Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Wendy Murphy, Esq.

The astounding Wendy Murphy is at it again. In this morning’s edition of the Patriot-Ledger, a small paper in suburban Boston, the person who seemed to have no trouble spewing demonstrable falsehoods in the lacrosse case writes the following:

For example, I’d like to see full disclosure of the file in the “Duke Lacrosse” rape case. The government spent a ton of public money investigating the charges. Ultimately, not only were the charges dropped, the prosecutor was disbarred for unethical behavior. But while selected portions of the files were released by the defense team, thousands of pages have been withheld from public view. Why?

The predominant sentiment is the defendants were falsely accused by a woman named Crystal Magnum and a rogue district attorney named Mike Nifong. The public has a right to see all the witness statements and unredacted DNA tests so we can understand how a seasoned prosecutor got it so wrong. The latest excuse is there are civil suits pending. But the law is clear that this is not a legitimate reason to withhold government documents from public view.

It’s hard to figure out what Murphy is talking about in this passage. The only item from the file never released was the roughly 1000 pages of Mangum’s psychological history. Will Murphy publicly call upon Mangum to release the file? After all, by the logic of her argument, doesn’t the public deserve to know whether Mangum heard voices ordering her to do things? Or claimed people conspired to kill her? Or why her doctors prescribed her anti-psychotic medication? But to my knowledge, Murphy has never demanded the release of this information—the only material from the case file that the court ordered “withheld from public view.”

The adjunct law professor continues, “The latest excuse is there are civil suits pending. But the law is clear that this is not a legitimate reason to withhold government documents from public view.” The “latest excuse” from whom? Murphy doesn’t say.

Even more astonishingly, Murphy’s comments come in an editorial demanding sunlight about the Treasury Department’s management of the bailout--something that has nothing to do with the lacrosse case.

Murphy purports to be an attorney (echoing the Murphy logic, I say “purports” because she has never publicly posted her law license on her adjunct faculty website. To quote Murphy, “Why?”) This purported attorney presumably would know that Treasury Department documents are subject to filings under the Freedom of Information Act. And from subpoenas from congressional oversight.

Yet—as Murphy presumably knows, since she purports to be an attorney—FOIA doesn’t apply to state or local criminal investigations, regardless of whether “the government spent a ton of public money investigating the charges” or whether the government spent no money at all. Does Murphy believe that the law should be changed? I’m unaware of any demands from her that all case files involving all allegations of rape (including those from real victims) be publicly released. But perhaps Murphy has become a born-again civil libertarian.

Then again, I doubt it.


Anonymous said...

There is a much larger issue here. Murphy represents a whole new viewpoint of criminal prosecution, one in which evidence no longer matters. It is based upon a point of view that says criminal prosecutions must be based solely upon political objectives, and that politics should be the deciding factor of guilt and innocence.

Murphy, in a USA Today column, declared that the real evidence of the crime was being hidden by the defense attorneys, who were refusing to release those 1,000 pages. This is based upon legal thinking that is nonexistent in the law itself; that documents which demonstrate guilt of the accused that are available both to the prosecution AND the defense can be withheld on demand by the defense.

This is nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that now exists in American legal circles. It is the nonsense that Karla Holloway gives every time she opens her mouth when teaching a class at Duke Law School, and what Murphy teaches at New England School of Law.

The USA no longer is a place where rule of law prevails. Instead, political trials are the order of the day. We have lost something that we never will get back in our lifetimes.

Anonymous said...

A classic case of Murphy's Law ??

Anonymous said...

I again wonder, if wicked wendy wants the file released why does she not go down to North Carolina and represent Mike Nifong in the civil suit.

Someone correct me if I am wrong. If she were Nifong's attorney, via discovery, she would have access to most, if not all, of what the lacrosse players have on Nifong. I say, in spite of her posturing, wicked wendy knows Nifong's case had no merit.

I also recall wicked wendy, in a recent letter to the editor, stated the only significant evidence in a rape trial ought to be the testimony of the accuser. Has she ever commented on Timothy Cole, a man wrongfully convicted of rape mainly on the testimony of the accuser. Mr. Cole was eventually exonerated AFTER he had died in prison.

I bet wicked wendy wonders why there are so many lawyer jokes?

Anonymous said...

Isn't she an alleged attorney?

Anonymous said...

The only person or persons trying to hide public documents was?were the person?persons responsible for/to the public which, if I understand it, was/were responsible for the law as it is applied equally to all of us, a point of which Murphy seems to be completely unaware. The DNA results were, of course, "hidden" in plain sight . . . pages and pages of technical jargon which had to be researched by a competent and caring lawyer for the defense. The "facts" of the case were kept from the public by the government's perverted district attorney. Does Murphy speak to this . . . no, she is part of the fraud of dishonest know-it-alls and naysayers who have plagued this story from the outset, and she has been allowed to get away with her behavior and to profit from it.

Anonymous said...

There is someone who posts here who asks over and over about certain people if they are communists. Perhaps it is done as a joke, but the behavior of many of the Murphys and Holloways are in the nature of the bolshevik who refuse any and all truth but their own. Bill Anderson is more right than wrong in his assessment of this behavior. Decent people have a hard time dealing with the behavior of the Duke88 and their ilk. Their motive and actions are more like the Salem witch trials than any reasoned application of the law.

rabbit said...

There are so many gaping holes in the Murphy's article that one is left wondering about her mental state.

Is she really as ignorant as she appears, or is something else going on? The "tax watchdog" theme is a fig leaf that does little to conceal her true motifs - that is, to create doubt about the innocence of the Duke lacrosse players.

She seems to be leaning towards the tried-and-true "consipiracy theory" strategy now. What is government hiding, and above all, why? Inquiring minds need to know!

I wonder why the editors of the Patriot Ledger accepted this confused article.

One Spook said...

I have a suggestion for Wendy Murphy. All she needs to do is get in touch with Duff Wilson at the New York Times in order to examine all of the files in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.

After all, in writing his infamous and highly discredited report in the August 25, 2006 Times, Wilson claimed to have conducted "[A]n examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution ..."


One Spook

Anonymous said...

The Murphy article falls into the "Bullshit Baffles Brains" category. It baffles KC and all who comment here. Those who read Murphy most likely do not know that DiW exists. So on their own, Murphy's comments are very effective.
So sad, too bad.

North of Detroit.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy demonstrates that she is more than a racist moron ...and under closer examination, now, a fraud!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Spook,
I followed the link to your blog "One Spook's Musings" but found nothing! Up here a "Spook" may be a derogatory term. Please provide more details.

North of Detroit

W. R. Chambers said...

I may well have missed it but I didn't see where is Ms. Murphy an adjunct professor. Does anyone (who posts here) know?

Locomotive Breath said...

Murphy represents a whole new viewpoint of criminal prosecution, one in which evidence no longer matters.

New to the US. In use elsewhere at many times and many places. Otherwise known as a show trial.

One Spook said...

North of Detroit writes @ 4:21 PM:

"I followed the link to your blog "One Spook's Musings" but found nothing! Up here a "Spook" may be a derogatory term. Please provide more details."

I have nothing posted on the Blog, which is why you found "nothing."

"One Spook" is an old nickname. It wasn't assigned. I earned it. Generally, folks just call me "Spook." FYI, "Mr. Spook" refers to another person who is now dead. The nickname isn't meant to be derogatory.

In some parts of the South, "North" may be a derogatory term.

Be careful.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

KC said - It’s hard to figure out what Murphy is talking about in this passage. The only item from the file never released was the roughly 1000 pages of Mangum’s psychological history.

Truth be told, KC, we don't really know that. People tend to confuse the discovery file w/ the investigation file, and the former is but a subset of the latter. I'm not sure that we can know with certainty that we've seen all the discovery file (less the med files). The defense certainly can't be expected to release all the allowed docs. The 1850 pages that One Spook mentions that Duff claimed to have seen is the discovery file only, tho one would think that, if there were anything incriminating, that Duff as well as Nifong would have disclosed it.

But there's plenty of SP files that we know haven't seen the light of day. Some states do allow the release of investigative files; NC just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Anonymous said...

Well, this may be a first: Prof. Johnson and Prof. Anderson both wrong in the same day. KC seemed to anticipate his error when he said, "It’s hard to figure out what Murphy is talking about in this passage." Prof. Anderson then misread the passage by interpreting it to mean that, "Murphy, in a USA Today column, declared that the real evidence of the crime was being hidden by the defense attorneys, who were refusing to release those 1,000 pages."

This mistake they make is in putting Murphy's note that "the defense has released parts of the record" together with her complaint that "the entire record should be released" and reading that to mean that "the defense should release the entire record". This is an understandable misreading, given the somewhat confusing Murphy prose. Clearly, though, she knows that the defense does not have most of the record -- or in fact, any of the record that she wants to see.

What Murphy is demanding here is that all records -- that is, public records -- should be released. These would be the records of the Durham DA office, the North Carolina AG office, and any other public authority having possession or control of the records.

Therefore, on this issue, I think Murphy is on our side.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy is a Feminist media hound

Gary Packwood said...

I think she is fishing and hopes to connect Robert Steel, Chairman of the Board of Duke with the Duke University lacrosse rape hoax along with his involvement with the US Treasury funding for banks and AIG.

Steel was appointed US Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance in 2006.

Wendy wants us as "citizen-overseers" to give her permission to go after Robert Steel and Duke and the Duke Men's lacrosse team...all at the same time.

A hat trick as it were.

Wendy J. Murphy
Adjunct Professor of Law
New England School of Law
B.A. Boston College
J.D. New England Law | Boston
Sexual Violence (Perspectives in Law)

unbekannte said...

From Wendy Murphy:

"The public has a right to see all the witness statements and unredacted DNA tests so we can understand how a seasoned prosecutor got it so wrong."

A "seasoned prosecutor" who "got it so wrong" was Wendy Murphy. Wendy Murphy's agenda seems to be to deny "The public" any understanding as to how she "got it so wrong."

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Con Artist?

Michael said...

Wendy Murphy likes to think of herself as being more on the conservative side of politics.

I didn't hear her this week as my schedule has changed but should catch her radio spot (she's on Tom Finneran's morning show) next week.

It will be interesting to see if she gets some calls on the Duke Lacrosse case next week. For the most part, Murphy does fluff pieces. I'd love it KC or Bill called into her show to ask her about it. A debate would be great too.

Anonymous said...

We do not know what what is a derogatory term or not as it depends on the context. Think of all the perfectly good English words on probation from such restricted thought eg, "my little horse must think it queer..." One Spook may be referring to a personna as a CIA agent or it may be an ironic labeling as a self-referenced
member of a minority group a-la the label "thugniggaintulectual" (sp?). His blog site indicates a case of bloggers block hopefully not contagious to some other bloggers. It is easy to imagine being a blogger but somewhat more problematic to put into action.

W. R. Chambers said...

From the New England Law School website:

Wendy J. Murphy, Adjunct Professor of Law
B.A. Boston College
J.D. New England Law | Boston
Sexual Violence (Perspectives in Law)

Law professors like poets have a certain license, a certain freedom to speculate but when they ignore relevant facts and speak or write with great authority untethered to and in conflict with readily available facts they lose their credibility. The title "professor" can provide only so much cover before the presumption of authority and respect normally attached to it is replaced by a reputation for whackiness.

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

skwilli said...

Ouch Wendy, that has to hurt! When will the TV stations stop putting this hack on the air?

Anonymous said...

I have to side with Wendy Murphy. Why won't the defense release the 1000 pages? Why won't KC Johnson put pressure on the defense to release those pages & prove Wendy Murphy wrong?

KC Johnson, prove Wendy Murphy a liar? Your move, KC.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 10.49:

The defense attorneys (along with the state AG's office) is bound by a court order not to release the 1000 pages of Mangum's psychological case file. This is, of course, the only material in the file that the court has withheld from public view.

Mangum, of course, could release the file herself.

I have no doubt that defense attorneys would support a Wendy Murphy motion to the court calling for the court to release its seal on the 1000 pages of Mangum's psychological history.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, Ms. Murphy isn't calling for the release of any (more) of the defense files. All of those which can be released have been released! She's calling for the release of the prosecutors' files. In addition, her call should be read as applying to all those files currently being hidden behind the Blue Wall of Silence at Duke.

So, to the "anonymous" at 10:49, will you join us in calling for Duke coming out from behind its Blue Wall of Silence to reveal the records of its actions in the Hoax? Your move, "anonymous".


Debrah said...

Take a look at this website from the fall of 2007.

Very funny.

Someone is joking that KC is smitten by Murphy.

"But then came the downside. It seems that KC Johnson, in his brilliant blawg Durham-In-Wonderland, was enticed by the wonder of Wendy Murphy as well. And well before me (and with good reason, given Wendy's omnipresence on the Mike Nifong side of truth and justice ). So KC did a short spin through the life of Wendy."

Didn't know Wendy Murphy had five children.

When does she find the time to defend so many false rape accusers?

Anonymous said...

Contemplating Wendy Murphy leaves one with the same sense of existential darkness as does the contemplation of Eichmann, or Beria or Bush.

The shameful truth is that Wendy Murphy is an absolutely typical American law enforcement official. She does not differ in any significant way from the main body of law enforcement personnel and their everyday practise.

All law enforcement personnel (cops, prosecutors and judges) are originally selected, with sophisticated psychological testing, from the pool of sadists who are sufficiently functional to maintain outward appearances. Wendy Murphy is a typical, and very public, example of this functional psychopath type.

Comments here, and in other places, are frequently very critical of law enforcement (Durham cops, judges and prosecutors). This critical stance is mostly about the identiies of the victims. If Nifong had been doing his thing on Churchill or Mumia or Ted Kennedy or Bill Ayers, this subset of objectors would instead be Nifong supporters claiming that such criticism is a species of treaon properly punished by summary sanctions.

Just trying to provide a little reasonable context on the Wendy Murphy issue.

Anonymous said...

I am something of a true crime junkie. A problem with some female prosecutors (especially those who specialize in sex crimes) is that they will believe a woman over a man in all situations. Wendy Murphy is the ultimate example. I used to watch the Nancy Grace show a lot, but can no longer stand it. Grace simply isn't very smart along with her other negatives. I once heard her say (also in her book)that she was shocked, just shocked when the U.S. Supreme Court split along party lines deciding the 2000 election. Nancy Grace thought that before then, Supreme Court justices did not issue rulings according to politics.

The best and most honest prosecutors are not politically ambitious. I happen to know one. He told me, "Nifong's conduct was despicable. A prosecutor will have no credibility with the public, who make up the jury pool, if he acts like Nifong."

In Durham, credibility of this kind may not matter.


Anonymous said...

Once aain, found at Minding the Campus:

Supporters of Capitalism Are Crazy, Says Harvard

unbekannte said...

Anonymous from 3/19/09 10:49 AM:

You are calling upon Professor Johnson to "prove Wendy Murphy a liar". I think Professor Johnson has shown quite clearly Wendy Murphy's disregard for the truth.

Once again an individual distorts due process(you sound like the individual who called on Professor Johnson to reveal the truth behind the Dave Evans indictment). Wendy Murphy has charged that the defense lawyers are withholding evidence. It is up to Wendy Murphy to prove her allegation. You are imposing upon Professor Johnson the requirement to disprove it. That is not how due process works, not in the US, not in many other major democracies. If you do believe Ms. Murphy's allegation, then YOU would provide the evidence to prove it, rather than challenge someone to disprove it.

It has been pointed out in this blog that Wendy Murphy has not offered to represent Mike Nifong in this lawsuit. Mike Nifong's attorney would have a better chance of seeing the evidence than wicked wendy now has.

My opinion is, wendy does not want any evidence to come out. She wants to create doubt which will shield her from acknowledging to the public that she "got it so wrong".

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Murphy must be trying to introduce us to a new legal theory, one that says that even though prosecutors and defense attorneys have access to the same inculpatory information, if the defense does not want that information used, then a prosecutor is powerless to use it. Yes, that is what she is trying to say.

I can see that one of Nifong's supporters (10:49) must also believe in that new legal theory. Who knows? Maybe Nifong believes in it, too.

Readers who have been with this blog since the beginning might recall that just before the December 15 hearing, the one in which Nifong's "evidence" imploded, a number of Durham posters were claiming that Nifong was going to unveil his secret, super informant. Yes, people were claiming that Nifong had found a witness who was going to spill the beans.

Too bad for Nifong and his supporters that the "super" witness just happened to be Brian Meehan, who became the star witness -- for the defense!

By the way, Murphy was throwing out all sorts of new and crazy ideas, including one email to her supporters that went along with Nifong's "new and improved" timeline and then insisted that Reade Seligmann was guilty.

Why did Murphy know Seligmann was guilty? Well, he left the party early and (in Murphy's words) was "frantically" calling a cab.

Wendy Murphy is a pathological liar. I think it is fitting that she has worked as a prosecutor, since that is a profession that seems to attract pathological liars.

Anonymous said...

So, to the "anonymous" at 10:49, will you join us in calling for Duke coming out from behind its Blue Wall of Silence to reveal the records of its actions in the Hoax? Your move, "anonymous".

Er~ No. All investigative files, All special prosecutor files are what I am speaking of. Will you join in calling for all THOSE files to be released? Then we shall see if Wendy Murphy is a liar. I think NOT. KC Johnson likes to talk a good game. But your game is nothing unless you back it up. Your move, KC,& "anonymous 131".

One Spook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Why did Murphy know Seligmann was guilty? Well, he left the party early and (in Murphy's words) was "frantically" calling a cab.

Which is Wendy Murphy lying about..

1.Seligmann left the party early
2.Seligmann was "frantically" calling a cab

Wendy Murphy is a pathological liar. I think it is fitting that she has worked as a prosecutor, since that is a profession that seems to attract pathological liars.

What does your profession attract?

Anonymous said...

Reade Seligmann did not "frantically" call a cab. In fact, if the guy were frantic, he would have run like heck back to his dorm, since 610 N. Buchanan is right by the Duke campus. So, Murphy is lying about that.

As for liars and prosecutors, I think we have seen enough evidence from this case and from the many cases uncovered by Radley Balko that many prosecutors have lied and suborned perjury as well.

Granted, I am a college professor, and we saw plenty of evidence of lying by Duke "Angry Studies" professors. However, I am not part of that set of "disciplines."

(Not that economists have exactly distinguished themselves in this latest financial meltdown. Ben Bernanke is an economist and he is insisting that we can print money and spend our way to prosperity. You can decide whether or not this is accurate on his part. Such a strategy does not seem to have worked well throughout history, most recently in Zimbabwe.)

I do think it is interesting to see that Nifong's supporters still are insisting that the evidence demonstrated a rape. Of course, I am sure that these same people insist that Jermaine Burch is innocent.

One Spook said...

This is an interesting discussion:

KC originally posted: " It's hard to figure out what Murphy is talking about in this passage. The only item from the file never released was the roughly 1000 pages of Mangum’s psychological history.

Then Righteous Thug commented: "I'm not sure that we can know with certainty that we've seen all the discovery file (less the med files). The defense certainly can't be expected to release all the allowed docs."

Then Anon @ 10:26 commented: "What Murphy is demanding here is that all records -- that is, public records -- should be released. These would be the records of the Durham DA office, the North Carolina AG office, and any other public authority having possession or control of the records."

As others have written, it is incumbent upon Murphy to be very specific about what constitutes "full disclosure of the file" that she wishes to be released.

If any of you have not read the link KC provided here, you need to read it in its entirety.

In reading that (one of the best posts ever to appear on this Blog in over 1,000 posts), you will quickly see that, unlike what Anon @ 4:35 would have you believe, Wendy Murphy is a colossal liar and misstated both fact and law throughout her reporting on this case.

Murphy's present "call" is tantamount to saying "What about the little green men who died in a spaceship in Roswell, NM in 1946?" It is pure fantasy and conjecture, and until she can prove otherwise and back it up with facts, she remains a libelous liar who has never gotten anything "right" throughout this episode.

Anon @ 4:35, what you need to do is get in touch with Murphy and ask her just what items from the file she wishes to see released.

Until you can do that, Anon, no reasonable person can take you seriously. You're tilting at windmills at best.

One Spook

Debrah said...

To "anonymous" (4:44 PM)--

If you are not Nifong's goofy sister who used to send glowing testimonials to local newspapers about what an upstanding man Mikey is, then you have to be one of the authors of the website supporting "justice for Nifong".

The one with padded rooms in pastel pink.

Wendy Murphy is a screeching kook who reminds me, visually, of the late Mercedes McCambridge who provided the demonic voice of Satan in The Exorcist that was heard every time Linda Blair's head went for a twirl.

Murphy has that same hard evil glare when she starts talking about "rapists".

I rarely see her these days and that's a positive thing.

Screaming on the radio is more her style.

Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia:
The New England School of Law (also known as New England Law or NESL) is a professional graduate school located in Boston, Massachusetts. In 2008, the school's 100th anniversary the school has adopted the name New England Law | Boston. New England Law is characterized by substantive instruction with a strong foundation in ethics.

Guesss Wendy must have missed that!

Debrah said...

First Trinity Park, now Trinity Heights

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 4.35:

I fully support the release of the 1000 pages of Mangum's psychological history, the only item from the case file "withheld from public view."

Indeed, I will make a commitment to post the 1000 pages should Ms. Murphy's apparent crusade to secure the release of these 1000 pages be realized.

Anonymous said...

Wendy J Murphy was admitted to the Mass State bar on 12-22-1987. So yes, she is an attorney.

Whether one would hire her as legal counsel is an entirely different question.

Anonymous said...

Thanks One Spook for the link to KC's earlier post documenting Murphy's many lies. Anybody trying to defend Murphy's credibility needs to read that post.

I cannot fathom how, being a parent herself, she could lie about the Duke kids in a way calculated to do such harm. Pathological is right.

She brings a whole new meaning to "Murphy's Law": Whatever way she can go wrong, she will go wrong.


Anonymous said...

In fact, if the guy were frantic, he would have run like heck back to his dorm, since 610 N. Buchanan is right by the Duke campus.

True or False. Did he or did he not leave the party & run to get in the cab? When police arrived at the scene, no one was at 610 N. Buchanan. The party goers ran. Why did they run?

Those 1000 pages should be released to the public and I'm not speaking of Crystal Mangum's medical file. We already know Crystal Mangum's medical file will not be released, so stop trying to throw people off. The public deserves to know. Are you afraid of the what those pages might reveal? Prove Wendy Murphy a liar or maybe you're afraid of Wendy?

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 3/19/09 5:45 PM said...

...First Trinity Park, now Trinity Heights
Thanks Debrah for finding this however I doubt if any of the people interviewed or referenced in the article want to solve the problem with noise and trash generated by Duke students. If they did, they would be studying solutions that actually work.

Google is their friend at Duke and Durham.

Ohio University & Athens, Ohio Noise Ordinance

Ohio University & Athens Trash Ordinance

Building a Sense of Community (Ohio University & Athens, Ohio)

Setting Expectations for Parties (Joint Ohio University & Athens, Ohio Meeting)

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 8.43:

You have left me puzzled. You state, "We already know Crystal Mangum's medical file will not be released." I'm afraid, then, that I don't know the purpose of the demand offered by either you or Ms. Murphy, since those 1000 pages were the only items that the Court ordered withheld from public view.

I will repeat my offer to you (and to Ms. Murphy--if, in fact, you are not Ms. Murphy operating under the cloak of anonymity, but merely someone repeating her statements): I will post the entire 1000 pages that "have been withheld from public view" if Ms. Murphy is able to persuade the judge to lift the seal--or to persuade her "victim," Ms. Mangum, to release the file.

As for your other insinuations: I urge you to visit Roswell, where you can join the search for the remnants of the lost UFO.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/19/09 4:35 PM:

Anonymous 3/19/09 8:43 PM:

Anonymous 3/19/09 4:44 PM:

The burden is now on Wendy Murphy, not Professor Johnson. Her allegation is that the defense withheld evidence. It is her obligation, and YOUR obligation if you are wendy's advocate, to prove her allegation, not Professor Johnson's to disprove it. Why are you failing to prove it? Why are you trying to duck it?

Regarding Bill Anderson's most recent comment, I recall, after AG Roy Cooper announced the Lacrosse players were innocent, John Gibson interviewed wendy via telephone. At that time wendy herself was proclaiming that Nifong had undisclosed evidence which would show the Lacrosse players were guilty, evidence which he would reveal in a book.

At least, following cgm's "memoir", wendy is no longer claiming cgm was paid off. That was a situation in which she spectacularly "got it so wrong".

Finally, regarding Reade Seligman and his "frantic" call for a cab. The blogger of the justice4nifong gang of 3 has alleged that the Seligman family paid off Mr. Elmostafa. They base that absurdity on the transcript of an MSNBC interview with Mr. Elmostafa. wendy was a guest on that same show which presented the interview. wendy has never made any claim that The Seligman family paid off Mr. Elmostafa.

Anonymous said...

The "discussion" on this particular thread seems to be a microcosm of the lacrosse case itself. Our anonymous poster seems to think that there is hidden evidence somewhere that proves Crystal's story to be correct, even though that is not the case.

Reade Seligmann's early departure from the party also is held out as "proof" that he raped Crystal. You see, according to Wendy Murphy and her supporters, there could be only one reason he left. If the timelines don't make sense, then you make up a new timeline out of whole cloth.

When the time-stamped photos make the new timeline impossible, one simply declares that the times on the photos were "doctored." Such statements are made without any proof at all that such things happened, but nonetheless we have seen that any allegation is assumed to be the rock-hard truth, and anything else a lie.

The thing that is most illuminating here is that Murphy is a regular at making charges against people. She was involved in the Fells Acre case, in which the Amiraul family was falsely accused of child molestation, a case that Dorothy Rabinowitz tore apart in her Pulitzer Prize-winning columns in the Wall Street Journal.

Nevertheless, Murphy and her friends continue to make the allegations, which destroyed people's lives, drove some to early deaths, and left ruin in their wake. Murphy was untouched.

I must admit that the American justice system is something that today is unrecognizable. It is a system in which innocence is not enough and evidence is disregarded if it does not fit a prosecutor's narrative. The Tim Masters case in Colorado is a great example. The people who lied and withheld evidence are still gainfully employed in the "justice" system, one being a judge.

We also have seen the NAACP, which for many years did heroic work in the area of witness identification, throw out everything in order to pursue a false and wrongful conviction, simply for racial reasons. In other words, the very conduct that the NAACP has decried in the past when whites railroaded innocent black males into prison or death chambers is now acceptable in NAACP quarters, as long as the races are reversed.

I'm not surprised to see the anonymous poster continue to make the same lies, and they are lies. This case was built on lies, and it appealed to people like Murphy and Nifong, both of whom are pathological liars. Unfortunately, the Nifongs and Murphies are the face of this country's "justice" system today.

Despite the fact that the lacrosse charges were dislodged after the expense of millions of dollars, it is clear to me that our situation now is hopeless. It only will get worse, as prosecutors now know they can charge whomever they want with crimes and if the people charged are not rich, they will go to prison or face death no matter how innocent they might be. That is the monster we have created.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 8:43:

You seem to be saying that the defense is withholding 1,000 pages of documents IN ADDITION to the medical records. Do you have any basis at all for that statement? Exactly what types of documents are you referring to? Attorney notes or communications with their clients? Witness statements? What? Anyone can say just about anything, but the burden is on you to show at least some basis for your allegation, since it strongly implies a coverup.......... the ball is indeed in your court.

Anonymous said...

The 8.43 is probably the reharmonizer moron.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3/19/09 8:43 PM:

Nice try but you are starting to look very foolish.

Go back to sleep, bub.


Anonymous said...

One of the worst downsides of the Internet is that one can say just about anything, no matter how irresponsible. If Anonymous at 8:43 has ANY basis for his assertion, I'm all ears.... what on earth are you referring to? Materials held by the defense? What materials? Materials held by a public agency or Duke? Your assertion makes no sense without, ahem, a "clarification".

Anonymous said...

Real lawyers, ones that practice every day, wince when talking heads like Murphy weigh in on any legal issue.

A law professor is generally an out of touch academic that eschewed actual practice or was pushed out because of rank incompetence or an inability to follow the law.

Law professors can say, believe and write anything: they don't have to follow the law or persuade a judge (who is bound most times). Law professors find esteem and awards not for following the law, but being edgy and outside the law as normal lawyers understand it.

Unlike a chemistry professor that cannot claim oil and water mix, law professors become progressively out of touch with law as practiced and as it really exists.

They argue for restrictions on free speech because they politicize nude photographs; they think there is a "hate speech" exception to the first Amendment. Some like Murphy would turn upside down, the burdens of proof in criminal cases as every practicing lawyer understands them.

Allowing Murphy to comment on criminal law is like having a barista advise on astro physics or an animal shelter volunteer define the standard of care for ER physicians.

Anonymous said...

7:33 AM

We don't need no stinkin' text to know that north is always wrong." Er, . . . ok, ok . . . North as in North Carolina, maybe, but that is the point and the attitude of those like Wendy Murphy, the DukeGroup88, and the feminist, and others of their ilk if all it takes is accusation you have no law or sane society. If you define everthing in such a way as to not allow any defense you have no law but that of the lynch mob . . . it sounds familiar . . . can you say Duke University and remember the actions of those who should have known better as they pursued the modern equivalent of the Salem trials . . . not a trial of witches but one by witches or bolsheviks who cared nothing for the truth only caring for power and their pound of flesh which they got from those who were supposed to be in charge, but were known not to be.

These malevolent reactionaries were rewarded in their attempt and were not held accountable as individuals . . . they still ply their trade . . . in South, I say South ( a wonderful word) I say South as in South Carolina a small textile community . . . at once considered an "ignorant" benighted community possessed of few if any PhD's was blessed with a wise law officer who was able to see through the accusations of a woman. One whose same accusations would some years ago have lead to a lynching or two in a situation not unlike Durham's but one with more intelligent people. These accusation would have run their course at the real cost of human life . . . this is what fools like Murphy and the DukeGroup88 feminists refuse to understand about their own behavior. As it was, the ruin of several young men nearly happened at Durham. The "educated" classes in this country have become fools.

Anonymous said...

Murphy is astonishingly misguided (to put it kindly). NC has an open discovery law, and she can review the file any time she likes. The portions of Mangum's psychological history can also be released if Ms. Murphy feels like writing a motion to unseal (I believe they were subject to a seal order by the Court if memory serves) these portions of the record.


Anonymous said...

It is interesting to read many of the comments based in "fact" as many of them are, but at bottom, this is an argument of power driven by control of narrative or definitions . . . controlling the metanarative at the bottom of which are assumptions concerning women . . . all women are abused, raped, or tell the truth, etc. If that is the demanded "truth," and a certain group demands that it is the truth, than all argument or discussion or "other" truth is to be dismissed, denied, and derided. People who think this way . . . the DukeGroup88 and Murphy are frauds.

Gary Packwood said...

Dule 1965 :: 3/20/09 12:41 PM :: said...

...One of the worst downsides of the Internet is that one can say just about anything, no matter how irresponsible.
Ponder but for a brief moment all those things they were saying behind our backs before the Internet!

You need only scroll up to 12:55 and read about 'rank incompetence' of legal minds in the academy. All of 'em...apparently.

Durham-in-Wonderland has given me a new appreciation for the practical application of freedom and freedom of speech.

Jungle Jim said...

What gets me about these allegations that some 'evidence' exists to prove Mangum's claims is why didn't Nifong make it public? He lost his job, his law license, and spent one night in jail over this case. If he had some real evidence, he would have made it public long ago.

JSwift said...

There are hundreds of pages included in discovery (excluding Crystal's medical and psychological reports) which have not been made public.

Nifong provided many pages of allegedly duplicate or irrelevant information. We have not seen this information because of its unimportance to the AG's investigation and in Nifong's disbarment hearing and criminal contempt trial.

I suspect that the 8:43 realizes that the missing pages contain no important information relevant to the criminal case that is damaging to the players.

The DPD may have uncovered some embarrassing incidents--they spent far more effort investigating the players' pasts than in investigating the case. Because Nifong did not use this information, we may guess that they are less embarrassing than the McFadyen e-mail.

Dirt is apparently all that interests the 8:43.

Anonymous said...

Chances are, if the SP's gathered any substantial or significant evidence that has not been released, that it is at least embarrassing, if not devastating in terms of the pending lawsuits, to the Durham DA's office, to NC democrats, and to Duke.

What the conspiracy theorists fail to remember is that Coman and Winstead were known as unrelenting hardliners with regard to their prior prosecutions.

If there was any way to move forward with charges against anyone, they would have done something - anything - to prosecute someone - anyone.

Wendy Murphy hates herself so much, and she cannot believe that she is wrong in this case, that she must continue to smear the falsely accused with innuendo and malicious conspiracy theories.

I refuse to use the names of the falsely accused. They deserve better.

If there is a hell, the underworld is collectively rubbing their hands, and chuckling, in anticipation of Murphy's arrival.

Give it up, you Nifongerers!

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to see the lies that have come from Nifong's camp over the past year. His Great Defender Sydney Harr has declared that the Seligmanns paid off Moez Elmostafa, and we also have read other personal attacks on Reade, Collin, and David.

This case has brought together a whole host of pathological liars from Harr to Nifong to Murphy to Mangum to Nancy Grace. Three of those liars actually have held the power to charge people with crimes and to have them railroaded into prison. That is the most frightening thing of all.

Anonymous said...

The above postings point out, once again, why the civil suits need to proceed. RCD will continue to be hounded by innuendoes from the likes of Murphy, Tyson, et al as well as those supporters of Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum who maintain that "something happened". It will only be when Duke, Durham, the Durham PD, and DUMC are forced to apy and pay big that there will be some justice - there will never be complete justice because the lacrosse players and their families can never get back the sleepless nights, the worry they suffered, and the monetary losses they incurred as a result of one woman's false claims, a rogue prosecutor, a corrupt police department, a medical center that failed to follow its stated policies, a SANE nurse in training who had an ideological ax to grind, a group of professors who were more interested in advancing their own agendas than they were in the truth, a university administration that cared not a wit about its own students, and finally a BOT that was only concerned about the Duke brand than in the truth.

Anonymous said...

Vincent Clark appears to have left the following post to Murphy’s article:

“I have been reluctant to comment on blogs, message boards and newspaper sites. For almost three years I have been involved in the this case as confidant to the accuser and more recently the publisher of a book about Crystal Mangum. I can't remain the sidelines any longer. Wendy has a very valid point. We have been trying to get the North Carolina to release the records from the case. Crystal doesn't have anything to hide but others do. Take that anyway you want. I have a problem with the fact that anytime anyone wants to ask a question about how the AG handled the case, they get shouted down or shut out period. There is much more to know about this case and to be discussed. From a legal stand point, this certainly ranks as the most important case in North Carolina. Never has there ever been a sitting DA removed from office. We all know there have been much more serious allegations of misconduct by officials. Not a single DA other than Mike Nifong has ever been punished to such an extent and NO it was not justified. Crystal has made no money from the case. She went on the finish college like the others did. I an sick and tired of people talking about Nifong using this to advance his career or the professors on campus being responsible for a witch hunt. That is all myth! Release all of the records in the case like Ms. Murphy suggests. If the city of Durham or anyone is going to continue to spend money to fight litigation or pay damages, then there needs to be a full accounting of everything that happened. For the people who have made every effort to keep the records out of the public, you may have won for now but you can't keep it up forever.”

To which I responded:

If Mr. Clark doesn’t wish to remain on the sidelines any longer, perhaps he will tell us what is hidden in the files yet to be released. Anybody that has followed the civil suits know that the lax players have been trying for over a year to start discovery and want the full story known to all. The parties doing all that they can to suppress discovery are the city of Durham, Duke University, and Mike Nifong. If one were to believe Clark and Murphy, you would think that at least Nifong would want discovery to move forward a quickly as possible. (Of course after seeing his legal brilliance so far, maybe not.) Just what is the smoking gun that Murphy and Clark expect to be uncovered if the files are released? Stop making baseless insinuations and tell us what you think is being hidden or STFU!


Anonymous said...

Clark, Murphy, et al are engaging in the time honored tradition of those who claim that there has to be something else and then claim that far and wide demanding that what they claim "must exist" because they "claim it to be so" be made public because the failure to do so proves the existence of "said evidence".
This claim has its origins in the NY Times article of 2006 in which the reporter (I believe it was Duff Wilson) said that he had seen evidence from Nifong's office that showed the three men were guilty. Of course, the Public Editor of the NY Times would later take the reporters and The Times to task over the article as well as that assertion. The article was part of an attempt by Nifong and his office to institute damage control over a case that was quickly unraveling.
Clark should ask his client Crystal to reveal her medical records. Both Clark and Murphy should detail what evidence they believe has not been made public. THey will do neither because in the first instance, Ms Mangum does not want her medical history revealed and in the second because both Clark and Murphy's claims are nothing more than their febrile imaginations.

Anonymous said...

Exactly right, jvj! If there were some "smoking gun" hidden in the files, I can guarantee you it would have been uncovered and used. Furthermore, Durham and Duke would have used this information in their responses.

What Nifong's people are doing is what they did all during the time the criminal case was alive: make allegations and then tell the defense, "Disprove this!"

Had there been a legitimate criminal case, Coman and Winstead would have pursued it. The entire North Carolina justice system was taking a beating and they would have been quite glad to have vindicated it.

Instead, we have people like Nifong and Murphy and others just telling one lie after another, and then demanding we disprove them. This case started with a lie, and it continues as one lie after another being told by Nifong and his supporters.

unbekannte said...

Someone should ask clark why cgm has not filed a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. That would compel discovery of much of the info clark alleges is hidden.

The last time I checked, cgm's "book" was about 1.4 millionth in sales. Most of the reviews have been negative. Did cgm publish this "book" to test public opinion, to argue her case in the court of public opinion?

If so, the court of public opinion is finging heavily for the Lacrosse players and against her. Most of the public believes the revealed evidence, that cgm falsely accused three innocent men of raping her. There is no unrevealed evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Someone should ask clark why cgm has not filed a civil suit against the Lacrosse players. That would compel discovery of much of the info clark alleges is hidden.

If Crystal Mangum is lying, then why isn't she added to the civil suits? Or is someone afraid of pushing the issue? If someone has NOTHING to hide then why not add her to the suits. Wasn't there a law suit that was suppose to be filed against her if the book was published? What happened there? Crystal is NOT afraid to talk and tell what "happened".

Most of the reviews have been negative. Did cgm publish this "book" to test public opinion, to argue her case in the court of public opinion?

That's easy. The book reviews are most likely negative because of the lying liars that are trying to shout her down & shut her up. Seems like someone protest too much.

I believe a full disclosure of the file would solve many unanswered questions.

Anonymous said...

Well, 11:33, Crystal always can sue, which would compel the opening of those files. Whoops! Crystal's early plan to sue (egged on by Mark Simeon and others) kind of fell flat.

By the way, how much money did Crystal receive from the government "victims' fund" during that time? Isn't it time for some disclosure?

Anonymous said...

the 11:33 AM said,
"If Crystal Mangum is lying, then why isn't she added to the civil suits?"

Because she has no assets to pursue. Because, as the NC A/G said, there is no purpose in litigation against her.

Still unanswered by this commenter is exactly WHAT s/he expects to be revealed by "a full disclosure of the file".

IF s/he can articulate the content, or even the subject of the "files", then indeed, we can agree that 'something (a response) happened'.

At this point, the 11:33 would be advised forgo Hamlet (doth protest too much), and consult Macbeth:

"A tale told by an idiot,
Full of Sound and Fury,
Signifying Nothing."

unbekannte said...

It is ironic that wendy murphy would be grousing about concealed information about this case. After the revelation of the DNA findings from DNA Security, wendy was arguing that nifong had a right/duty to withhold that information from the defense, that it was constitutionally protected information via cgm's right to privacy. Enter "Nifong" into a google search and the first hit is a YouTube video in which murphy argues this.

I guess lawyer(?) prosecutor(??) law professor(???) wendy heard neither of North Carolina's open discovery law nor of the Brady versus Maryland decision of the US Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...


This is somewhat off the Wendy topic and back to Robert K. Steele... I just got a Wells Fargo proxy and sadly RKS is up for election to the Board of Directors. If anyone else is a WFC stockholder, I hope you'll vote NO on Mr Steel and let the company know why.

Debrah said...

Just flipped through the channels and saw the last part of a Murphy segment on O'Reilly.

He's really clueless for having that woman on his show.

She's lightened her hair and her lipstick was smeared all over her face.

What a loon.

Her eyes bug out when she gets excited about a Clinton.

Wendy Murphy gives me the creeps.

I didn't get to the segment in time to find what "great work" Murphy had been doing, but O'Reilly praised her for something having to do with helping women.


Stuart McGeady said...

The Fox News crowd appears to be in bed with Wendy Murphy.

Bill O'Reilly penned the foreword of Murphy's book, And Justice For Some, and the book's website displays testimonials from Geraldo Rivera and Andrew Napolitano.

So much for the Fox gang.

I was most disappointed to read a testimonial from Mark Levin, for whom I have great respect. I cannot fathom that Levin would not be informed about Murphy's lies and other despicable work surrounding the Duke rape hoax.

Anonymous said...

Seems some folks are having trouble digesting the fact that some people agree on some things and not on others. Why can't it just be that Wendy Bill O' could sit down and have a discussion and not always reach the same conclusion. The Duke case is not some litmus test on whether or not you are sane. Nobody knows everyhting about any of the cases that we see on the cable shows. Bill says he is in agreement with Murphy about a specific case that happened in Boston. Stop overreacting all of the time.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 5.13:

I don't have a particularly high opinion of Bill O'Reilly, and frankly have no idea what criteria he uses in booking experts.

That said, I believe the issue is not "the fact that some people agree on some things and not on others," but rather Adjunct Professor Murphy's public and demonstrably false statements. It is rare indeed, even in the world of cable television, for a commentator not to be held accountable for such a record--perhaps one reason why CBS did not renew the adjunct professor as a legal analyst.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the reason why CBS didn't renew her as a legal analyst is because there are a million of them running around. They need to be culled like deer from time to time so they don't overgraze.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is that Wendy Murphy and the Duke 88 and all those other idiots who will not look at the facts of the case and see the hoax for what it is, they have to keep the lies alive and upfront, they have to continue to state misfacts, distort truth and make things up....because if they didn't they then would have to admit they were wrong. And they can't do that. Only people who have not integrity, character or raeasoning power can't say they were wrong. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. So instead these weak, mindless nothings will perpetuate the lie. They are worse then Crystal at this point to continue to scar innocent people for nothing more than to save face. Pathetic, if their reasoning power is so twisted and corrupt any thought that comes out of their mouths is just as twisted. They should not be teaching and should not be listened to.