Monday, July 16, 2007

Hailing the AP

Since starting the blog, I’ve subscribed to Google News Alerts to make sure I don’t miss any articles on the case. The service passes along duplicate publications of the same article—for instance, a Joe Neff piece in the N&O would appear also in the McClatchy-owned Charlotte Observer.

The Google service showed how the case-related reporter published in the most newspapers was the AP’s Aaron Beard. Indeed, with the possible exception of Duff Wilson in the New York Times, more people read about developments in the lacrosse case from Beard than from any other print journalist.

Because Beard doesn’t write for a specific newspaper, it’s easy to overlook the quality of his work: most people commenting on the case (including me) have been more comfortable in identifying coverage by the newspaper in which it appeared—i.e., the Times, or the Chronicle, or the N&O, or the Herald-Sun.

Beard, however, managed to combine reporting excellence with an ability to break a variety of stories on the case. Items, for instance, that first appeared over the AP wire included:

  • In April 2006, the revelation that Crystal Mangum had previously filed a (never-pursued) claim of a three-person gang rape, in Creedmoor, North Carolina.

  • In June 2006, Duke’s decision to reinstate Ryan McFadyen—who had been suspended without due process after publication of his e-mail—for the fall 2006 semester.

  • In October, Nifong, who had remained silent on the case since a July 28 press conference, spoke extensively about lacrosse matters with Beard.

After Nifong recused himself from the case, Beard continued to break significant Nifong-related items. The AP was the first to reveal:

  • Nifong’s reaction to the Beth Brewer removal motion;

  • Nifong’s formal response to the Bar’s ethics allegations; and

  • Nifong’s non-apology “apology” after AG Cooper declared the players’ innocence.

Beard got a number of scoops on the other side as well. He obtained the first and only substantive interview with former Coach Mike Pressler when this year’s Duke lacrosse team reached the Final Four; and he also broke the news of Pressler’s financial settlement with Duke. Reade Seligmann’s decision to transfer to Brown and Collin Finnerty’s move to Loyola both appeared first under Beard’s byline.

Of course, this case has shown that being the first to report a scoop doesn’t necessarily correspond with quality journalism. Take, for instance, the reporter who first claimed to have gained access to the underlying data from Dr. Brian Meehan’s DNA reports. In an August article, the Herald-Sun’s John Stevenson broke the story that one side had withheld from the public critical items from the tests. The only problem? Stevenson asserted that the defense had not been candid. In fact, as we all know now, Nifong had withheld the information, which in part led to his disbarment.

Unlike Stevenson’s “scoops,” Beard’s coverage has stood the test of the time. Moreover, two of Beard’s stories were critical developments in the case. The first was the April 2006 revelation of Mangum’s previous claim of a three-person gang rape, which went public ten days after Nifong secured indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

Since at that point Mangum’s myriad, mutually contradictory stories were not yet in the public domain, Beard’s item provided the first clear sign that Mangum might be a wholly non-credible witness. However small the chances were that a 30-minute three-person gang rape could have left behind no DNA (the publicly available facts at the time Beard's article appeared), the chances were even smaller that the same accuser could have experienced a second three-person gang rape earlier in her life.

Perhaps even more important, the revelation caught Nifong unaware—providing another concrete demonstration of the shoddiness of the investigation. Though the ex-D.A. released a statement the following day denying that the allegation would affect his trial strategy, it was troubling to see that, in a case of this magnitude, Nifong’s office hadn’t even checked to determine whether Mangum had made a previous rape claim.

Indeed, Nifong sent Linwood Wilson to the Creedmoor press conference that followed the publication of Beard’s article. The ex-investigator was tasked with obtaining the basic facts of the claim. Depositions from the Nifong ethics hearing suggested that of the law enforcement officials involved in the case, incredibly, only one (Ben Himan) considered Mangum’s previous unsubstantiated claim to have a bearing on her credibility.

Beard’s October scoop was, in many ways, equally vital to the outcome of the case. For months, Nifong had remained silent (perhaps recognizing, at last, that he had no case). Then, suddenly, he unburdened himself to Beard, asserting,

I think that I have a responsibility to prosecute this case. I think that really nothing about my view of the case and my view of how the case ultimately needs to be handled has been affected by any of the things that have occurred . . .

[In the spring,] I think it was pretty clear that I (misunderstood) the likely consequence of appearing on camera. Certainly what I was trying to do was to reassure the community, to encourage people with information to come forward. And that was clearly not the effect . . .

My personal feeling is the first step to addressing those divisions [in Durham] is addressing this case. That is not the kind of thing that you can really assign to somebody else and say, “You go do this for me. The future of Durham’s in the balance and I don't really want to get my hands dirty. You do it.”

The first two of these comments suggested a person detached from reality; the third revealed someone who had no sense of the appropriate role of a prosecutor in the American criminal justice system. It’s hard to believe that two constituencies vital to December developments—the State Bar and North Carolina’s other district attorneys—didn’t look at Nifong’s statements with horror.

Beard’s journalism from start to finish should provide a reminder that while this case brought to light some examples of extremely poor coverage in the print media, the performance of several reporters shone.


Anonymous said...

Beard has done an excellent job on the lacrosse case. Perhaps the AP could improve the credibility of its Iraq reporting if it dispatched a reporter of Beard's quality to cover the war.

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

JLS says....,

The good news is that the AP writer on any subject is read by far far more readers than that little paper of declining influence in NYC that Professor Johnson worries about far more than necessary. That paper's influence has been and remains on the wane.

Anonymous said...

Take a look to the right of your screen on the main page.

There's a glowing review of the book by John Grisham.


Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: anon 12:16

Not that Mr. Finnerty owes you or me any explanation for his choice of a school here are a few possible criteria he may have had:

1. He might have wanted to go to a Roman Catholic School since he went to a Roman Catholic High School and that worked out better for him than Duke.

2. He might have wanted to go to school that was competitive in mens lacrosse.

If you look at this years mens lacrosse rankings, the first three Roman Catholic Schools you find are UND, Georgetown and Loyola College among the top 12. Now UND is in the midwest so they might not met Mr. Finnerty's locational preferences. Georgetown has some obvious possible drawbacks for Mr. Finnerty. So he picked Loyola.

It may not be Duke, but from Mr. Finnerty's point of view that might not be all bad.

Anonymous said...

For stefanie williams, in case she's still awake and reads this:

I've finally posted a reply on the other comment board.

Anonymous said...

RRHamilton at 1:02, re: your response to Stephanie Williams at the end of the Sunday 12:01 posting:

Having read your numerous paragraphs lambasting Stephanie Williams's writing(s), and then seeing you had the gall to end your communication to her with a smarmy "Best regards", I am even more convinced you have a heart of stone.

Sorry, but that's how I'm picturing you. Based on your reply to me at about this time yesterday morning, and based on your lengthy reply to Ms. Williams, I have a sense you're going through life without ever stopping to smell the roses along the way...

Anonymous said...

THE AP was even handed UNLIKE the MSM which was highly biased to teach wealthy white guys a lesson..ditto broadrot and the rubber stamp board of duke...

Anonymous said...

KC - Your call to arms, for people to vote for Levicy to change her testimony. now has her up to fourth place. i am a firm believer in vote early and vote often.

MikeZPurdue said...

Professor Johnson: I could not have put it better:
"the third comment revealed someone who had no
sense of the appropriate role of a prosecutor in the
American criminal justice system." Well put!

Like you have said before, I have never seen anything
even remotely similar to Nifong's extensive and
prolonged pattern of prosecutorial misconduct.

He almost got these boys killed lynch-mob style!
That point is totally overlooked in the mainstream media!

Anonymous said...


I left a reply for you on the other comment box.


Anonymous said...

tatercon said at 1:29 AM...

RRHamilton at 1:02, re: your response to Stephanie Williams at the end of the Sunday 12:01 posting:

Having read your numerous paragraphs lambasting Stephanie Williams's writing(s), and then seeing you had the gall to end your communication to her with a smarmy "Best regards", I am even more convinced you have a heart of stone.

Sorry, but that's how I'm picturing you. Based on your reply to me at about this time yesterday morning, and based on your lengthy reply to Ms. Williams, I have a sense you're going through life without ever stopping to smell the roses along the way...

Jul 16, 2007 1:29:00 AM

Think of Ms. Williams as a rose petal and me as a thorn. Both are necessary parts of the plant, aren't they?

MikeZPurdue said...

Speaking of Tara changing her testimony, her Jan 10,
2007 statement is posted at the link below. I didn't
realize that Linwood got her to say that Crystal told
her (when she treated her on the night of the make
believe attack) that the boys wiped her down with a
rag afterwards. That wasn't in Tara's original report
now, was it?

Anonymous said...

Nifong has KNOWN the Mangum
family since 1992. It took over
a year for a journalist to figure
that out. Credit: Freerepublic.
Look it up.

Anonymous said...

Your link does not work - would be interesting to see this "report". Linwood, you day - there is a truthful guy. Have never read the towel wipe story from these two before..

Anonymous said...

Not to diminish Mr. Beard's good work but doesn't it seem that there are more bad reporters than good? Perhaps the detrimental effects of bad reporting makes it seem more prevalent, while doing a good job is just what we should expect.

Anonymous said...

Try this link then: Tara Levicy Statement

It appears to me that Levicy's statement begins with a falsehood, to wit: "Ms. Levicy state her SANE certification became effective on March 2, 2006 but did not arrive in the mail until 3/14/2006. She wasn't aware of it until she got home from work on 3/14/2006."

My wife is in the health professions and has practiced in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and currently Wisconsin. In none of those states is her license "effective" on the date of issue; rather her license only become "effective" when she displays it on her office wall.

Over the years we've known several of her colleagues who've had to take forced vacations because they were late in applying for license renewal and did not have their new licenses in hand when the old ones expired. I've never heard anyone say "The State Board issued my license two weeks ago therefore I can practice or claim to be licensed."

Anonymous said...

Investigator Wilson received a phone call from Ms. Levicy who state she wanted to clarify her statement about rape being about power because it could in some cases be consensual."

Consensual what? Rape?

Anonymous said...

Linwood Wilson: Man of honor, a stickler for truth and justice.

mac said...

Thank you for the post: I was using it extensively when
battling Tara's Trolls - (they kept saying I made it all up,
even when I was quoting it verbatim.)

On your point about the license:
good point, and ALSO the fact that
Tara didn't know that she'd already
been officially licensed.
That is why she didn't perform several key
aspects of the exam,
which are usually performed by SANE Nurses.
It is entirely possible that she "guided" Dr. Manley
through the procedure.
The evidence gathered was obviously
very good, too.

But if you note her comments (January 10,)
you'll see that she does her level best
to deny the value of DNA
evidence, arguing as if it doesn't matter,
evidence that she, herself,
helped collect.

Neufeld looks silly,
if she's quoting him, especially in light
of the lack of DNA from the so-called
"oral rape." (Meaning: condoms were used in the
vaginal/rectal rape; no condoms were used during the oral rape.)

Translation: evidence doesn't matter; only personally held opinions matter.

Neufeld is someone KC ought to write about,
IMO. His (apparent) hypocrisy in this case is astounding!

She looks like a clown in the second (January 16) phone interview,
as she states that rape may be consensual
in some cases. (huh? Come again?)

Now you have it, Tara's Trolls!
Go suck Nancy Grace's toes.

mac said...

Michael 2:05
Yup, Levicy acted like using a towel - (had one been used) - would
eliminate DNA evidence!

That's like trying to take the smell out of a skunk with a breath spray.

Anonymous said...

Re: RRH at 2:01:

Point noted. As is a spark of dry wit on your part.


Anonymous said...

Beard never interviewed the real authorities in the controversy such as Victoria Peterson.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Beard's later coverage of this case was pretty good, but some of his early coverage was not wonderful.

He was an original peddler of the "Nifong must have something" school of thought. He kept trotting out quotes from some LA law professor who said the case couldn't be as weak as it appeared.

Beard also said at one point that if the case were as weak as it appeared, the defense would have filed a motion to dismiss -- even though NC criminal procedure does not allow a motion to dismiss on the merits before trial. After he got slapped around on the CourtTV Board for being uninformed, he droppped that line.

The fact that the blog hooligans held Beard's feet to the fire may be one reason his coverage got better.

Anonymous said...


Just read your criticism of the essay. Your thorn is too big and too sharp.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Just read your criticism of the essay. Your thorn is too big and too sharp.


Or are you saying that because you feel the petal is too dainty? Besides, what is the good of a small, dull thorn?

Anonymous said...

KC, glad to see you giving kudos to Aaron Beard, i think he did a great job throughout and as you mentioned was carried by several papers across the country.
I will never forgive the NYT for the outrageous coverage of this case, nothing they write in the future will change that.
Your blog fellows seem to be carrying over something from another blog or I've missed a few days in there.
When does the book come out?

Anonymous said...

"I agree that Beard's later coverage of this case was pretty good, but some of his early coverage was not wonderful.


The fact that the blog hooligans held Beard's feet to the fire may be one reason his coverage got better."

That he was actually capable of changing in response to a new stimulus makes him better than 99% of journalists out there. For most, once an initial storyline has been set, it's immovable.

Anonymous said...

KC - How about a column examing the context of Nifong's commitment to be a part of the "healing process" in Durham?

Mike Nifong = Joker

Anonymous said...

John Stevenson of the Herald-Sun was one of the worst reporters on the case.

Does any background information exist on Stevenson to explain his incredibly biased and wrong-headed reporting? Or was Stevenson simply following Bob Ashley's marching instructions?

Even Ray Gronberg, another notoriously wrong reporter for the H-S in the early days of the case, has made something of a turn-around, engaging into some investigative reporting of corruption in the Durham police department. But from Stevenson... no redeeming qualities... just a snake.

wayne fontes said...

When are you going to get some cover art for your book KC? Wendy Murphy looks stunning on the cover of her forthcoming book.

mac said...

Wayne Fontes 8:44

She looks like she ought to be on the cover of a King Crimson LP.

mac said...

I always thought the AP was MSM.
Reuters, too.

Anonymous said...

Beard's reporting on the Nifong Scandal Case merely provides validation of the old adage "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile." Blind squirrel is not used here to target Mr. Beard personally, but rather the entire group of "reporters" and opinion writers (please excuse my redundancy)that make up the present mainstream media (print and TV).

For several years now, the AP's track record of reporting in general leaves a lot to be desired.

1st Anon @ 8:20 said ...

"I will never forgive the NYT for the outrageous coverage of this case, nothing they write in the future will change that."

Are you implying that the NYT has not provided outrageous coverage of countless other stories over the last several years and that their "journalists" even have the capability of writing something worthwhile in the future? Whatever the case may be, if the Times coverage of this case has caused you to become sceptical of their methods, you have been well-served by the experience.

Anonymous said...


I accept that you sincerely intended to offer Stefanie Williams constructive criticism, even if I think you might have done so more tactfully.

But when I read your response to Ms. Williams, it made me think of a reminder I give my composition students before they respond to each other's work: focus on what the writer is trying to accomplish in his or her paper and on how that might be done more effectively, rather than criticizing the paper because it's not the one you would have written.

Why, for example, does Ms. Williams "have a duty to defend all whites under attack by what are often called "diversity racists", not just the ones with whom you feel a social connection," if that's not really the point she wants to discuss? If Ms. Williams wants to write an essay defending her town, her friends and acquaintances, people who play lacrosse from the misconceptions promoted by Mr. Bailey and by the media generally; if she wants to discuss the emotional connections she drew between her father's death and the lacrosse case; if she wants to point out that the common depiction of the Duke lacrosse team as all white is inaccurate because there is a black player on the team, why shouldn't she?

Some essays are rigorously analytical and intellectual, others are more personal and reflective. Some grapple with issues at the broadest level, others focus on specifics (in this case, the specifics of Stefanie Williams' community and friends--the subject she is most qualified to speak about, based on her personal experience). If you would have preferred a less personal piece, you don't need to read Ms. Williams' article, and you don't need to like it if you do read it. But I'm not sure it's useful to critique her article because it fails as a defense of all white people against the "race/class/gender trinity" when that doesn't appear to be the goal she set for her article in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Way off thread, I apologize in advance.

It seems to me that Duke has a great opportunity to make amends. I propose to them that they establish a School of African-American Affairs. This would be a large, multi-disciplinary group who would be charged with studying the current plight of African-Americans. This would be a totally professional operation, which would be tasked with defining issues, coming up with positive solutions, implementing programs, and assessing the results. This program would train teachers, health and mental care professionals, social workers, business men and women, vocational students and other appropriate disciplines. The school would open to all students willing to sign a zero tolerance contract. Will such a model program work? Yes it would. My daughter, after finishing UNC-CH, joined Teach for America and spent 2 years teaching first grade on the West Bank in New Orleans. She was there during Katrina, and loved her kids. She saw herself as their great hope for a meaningful life -- she told of one little girl who came to school with belt marks from whippings received at home. There are many idealistic young people out there. How about channeling their energies in constructive and positive ways? No propaganda, no academic bull. Would Duke be willing to set up such a demonstration program? It seems to me that is what is needed. The school would be tasked to define problems, formulate solutions, implement those solutions, and assess the outcome. Is that asking to much of a university? Step up, DU, show us what you can do. Show us some real leadership.

Anonymous said...

RRH--and the rest of us for that matter.

Remember that what you write often says more about you than it says about the the person or topic you are writing about.

Anonymous said...

Has Beard written anything that can be referenced on the eunuchs in the Duke administration or the lesbians and bigots in the Gang of 88? For some unknown reason, these loonies have basically gotten a pass in this whole mess.
The more I read, the more I question the thinking of a parent who would entertain the thought of allowing a child to apply to this "institution". Give Duke 10 years and it will be nothing more than a gay black school.
It is pathetic to realize the brainwashing that is attempted by agenda driven professors and encouraged by an administration that have lost their collective manhood. They are supported by a board of bobble heads that don't recognize self-destruction when they face it.
In the city of Durham (which is also on it's way to a path of self-destruction), the school will soon be known as Duck rather than Duke. Morals have left (not being taught by those that have none anyway) and the potbangers will be replaced by those taking pot shots. Here comes one now-------DUCK!

AMac said...

Anon 9:16am wrote --

> Give Duke 10 years and it will be nothing more than a gay black school.

Er, Anon... As the saying goes, Some of my best friends are gay or black. (You may have heard that before.) Even some of us older whitish (&straight) males--a compliment directed at me by one of the Gramscians on these threads--take offense at such perjorative stereotyping.

The point ought not to be to make Duke less welcoming to gays and blacks. It should be to address the structural problems that have left Duke with an Administration and at least 88 staff who are not honorable and who do not hold themselves accountable for their conduct.

Examination of the record of some of the faculty signers of the Listening Statement highlights a related problem: somehow, Duke has developed recruiting, hiring, and promotion standards that have benefitted some mediocre and some shoddy scholars.

Anonymous said...

TO 9:10PM--

And that's a good thing, no?

Most of us have kept up with this blog in order to bring out personal experiences into the mix and try to understand how something so odious could happen in the 21st century.

I think most of us want our opinions to say something about us as individuals.

BTW....regarding the Williams opinion piece, my thoughts are not far from RRHamilton's.....which is why I previously chose not to comment on the issue at all; however, now that I see that Williams' sister is on another blog trying to promote this piece, IMO, that says all one needs to know about the real objective in writing it.

Self-promotion perhaps? I found the whole thing overblown and think it would have fit better as a regular comment under one of KC's posts.

I'll elaborate further if you wish, but the whole thing was simply too self-congratulating to the nth degree. Nothing wrong with that. I encourage it!

Just don't try to pretend that the true objective is to discuss Reade, Collin, and David.


Anonymous said...

...bring OUR personal experiences into the mix....


MikeZPurdue said...


As always, you makie great points!

Yes, I was hoping that including that link to Tara's
Jan 10, 2007 statement might ward off the Tara
Trollers the same way, for example, that a crucifix
is supposed to ward off a vampire :) lol


Anonymous said...

To Haskell 9:-7

Good intentions do not necessarily make good policies. One of the things that many people are in favor of doing is throwing more money into the problems of the black community. I shuddered when I read your suggestions. First you want a group of academicians to identify the problem. Don’t you know the problem? I think an 8th grader knows the problem: single parent households, non-working adults, truancy, gangs, drugs, violent rap, disrespect for authority, and told you are a victim.

Although he has been criticized by all the liberals, Bill Cosby tells it like it is. The pathologies that exist today did not come about in a short time. So, it will take a long time to change the typical African family.

I am very cynical of all these programs. I taught for 3 years in a Title 1 school. I was tired of teachers getting the blame for minorities doing so poorly in school. I was going to show that it was not that hard to have successful students—like Stand and Deliver.
My experience was so bad that I went back to school and finished my teaching career by teaching at the college level.

Students did not come to school prepared. They were often sleepy. They were provided a free breakfast, but some did not get there in time to eat. Since EVERYONE of my parents were on some type of government aid and did not work, it was tough to accept. My students had all kinds of electronic toys. Why? Many were indebt. More that ½ were overweight. When I met with a parent and asked her to spend 10 minutes per day helping her child, she boldly said “Isn’t that what they pay you to do?” I volunteered to teach a family literacy class. I talked to each one of my parents. No one enrolled. I asked for volunteers. No one came forward. Several of the moms in my class were 20-21 years old. My first year –remember this was an elementary school—2 girls got pregnant. I left after 3 years.

I am an immigrant. I did not speak English until I was 9. My entire family did not come all at once, but over a period of about 5 years, I had aunts, uncles, and cousins who also came. My mom was in her late twenties and started college. She had a difficult time, but graduated in the top 10% of her class, and eventually became a college professor. EVERYONE in my family went to college. We all went into 2 fields, education or medicine. No special programs, no ESL, no social workers, just tough love. I know this may sound harsh, but I remember coming home with a 9/10 spelling quiz. The teacher had put a star. My mother was furious. Why would I get a star? I was given a reward I did not deserve. My parents thought that encouraged mediocrity.

I’m sick and tired of people who were blessed by Providence and born in this wonderful country, but always have their hands out. Blacks are so lucky, they did not have this huge learning curve. They can speak the language and they know the culture. And after I have worked so hard, they want to take ½ my paycheck? Not without a fight.

! Listen to Bill Cosby. He’s got lots of free advice. Or listen to Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, or someone who has worked to gain what they have.

Anonymous said...

Fresh begas droppings at 1:41 am, 2:23 am, and 4:17am.

At 2:23 begas claims to be unaware of the Tara Levicy statement produced by Linwood Wilson. Begas says: “Have never read the towel wipe story from these two before..” This begas comment despite the fact that LieStoppers first posted the Wilson produced Levicy statement on June 19 in a discussion board thread. At that same LieStoppers thread begas posts no less than thirteen comments. As is typical, the begas comments were all nonsensical trollish drivel.

LieStoppers thread re: Tara Levicy Statement to Linwood Wilson

It is lies such as the begas lie at 2:23 am above; it is lies that begas makes and then perpetuates with regard to Levicy’s conduct at the Mangum SANE exam; it is lies that begas make and then promotes with regard to Levicy’s statements and conduct subsequent to the Mangum SANE exam; and it is begas’ instance in lying about Levicy involvement and culpability in the illegal prosecution of the three duke lacrosse defendants that turned begas into a troll a few months ago and has now turned begas into a parody of troll.

Yesterday, in KCs “Sunday News” Column, the not so anonymous begas dropped this gem:

Not So Anonymous begas said...
No one shredded her reputation at the bar hearing 0 none of the authority figures these called her a liar or perjured. As more information comes out, statements made about her are unsupported in fact. Just today, with a recap of Nifongs remars, the "Emergency nurse's report states the Victim's condition was consisant with a sexual assualt. We know that that sstatement is intirelly insupported by fact. The report itself says nothing to that effect. So now, her persecutatoring want to claim, she said it - there is no evidence that is true, gooing to bed - out of town for the next too weeks and will be bery glad to get away from the event.
Learning new evidence of the event is discounted immediatel, by those who should have the decency to review the materal. AAdios
Jul 15, 2007 6:18:00 AM

After being batted around by other commenters for the nonsense she wroter earlier in KC's Sunday column, begas claims to be going “out of town for the next too weeks.” Yet she is back today with her first comment at 1:41 am. My guess, begas’ ‘two week vacation’ was in truth begas pushing her shopping cart over to the Western for refreshing session of a penny slots.
begas at the Western

begas, a parody of a troll. hahaha

Anonymous said...


You pretty much said it all. Very honest. Very true.

mac said...


Begas claims to be recovering from brain surgery to remove a tumor,
and claims that the misspellings are a result of her revocery - er- recovery.
Somehow, I don't believe it; I think it's a fraudulent claim.

But if it's true...
I wish her the best, but I would be delighted for her/him/it to wait until
they had full comprehension or help from a friend before coming on board,
telling us how stupid we all are, picking on poor widdle Tara!

There are other trolls in the group-de-Tara - AKA "Tara-rists."

"Fresh droppings." That's wonderful! Fresh droppings from the Tara-rists!
I'd guess one of those Tara-rists represents the little enabler,
hoping to provoke some comment about criminality etc.

Anonymous said...

You folk must really be afraid of the truth. Where is the towel statement?
Not content with attacking my wife, they attacked my little dog Checkers. R Nixon

mac said...

The statement says CGM claims she was wiped with a rag.

Anonymous said...

In case anyone holds R.N.s (Registered Nurses) in a privilged position of respect and admirationation, I have seen several in my nursing career that are not only unskilled, unprofessional but DANGEROUS. Yes, I have reported them as a co-worker and nursing supervisor. Most times, they remain and get promoted. Politely, read the contents of every I.V. fluid, check every medication, oberve the injection prepared from the vial and have a trusted relative/friend by your bedside (24 hours) while you are hospitalized overnight. No doubt the S.A.N.E. will have a great nursing career, too.

mac said...

The ghost of Richard Nixon says:

"I've met all the voters from Chicago who elected me from our
current digs when I lost in '60. They were pissed."

Anonymous said...

newly pseudo said...

I accept that you sincerely intended to offer Stefanie Williams constructive criticism, even if I think you might have done so more tactfully.

Well, professor, by 12:30 AM most of my writing is strictly "stream-of-consciousness".

As I alluded to earlier, every rose needs thorns as well as petals. Perhaps I am one, along with Polanski, Debrah, and others-- and I think even KC has more thorn than petal in him, as well.

P.S. Thanks Debrah, for your kind words.

Anonymous said...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Pete Neufeld

Anonymous said...

mac, Linwood, Himan, KC, anonymous, have you heard? Rape charges were dropped 12/2006. Levicy testified 'She said they ejaculated in her mouth...' before Nifong's lawyer interrupted her testimony.

Why would the Durham police, fine gentlemen one and all, with impeccable standards of procedure and integrity ask a fact witness about THE rape in the interview on 1/10/07, a couple of days before their boss "went away."

Levicy testified to the 1/10/07 written report by Himan and Wilson: 'I wouldn't have said gurney, the questions they asked me are not here, some things not accurate.'

Ah HA! The GURNEY defense!
What about the Some Things NOT ACCURATE defense!
Try on the What WERE The Questions They Asked Levicy defense!

Clearly, if Levicy talked about ejaculation in the mouth as stated by the AV, then, in the same testimony about the same 1/10/07 interview discussed victimS not knowing for SURE if condoms were used 'because they can't see them' an opinion based on Levicy's experience as a nurse there is no connection. The statements appear to be reported as if they follow, but they do not.


Anonymous said...

to 11:21

You will find a reference to the towel statement on page 13 of the AG's report.

"A white towel found in the hallway outside one of the bathrooms contained no DNA from the accusing witness. She had stated she was wiped down after the assault with either a towel or a rag."

Just because you don't know something, does not mean it does not exist.

Anonymous said...

Don;t like the message - well, try and kill the messanger. It ain't happening. No one is afraid of public discourse. When one puts out an opinion at a public debate, attempts to batter is part of the game. "Not afraid of your dogs cause I got my freedom."

mac said...


Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence,
when the complainant claimed there was ejaculation
in the oral cavity, and none was found.

Reminding you Tara-rists that Mangum claimed
that two of the young men ejaculated in her mouth, sans condom -
and that certainly would have left DNA. She even complained
that the ejaculate left her with bad breath.

I wanna be...Tara's Troll,
I wanna be...

mac said...

ABC 12:17
Right: Levicy's story has been consistent - with Mangum's.
Which means, in short, that it's
been all over the road.

Can they get you for a DUI if your testimony swerves?

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness for the review KC posts. There has been a bit of overload and sometimes I forget details. But I do notice, that if one of g88 or Nifong or Mangum, or SANE nurse makes a point that is not refuted, later on they will use this to promote a lie.

I am still amazed that Al Sharpton can be a Presidential candidate, and get away with the NY hoax. To top that off, Tawana Brawley is on the speech circuit promoting that something happened. The MSM does not cover it much, meantime surveys in the black community feel that something must have happened. I beleive she avoids NY, otherwise she'll be arrested.

Anonymous said...

General defense of Stefanie Williams's remarks on how the Nifong-Durham-Duke injustice to her friends made her feel.

Feelings and affectivity are how we evaluate things in terms of good and bad, evaluate in such a way as to affect and "fuel" our behavior. Without feelings and affectivity, purpose and motive could not guide and energize our behavior.

There is nothing wrong and plenty right with examining one's feelings and writing an essay about them.

Understanding in what effects one feels things -- and the embodiment of such understanding -- is a good definition for the arts, including literary. When one uses affectivity as if it were cognition, that is, treats emotion, feelings, etc., per se as pre-eminently verificatory in function, then things naturally go wrong, and we make fun of those who rely on their "FEEEEEELINGS."

But this should not militate one against all feeling, as subject matter, sign, message, evidence, etc., etc., in a serious essay. Feelings are not simply sources of error which should be streamlined or bulldozed out of all reasonable discussion. For, again, without feeling, we'd be out of touch with good and bad.

In Wyndham Lewis's novel The Revenge For Love, one of the central characters is a hardened Marxist revolutionary, ultimately imprisoned, who has learned to overcome all feeling -- pretty much. He is capable of appreciating classical music and fine painting, but is ready to kill fine musicians and painters for The Cause. However in the end he cannot help but feel sorry for a third-rate painter and his wife whom the Marxist brought to their deaths. That moment of sorrow and regret is his final, revelatory defeat. That revolutionary Niobe, immobile and stony, yet weeps.

Anonymous said...

mac - your Levicy jokes are much better that your attempts at reading comprehension.


mac said...

No, your post was poorly written: I can't decide if you are a Tara-rist or an anti-Tara-rist.

Please re-phrase your comment. You might begin with using punctuation that makes your intent clear.
Not being picky, just hoping to find meaning in your droppings.

Who is the AV?

Anonymous said...

Stefanie and Hamilton

In the real world what difference does it make that you're from a rich family from Garden City? The topic itself is stupid. Next.

Mr Throw Money at BS Duke African Studies

American blacks have been overcoddled. I would much rather give their welfare checks to the truly needy in China, sub-Saharan Africa--wherever.

Everyone likes to point out that black dependency is a form of failure. Not true at all. Blacks have managed to convince nonblack America that blacks are owed transfer payments and quotas. That's a form of "success," if you analyze the success from the vantage point of a parasite.

After all we are Communists.


Hamilton, my "penultimate" was just an alternative word for the clumsy "second-to-last"

Anonymous said...

To all:

I am not convinced that RRH is so tough and mean. He was just tired. Some time back I mentioned I could not stand up to my colleagues, one of whom stated “I’m ashamed to be white.” RRH could have just slapped me and told me to butch up. Instead he made a suggestion I can live with. Pretty soft guy I think.

mac said...

Is the AV the guy who handles the audio-visual equipment in the back

Perhaps you refer to the AV node,
or perhaps the SA node? Lots of them nodes here and thair, in the nooks and crannies.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Victoria Peterson who was the first to call for a federal investigation in this case. Even though she was co-chair of Nifong's political campaign, at a rally she asked even him why he did not get the FBI in on the case.

Anonymous said...

mac - your routine is beginning to sound like a tribute to Jerry Lewis - none of us wants that, do we?

AV = alleged victim

wow, is your face red.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's kid on the first day of school. "My Daddy use to be a lawyer."

"Honest?" asks his classmate.

"No, just the regular kind", answeres Nifong's kid.

mac said...

AV: alleged victim.
So far, so good.
Thanks for the info.

Still don't understand, even with careful reading, what you meant by your last paragraph at 12:17?

Please be clear.

Anonymous said...

And yet more begas droppings at 11:21 am, 11:25 am, 11:46 am and 12:18 pm.

begas, you recently wrote: “As she [Levicy] can point to the AG stating he had come to the conclusion from the Levicy/Manly exam that there was no evidence a rape occurred …”

That sentence is yet another of your blatant lies. Cooper made no such statement.

Take this opportunity to point specifically (provide a link and quote the statement) where Cooper made the statement you attribute to him or admit this is just another in your expanding string of lies with regard to Levicy’s participation and culpability in the illegal prosecution of the Duke defendants.

Here, I’ll help you with your assignment: google "attorney general roy cooper's duke lacrosse report" From Cooper's Summary of Conclusions you will be able to read each of the six areas of evidence the Attorney General used to base his determination of innocence.

Not too tough an assignment, huh.

begas, a parody of a documented lying troll. hahaha

Anonymous said...

to 12:55

Why did V Peterson suggest the FBI? Did she think this was such an important case that Nifong would get even more positive press if the Feds were involved? It does not make sense for her to make that suggestion. The only crime I could see was Nifong's. What would be the federal conection from her view point? I mean the hoax rape did not happen in a post office.

mac said...

If Peterson thought the Feds ought to be called in, then that's a plus for her.

She might not have many plusses on her report card, but that would count as an A+.

mac said...

Anon 1:06,

Is 12:17 also 12:18?

Anonymous said...

mac at 1:14

Could be but I don’t think so. Uses some of the same words but just doesn’t have the feel as “begas, a parody of a documented lying troll.”

12:17 may be a true Tara-rist. 12:18 (the second one) is most certainly a foaming begas.

Anonymous said...

Mac, so easy even a cave man can do it.

Let me help you out with this little argument.

1. Levicy testified that Mangum reported ejaculation in the mouth.

2. Levicy testified "victims" (the s means Levicy is talking about more than one person, victims in general? Who knows!) not knowing for sure if condoms were used if they can't see them, Levicy's opinion based on her experience as a nurse.

There is no connection between #1 and #2 but the statements are reported by the police, in the January 2007 interview as if Levicy is talking about Mangum in both statements.

The gurney defense
The some things are not accurate defense
and The What did the police ask Levicy defense

Might be interesting. Might not.

I think KC has it right though. No Levicy, no Hoax

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To all:

I am not convinced that RRH is so tough and mean. He was just tired. Some time back I mentioned I could not stand up to my colleagues, one of whom stated “I’m ashamed to be white.” RRH could have just slapped me and told me to butch up. Instead he made a suggestion I can live with. Pretty soft guy I think.

Jul 16, 2007 12:45:00 PM

I'm as soft as a she-mouse's belly.


Anonymous said...

1:43 Whether or not there would be a hoax, Nifong was persuing this case for votes and election.

mac said...

That's what I'd hoped you meant.

KC's Xs and Ys etc is a good illustration - (that's what I was
referring to) - about Mangum's claim to Nurse Tara that she'd been
orally raped by two of the accused.

As you said: if she was orally raped, she would have known if a condom was used - (at least in that particular orifice.)

You're also right about the "gurney defense."
Who knows? Levicy has changed
her story (repeatedly); the investigators and DA have lied.
I tend to think that they cancel
each other out.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your last comment: no Levicy, no Hoax.

Sorry we failed to understand one another. Thanks for the clarification, too.

AMac said...

Levicy/DUMC/HIPAA question:

C. Thomas Kunz has stated:

"I was at one of my daughter’s 5th year birthday party in Durham. The parent attendees were mostly doctors (mostly from DUMC) and lawyers. The party was the day the story of CGM’s previous allegation of rape hit the newspapers (the Creedmoor thing) [Thurs., 4/27/06]. I speculated to the parents that this was the end of the hoax and that there was no way this could proceed in the face of this news. Many of the parents remained convinced that 'something happened.' In all cases the reason cited was that the nurse 'expert' who did the 'rape kit' said that the injuries were 'consistent with a sexual assault.' I argued but got nowhere in the face of the 'expert’s' statement."

So by late April, doctors knew via the DUMC staff grapevine that a rape happened, because the nurse expert who did the rape kit said that the victim's inuries were consistent with a sexual assault.

Where did this piece of gossip originate? HIPAA notwithstanding, somebody talked about what the nurse expert doing the rape kit did and said.

It fits in neatly with what Levicy's critics say she did and said. How do Levicy's supporters explain Kunz's account?

If someone wanted to get to the bottom of this, they could work backwards to identify the rumor's source. I suspect these doctors would have little interest in protecting the originating gossiper. People generally don't like getting scammed.

Anonymous said...


Brilliant, just brilliant! Kunz hears a rumor, at a child's birthday party, and the source has got to be Levicy? (why bother with innocent of starting the rumor until proven guilty when we can all just rush to judgment.)

How do I explain it - a number of people work in the ER. Don't make me insult you intelligence by going into any more detail.

Have you heard Amac, a ham sandwich is consistent with sexual assault. The consistent statement is meaningless.

I'm sure Kunz is brilliant at something, but how smart does an MD have to be to come onto a message board and blab about hospital rumors?

This must be pile on Levicy day at DIW - why should it be different than any other day.


ABC - (not 1:43 a cave man?)

Anonymous said...

If someone accuses someone else of something, it cannot be disproved by denial. There will always be "something" of the "something must have happened" or it must be true of it. "You are a rapist." "You are a rascist." "You are hectoring." "You are lecturing." These are all easy ways of controlling the conversation. They cannot be disproved in argument. They are the tactics of the politically correct crowd, and now it is obvious that their is not enough "proof" to prove anything. People are still discussing a lie as if a lie has any "proof" or position in the reality of anything. There has to be some point of logic I am missing. The nurse missed the point entirely. There is little need to discuss what she said in the context of what she said as if it were true. There was no lacrosse DNA so attempting to explain the lack of this DNA is a waste of time except to know that there was no DNA from anyone on the lacrosse team and thus proving the lie no matter what the nurse said. The condom was an invention to prove possible the nonexistent DNA that never was, and it was impossible for many to accept this. It reminds of one of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories" of all the condoms that ever was it never was because there never was a rape, but there was an attempted lynching. Yes, the attempted lynching and the howling mob of Peter Wood, Lubiano and others was real enough