After leading off with the almost laughable Shird preface, the Mangum Opus segues into a chapter from Mangum co-author Vincent “Ed” Clark, the figure who the N&O delicately described as “a self-employed publicist.”
I hated anything related to Duke sports.
So much for collaborator Myra Shird’s linking the dangers of prejudgment to slavery and the Holocaust.
My heart pounded. I had been waiting for the opportunity to meet the accuser. The case had been constantly on my mind. For some reason I felt as though I needed to know her. I needed to know as much as I could.
And Mangum didn’t disappoint her new, fawning friend:
From that moment [when Mangum first spoke to him] I believed something had happened, too. This person sitting in front of me was supposed to be delusional. I had met plenty of people like that and this person did not strike me that way.
Indeed, Clark himself seems a bit delusional when he discusses the media’s handling of the case:
There was not one positive thing I had seen or read about this woman, and she had no way of knowing if I believed what I had read about her.
At other points in his introduction,
If people were willing to tell the truth they would acknowledge that people produced to discredit
were facing their own legal troubles and were represented by lawyers who were members of the players' defense team. They would come forward and tell why Crystal ’s medical records were leaked to the public to imply she had mental health problems. Others will say how they floated stories implying Crystal had been sexually promiscuous immediately before the alleged events when there was no proof she had been. Crystal
What case is he talking about? Mangum was “discredited” not by anyone coming forward, but by the public revelations of the procedurally flawed lineup, the exculpatory DNA evidence, and the myriad contradictions between the myriad stories she told. She was discredited, in short, by hard evidence, not by personal testimony from anyone.
And what of his claim that “
And what of
No proof? How, then, does
Lacking facts to justify his assertions,
And he continues, in a passage that could have been stolen from any of a number of Group of 88 members,
The idea of a white man abusing some black prostitute has appeal for some folk. Other white men consider black women there to be used, easily accessed, so it goes, and it has been that way since the first enslaved Africans came to
Clark concludes with a tribute to
And where are these mysterious places to which
Clark's notions remind of the kind of thing I would hear as a boy in the barbershop I frequented some 40 years ago - prejudice, wishful thinking and statements, supposedly of facts, that had nothing to do with reality. Only in those days, it was white men speaking poorly of the "coloreds." It was a very accurate depiction of the thinking by many people at that time. So too, are the things Clark says now.
Does it really surprise anyone that--if reports are accurate--this Ed Clark person used to work for a Triangle newspaper?
Given the joyous and enthusiastic complicity most of the area outlets exhibited in the Spring of 2006, Clark would have fit right into their reporting methods of this abominable Hoax.
How do such people as this Ed Clark person garner even an ounce of credibility.......anywhere?
"How do such people as this Ed Clark person garner even an ounce of credibility.....anywhere?" It's very simple actually Debrah,......they don't.
"Mangum was “discredited” not by anyone coming forward, but by the public revelations of the procedurally flawed lineup, the exculpatory DNA evidence, and the myriad contradictions between the myriad stories she told. She was discredited, in short, by hard evidence, not by personal testimony from anyone."
To play devil's advocate... The personal testimony of H.P. "Fats" Thomas certainly did have a discrediting effect -- Thomas, of course, was the bouncer at the club where Mangum was caught on tape pole-dancing so athletically just a short time after the alleged assault and the alleged great pain it left her in. I have no credible source indicating that Thomas has faced legal charges of his own and has been defended on those charges by one of the attorneys who also defended the players, but I know that such has been alleged by former visitors to the blog.
Of course, the problem is that even if all that were to be true -- such people are hardly the only reason Mangum wound up so consummately, thoroughly discredited. No one is taking "Fats" Thomas as a source for Mangum dancing athletically at the club on a night she was supposedly racked with pain; they don't need to when the videotape is right there...
I know who divulged Mangum's secret psychological history, and I will share it with you. It was Essence Magazine and Mangum's mother:
"The accuser's mother told Essence her daughter went away to a hospital for about a week last summer, where she was treated for a 'nervous breakdown.'"
Another culprit was that dasterdly New York Times, through its public editor, Byron Calame:
"Then I decided that the mental health of the Duke accuser and the failure of Mr. Nifong to limit the harm she caused by doing his job responsibly combined to keep this case from being a good one on which to debate such a policy change."
Post a Comment