Courtesy a DIW reader: more outlandish charges from adjunct professor Wendy Murphy. In a late April interview with Jim Braude of New England Cable News (scroll down), Muprhy says that bookers at MSNBC, FOX, and CNN brought her on their panel programs because they knew that she would offer a pro-Nifong view. How this explains away her pattern of inaccuracies and misleading comments isn’t clear.
In any case, that explanation would not seem to cover the NECN interview itself, which was a one-on-one, not a panel, discussion. Murphy now claims that she was “told” the defense has withheld 1200 pages of evidence. She dismisses allegations that Mike Nifong exploited the case for political purposes because he was a “shoo-in for the election.” Well, he was down by 17 points in a private poll completed the first day he commented on the case, and his campaign was so bereft of cash that he kept it afloat with a $28,000 personal loan. Perhaps Murphy was using “shoo-in” in a different sense than commonly understood.
Then, her most outrageous claim: “There’s a very good chance there was a payoff” to Crystal Mangum and Kim Roberts. Her evidence? A months-old claim in the Wilmington Journal that even Mike Nifong's investigators did not find credible.
She truly has no shame.