Saturday, July 28, 2007

The True Believers March On

The pro-Mangum blog abyss2hope, run by Marcela Chester, recently critiqued the AJR’s comprehensive review, “Justice Delayed,” of the media’s handling of the lacrosse case. Chester attacked AJR author Rachel Smolkin for continuing to “make unsubstantiated accusations against the alleged victim.”

But how is Mangum the “alleged victim”? The state of North Carolina said that nothing happened. The city of Durham said that nothing happened. The Durham Police Chief said that nothing happened. Even Mike Nifong has conceded that nothing happened. So who, exactly, is “alleging” that Mangum is a “victim”?

To Chester, suggesting Mangum leveled a false accusation is unacceptable, since “the alleged victim has still not been charged with a crime.” But, of course, a good reason exists for this decision: as AG Cooper noted, Mangum’s mental problems mean that she might actually believe her myriad, mutually contradictory, tales—which would explain why a prosecutor might exercise discretion and not file charges. That decision doesn’t mean that journalists should be prohibited from deeming false a claim that Mangum was raped while suspended in mid-air, at a time when her own cellphone records and the receipt of her “driver” indicated she wasn’t even at the lacrosse house.

Chester also went of her way to defend Nifong: “There has been no proof that Nifong knew that the players were innocent and decided to frame them in order to win an election. But hey, why wait for proof?”

Chester apparently missed the Disciplinary Hearing Committee’s findings of fact, which made exactly this point. That alone would have disproved her wild charge that Roy Cooper’s behavior “mirrored Nifong.”

Chester added,

Now that the case has been dropped, accepting the statements of all the players and all defense attorneys without question is as dangerous as accepting the initial statements made by Nifong. They clearly want to do more than see the criminal case resolved, they want to control the narrative.
But, of course, no one is arguing that people should accept the statements of the players and their attorneys “without question.” The players and their attorneys had corroborating evidence—in the form of unimpeachable electronic data. (Without any foundation for do so, Chester suggested that some of this evidence might have been doctored.)

For some, alas, the accusation alone will be enough.


kcjohnson9 said...

Note that I have temporarily activated the comment moderation function, to enforce the prohibition against "Polanski" commenting any longer on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC - to think, I questioned the existance of Santa Claus. The real or imagined rape victims continue to come out of the woodwork. Using this "event" for their poor judgment. That also includes Ruthie. I do not give her a pass either.

M. Simon said...

"A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest."

The other Simon.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to look back on this in a couple of decades. Will the "something happened" types (and, for that matter, the "white male athletic privilege" types) still be at it? Right now it looks like it will never end. KC, *please* promise you'll at least do a "Where are they now?" piece in a few years.

Anonymous said...

I'm expecting Ms. Chester to email you demanding that you don't quote her email, blog or anything else. This will become the new tactic of the mental cripples that are skewered by this blog and it's followers.

Fight the Power, K.C.

Floyd recently emailed me and asked that we all cease using his name in vain.

Anonymous said...

People who do not operate on reason and facts should avoid trying to make a case using these things. And, they often do -- however, they dress their falsehoods as facts, omit things that do not support their worldview, and often make profound errors of logic. They like to dress themselves in such trappings, then become agitated when one notices that they have no clothes. In a way, the agitation is understandable. Unfortunately, there is no kind way to explain away the rest.

Anonymous said...

"Controlling the narrative" is indeed what it is all about; in that (and only that) I agree with the pernicious Chester.


Anonymous said...

Books about the hoax could do well to use Chester's own words as a title, "But hey, why wait for proof . . . ." She doesn't seem to understand that the narrative is driven by facts. It seems to confuse her that this could be the case. It is sad.

Anonymous said...

Like some of the other nitwits that have commented on this case to support their suspect views and agendas, I'm willing to bet that Marcella will respond to this blog, this blog's commentors and the new comments on her blog in similar fashion as the great "tenured radical". Hope she stops by to find some new friends here too. K.C.'s series on the 88 should fill up her dance card and I'll bet further that Professor Ho will cross link to her blog too.

Anonymous said...

OBTW, Thanks for booting "pullanski". 1 out of 100 of his comments is humorous, hardly worth his or my effort. He should head over to the enabler's cave and post there.

Anonymous said...

Better yet KC, Blog us from Israel for the upfront and personal view of the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Alas Professor Johnson, I do not believe Nifong said "nothing happened" at the party. What he said was it was clear that Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were innocent. His last statement remains something happened to Mangum in that bathroom.

What he said as quoted on this blog is, I agree with the attorney general’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans commited any of the crimes for which they were indicted or any other crimes during the party that occurred on March 13 and 14 of 2006 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. So by his last public comment on the case, he is still among the something happened chorus.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 6:31 said...

....KC, *please* promise you'll at least do a "Where are they now?" piece in a few years.
I think I will watch several of these people over the years and see what they are doing while commenting on their blogs.

I'll use KC book and this blog as my reference.

It is going to be important that all of us join KC and others who strive to raise the importance of telling the truth in all that we do when telling our history

Anonymous said...

You may have seen this winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemportary term, but it seems to fit Ms. Chester and the G88:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds for the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Anonymous said...

Nifong doesn't say what 7:32 contends. This is a misreading of his statement.

Michael said...

This person Gregory Moo! seems to doing a pretty nice on these fantasy sites that think that something happened or that being white is a crime.

There have already been several comments on that blog with corrections on it. Should be interesting to see if that person restricts her posts too.

Anonymous said...

"It will be interesting to look back on this in a couple of decades. Will the "something happened" types (and, for that matter, the "white male athletic privilege" types) still be at it? Right now it looks like it will never end. KC, *please* promise you'll at least do a "Where are they now?" piece in a few years."

Yes, they probably will. No matter how wrong they are about something, they wait as many years as it takes for memories and interest to fade, and then they present their revisionist version.

We've seen this with Hurricane Carter, the Vincent Chin case, the "stolen" 2000 election (after about a year of silence following the media recount that showed the result would have been the same), the Central Park Rape, the Atlanta Child Killings, and on and on.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: anon 7:55

How is it a misreading of what Nifong says.

1. His statement this past week was clearly limited to Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann.

2. Nifong's last public statement on whether or not something happened was at this Bar hearing in which he claimed to believe something happened to her in that bathroom.

He most certainly did not say nothing happened. He said there was no evidence against Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann under legal and financial pressure.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Nifong's current public position: the text of the apology he gave on the 26th can be found here.

Unless there is more to this apology than was reported there, or he has made some other apology of which I am not aware, I'm afraid that it's simply not true that "Mike Nifong has conceded that nothing happened." Nifong makes it sound like he's saying that, by starting a sentence with "I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that ..." Since the attorney general's statement was "we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night", it would be easy to mistakenly think Nifong was agreeing with the AG's statement that no attack occurred.

Looking at Nifong's words carefully, however, he says he's agreeing with the AG's statement, but then makes a different and much weaker statement -- he says only that there's no credible evidence that Evans, Finnerty or Seligmann committed crimes. He could still turn around later and say "Oh, you know, I still fully believe that three white members of the Duke lacrosse team raped that poor black girl from NCCU that night. I just agree with the Attorney General that Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann weren't the three who did it." It would not be a contradiction of anything he said in his "apology".

Anonymous said...

I guess people like M. Chester invested so much of their lives and hopes in the lax guys being guilty that they just will never be able to admit the truth.

Anonymous said...

Knifong never did talk to Precious about that night, and there's no reason to believe that the pro-Precious people have done so either. By persisting in their baseless allegation, they're engaging in the same kind of stereotyping that they're trying to shake out of. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous said...

"Marcella Chester

Gender: Female

Location: United States

About Me
I'm a writer and novelist who has viewed the world from a slightly off-center perspective ever since date rape at 15 jolted me from being a rule-following innocent into my new being as a rule-breaking cynic with a razor-sharp tongue. Twenty years of silence about why I changed overnight was followed by 9 plus years as a volunteer victim's advocate. In my first novel, Cherry Love, I put readers in my shoes so they can gain a deep understanding of the attitudes that keep rape alive and unwell."

Perhaps because of her trauma she has lost both objectivity and reason. As long as society does not put her in a position were she needs to be rational then there is not much to say.

Arguing with a person who doesn’t respect logic, intelligence, reason, facts or probability is a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Is Chester a Communist?

Anonymous said...

It's pretty simple, Ms. Chester: the anguish faced by real rape victims is cheapened and mocked by any connection with Mangum. The legacy of her (crazy?calculated?) lies, and the hysteria that followed, may be that actual rape victims are disbelieved -- and that makes Mangum, as much as she menaced the LAX players' freedom, a true enemy of women's safety.

To cling desperately to the "truth" of Mangum's fabrications is to make a mockery of actual rape, and to collaborate in the further endangerment of females.

Why would you ever do that?

mac said...


"Arguing with a person who doesn't respect logic, intelligence, reason,
facts or probability is a waste of time."

True. I believe the appropriate term is "micturition contest."

IF Chester is such a great advocate of rape victims,
why does she continue to support
a proven liar/delusional who has
proven her unreliability?
And if Chester is such a great advocate of CGM,
why is she advocating her prosecution?

That's what she's encouraging, almost baiting the authorities to do: charge CGM.

She must be aware - but doesn't seem to be - that the two concepts
are diametrically opposed: you cannot support a rape victim and a false-rape-victim
at the same time. The false-rape-victim's testimony harms the real rape victim's testimony.

What Chester appears to be saying is this:
if she's a liar, prosecute her;
if you don't prosecute her, she's not a liar.

Many of us would agree with the
sentiment that it's a good idea to prosecute rape-hoaxers.
Chester seems unable to state it outright.

Chester seems to be setting up her own rules-of-engagement.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Christ, people like Chester just won't give UP!!

That's the hardest thing I've had to learn from this hoax - namely, that there exists a huge number of people who simply refuse to admit truth but instead mentally levitate in the sordid bathrooms of their minds.

Please, just once, couldn't someone pull their chains and flush these idiots away?

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine Chester believes what she is saying.
She must be hoping to hit one in a thousand who doesn't know better.
Problem: What about the other 999 who know better and for whom she has given evidence she is either delusional or a liar?
How does that math work out?

Anonymous said...

We all remember the lovely columnist Hal Crowther, don't we?

This post from KC that I have just read brings back more memories of the very logically selective Crowther.

So vividly do I recall during a seminar at Duke when big Hal was opining on the subject of drunk driving and how the media handles all aspects of the problem.

I recall his words very well because I agreed with him so thoroughly.

He said that the organization MADD--Mothers Against Drunk Driving--should never be allowed to carry the banner and be used by the media the way it often is because no one in that organization can ever provide an objective view of the issue.

Crowther said....(and I paraphrase from memory) .....that the very LAST person you want to talk to for the facts is a mother who has just lost a child because of someone driving while drinking.

Hal thought that those mothers were on a crusade and the truth and any form of objectivity would never be found by illuminating those people with such a personal agenda.

Such delicious irony!

If only Hal Crowther---who is second only to Allan Gurganus who holds the title of the most illogically rabid literary pussy from the Hillsborough Gang of 88-esque clique---could put on his "thinking cap" and revisit his golden words of old.

Where do you keep your objectivity and your logic these days, big Hal?

BTW.....your comments about the rabid loonies from MADD were dead-on. Now, extend that reasoning to the issue of race among humanoids on the planet.

You have to be carrying someone's water at Duke, big Hal. You are not as idiotic as you seem.

You are smarter than Ms. Chester, no?


Gary Packwood said...

The True Believers have been a problem for at least the last five years.

So much so that the Federal Government took the time about four years ago to focus attention on drug abuse and off specific crimes associated with drug and alcohol abuse.

After six months or so that Feds decided to create a web site associated with Office of the President of the United States for the Office of National Drug Policy.

Certain 'True Believers' have their designer crimes that are associated with their careers and it is hoped that the knowledge listed here will help focus attention off 'designed crimes' and onto the real issues that are confronting young people today.

There is much to be learned here and 'The True Believers' need to at least target illegal drugs along with the crimes that allow them to be advocates and activists.

Office of National Drug Policy (of the office of the President of the United States)

State and City Drug Profiles

Women/Young Girls and Drugs

Michael said...

Apparently she's throwing a huge number of posts out today in a blog-a-thon looking to raise money for something or other.

It appears that she's so busy churning out opinions (about 2 an hour) that she has no time to even read the comments that she has received.

Anonymous said...

"the "stolen" 2000 election (after about a year of silence following the media recount that showed the result would have been the same)"

Actually, it showed exactly the opposite, that Gore actually won any complete recount. Unfortunately, the news was slated to be released on 9/12/01. Once it was finally released some months later, it was spun to give the exact opposite impression, so as not to detract from Dear Leader's legitimacy (and then-90% approval rating). Of course, now he's sunk to Nixonian - or should I say Nifongian? - levels...

Anonymous said...

Oh who really cares what Nifong says now? I certainly don't.

Anonymous said...

KC and others,

Marcela Chester is wrong as regards Rachel Smolkin's AJR critique: Smolkin does not attack Mangum.

That said, Smolkin's AJR critique, “Justice Delayed,” isn't, IMO, a comprehensive review of the media’s handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

Smolkin fails to even mention the Raleigh N&O's decision to withhold from its 3/25/06 "anonymous interview" story the critically important news, exculpatory for the players, that Mangum had said the second dancer was also sexually assaulted at the party but didn't report it for fear of losing her job.

In the same interview, Mangum accused the second dancer, Kim Roberts, of being willing to "do anything for money."

The N&O hid all of that from readers until after the NC AG had declared the three players innocent.

Smolkin never mentions any of that. Does anyone know why?

Smolkin also reports the N&O editors forbade the use of anonymous sources.

But the N&O repeatedly used anonymous sources. It even published the so far anonymous "Vigilante" poster, the only major newspaper in NC to do so.

There are other failings in Smolkin's article.

For example, while she mentions that the N&O's March 24, 2006 story was the first to report on "the Duke lacrosse" case, Smolkin doesn't tell readers that the N&O's story seven times called the accuser "the victim" or used the possessive "the victim's" without once using such standard qualifying terms "alleged" or "reported."

Why did Smolkin fail to mention that?

Surely she knows what the N&O did in that first story the public and the rest of media read about "the Duke lacrosse case" led people to think the accuser was "the victim" and the Duke students her victimizers.

Smolkin's "Justice Delayed" isn't comprehensive. It's at best highly selective.

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

Here's a dedication to KC--the man.

I'm sure we all feel this way about him. Look at all he puts up with.....yet he has always been so clearly focused.

This Sting original even mentions where KC is headed.

I'm sure that I share this sentiment with all of you:



Anonymous said...

Deborah - There is no objective view when you have lost a child - no matter what their age. Loonies -grief stricken women who are facing a parent's greatest fear. You have torn your tin foil on these comments.

Anonymous said...

TO John in Carolina--

I share your deep concerns about the N&O coverage. They have never fully revisited any of their early horrific coverage allowed to go to print.

You might be surprised to read some of the exchanges I have had with all of them about this.

The most egregious, IMO, were the editorial pages. Those editors have yet to balance anything as they have entertained the Gang of 88 "guest columns" etc......helping those lowlifes try to redefine themselves.

I told Orage Quarles---the publisher with whom I have always had a great relationship until I let him know that I was more of a Larry Elder supporter than an Al Sharpton supporter (LOL!!!)---that I would like to have his job for just one day so I could boot his entire editorial staff post haste.....and get some new and younger blood....preferably people not still drinking Kool Aid from the flower child era.

The N&O did some very bad things.

Joe Neff has been their only bright light.

Notice how they have avoided all editorial comments about anything related to the lacrosse case since they printed the obligatory offering---Nifong is a meanie and we'll blame him for everything!.



Anonymous said...

TO 12:32AM--

You are so misinformed. Don't get me started on that subject.


Anonymous said...

"...she might actually believe her myriad, mutually contradictory, tales—which would explain why a prosecutor might exercise discretion and not file charges."

The NC State AG promoted this view, which is essentially, "Let's don't piss off the Black community by filing charges against her [Mangum]." That was wrong. She clearly committed a serious crime, at least twice, uses drugs and should be arrested and tried. Whether there are offsetting extenuating circumstances should be decided in a courtroom after thorough investigation of the facts.

To not file charges is just another perversion of the law in the name of victimhood. Small wonder victimhood promoters proclaim her "innocence", which is automatically conferred by victim status, and they will feel forever justified in doing so in the absence of legal resolution to the contrary - which won't silence them, of course, any more than it will silence the 88, but it will create a legitimate counterpoint to their arguments.

Failure to act in this matter is much like living in a house that contains an unpleasant odor and complaining about it endlessly while failing to remove the dead rodent under the kitchen sink.

Anonymous said...

"Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The laws touches us but here and there and now and then. Manners are what vex and soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us by a constant, steady uniform insensile operation. Like that of th air we breathe in." - Edmnund Burke

Inman after reading this yesterday in the "War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers, it reminded me of you. You always remian gentile when attacked.

More broadly the quote exposes the frauds, liars, abettors within Duke, the Durham community, the MSM, and the race industries who are NOT gentile or polite. They are and desire to be in your face angry.

I'm reminded of how the young men handled (and are handling) themselves. They've always taken the high road.

Compare and contrast that vis-a-vis Burkes quote with the pot bangers, the Gang of 88, the Administration, (especially Brodhead), the MSM (especially Nancy Grace), (especially Amanda Marcotte, the race hustlers, (especially Victoria Peterson),etc.

Has Brodhead been ill-mannered? Allowing the DPD into his students rooms and computer files is probably the most egregious aspect of this entire event given his position.

Anonymous said...

"Actually, it showed exactly the opposite, that Gore actually won any complete recount."


I knew this would happen. Sorry about straying off point, KC, but I have to respond just once to a true believer.

From the New York Times, one of the media outlets in the consortium that conducted the media recount:

November 12, 2001

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

and further,

"comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats."

In a November 18, 2001 New York Times follow up;

"George W. Bush would have won the 2000 presidential election even had the court not cut the final recount short."

I suppose you also believe that Precious was raped while levitating in a bathroom.

Now, back to the Duke case.

Anonymous said...

Jeb Bush stole the election for George W, fair and square. Mayor Daly and those old line politicians would have been proud.
Sorry to see so many personal attacks on bloggers. It is supposed to be about their opinions. When in doubt - try and kill the messanger.

Anonymous said...

12:32 ==

You and Chester might want to consider hooking up. You have so much in common delusion-wise.

Anonymous said...

KC said: "For some, alas, the accusation alone will be enough."

Of course KC - that's because some people, e.g., feminists, will never back down from the mantra that "women never lie about rape" (or sexual assault, or domestic violence, etc., etc.). In other words, according to them in "he said/she said" situations the man is always lying. And while some of these people might know deep down that what they say is an absurd falsehood, they'll never admit it; their pride and prejudice simply won't allow for it.

Shocking as this is, that's the way these people operate.

Anonymous said...


at the risk of having KC delete my post -- still straying....

while I don't disagree that a full recount would have supported Bush's position, perhaps you should have chosen a source other than the NYT. Their track record in the Duke case didn't win them any credibility points with me.

Anonymous said...

rod allison, detroit @8:28am

the nyt has been so deconstructed that i wouldn't quote them when they agreed with me. george w bush is obviously the worst president since clinton

NOW back to the duke case...

re cooper's justification for not prosecuting mangum: anyone who has ever read a newspaper here in the united states of law enforcement knows that that blow-dried timmer was dishing pure codswallop.

and if you didn't, tony soprano at liestoppers made it brilliantly clear by
posting the picture and rap sheet of the durham caucasian woman who was always charged, tried and convicted of her crimes even though she is at least as much of a documented dingbat as mangum.

despite the above, cooper did label them INNOCENT. honor is due, attorney general cooper, honor is due.

Anonymous said...

I re-read Burkes quote again and indeed Brodhead and the administration are ill-mannered through their continued support of the Gang of 88 and the race/gender/class warfare frauds.

Who can argue that their approach does vex, corrupt, debase, and barbarize the human condition? Are they not sucking the oxygen out of the room? The do, and they are. As such, they remain ill-mannered.

Anonymous said...

There is an excellent article in the August 6 Time Magazine. (I was surprised) "The Myth About Boys"

It is a great example of how far the man haters in this country our out of hand and what it is doing to the young boys.

Fortunately the article concludes little boys are tougher and smarter than many gave them credit for.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rod Allison, who wrote those NYT articles you quoted? Duff Wilson?

Look at the actual findings, not just the spin (in other words, do a little Brad Bannon detective work), and you'll find that the ONLY way to make Bush come out ahead is to not count some legal votes, period. Any other way, Gore came out ahead.

Sorry, but that's the facts - not that facts will ever change your mind any more than they will ever change the G88's, but you can't wish them away.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Chester has joined the ranks of Pro Ho and set up comment moderation. Another enabler afraid of any exchange of ideas that challenges her world view.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Chester has joined the ranks of Pro Ho and set up comment moderation. Another enabler afraid of any exchange of ideas that challenges her world view.

LarryD said...

the nyt has been so deconstructed that i wouldn't quote them when they agreed with me.

I believe the legal term is "Admission against interest". Even though the NYT now has a horrible track record, the fact that the piece runs counter to their agenda, is still a strong factor for its' credibility.

In any case the Supreme Court of the US decided 7-2 (which means half the liberals on the Court joined the majority), that Florida had to follow it own elections laws and not engage in endless recounts.

We were talking about accepting reality. This is an instance. Let go of it. It's in the past, and there will never be a do-over. If you really want Al Gore for President, convince him to run again. But you'll have to convince enough of the rest of us to vote for him to win the race.

Anonymous said...

Check the comment section for he half assed responses to our beloved Greg.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Chester is deleting all comments which have challenged her contention that the Duke Rape Prosecution is not a hoax. I have left a comment which, I expect, will also be deleted.

I accused Ms. Chester of Nifonging. I said that there is ample evidence in the public record that the Duke Rape Prosecution was a hoax which she refuses to recognize. Further, just as Mr. Nifong tried to suppress evidence which showed the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse players, she is now trying to suppress the evidence showing that the Duke Rape Hoax was a hoax. I said that since the evidence is part of the public record, her attempts will not work.

I also asked her, has she provided any evidence, other than her own word, that she actually is a rape victim.