tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post7097812616061150416..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: The Astonishing Wendy Murphykcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67738363070747179412007-10-25T13:39:00.000-04:002007-10-25T13:39:00.000-04:00She's a psychotic who knowingly enables false alle...She's a psychotic who knowingly enables false allegations of rape. Remember when she compared those boys to Hitler? She should look in the mirror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40418350746146287182007-07-20T10:43:00.000-04:002007-07-20T10:43:00.000-04:00It drove me nuts listening to Wendy Murphy talking...It drove me nuts listening to Wendy Murphy talking about the Duke case. She never gave an inch as the evidence crumbled. Did she ever issue any apology or remorse for her stance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86322959214442952092007-05-02T17:30:00.000-04:002007-05-02T17:30:00.000-04:00This entire situation has been driven by Murphy ty...This entire situation has been driven by Murphy types.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74899912596828789102007-05-02T15:43:00.000-04:002007-05-02T15:43:00.000-04:00As a one-time criminal defense lawyer, I note that...As a one-time criminal defense lawyer, I note that defendants are not generally obliged to hand over evidence to the state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-37622942397828359962007-05-02T12:05:00.000-04:002007-05-02T12:05:00.000-04:00The defense is "holding back" evidence and "not co...The defense is "holding back" evidence and "not cooperating"? <BR/>Is she serious? Did they have more than four Amendments at Wendy's law school? <BR/><BR/>If so, did she read the fifth one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87042588808754733182007-05-02T09:41:00.000-04:002007-05-02T09:41:00.000-04:00The only reason people like Wendy Murphy get away ...The only reason people like Wendy Murphy get away with this bs is because they have yet to be in a forum where their opinions are questioned. KC, why don't you challenge Murphy, Nancy Grace or any member of the 88 to a public debate?<BR/> Brant JonesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5011501663891621572007-05-02T07:17:00.000-04:002007-05-02T07:17:00.000-04:00Why does Fox/O'Reilly keep Murphy on the air? I b...Why does Fox/O'Reilly keep Murphy on the air? I believe it's their way of showing how Liberals can be about as dumb as a box of rocks. They also look on it as a ratings boost because people tune in to see how goofy and outrageous Murphy can be. CBS did the same with Rosie O'Donnell (fire won't melt steel) until "something" caused them to part company. I don't watch O'Reilly only because I find him too abrasive, not because he's necessarily wrong in his beliefs. Note also that Fox keeps the arch buffoon and attorney Geraldo Rivera (formerly known as Jerome Rivers before it was advantageous to be Hispanic) on air and allows him to bloviate incessantly. I know many of the posters on this blog are Liberals who despise Fox News, but I ask them: do any of the MSM news shows allow anything but token Conservatives on the air? No. Fox News at least has Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, and Maura Liason as regular advocates of the leftwing views. So what if there are blowhards like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? Point is that Murphy is probably being used as a worst-case example of what happens when we permit a person to be educated beyond their own intelligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-57243590845988358052007-05-02T07:15:00.000-04:002007-05-02T07:15:00.000-04:00As a former Middlesex ADA myself, I just want to s...As a former Middlesex ADA myself, I just want to say that Murphy is in no way representative of the office, which is generally run with, and staffed by attorneys exemplifying, integrity and a sense of fair play. (And by the way, in my fairly short tenure at the office, I alone saw at least two false charges of rape, just as there are on occasion false charges of almost every type of crime -- once you assume that any charge is automatically valid, it destroys the role of the prosecutor as a gatekeeper who does pursue wholly unsupported claims of criminal misconduct, not to mention the presumption of innocence). What an utter and complete joke this woman is. And for those who don't know, being an adjunct at arguably the worst law school in New England is no great honor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-67434655322428726052007-05-02T02:37:00.000-04:002007-05-02T02:37:00.000-04:00If you haven't figured it out by now, the reason M...If you haven't figured it out by now, the reason MSNBC, Fox etc have Wendy Murphy on is precisely because she's an outrageous nut-job. She gets you yelling at your LCD screen, gets your heart pounding and makes whomever she opposes look like a wise sage. <BR/><BR/>Also, people seem to be drawing the wrong lessons: Liberals are hypocritical nuts. WRONG! C'mon, you've got Rush Limbaugh snorking down his drugs, Ted Haggard cavorting with his gay prostitutes, alter boys getting altered and Bush's faith based foolishness. The group of 88, the philandering family values crowd and the right wing nutters have are all united in moral smugness. They know what's right ... for you. Absolutely and from a God-like point of view. <BR/><BR/>If you ever meet people like this, hold your wallet, and inch slowly away never turning your back on them. They are, however, worth listening to since the opposite of what they say is usually the truth.GaryBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02805265981497620290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53628244994326991752007-05-02T00:22:00.000-04:002007-05-02T00:22:00.000-04:00One can only hope that the attorneys for Evans, Se...One can only hope that the attorneys for Evans, Seaigmann, and Finnerty believe that Murphy committed defamation and proceed to sue her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-86882839604039174592007-05-01T23:48:00.000-04:002007-05-01T23:48:00.000-04:00In Murphy's letter, she asks ..."What happened to ...In Murphy's letter, she asks ...<BR/><BR/>"What happened to the idea that the press is the guardian of the public's right to know?"<BR/><BR/>The press is the guardian of the public's right to know? Don't make me laugh. The press is the guardian against dirty windows. A sheet of the NYT, WaPo, whatever, and a spritz of Windex leaves 'em spotless every time.<BR/><BR/>As to Murphy herself ...<BR/><BR/>Since moving to NC (but, thankfully, far away from Durham / Raleigh), I became acquainted with a saying that is prevalent throughout the South -- "Bless (his or her) heart". Oh, I'd heard it before, but never in the context that Southerners (especially the women) use it. Here, it's used to designate someone who is engaging in some kind of nonsensical act or statement. Rather than say something blunt like "wow, what an idiot", the genteel Southerner would simply say "Wendy Murphy said XXX. Bless her heart."<BR/><BR/>And everyone who heard that would immediately think "wow, Wendy Murphy. What an idiot."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83141663438938477932007-05-01T22:59:00.000-04:002007-05-01T22:59:00.000-04:00Send this to Wendy "Women Never Lie" Murphy:From t...Send this to Wendy "Women Never Lie" Murphy:<BR/><BR/>From the (Greensboro) News and Record, May 1, 2007:<BR/><BR/>WINSTON-SALEM — A 25-year-old woman who told authorities she was assaulted by a man at Miller Park has recanted her story, police said Monday night. The assault never occurred.<BR/><BR/>The woman told police that was able to free herself from a knife-wielding man who grabbed her while she was on the walking trails about 6:45 a.m.<BR/><BR/>Police did not release her name, and no charges were immediately filed in the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-8588717133734254302007-05-01T22:57:00.000-04:002007-05-01T22:57:00.000-04:0010:46You make a lot of sense. I too am not an atto...10:46<BR/><BR/>You make a lot of sense. I too am not an attorney, but I think Lubiano will get screwed, and I don't think from a libel charge. I have strong reason to believe that she CONSCIOUSLY published that screed to lynch the boys--highly tortious behavior. There could also be federal civil rights violations.<BR/><BR/>SO, WHY WAS AAAS SO INTERESTED IN RAILROADING THE WHITE GUYS?<BR/><BR/>1. maintaining their victim status so they could continue to extract academic welfare from Duke<BR/><BR/>2. they hate whites<BR/><BR/>3. there is no number three<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55585364555801043142007-05-01T22:46:00.000-04:002007-05-01T22:46:00.000-04:00I am not a lawyer. I would hard classify the indi...I am not a lawyer. I would hard classify the individuals in this case as being public persons. They are not celebrity's (hollywood types), politicians etc. They became the focus of public attention because of being falsely accused of a crime and the work of the media. They did not set out to put themselves into the spotlight exept for the actions of their defense attorneys who where protecting their clients interest.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To me (a prospective juror) a defense to libel or slander that included being a public figure would sound ludicrous because it was the libel/slander/defemation of character that made them public figures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-14919599542701567492007-05-01T21:59:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:59:00.000-04:00Does not look like there is anything left to do wi...Does not look like there is anything left to do with Wendy but to boycott the products and stations that uses her. Worked with Imus, why not here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7837526683444247392007-05-01T21:54:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:54:00.000-04:00Couple of comments:Cedarford, you've got an intere...Couple of comments:<BR/><BR/>Cedarford, you've got an interesting thought about how to get the "talk for pay" TV lawyer pundits to shut up through some means of Bar discipline. Trouble is, there are 51 licensing authorities (counting DC), and there's no way my State Bar here in NC can bring a disciplinary proceding against a Massachusetts lawyer pundit, no matter how big an idiot and blight on the profession she may be. The national ABA, by the way, is a voluntary association, does not license lawyers, so therefore cannot disbar nationally known TV idiots....<BR/><BR/>My other comment centers on the Fifth Amendment, and how utterly stupid Wendy Murphy's notion is that any defense attorney should ever have to give up his/her file contents to the prosecution.... It is grounds for a mistrial for a prosecutor to suggest to a jury that a non-testifying defendant must be guilty, and must be hiding something, when it is the prosecution's BURDEN to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even in the face of the defendant's absolute right to remain silent.<BR/><BR/>Wendy Murphy's ignorant screed about "unreleased defense evidence" does the same thing before the jury of public opinion -<BR/>- she implies guilt by accusing the defense attorneys of hiding something, anything, that she declares must exist, even though she hasn't given one scintilla of a description of what the "1000 pages of documents" are. <BR/><BR/>Some have speculated the documents are the sealed medical records, and that the defense attorneys would be happy to release them if they could. Another suggestion? The documents could be anything in a defense lawyer's file, including legal research, as yet unfiled briefs, hearing notes, factual research and investigation notes, correspondence to clients, etc., etc. NOWHERE in ANY discovery code is it required that a defense attorney turn this type of stuff over to a prosecutor.<BR/><BR/>Why? Fifth Amendment, Wendy. Attorney-client priviledge, Wendy. Attorney work product, Wendy.<BR/><BR/>Wendy's almost up there with Nifong in the "open sore on the face of my profession" department.<BR/><BR/>TaterConAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71577665654648100712007-05-01T21:28:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:28:00.000-04:00Wendy Murphy said......“We don’t have any idea wha...Wendy Murphy said...<BR/>...“We don’t have any idea what the real evidence is in the case.” <BR/>::<BR/>I think if we all read the content on the web site KC provided, http://www.rapeis.org/we will see the philosophical connection to the Women's Center at Duke...alone with the Take Back The Night national organization http://www.takebackthenight.org/<BR/><BR/>The http://www.rapeis.org/web site is supported by grants from the Massachusetts Cultural Council and the organization received funding from the following foundations<BR/><BR/>(1) The Eleanor Humes Haney Foundation (sic) Fund http://www.haneyfund.org/<BR/>(2) The Lucius & Eva Eastman Foundation (1)<BR/>(3) The Puffin Foundation http://www.puffinfoundation.org/<BR/><BR/>I doubt that anyone is going to pry Wendy off the dime until these foundations are contacted and that includes the Massachusetts Cultural Council http://www.massculturalcouncil.org/<BR/><BR/>I recommend caution as I suspect these folks court persecution and would enjoy being victims.<BR/><BR/>(1) The Lucius & Eva Eastman Fund <BR/>Supports film/video on social issues. <BR/>The Lucius & Eva Eastman Fund <BR/>Jennifer Eastman, Attorney at Law <BR/>P.O. Box 470 <BR/>Westwood, MA 02090 <BR/>(phone) 781-329-2473 <BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87794290669409165332007-05-01T21:20:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:20:00.000-04:00Kemp, if I’m counting on getting into law school w...Kemp, if I’m counting on getting into law school with credentials that include classes from the AAAS department, it can’t be a very discerning admissions process. And we know what one faculty member is going through for such retaliation against a lacrosse player.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20885628478237280682007-05-01T21:19:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:19:00.000-04:00WalterYou are so right--the depositions will be mo...Walter<BR/><BR/>You are so right--the depositions will be more fum than a night at the opera!<BR/><BR/>Polanski<BR/><BR/>Saturday Night Live will b e "listening"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-11696132316542114152007-05-01T21:14:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:14:00.000-04:008:50 Thanks for some insight to this issue8:50 Thanks for some insight to this issueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80210303984464576332007-05-01T21:04:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:04:00.000-04:00Sorry to add to above long post, but while the lib...Sorry to add to above long post, but while the libel plaintiff can be the target of nasty depositions, I would pay good money to sit in on the depostions of the libel defendants in this case. Now that would be fun!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-78700656566357396092007-05-01T21:00:00.000-04:002007-05-01T21:00:00.000-04:00speaking od damaged reputations...Can anyone think...speaking od damaged reputations...<BR/><BR/>Can anyone think of anything more ridiculous than what the 88 attempted to to the boys? This is EXTREMELY harmful to Duke's rep, yet Brodhead is out roadshowing what a clueless loser he is<BR/><BR/>is it a coincidence that the stupidest faculty at Duke--AAAS--was principally responsible for 1 of the stupidest displays ever in the history of higher education?<BR/><BR/>It all too logical<BR/><BR/>PolanskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38129792585582500602007-05-01T20:50:00.000-04:002007-05-01T20:50:00.000-04:00Just a small correction of Jeff, at 6:55. Defamat...Just a small correction of Jeff, at 6:55. Defamation is a false statement of fact [written = libel, verbal = slander], not opinion, made "of and concerning" a person [the libel plaintiff], which "damages" [we won't even get into what that means here] the person's personal or professional reputation, and the statement is made with some degree of fault [if the person is a "public official" or "public figure", the degree of fault is "actual malice", which in defamation law means that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth - if the plaintiff is a private person, but the subject matter of the article is a matter of public concern, then negligence can suffice, but since this is a tort, each state's law may be different, for example, in one state it may be the equivalent of "journalistic malpractice", or, as in Ohio, negligence, but it must be proven with "convincing clarity" as opposed to "preponderance of the evidence" - if it's a private person and the subject matter is not of public concern, then all bets are off because pre-New York Times v. Sullivan/Gertz v. Welch state law applies]. Plus, you have libel per se, and libel per quod, at least in Ohio. As one who has litigated [defended] libel cases, I would NEVER advise someone to bring one [this case may be the exception to the rule!]. The libel plaintiff immediately becomes the target of the lawsuit - you can go in to the minutest details of a person's life if the information sought "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." And what information [at least good, juicy, salalcious information] about a person's life does not reflect on the person's repution? Brutal lawsuits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84446369738696190982007-05-01T20:44:00.000-04:002007-05-01T20:44:00.000-04:00Kemp, any serious student should not be counting o...Kemp, any serious student should not be counting on getting into law school with credentials that include classes from the AAAS department. And we know what one faculty member is going through for such retaliation against a lacrosse player. Besides, it's about having principles, making difficult choices in the face of strong opposition. They failed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27999919672962863802007-05-01T20:23:00.000-04:002007-05-01T20:23:00.000-04:00Cindy,I agree with all of that. The POINT? They a...Cindy,<BR/><BR/>I agree with all of that. <BR/><BR/>The POINT? They are students!!<BR/><BR/>They need the GPA. Sorry, whoring for a GPA is common. <BR/><BR/>Tell the Law School admissions that you got a C from Willimada (sp) because you smacked her ad down. Think the PC admissions officer is going to believe that?<BR/><BR/>WAKE UP.<BR/><BR/>KempAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com