The astonishing Wendy Murphy continues her campaign of distortion with a letter in today’s
So, when in doubt, make things up: “I was told by a reporter that the defense refused to release more than 1,000 pages of evidence.” What reporter? Murphy doesn’t say. What “1,000 pages of evidence”? Again, Murphy doesn’t say. Is she now accusing the defense of withholding evidence from the attorney general? Again, Murphy doesn’t say.
And what does this non-existent treasure trove of documents contain? Attempting, it seems, to shield herself from libel difficulties, she frames her response, Jeopardy! style, in the form of a question: “Could there be witness statements from the defendants’ friends—statements saying that a rape occurred just as [Crystal Mangum] described?”
Using Murphy’s approach, perhaps all of us should engage in unfounded speculation as to exactly what these non-existent 1,000 pages contain. Perhaps the Globe should now publish letters asking, “Could there be witness statements showing that Wendy Murphy committed massive prosecutorial misconduct when she served in the Middlesex D.A.’s office?”
As Murphy writes, “Until those documents are released, the public can and should speculate about what might be in there.” And, of course, since the “documents” don’t exist, such speculation could continue forever.
Murphy’s screed, by the way, came in response to one of the best analyses of the case, a Globe column from Cathy Young, entitled. “A rush to injustice in the Duke ‘rape’ case.”
Murphy is the gift that keeps on taking. I can only imagine her conduct as a real-live prosecutor. Perhaps we need to investigate her cases for misconduct.
I am convinced that Wendy Murphy is mentally ill. She doesn’t seem to understand concepts like discovery and logic. It is a sad commentary on our times that she is given a forum from which to sprout her nonsense.
I am convinced that Wendy Murphy is mentally ill.
Actually, I think she is a pathological liar. No wonder she feels a kinship with Crystal and Nifong!
I had REALLY hoped with the AG report, documenting several more versions of Mangum's story and the revelations about her drug use and the videos of her that Wendy Murphy would come to her senses.
She has turned into the same pathetic characature as Al Sharpton. She is a disgrace to all women and all legitimate rape victims.
That she would still be babbling about witnesses to the "rape" after the AG report came out and said NO WITNESSES CORROBORATED ANY PART OF HER STORY is truly astounding.
That she is still harping on 1000 pages of discovery that the AG has already seen is totally insane.
What has to happen before these people will admit the backed a pathological liar. I guess Crystal will have to admit publicly that she is imbalanced and a liar. Though then the "Duke pay her off argument will be raised" hell there is no solution or hope for these people.
Wendy is typical of the BOSTON LIBERAL bias...
she is the equivalent of ROSIE in the legal field...setting off minesfields that defy common sense...
she is a psychopant whose psysical ugliness and mental atrophy needs to fed by constant appearances on the TV...
she wants higher office and will do or say anything that the BLOGS cheer...
massachusetts shpuld be proud to have such a representative of their immoral society
Lets take it sentence by sentence
CATHY YOUNG'S criticism of me for my public comments on the Duke case was notable for its lack of sophistication, misinformation, and self-righteous tone ("A rush to injustice in the Duke 'rape' case," Op-ed, April 16).
-Murphy makes accusations but doesn't back them up.
I gave the prosecution's side on many television news programs, as I am often asked to do in high-profile criminal cases.
-True, but she went far beyond the prosecutions 'case' to pure speculation about the broomstick, secret state witneseses and so forth.
Given that the defense was revealing only selective information to the media and that the prosecution was forbidden to respond with a full disclosure of the truth, we don't have any idea what the real evidence is in the case.
-The Attorney General of the state of North Carolina said that there was no credible evidence a rape occured. The AG saw all the "real" evidence and this was his conclusion.
I was told by a reporter that the defense refused to release more than 1,000 pages of evidence.
-She doesn't say who or when this occured. My guess is, if its even true, it was the sealed medical file of the nut job drug addict Crystal Mangun and the info. on Finnerty's alibi.
Also, didnt' the defense say they shared ALL their files with the AG?
Could there be witness statements from the defendants' friends -- statements saying that a rape occurred just as the victim described?
NO. The AG said Mangun's account was not corroborated by ANY witnesses. This statement is as close to a lie as she could get.
Until those documents are released, the public can and should speculate about what might be in there.
-Why should the public speculate about the case file when the AG has said very clearly that there is no credible evidence an attack occured???? Does Wendy think the public should always speculate about imaginary evidence? Does she, the rape victim advocate, really want to set a precedent where all the details of a rape case are released to the media? WTF???
That Cathy Young is comfortable forming her opinion without access to all the evidence is unfortunate, though she is not alone.
The mainstream media have simply accepted claims from the attorney general in North Carolina that there was no rape.
--She's coming very close again to crossing the line into slander, she is almost saying that the AG is lying, but doesn't quite say it.
What happened to the idea that the press is the guardian of the public's right to know?
-Again, Murphy is so hell bent on not admitting she was wrong she wants to set a precedent of making the full case files of rape cases public to the press?
Cathy Young, as an opinion writer with an obvious agenda, can be forgiven .
-Blah, blah, blah
But the mainstream press should be ashamed of itself.
-Pathetic tripe, part II.
[CATHY YOUNG'S criticism of me for my public comments on the Duke case was notable for its lack of sophistication, misinformation, and self-righteous tone ("A rush to injustice in the Duke 'rape' case," Op-ed, April 16).]
Things like facts aren't important when it comes to a rape hoax.
It's a shame we have neither the resolve or the organization to "Imus"-ize Murphy. To go after Fox, MSNBC, their sponsers.... anyone that gives her a platform for her hysteria.
But, somehow, for all the well-stated disgust and condemnation, nothing beyond that ever materialises.
P.S. Beth Brewer still is waiting for ONE Durham-ite or Dukie to follow her lead and file to remove Nifong....
[Could there be witness statements from the defendants' friends -- statements saying that a rape occurred just as the victim described?]
She has friends? Who would be willing to vouch for her?
.... yes, I've seen my friend Crystal levitating in bathrooms before....
Could there be witness statements from the defendants' friends -- statements saying that a rape occurred just as the victim described?]
If there are witness statements from the DEFENDANTS friends that would mean Roy Cooper lied in his statements and report and that the either the DA's office or the DPB could prove it [they also have the case file] and simply decided to let it go and let Mike Nifong be crucified.
Maybe Wendy is mentally ill.
Anderson wrote - paraphasing - "it is difficult to collect in libel and slander suits" - what to do????
Another instance of public, staggeringly massive hypocrisy:
That Wendy Murphy is comfortable forming her opinion without access to all the evidence is unfortunate, though she is not alone.
One could make very few substitutions in the text of her own letter and have something that directly speaks to what Wendy Murphy has done. Amazing.
Murphy is just showing the world that some feminists are not interested in justice. If they can not admit that a mentally unstable woman lied in this case, they must believe that they live in a fantasy world where no woman has ever lied or ever would lie.
They are just hurting their own cause.
Wendy Murphy has indeed jumped the shark! Unfortunately, she will probably still be showing up on all the news programs in future.
bill anderson said...
"Actually, I think she is a pathological liar."
Aren't most radical feminists pathalogical liars?
Murphy, of course, does not address any of Young's specific citations from the "gold mine of disinformation" Murphy put out in the media. Murphy is campaigning for a talk show of her own, a la Nancy Grace.
First of all, I think KC should
put up a filter - not for the
comments already made, but because
the left is an avowed enemy
of free disclosure (so is the
extreme right.) I worry that
Murphy, if and when she's sued,
will try to drag KC - and the
IP records - into the case.
That having been said, it's
clear that Ms. Murphy made
Nifong has the "unreleased"
evidence; now she says that
the defense has the "unreleased."
I'm not blaming Ann Coulter,
but she seemed very happy about
the notoriety she got from her
comments about John Edwards -
she was invited to a lot more
could be that Murphy is merely
trying to keep her name in the
news, in a similar vein.
She may also be striving for
an insanity defense in the case
she's sucessfully sued -
IF that is a possible means of
minimizing her fiduciary
liablilities for libel (if any
Then again, Rosie probably
thought President Bush sent
Special Secret Super Duper
Agents to set the bridge in
San Francisco aflame (since
fuel, according to Rosie's 9/11
logic, couldn't melt the
structure, just as jet fuel
supposedly couldn't melt the
structure in the Twin Towers.)
Similarly, Ms. Murphy may
think that the LAX boys
set the bridge afire
to divert attention away from
Someone get a net.
And a barfbag.
Evil does exist.
In a disturbing example of the complete lack of standards or accountability in major media outlets, I came across Murphy on Bill O'Reilly's bark-fest the other day. She was snarling her opinion on some recent legal mess, not the Duke case.
I'm not a fan of O'Reilly by any means. Can't stand him in fact. But if I recall correctly he was pro-defense on Duke. And yet here he is giving face time to the deplorable Murphy, presenting her as a serious legal authority on yet another case, even though she thoroughly exposed herself as a malign nutjob on numerous occasions while commenting on Duke LAX.
Obviously that malignant mind matters not to O'Reilly and the little TV gods in their upholstered offices, as long as Murphy remains glib and aggressive, and the good bone structure in her face garners a satisfactory Q rating.
What a loathesome business.
Neither of them are worth my time, and I spent less than 30 seconds listening to them.
If the racists can move on to greener pastures why can't the Feminazis? Even Solomon Burnette could acknowledge that the rape didn't occur. Only a few radical feminists such as Marcella Chester and Amanda Marcotte still maintain that a rape could have occurred.
"What happened to the idea that the press is the guardian of the public's right to know?"
The MSM should not be considered a guardian of anything. For too long they have held "the public" captive to their lies and slanted opinions masquerading as news.
The MSM is just a vehicle for distortion of truth by those looking to support individual agendas. The fact that you are allowed to drive the car doesn't make you a good driver.
In order to not allow you to continue to portray him as someone who is as corrupt as Nifong, Joe Cheshire needs to take you down, verbally.
I was just told by a woman who said she was a reporter and who was hiding behind a concrete pillar in my parking garage that Wendy Murphy picks up homeless men and women off the street, kills them, has sex with their corpses and buries them in the woods. Can we be sure that Wendy Murphy has not done these things?
I think that, until all the wooded areas in the world, or at least in North America, are searched, we must be skeptical of any assertions that Wendy Murphy is not in the habit of killing homeless people and defiling their dead bodies for her sexual pleasure before burying them in unmarked graves in the woods.
Which of the 10+ accounts of the events that were given by CGM do these 1,000 pages support? Also, how exactly do these pages bring Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans together into the bathroom at the same time when their air tight alibi's show they were no where near each other at the time?
$100 says the "reporter" = Cash Michaels. I'm just surprised Crazy Wendy forgot to mention the fictional million-dollar payoffs while she was at it.
Wendy Murphy is NUTS! This woman should be put on medication and not allowed out of doors without adult supervision. Or, better yet, locked up in a rubber room with the idiots who hired her.
This woman is nuts! This woman is absolutely nuts!
Wendy Murphy has very dubious legal credentials (graduate of a third-rate law school; participant in a malicious prosecution as an ADA for sex crimes that never happened in Massachusetts, etc.). In her television appearances, Murphy frequently reveals herself as not only ignorant of the facts of the case she's talking about, but also ignorant of the applicable law. Why anyone takes her nonsense seriously is beyond me.
“Could there be witness statements from the defendants’ friends—statements saying that a rape occurred just as [Crystal Mangum] described?”
Of course there could be...because we've all seen over the past year + how those lacrosse guys were quick to pin the blame on their teammates, quick to point fingers at each other, looking out for only themselves, making stuff up to take the heat off themselves...oooops. Never mind!
I bet you are right, it probably was Cash Michaels who was her 'source'...
Someone should send her letter to Roy Cooper's office!
Maybe Cooper would write a rebuttal of her nonsense about missing evidence and imaginary rape witnesses, she insinuates that Cooper's jugement can't be believed, seems like he should have a chance to correct her facts.
“Could there be witness statements from the defendants’ friends—statements saying that a rape occurred just as [Crystal Mangum] described?
Sure there could be. Of course, that would mean that the AG lied through his teeth when he reported that the SP's interviewed ALL the defendants' friends who attended the party (all of whom, according to the lying AG, said nothing happened).
And I wonder which version of Crystal's rape story Murphy thinks the defendants' friends' imaginary statements support: the version where Crystal is raped before midnight (as she's simultaneously talking on her cell phone to her father)?; the version where Crystal is raped after the dance ends, when Seligman and Finnerty are elsewhere, in two different places(and also simultaneously talking on their cell phones while gang raping Crystal)?; the Dec. 21 version where Seligman declines to participate in the rape because he's getting married, or the previous and subsequent versions, where Seligman actively assaults Crystal is very specific ways?; the version where Crystal is punched, kicked repeatedly in the butt, and choked almost to the point of passing out, or the version where nobody hits or chokes her?; the version where Crystal is bent over and the rapists are sliding under her, or the version where the rapists are holding her up in the air while they rape her? Oh my . . . . so many choices. Wonder which one the defendants' friends picked?
As someone who is very concerned with men's rights in this country, this type of hate speech is pretty standard issue. The only difference in this case is that the readers can look directly at the "white" that she is calling "black" (no racial significance intended), and clearly see that her writings aren't just a desperate attempt to grasp at straws, but are also mean-spirited windows into her men-are-always-guilty view of the world.
To be perfectly honest, this is the closest the men's rights movement has been to being taken seriously since there was a need for it. It's unfortunate that it took this type of incident to trigger that modicum of legitimacy.
Recently it crossed my mind that a scenario exists wherein Murphy might find herself in Crystal's crosshairs. In fact now that I think about it, I find it curious that Murphy doesn't mention one of her favorite accusations in the Cathy Young response letter that tops this thread.
I'm referring to the good ol' "Crystal was paid off" whopper.
Now imagine you're Crystal (dreadful thought, I know), and you've come to the highly irritating conclusion that there's no money to be had from those rich white boys. And you're casting about in your mind for some way to profit from this whole disaster. And then it hits you. Rich white woman Wendy Murphy has been going on TV and telling the whole world that you accepted a bribe! She's telling everyone that in return for filthy lucre you're allowing dangerous rapists to walk the streets!
She slandering you're good name and accusing you of obstructing justice!
And you can prove you never accepted a dime from anybody (cause nobody would give you any).
Wouldn't that be fab? Murphy would be forced to attack Crystal. Forced to savage her. Forced to tell the world that Crystal is a liar!
Charges of liar, liar, pants on fire would be flying from both camps. The two biggest nuts in those whole affair would be at each other's throats.
And you know what? Crystal might even have a case.
Think about how sweet that would be.
I believe Cooper should respond to this letter. It is a direct attack on his honesty. She states bluntly that Cooper lied and did not release all the information.
This should not be left unanswered, and Cooper is the one to SMACK her down.
Outrageous, she is a true moon bat.
Oh, to see Wendy Murphy named as a defendant in a libel / slander / defamation lawsuit . . .
I agree Cooper should respond.
Reading Murphy's letter, you have to wonder if she even bothered to read the 21 page report? If she HAD read it, she certainly could have come up with a better scenario than some of the defendant's friends might have corroborated one of her many rape accounts?!
Given her clearly drug addled and deranged state, if you have to cling to the something happened theory, why not go with 'something happened' but the poor looney, drug adled sex worker doesn't know who it was?
Why go with something so blatantly untrue and so easy to disprove?
So first Wendy says we are supposed to allow the legal system to reach its conclusions. Now that it has, Wendy says we cannot trust the results and wonders why the mainstream media is not questioning the honesty and integrity of AG Cooper.
This woman belong in the same category as the 9-11 government conspiracy crowd. Anyone who invites her on a TV show to speak, diminishes their own credibility.
I realize that in that supposed suppressed 1,200 pages, there MIGHT be proof of alien abductions. Since the attorneys are not saying anything, that alone is proof that alien abduction occurred.
In case that anything thinks what I have said is weird, keep in mind that Murphy essentially is saying the same thing. She alleges all sorts of things that just could be in those pages, and since she has not seen them, then that is PROOF that the rape happened.
Great logic, Wendy.
But why can't we believe Wendy ? Since CGM was raped while suspended in mid air, clearly the attacker was Elvis. His ectoplasm would not show up on digital images, and his DNA no longer exists....
HOW ON EARTH can Wendy's Wacko views be given air time ?
The whole Duke Hoax was "The Emperor's New Clothes". Wendy is the seamstress.
Wendy Murphy may be the stupidest woman drawing a paycheck from a newspaper in the world!
I guess it beats having her on the public dole!
From all I've ever seen of Wendy Murphy, one thing is consistent. She's always wrong. Gawd how she harped on during the Kobe trial about how big old bad Kobe had his way with a sweet little schoolgirl. Turned out she had multiple contributors to her own brand of sperm stew stored nicely in her drawers, much like our own princess CGM. Wendy Murphy has a tin ear. If you ever see her in Vegas, bet the polar opposite of how she bets and you'll get rich. The wench is genetically predisposed to never being right.
I don't see many parallels between this case and the Kobe case, neither party in Kobe's situation disputed that sex took place, the positions, etc. the dispute was over consent. Kobe lied to police, the three Duke boys never did.
Here the boys claimed no sex at all. Not even close.
Also, let's not forget that Kobe provided a public apology saying he 'understood' why the girl didn't think the sex was consensual and wrote a check of undetermined amount, leaving some of us to wonder exactly how much consent he had gotten.
Kobe, then, was knocking down about $40 million per year. He offered cash before the whole damn kangaroo court got rolling just so he could get the hell out of Colorado, and try to repair the damage done to his marriage and reputation.
The parallel between the two cases, Kobe's and the LAX3 is simple. Girls can lie!! And with rape shield laws protecting their identity while a falsely accused man suffers on day after day, what's the real cost to some skank who falsely claims she was deflowered? Give up? NONE!!
This Wendy Murphy stuff isn't funny any more. It's pretty serious. She's either a liar or divorced from reality. Every case in the past she's ever worked on should be re-examined.
Rape shield laws don't protect complaining witnesses identity, they protect their past sexual history from coming into court.
The media voluntarily do not publish the names of rape victims because most rape victims do not wish their names to be publicized in the media.
I believe Murphy must be both a liar and divorced from reality. Going back over KC's compilation of her comments most of them were completely unsupported and/or contradicted by the known facts. She repeatedly has claimed made up facts--date rape drug, prior sexual misconduct by the Lacrosse players, broomstick used in assault, photos of the assault, etc.
It is one thing to make a judgement of guilt or innocence as a third party, quite another to make up your own facts to go along with your opinion.
I would hope Murphy's invitations as a talking head would dry up after this, but I doubt they will even diminish at all.
Let’s not forget – the Chronicle gave voice to the Gang of 88 by publishing their objectionable Listening Statement, and the follow up “clarification” ! Had this so-called “school paper” properly exercised the discretion expected of them, had they displayed the perception in reviewing this “advertisement” and recognized it’s incendiary nature, much of the harm would have been diffused. And where have the 1,000 students who signed the petition been for the past year? What about the Class of 2006? Why were they content to collect their diplomas and slink out of Durham while this fire raged, spoiling their senior year and sullying, badly, the reputation of their school? Only 88 members of the faculty signed this terrible, hateful document, but it’s more than those faculty members who have stood up for the students, or repudiated the 88 – by a factor of 20 ! ! Everybody’s getting on the bandwagon now, now that it’s safe; only the women lacrosse players had any guts to take a stand when you had to go with your gut. It has been a terrible episode for so many, but what sickens me the most is the silent complicity of the vast majority of Duke’s faculty and student body.
I have 1 thing to say to Murphy:
Weese all guilty.
Where do you get the idea that the vast majority of Duke students failed to support the three boys?
Falsely accused people don't want to see their name in the paper either. Since we haven't mastered the unringing of a bell, page A1, above-the-fold apologies, or in Wendy Murphy's case, talking head apologies seem warranted. I am holding my breath...
Rape shield laws are insane. You can't reveal that an accuser has a history of accusing, and a sex worker has a history of popping out illegitimate kids because she has lots of unprotected sex with strangers for a living. Brilliant!
Murphy - “Could there be witness statements from the defendants’ friends—statements saying that a rape occurred just as [Crystal Mangum] described?”
KC the academic writes sagely -"Using Murphy’s approach, perhaps all of us should engage in unfounded speculation as to exactly what these non-existent 1,000 pages contain. Perhaps the Globe should now publish letters asking, “Could there be witness statements showing that Wendy Murphy committed massive prosecutorial misconduct when she served in the Middlesex D.A.’s office?”"
Less sagely, I write; "could there
not be witnesses that Wendy Murphy derives considerable sexual pleasure from having her bare ass slapped repeatedly by a raw flounder and the monthly Coven meetings in Boston?" This is something the MSM needs to mention and openly speculate on.
Frankly, the Bar needs to crack down on lawyers the same way the AMA has cracked down on doctors using their professional credentials to hawk miracle cures for cancer on TV.
Wendy Murphy and Nancy Grace, among others, discredit the legal profession. Same with Joyner of the NAACP posing as a "legal expert" making public remarks intended to sabotage due process and civil rights.
Simply, the Bar continues to enable certain lawyers to make public statements of professional recklessness that discredit the legal profession, other attorneys, and defendents entitled to their civil rights and due process.
The only way to effectively shut down the unethical "noted attorney" media whores like Murphy and Grace who use their law degree and Bar standing as a way to bolster their credibilty and authority on various legal matters while reconciling it with that person's 1st Amendment rights is to establish a Bar code of public conduct. What can or cannot be said about other attorneys or defendents awaiting their day in court. What is defamatory, degrades the legal process, and jeopardizes accused person's rights by trying to convict them in public. What can or cannot be said in public that besmirches the good name and professional reputation of other attorneys through ungrounded speculation.
If a member of the Bar disregards those ethics and standards of media conduct...fine...they have a right to do so under the 1st. But if they transgress a new Bar Code of Conduct with the media - they don't have a corollary rights per the Bar to represent clients, practice other law, or teach law as they exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
Professionals, even lawyers, must be self-policing or the government is sure to try to take over that policing function.
Complaining to media or advertisers about unethical professionals that bring in great ratings and wads of money is unlikely to have any effect. To them, controversy makes money.
Trying to sue against the broad 1st Amendment rights the courts give the media and various journalists or commentors individually is similarly unproductive.
But groups of professionals having the right to self-regulate members professional conduct IS welcomed and long-established. Besides the AMA, other professional associations that regulate members ability to teach or do business DO have standards for public remarks and conduct. No licensed engineer can fear-monger about a bridge or dam being unsafe on simple speculation sans inspection without expecting the possibility of a letter from the Licensing board asking for a thorough explaination or face disciplinary action. Librarians have Professional Code on public comments, for Pete's sake!
The American Bar Association needs to think long and hard about how much their significant negative image problem is shaped by he public perception of demogogue lawyer-politicians and rogue legal analysts like Murphy. And what they can do about it.
Well, except for today's petition, how has the majority of Duke's students (and 1,000 signatures is far from a majority) demonstrated their support?
Wow. After all that's been revealed, she's still sticking, not just to a vague "something bad happened, even if it wasn't the specific alleged crimes and/or persons, but is actually still sticking to the "the accuser's story is true" line. Best case, she's delusional.
If she is an "adjunct" professor, does that mean that she's not tenured? Would it make any possible sense to try to convince the university to stop providing public accreditation to the kind of person who would make such a statement?
I especially love her description "notable for its lack of sophistication, misinformation, and self-righteous tone". I can only assume she was accidentally describing her own email, given the startling new misinformation she provides about hidden revelations of confirming witnesses, the clear lack of sophisticated thought, and the extraordinarily self-righteous tone. She's now the lone defender of truth against the whole deluded planet, taking on the mantle of the free press all by herself.
Wow. She really needs to buy a vowel.
Yes, what's "astonishing" is that a mediocrity like Murphy has found a niche for her sui generis crap.
Our culture celebrates mediocrities--Donald Trump, Ron Kuby, Barack Obama, Toni Morrison.
It's all the same stench.
"Classic case of denial"
Eric 4:46 said...
..If she is an "adjunct" professor, does that mean that she's not tenured?
Adjunct faculty are non-tenure track faculty classifications and such people are usually part time.
When are the families going to sue the pants off of this pathalogical liar ??????????????????????
Until some one stops this woman with a law suit she will continue to promote her idealogical diatribe.
This woman should carry a FDA health warning!
"That Cathy Young is comfortable forming her opinion without access to all the evidence is unfortunate, though she is not alone. The mainstream media have simply accepted claims from the attorney general in North Carolina that there was no rape. What happened to the idea that the press is the guardian of the public's right to know? Cathy Young, as an opinion writer with an obvious agenda, can be forgiven . But the mainstream press should be ashamed of itself."
This graf is the BEST! You can't trust lying prosecutors and shouldn't accept their claims without proof, says MURPHY.
The special prosectuors "spent 12 weeks reviewing the case...reviewed 7,000 documents...600 photographs...interviewed 47 people...the accusing witness on several occasions...the SANE examiner...medical personnel...police officers...defense attorneys...investigators."
AG and special prosectors based their decision on the accusers history and different versions of events, no testimony or physical evidence, questionable ID of the accused,
"...credible and verifiable evidence that demonstrated the accused could not have participated in an attack at the time it was alleged to have occurred."
What part of I-N-N-O-C-E-N-T do you not understand Wendy?
Murphy is not only accusing the AG of not being truthful, but also suggests the defense attorneys were hiding evidence!
3:40 Anderson wrote something to the effect libel and slander suits are difficult to prove - what say you lawyers?
She is a mean spitired nut - seems determined to have them rioting in the streets of Durham.
Pornography is beneath KCs blog, Polanskis post should be deleted.
Thanks for that informative post, Cedarford. Yes, let's hope the American Bar Association starts their policing in greater force.
How does Wendy Murphy make a living anyway? I know she's connected to that New England School of....something (which, if they had sense, would ditch her for their own credibility), but, does anybody actually hire her as a lawyer anymore? How can she have any credibility in a courtroom at all? Or does she just get by on her grotesque TV appearances? Is she even aware that, if she's on Fox news for instance, she's only on there for people to laugh at? Or maybe she doesn't care as long as she gets paid? Maybe she's just playing a role? (Like Paul Rubens playing Pee Wee Herman, or the lady who played Elvira..?)
No it isn't funny, its vile and disgusting.
Wendy Murphy deserves all kinds of criticism, but writing up a porno paragraph about having sex with her is REALLY CREEPY and borderline threatening.
"I am convinced that Wendy Murphy is mentally ill. She doesn’t seem to understand concepts like discovery and logic. It is a sad commentary on our times that she is given a forum from which to sprout her nonsense".
If ONLY she were mentally ill! That would be the easy way to deal with such obstinate delusion. The hard way is to accept that she is sane but blinded by bias and ideology, since it is so difficult to comprehend how someone could think that way.
"Lets take it sentence by sentence".
Um... let's not.
Even if the the non existing thousand pages existed didn't the North Carolina State Attornry General say, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HAPPENED IN THAT HOUSE.
At least she is now relegated to writing letters in response to columns, instead of writing columns.
I believe she is just mentally ill.
Polaski's letter will go when KC reads it.
The Chronicle can not exactly tell professors at the school they attend that they can not publish an ad. What are you thinking here?
Some of the staff probably take classes from these moon bats.
You going to tell someone that can totally screw your GPA that her ad is not appropriate.
How you think that's going to go over?
She isn't mentally ill, she is an ideologue who admits no possible falacy to her way of thinking.
I very much doubt Wendy Murphy's career as a trial commentator is over. Nothing will happen to her, she will continue to make money.
Ms Murphy has questioned both the veracity and integrity of the defense lawyers and the Attorney General. Doesn’t either Mass Bar Rule 8.2 or 8.4 apply?
Actually, defamation itself is not that hard to prove; rather, defamation suits are stupid to bring.
First, there is a "public figure" defense. The defendent is entitled to defame a public figure provided it is not done with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. So la Wendy would first say that the three defendents have become public figures so she does not have to prove the truth of her assertions.
But wait; given all the evidence available to the public and the AG's report, will rational people buy the argument that her spouting is not with malice or reckless disregard for the truth? No, she may not win that though I was involved in a case where a state Supreme Court construed "shall not" as "may."
Second, what are the damages? Now you do not have to prove damages for certain kinds of defamation, but in this case, la Wendy will argue that she cannot possibly have caused much damage to defendents given that the AG has already exonerated them. That one actually has a wierd kind of logic to it: how can the words of little ole me damage the reputation of someone who has been declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina?
But third, and most important, civil litigation costs money. I suspect very few on this site other than KC and me have ever looked at and paid legal bills. They come in, month after horrible month. Just arguing about interrogatories can take months. You could be in court for months just arguing about whether la Murphy has to name the "reporter" she will claim that she relied on or whether that is privileged under some theory. Suppose you eventually win that argument, and it turns out she actually talked to some reporter. Oh my, now la Murphy has a new defense: she was not malicious because she believed reporter R, and the real suit should be brought against reporter R. You sue someone only if you have good reason to believe that (a) you are very likely to win on the merits, and (b) at least one of the defendents will have enough money that you can at least get back the money paid to your own lawyer. That means that that the defendent will have some money left after paying their own attorneys, perhaps up front since their attorneys understand the bankruptcy code too. Sensible people do not sue unless they know that someone with very deep pockets is potentially liable. An attorney will take a case on contingency against a bank or an insurance company because those defendents are good for the money, but no one is going to take on a contingency case against la Murphy.
If you think I sound cynical about the legal system, it is because I am. I am almost 63 years old, and the quickest case I was involved in took three years. Now the one that went to the appelate court on interlocutory appeal, then was re-heard en banc, and finally was granted cert. by the US Supreme Court before it was remanded to the trial court for a determination of damages took nine years before it was settled: the case never went all the way through trial. Of course, I did have the intellectual privilege of hearing oral argument on a case I understood in great detail, but I must tell you it was a very expensive privilege even though we prevailed.
The US legal system is a joke.
Kemp @ 6:45
The Chronicle can and should exercise judgment, choice and discretion in considering every word it prints, regardless of the source, as practiced by every newspaper, magazine and television report in the country. It’s called “editing”. The “listening ad” was just that, an advertisement, and the Chronicle had the right and the duty to consider the consequences of printing it. Read the freakin thing! Did it sink in what their own faculty was saying about them? The Gang of 88 was paying money to make a very, very public statement: We find the students in our classrooms despicable!
As I have made clear, I am quite disappointed with most of the parties associated with this terrible event; now it is easy for the students to voice their opposition. Where were they last March, or April? Surely by May 2006 it was apparent this was beyond a hoax, it was a travesty. And yet, they said nothing! As far as taking classes from these teachers, make the tough choice! Principles? The moral ambiguity, combined with naiveté and gullibility prevented them from standing tall, as the women’s lacrosse team did. As far as I am concerned, no kudos to the Chronicle, too little too late.
And one thing further:
Freedom of speech does not equate to obligation to publish.
the government is sure to try to take over that policing function [of laywers]
The obvious problem here is that laywers make the laws -- they are a big part of the government and have historacally been spectacularly bad about policing themselfs in any way. We produce too many lawyers and have laws that are explicitly designed to make additional legal work, to keep tham all well-compensated, so they can make big political contributions to their peers.
This is broken ipsa facia.
Polansky, who said anything about censors?
It just seems like a no-win situation here. Even if CGM admits to lying, there'd be people who'd be saying that she got paid off. I just wish that people would stop making this into a liberal vs conservative thing as I'm sure there are just as many liberals as there are conservatives who believe in the Duke 3's innocence. But one thing that's been proven again is that with MSM, it's always the extreme viewpoints from both ends that get the airtime.
Does anyone know if the government is subsidizing Mangum's picaninnies?
OHHH KC I SEE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING POST ON LASTEST THREAD.
FLAME WAR IS ON!!!
WENDY NEEDS SOME EMAIL!!
I agree with all of that.
The POINT? They are students!!
They need the GPA. Sorry, whoring for a GPA is common.
Tell the Law School admissions that you got a C from Willimada (sp) because you smacked her ad down. Think the PC admissions officer is going to believe that?
Kemp, any serious student should not be counting on getting into law school with credentials that include classes from the AAAS department. And we know what one faculty member is going through for such retaliation against a lacrosse player. Besides, it's about having principles, making difficult choices in the face of strong opposition. They failed.
Just a small correction of Jeff, at 6:55. Defamation is a false statement of fact [written = libel, verbal = slander], not opinion, made "of and concerning" a person [the libel plaintiff], which "damages" [we won't even get into what that means here] the person's personal or professional reputation, and the statement is made with some degree of fault [if the person is a "public official" or "public figure", the degree of fault is "actual malice", which in defamation law means that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth - if the plaintiff is a private person, but the subject matter of the article is a matter of public concern, then negligence can suffice, but since this is a tort, each state's law may be different, for example, in one state it may be the equivalent of "journalistic malpractice", or, as in Ohio, negligence, but it must be proven with "convincing clarity" as opposed to "preponderance of the evidence" - if it's a private person and the subject matter is not of public concern, then all bets are off because pre-New York Times v. Sullivan/Gertz v. Welch state law applies]. Plus, you have libel per se, and libel per quod, at least in Ohio. As one who has litigated [defended] libel cases, I would NEVER advise someone to bring one [this case may be the exception to the rule!]. The libel plaintiff immediately becomes the target of the lawsuit - you can go in to the minutest details of a person's life if the information sought "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." And what information [at least good, juicy, salalcious information] about a person's life does not reflect on the person's repution? Brutal lawsuits.
speaking od damaged reputations...
Can anyone think of anything more ridiculous than what the 88 attempted to to the boys? This is EXTREMELY harmful to Duke's rep, yet Brodhead is out roadshowing what a clueless loser he is
is it a coincidence that the stupidest faculty at Duke--AAAS--was principally responsible for 1 of the stupidest displays ever in the history of higher education?
It all too logical
Sorry to add to above long post, but while the libel plaintiff can be the target of nasty depositions, I would pay good money to sit in on the depostions of the libel defendants in this case. Now that would be fun!
8:50 Thanks for some insight to this issue
You are so right--the depositions will be more fum than a night at the opera!
Saturday Night Live will b e "listening"
Kemp, if I’m counting on getting into law school with credentials that include classes from the AAAS department, it can’t be a very discerning admissions process. And we know what one faculty member is going through for such retaliation against a lacrosse player.
Wendy Murphy said...
...“We don’t have any idea what the real evidence is in the case.”
I think if we all read the content on the web site KC provided, http://www.rapeis.org/we will see the philosophical connection to the Women's Center at Duke...alone with the Take Back The Night national organization http://www.takebackthenight.org/
The http://www.rapeis.org/web site is supported by grants from the Massachusetts Cultural Council and the organization received funding from the following foundations
(1) The Eleanor Humes Haney Foundation (sic) Fund http://www.haneyfund.org/
(2) The Lucius & Eva Eastman Foundation (1)
(3) The Puffin Foundation http://www.puffinfoundation.org/
I doubt that anyone is going to pry Wendy off the dime until these foundations are contacted and that includes the Massachusetts Cultural Council http://www.massculturalcouncil.org/
I recommend caution as I suspect these folks court persecution and would enjoy being victims.
(1) The Lucius & Eva Eastman Fund
Supports film/video on social issues.
The Lucius & Eva Eastman Fund
Jennifer Eastman, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 470
Westwood, MA 02090
Couple of comments:
Cedarford, you've got an interesting thought about how to get the "talk for pay" TV lawyer pundits to shut up through some means of Bar discipline. Trouble is, there are 51 licensing authorities (counting DC), and there's no way my State Bar here in NC can bring a disciplinary proceding against a Massachusetts lawyer pundit, no matter how big an idiot and blight on the profession she may be. The national ABA, by the way, is a voluntary association, does not license lawyers, so therefore cannot disbar nationally known TV idiots....
My other comment centers on the Fifth Amendment, and how utterly stupid Wendy Murphy's notion is that any defense attorney should ever have to give up his/her file contents to the prosecution.... It is grounds for a mistrial for a prosecutor to suggest to a jury that a non-testifying defendant must be guilty, and must be hiding something, when it is the prosecution's BURDEN to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even in the face of the defendant's absolute right to remain silent.
Wendy Murphy's ignorant screed about "unreleased defense evidence" does the same thing before the jury of public opinion -
- she implies guilt by accusing the defense attorneys of hiding something, anything, that she declares must exist, even though she hasn't given one scintilla of a description of what the "1000 pages of documents" are.
Some have speculated the documents are the sealed medical records, and that the defense attorneys would be happy to release them if they could. Another suggestion? The documents could be anything in a defense lawyer's file, including legal research, as yet unfiled briefs, hearing notes, factual research and investigation notes, correspondence to clients, etc., etc. NOWHERE in ANY discovery code is it required that a defense attorney turn this type of stuff over to a prosecutor.
Why? Fifth Amendment, Wendy. Attorney-client priviledge, Wendy. Attorney work product, Wendy.
Wendy's almost up there with Nifong in the "open sore on the face of my profession" department.
Does not look like there is anything left to do with Wendy but to boycott the products and stations that uses her. Worked with Imus, why not here?
I am not a lawyer. I would hard classify the individuals in this case as being public persons. They are not celebrity's (hollywood types), politicians etc. They became the focus of public attention because of being falsely accused of a crime and the work of the media. They did not set out to put themselves into the spotlight exept for the actions of their defense attorneys who where protecting their clients interest.
To me (a prospective juror) a defense to libel or slander that included being a public figure would sound ludicrous because it was the libel/slander/defemation of character that made them public figures.
You make a lot of sense. I too am not an attorney, but I think Lubiano will get screwed, and I don't think from a libel charge. I have strong reason to believe that she CONSCIOUSLY published that screed to lynch the boys--highly tortious behavior. There could also be federal civil rights violations.
SO, WHY WAS AAAS SO INTERESTED IN RAILROADING THE WHITE GUYS?
1. maintaining their victim status so they could continue to extract academic welfare from Duke
2. they hate whites
3. there is no number three
Send this to Wendy "Women Never Lie" Murphy:
From the (Greensboro) News and Record, May 1, 2007:
WINSTON-SALEM — A 25-year-old woman who told authorities she was assaulted by a man at Miller Park has recanted her story, police said Monday night. The assault never occurred.
The woman told police that was able to free herself from a knife-wielding man who grabbed her while she was on the walking trails about 6:45 a.m.
Police did not release her name, and no charges were immediately filed in the case.
In Murphy's letter, she asks ...
"What happened to the idea that the press is the guardian of the public's right to know?"
The press is the guardian of the public's right to know? Don't make me laugh. The press is the guardian against dirty windows. A sheet of the NYT, WaPo, whatever, and a spritz of Windex leaves 'em spotless every time.
As to Murphy herself ...
Since moving to NC (but, thankfully, far away from Durham / Raleigh), I became acquainted with a saying that is prevalent throughout the South -- "Bless (his or her) heart". Oh, I'd heard it before, but never in the context that Southerners (especially the women) use it. Here, it's used to designate someone who is engaging in some kind of nonsensical act or statement. Rather than say something blunt like "wow, what an idiot", the genteel Southerner would simply say "Wendy Murphy said XXX. Bless her heart."
And everyone who heard that would immediately think "wow, Wendy Murphy. What an idiot."
One can only hope that the attorneys for Evans, Seaigmann, and Finnerty believe that Murphy committed defamation and proceed to sue her.
If you haven't figured it out by now, the reason MSNBC, Fox etc have Wendy Murphy on is precisely because she's an outrageous nut-job. She gets you yelling at your LCD screen, gets your heart pounding and makes whomever she opposes look like a wise sage.
Also, people seem to be drawing the wrong lessons: Liberals are hypocritical nuts. WRONG! C'mon, you've got Rush Limbaugh snorking down his drugs, Ted Haggard cavorting with his gay prostitutes, alter boys getting altered and Bush's faith based foolishness. The group of 88, the philandering family values crowd and the right wing nutters have are all united in moral smugness. They know what's right ... for you. Absolutely and from a God-like point of view.
If you ever meet people like this, hold your wallet, and inch slowly away never turning your back on them. They are, however, worth listening to since the opposite of what they say is usually the truth.
As a former Middlesex ADA myself, I just want to say that Murphy is in no way representative of the office, which is generally run with, and staffed by attorneys exemplifying, integrity and a sense of fair play. (And by the way, in my fairly short tenure at the office, I alone saw at least two false charges of rape, just as there are on occasion false charges of almost every type of crime -- once you assume that any charge is automatically valid, it destroys the role of the prosecutor as a gatekeeper who does pursue wholly unsupported claims of criminal misconduct, not to mention the presumption of innocence). What an utter and complete joke this woman is. And for those who don't know, being an adjunct at arguably the worst law school in New England is no great honor.
Why does Fox/O'Reilly keep Murphy on the air? I believe it's their way of showing how Liberals can be about as dumb as a box of rocks. They also look on it as a ratings boost because people tune in to see how goofy and outrageous Murphy can be. CBS did the same with Rosie O'Donnell (fire won't melt steel) until "something" caused them to part company. I don't watch O'Reilly only because I find him too abrasive, not because he's necessarily wrong in his beliefs. Note also that Fox keeps the arch buffoon and attorney Geraldo Rivera (formerly known as Jerome Rivers before it was advantageous to be Hispanic) on air and allows him to bloviate incessantly. I know many of the posters on this blog are Liberals who despise Fox News, but I ask them: do any of the MSM news shows allow anything but token Conservatives on the air? No. Fox News at least has Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, and Maura Liason as regular advocates of the leftwing views. So what if there are blowhards like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? Point is that Murphy is probably being used as a worst-case example of what happens when we permit a person to be educated beyond their own intelligence.
The only reason people like Wendy Murphy get away with this bs is because they have yet to be in a forum where their opinions are questioned. KC, why don't you challenge Murphy, Nancy Grace or any member of the 88 to a public debate?
The defense is "holding back" evidence and "not cooperating"?
Is she serious? Did they have more than four Amendments at Wendy's law school?
If so, did she read the fifth one?
As a one-time criminal defense lawyer, I note that defendants are not generally obliged to hand over evidence to the state.
This entire situation has been driven by Murphy types.
It drove me nuts listening to Wendy Murphy talking about the Duke case. She never gave an inch as the evidence crumbled. Did she ever issue any apology or remorse for her stance?
She's a psychotic who knowingly enables false allegations of rape. Remember when she compared those boys to Hitler? She should look in the mirror.
Post a Comment