranny than these irresponsible actions? It is a deep, deep shame to me to see the names of these people whose work I have admired and respected for so many years do something so very irresponsible. They should know better.

Shame, shame on you.

--end excerpt--

M. Simon said...

N&O on Linwood Wilson

Anonymous said...

I think that Nifong will get away with the statements he made about the accused in the bar complaint, he will get a sanction and promise not to do it again.

The DNA issue is an entirely different matter, it seems pretty evident that he blatantly lied about having turned over the evidence to the defense, blatantly contradicted himself on why it had not been turned over, giving I believe three different reasons, finally ending with the story that he 'thought' it had all been turned over.

I don't think this is going to work for him and this will be his undoing. I doubt that he will be disbarred but I suspect some time in Nifong's future he will resign for the 'good of Durham' and hopefully get a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds where he can't damage anymore lives.

Anonymous said...


Not surprised that they will nail Nifong. The Bar needs to show "we cleaned our own house up" before the state goverment thinks about oversite in the legal community.

Getting rid of Nifong is CYA for the Bar.

Anonymous said...

GS: Agreed. They really have no choice at this point. They look like a toothless tiger otherwise.


Anonymous said...

10:29 Finance boring? I get to unshackle the oppressed, reduce poverty and allow people the freedom to be self-determined. Whether an individual or company, the joy on peoples face(s) is beautiful once free cash-flow is reached; self-actualization, of sorts. Expanding the universe through finance makes many happy, cure those who ail, and keeps us from falling back into the 7th century. What's not fun about that, especially when you get paid to help others?

I think one the primary reasons so many, if not all of, the race, gender, class-warfare sects are so unhappy, is because so few people buy-in to their b.s. Instead, they are all essentially on an elevator smelling each others bad gas and knodding approval about how nice everything smells. Of course, none have thought to push the elevator button.

Anonymous said...

Can pressure be brought to bear on the NSVCR, by the CDC or others, to remove or revise their talking points document, based on the fact they receive federal funding?

Who best to send email to (polite, as usual) in order to suggest the NSVCR take a more fact-based approach to dealing with the topic?

Anonymous said...

Remark from a non-lawyer: though in the general scheme of things witholding evidence and the like may have more serious consequences,I can't help thinking that the people on the Bar Grievance committee will be particulary ticked off that Nifong lied even to them. I don't think he will skate on that one either.

Anonymous said...

The 'Fong is T-O-A-S-T. Done. Finito. The complaint is damning. Was he really stupid enough to think he could get away with all this? Were I the defense, I would move that the court tax all the costs to 'Fong for their legal bills in ferreting out Nifong's duplicity.

What an ass. The privacy excuse . . . . for non-disclosure. Are you kidding me? And the bar complaint nails him on it--big time--offering the statement of privacy as proof that the he knew he was concealing. How does it feel, Fong, to be tripped up by your own words? Couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.

We'll see what the NC AG does, but if this case goes beyond a cpl more weeks . . ..

Anonymous said...

As James Coleman said, Nifong has been "mooning" they system itself. Why not moon the Bar committee, too?

Again, Joe Bingham, my bad on mistaking the comments you posted (of someone else) for your own. From what I hear, the DIW Committee has heard the complaint, but has not decided to pull my Ph.D., but only give me a reprimand!

Anonymous said...


I was very disappointed in the dogpile that many of the commenter delivered on that columnist yesturday. He has been critical of the 88 in past editorials and here was pointing to some of the more noxious comments deliver to them. Overall, I think The Chronicle has done a fairly good job in handling it. They, including the columnist in question, have been about as fair as they can afford to be given that I suspect that many on The Chron's staff are in Trinity college -- the same college as almost all of the 88. You have to remember that many commenters there (and here) can walk away from this at the end of the day. Duke students and staff must deal with this, and the same people, every day.

If Duke and the overall climate for contrariety opinions there is as bad as they say it is, It's unfair, even maliciously cruel not to give every commenter affiliated with Duke who is the least bit critical, but not enough for our tastes, every benefit of the doubt.

Joe said...

Dr. Anderson,

No problem, could happen to any of us. I could've been clearer in my post.

Nice to see grad school teachers still assign Sowell and Hayek. I'm a fan.

Anonymous said...

I've attempted to send an email to this organization using its general address contained on its website and the specific address contained on the talking points memo. The emails have been returned as undeliverable. I am not sure why. Could the inbox be full or could it be disabled?

Anonymous said...

(Bleah, lots of typos in that that last post. my bad.)

Hi Bill A:

Though I agree that cynical charges are an issue here, there have been trumped up charges to get petty victories since someone way back when found out that lying could get them something, The Bolsheviks, as deplorable as they were and are, don't own the patent on that one...

My big point was that The Madame Defarges in this case have "globalized" the Duke 3 to be ALL rapists (just like the one commenter said). They HAVE to convict them because they ARE all rapists, every single one that has ever existed. To blow this is to admit defeat in the war against violence against women. This is truly unfortunate because in doing so, they are also sweeping every other rape, battery and assault against women that actually did, or will occur during this mess under the rug. It's this case, and ONLY this case that has their attention.

Stalin was out to clean house of everyone that was a threat to him. And pardon my violation of Godwin's Law, but even Hitler knew that he couldn't just kill three Jews when he insisted that all Jews were the problem. The people out to lynch the Duke 3, would have us to believe that this is THE Rape Case. Therefore, to reduce the charges, accept the exculpatory evidence, or question that a rape even happened in the first place, is to pardon not the Duke 3, but all rapists and indeed, rape itself. For many of them, their whole raison d'etre is at stake here. And that's why the need to hang the Duke 3... even if they are acquitted in a court of law (which appears to be more and more likely if the charges aren't dropped), they will never let this go. I suspect that some of them will go as far as to chase the 3 accused students for the rest of their lives. People still, after all, go after William Kennedy Smith, another "prefect" accused rapist.

The Dude said...


i wonder if she has a sign on her desk;

What desk? She is not employed and was only an assist prof. at the law Center. Who would give this moron a desk or even a pencil?

AMac said...

Kevin 11:26am --

Briefly (to avoid further thread-jack charges): The arguments that author/student Dave Kleban made in his linked Duke Chronicle column were quite lame, in my opinion (I didn't check older pieces he's written). I agree with you that pieces such as this regularly provoke a "dogpile" of anti-G88 reactions. In this and other instances, a lot of anti-88ers seethe, while a lot make reasoned arguments.

I have yet to see an honest, sensible and reasonable defense of the Listening Statement or its follow-on, by one of the signers or by a non-signing supporter. If you are correct in saying that prominent Trinity student critics of the Group of 88 have to tread carefully, that would be sad, but not unexpected. Perhaps, then, it is students posting venomous anonymous comments--I don't know.

Anonymous said...

8:53 AM huesofblue

"Frankly, I think there are a lot of similarities between these feminist victims rights advocates and conservative death penalty advocates who know damn well that their tough-on-crime policies lead to innocent people being killed by the state. Both are willing to accept a level of "collateral damage" that I find objectionable. In both their minds you can't make an omelot without breaking a few eggs."

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, just how much of this innocence in prison can you stomach? For many average citizens the number is quite high. For Prosecutors, the number is even higher. For Murphy and her agenda, well, it is not an issue.

By the way, wasn't his one of the main protections Americans have been fighting and dying for over all these years?

Anonymous said...

Just off to the PR Director of the NSVRC (what do you want to bet I'll get no response?):

How can your organization in good conscience disseminate unsubstantiated and even patently false “talking points” defending the behavior of a prosecutor under investigation for (as of this morning) multiple ethics and legal violations related to his handling of the Duke case?

I support the professed doctrines of your organization, but the behavior of the NSRVC in this case is discrediting everything you purport to stand for.

Brad Davis
Hillsborough, NC

Anonymous said...

Huesofblue - It seems you and I basically agree that pre-judging either men or women based on stereotypes and rigid sex roles is not a good thing. We have spent many years attempting to free women from stereotypes and therefore free them from the hurtful double standards that limit their potential. We now need to do the same for men and boys.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, here's what I got when I attempted to email the PR Director of the NSRVC:

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
Unrouteable address

Permanent error. Hmmm...

Anonymous said...

9:02 AM bill anderson
"Keep in mind that laws like the Violence Against Women Act treat rape as a POLITICAL crime. Rape, according to that act, is a crime against a class of people, not against individuals."

Thanks for another spot on comment, Bill. This is really disturbing stuff, and I hope that when the fallout settles in the case, problems like this get laid bare for public scrutiny too.

Anonymous said...

As an attorney, I am especially offended by the comment "Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Defense attorneys can lie with impunity—prosecutors can’t even tell the truth without getting in trouble.”

K.C.'s correctly recognizes that the generally the rules of professional conduct prohibit lawyers from knowingly lying even to third parties. In Ohio, where I practice, the rules state, "In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact" DR7-102(A)(5) This rule is not limited to statements made to or in a tribunal.
Certainly Murphy's incorrect statements regarding an attorneys' obligation to be truthful is harmful to the legal profession. I wonder whether her statements might violate some profession of Massachusett's Rules of Professional Conduct. My concern is heightened by the facts that the comments are made in the context of discussing a pending case and at the very least, contain an innuendo without supporting evidence that the actual defense counsel involved are engaged in unethical conduct.

Anonymous said...

As an attorney, I am especially offended by the comment "Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Defense attorneys can lie with impunity—prosecutors can’t even tell the truth without getting in trouble.”

K.C.'s correctly recognizes that the generally the rules of professional conduct prohibit lawyers from knowingly lying even to third parties. In Ohio, where I practice, the rules state, "In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact" DR7-102(A)(5) This rule is not limited to statements made to or in a tribunal.
Certainly Murphy's incorrect statements regarding an attorneys' obligation to be truthful is harmful to the legal profession. I wonder whether her statements might violate some provision of Massachusett's Rules of Professional Conduct. My concern is heightened by the facts that the comments are made in the context of discussing a pending case and at the very least, contain an innuendo without supporting evidence that the actual defense counsel involved are engaged in unethical conduct.

Anonymous said...

All of the infering that Murphy makes reference to in her talking points leads me to infer that she is not only an incompetent lawyer, but also a liar.

Anonymous said...

Certainly Murphy's incorrect statements regarding an attorneys' obligation to be truthful is harmful to the legal profession. I wonder whether her statements might violate some provision of Massachusett's Rules of Professional Conduct. My concern is heightened by the facts that the comments are made in the context of discussing a pending case and at the very least, contain an innuendo without supporting evidence that the actual defense counsel involved are engaged in unethical conduct.

Perhaps the said defense counsel will go after her.

Anonymous said...

9:02 Bill Anderson, you sir, are spot on.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” —Ernest Benn

“Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.” —Ambrose Bierce

Anonymous said...

I have a hard time understanding why victim advocates aren't at all concerned about the fact that this accuser appears to be lying. If this turns out to be an outrageous lie, this woman will have made it harder for women who actually tell the truth about sexual assault and rape. Why aren't they all up in arms about that? Anyone who has worked with sexual assault victims knows the pattern of injuries and typical behavior (changing the story 20 times...not typical). Why do they continue to attack the accused when it looks like their cause will suffer at the hands of the accuser?

Anonymous said...

4:24 PM bella

It is known as hijacking the cause of legitimate victims for your own political/commercial agenda. It requires a bit of acting, and, of course, the true victims' ultimate consequences are yesterday's garbage, but hey, it works. Look at history.

The Murphy's of the world are hardly noble.

Anonymous said...

Let Wendy keep talking, and continue to prove what a wacko she really is.

Anonymous said...

to 1:07
Thank you, I am not a lawyer, but I have been trying to make this point. She is a lawyer, and as such, I believe has an ethical DUTY to speak the truth and not slander or lie. I would be surprised if the Mass. board did not have such ethical rules in place. Maybe someone knows? If so, perhaps a complaint to the board is in order, it seems so outright dishonest to spew lies and mislead the public..
Bday MD

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Let Wendy keep talking, and continue to prove what a wacko she really is.

4:50 PM

I agree, keep talking Wendy and KC will keep offering the true facts and pointing out your lies. I'm sure there are plenty of civil trial attorneys reading every word, taking notes, and lining up to represent the three defendents in a defamation suit. Wendy just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Anonymous said...

Give the talking points credit for one thing, though ... they clearly point to what I predict will be Murphy's last gasp after the charges are dropped: that the crimes were committed, that one or more people in the house saw them but chose to protect the perpetrators, and the refusal of her magical mystery witnesses to speak up actually proves her case.

Feel free to be outraged when she goes there, but do not be surprised...

Anonymous said...

to a layer
Can the defense move to dismiss the indictment due to prosecutorial misconduct?

Anonymous said...

11:02 - Yes, as a sanction.

They have probably held off hoping Coman uses some sense and dismisses the remainder of the charges. Don't want to poke the bear yet.


Anonymous said...

he e-mail contact at the end of the Talking Points is wrong. It should be, not A typo, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Murphy and her kind are extremely dangerous to society!

The North Carolina feminist prosecutorial movement wrecked my life. I'm still over a barrel to this moment going on 20 years tied up in the NC court system. My ex wife has used the victim assistance industry as her strong arm to set me up since she first got pregnant. She would always start violent fights with me attacking me and throwing furniture around; then call the police and have me jailed. I didn't have a chance against these false allegations. The magistrates would look at me with pure hate as they wrote me into jail. She even took out a restraining order on me and then said I violated it. I was put in jail and held without bond. It was a total nightmare. I was put in jail for at least 8 or so times over the course of a couple of years as she set me up for divorce.

The fact that she was a violent and mentally disturbed alcoholic on file in numerous police reports didn't affect her strength against me in the courts in the least. In fact, in family court the judge ruled that I had caused the alcoholism via "battered woman's syndrome".

Yes, I was railroaded through the system quite effectively. Still am being so. My son went into the marines around 2 years ago. I have gotten no credit towards the arrears on the court ordered payments sent to the court. The ex wife conveniently was absent from the last child support hearing and failed to mention to either me or her child support representative, which seems to run the court room, or the court that my son was in the marines and the arrears payment should be adjusted. Meanwhile, I'm railroaded into jail if I'm late on even one payment. I try to fix it by calling child support services in Raleigh and the line seems busy 24 hrs a day.

It's a horror story that has wrecked me mentally and emotionally.

While I'm on the subject I'd like to relate the jail experience of those without funds. I saw the most petty of offenders jailed until court date because they can’t post bail. By the time they go before the judge, 2 weeks later, they plead guilty and get time served just to get out of there. This marks their records affecting future employment creating a loop. There are a lot of trespassing charges to the homeless and driver’s license violations.

The time I went to jail and was held without bond was the worst ordeal of my life. There were two court dates during the 2 weeks I was held. Court days while in jail were the most stressful days of my life. On court day they woke us that had to go to court at around 2am. From there they take you on a journey through underground tunnels, locking around 100 people to small tunnel divides and cells. By the time I got to the court room at around 11 am I had been shuffled through tunnels and made to stand in long lines and stuffed into crowded spaces since around 2am. Most seemed to plead guilty just to get out of there and get timed served. It was the most horrible ordeal I've ever been through. After court day, those that return to jail get back to where they began around 19 hours after they had been awoken to go to court. We were given lice bath soaps because is seemed common knowledge that the tunnels were infested.

I remember right before going into court the day I was to be released; an attorney from New York got arrested at the airport for public intoxication and was in a holding cell with my group. I remember him being taunted by inmates and being humiliated by guards. He had been put in that cell they put all of us in together they called the drunk tank earlier in the morning I surmised. Just being in that crowded cell practically shoulder to shoulder with the roar of gang types bragging about their crimes wondering if someone is going to start a fight with me was very scary. The next day I saw it noted in the newspaper that he had found the nearest tall building he could access to jump to his suicide. It must have been the worst day of his life too. What they put jailed inmates through on court day is mental coercion bordering on mental torture.

The system is set up to railroad those without funds to protect themselves from vicious prosecutions. Prisons and jails are a favorite growth industry buying government off through lobbyists. From what I understand county jails get federal money per headcount so there is incentive to increase headcount. I won't even bother putting up international comparisons of imprisonment stats per capita.

Further, prosecutors care more about their win/loss record than truth and justice from what I have seen. In the MSM, most times when a prosecutor "expert" is put on, their win/loss record is touted.

As I said when OJ got away with it, “justice has become a commodity” and a damned expensive one at that. One needs a good racket to play effectively in today’s courts it seems.

How did our country come to this?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the nice post!