Wendy Murphy's Revival

While I rarely watch cable news, I’m fully aware that—in the era of Glenn Beck—the medium is more “entertainment” than “news.”

Nonetheless, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all claim to have some “news” in their broadcasts. And so it would seem to me that each network would have minimal standards in a guest—perhaps to the extent that a guest who made repeated and verifiably false statements would not continue to be invited.

That standard, alas, seems to be too high for FOX, at least with regard to the decision to give air time to Wendy Murphy. Yes, that Wendy Murphy. Given that Murphy made error after error after error of fact during her on-air commentary about the lacrosse case, I would have thought that she would have disappeared from TV screens in the case’s aftermath. After all, Murphy is either a serial fabricator or a willful ignorant, and I would think that neither qualification would be much desired by a “news” network.

And yet here was Murphy, spouting her usual, factually-challenged nonsense in an appearance with Radley Balko. Balko, astonished at his first-hand taste of Murphy’s ramblings, did some fact-checking on her recent appearances. The result wasn’t pretty.

So what does Murphy’s continued appearances say about the state of cable “news”? I agree with Balko: “Cable news is about lining people up on either side and letting them go at it. There's no room for subtlety. There's certainly no time for fact-checking a guest's claims, even after the segment airs. Murphy is pretty, provocative, and confrontational. She's great TV. That she's inaccurate, slanderous, and hysterical is beside the point . . . At some point you have to wonder, is it even possible to be too shameless for cable news?”

Alex Pareene, of left-leaning Salon, piggy-backed on Balko’s post to (correctly) brand Murphy as Exhibit A of the proposition that “there are, in the mass media, absolutely no consequences for blatant, constant lying.”

Pareene, alas, then fatally undermines his case by comparing Murphy to Peter Beinart and Jeff Goldberg, both of whom supported the war in Iraq, and both of whom (until, in Beinart’s case, recently) have publicly and repeatedly defended Israeli national security policy.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the flaws in this comparison: Murphy repeatedly, shamelessly makes “facts” up to advance her argument. Goldberg, Beinart, and other supporters of the invasion of Iraq made (what I consider) a flawed public policy judgment. But nothing either man has ever written (including Beinart’s recent poorly-argued NYRB essay on Israeli matters) even approaches in journalistic misconduct anything Murphy said about the lacrosse case—or, from Balko’s essay, anything she’s said about sex crimes or immigration policy.

That Pareene considers Murphy’s serial fabrications comparable to the performance of Goldberg or Beinart suggests that he, unlike Balko, doesn’t see just how outrageous Murphy’s behavior has been.

The Astonishing Wendy Murphy

The astonishing Wendy Murphy continues her campaign of distortion with a letter in today’s Boston Globe. Proclaims she, “We don’t have any idea what the real evidence is in the case.” We don’t?

So, when in doubt, make things up: “I was told by a reporter that the defense refused to release more than 1,000 pages of evidence.” What reporter? Murphy doesn’t say. What “1,000 pages of evidence”? Again, Murphy doesn’t say. Is she now accusing the defense of withholding evidence from the attorney general? Again, Murphy doesn’t say.

And what does this non-existent treasure trove of documents contain? Attempting, it seems, to shield herself from libel difficulties, she frames her response, Jeopardy! style, in the form of a question: “Could there be witness statements from the defendants’ friends—statements saying that a rape occurred just as [Crystal Mangum] described?”

Using Murphy’s approach, perhaps all of us should engage in unfounded speculation as to exactly what these non-existent 1,000 pages contain. Perhaps the Globe should now publish letters asking, “Could there be witness statements showing that Wendy Murphy committed massive prosecutorial misconduct when she served in the Middlesex D.A.’s office?”

As Murphy writes, “Until those documents are released, the public can and should speculate about what might be in there.” And, of course, since the “documents” don’t exist, such speculation could continue forever.

Murphy’s screed, by the way, came in response to one of the best analyses of the case, a Globe column from Cathy Young, entitled. “A rush to injustice in the Duke ‘rape’ case.”

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.

W. Murphy, Hypocrite

During her myriad media appearances commenting on the Duke lacrosse case, adjunct law professor Wendy Murphy came up with virtually everything bad she could possibly say about the three falsely accused players. She wondered whether one of them had been abused as a child. She wildly claimed that false accuser Crystal Mangum had been bribed, that exculpatory photographs had been doctored, and that neighbors had claimed the lacrosse players were involved in other sexual offenses. She even managed to work in an oblique Hitler comparison.

(A reminder: These erroneous statements and bizarre comparisons did not trouble Poynter, the supposedly good-journalism organization which brought in Murphy to lecture to journalists.)

But in all of her media appearances, one area that the adjunct law professor did not explore was a claim that the case was receiving too much attention from journalists. There was no Murphy denunciation of Newsweek for placing the falsely accused players’ mugshots on its cover, under the equally false headline of “Sex, Lies, and Duke.” Nor did the adjunct law professor criticize Nancy Grace for the extraordinary amount of time the HLN host personally devoted to the case (except, of course, on the evening of the exoneration).

Imagine my surprise, then, to read a Murphy op-ed in this morning’s Boston Herald, in which she lambasted the media coverage of murder charges against former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez. “Like a lot of people who don’t follow sports,” Murphy confesses,  she hadn’t known much about Hernandez until a couple of weeks ago—just as she hadn’t heard much of other athletes charged with violent crimes, such as Kobe Bryant, Rae Carruth, and Michael Vick. Why does her ignorance about sports matter? Because “it’s hard for people like me to appreciate the wall-to-wall coverage of a story that seems no different than any other gang-banger murders of late.” Curiosity about athletes allegedly committing crimes, Murphy continues, “doesn’t make its answer news.”

Murphy’s conclusion? “If sports were better understood as simply entertainment, the prosecution of Hernandez would be correctly framed as a run-of-the-mill alleged gang murder in the news section — and sports writers could spill all the ink they want on how people feel about the guy in their section. With angles firmly separated, nobody would misapprehend the story as proof that some murders are more important than others, or that some people’s lives are more valuable than others. We’ve seen enough violence perpetrated by people of wealth, power and influence to know that crime happens in all communities and at all points along the economic spectrum. It’s time for the news media to start conducting itself in a manner that reflects this reality.”

Where was this Wendy Murphy during the lacrosse case, denouncing the media for spending far too much time covering claims against a group of college athletes? It appears as if there’s an exception to this new Murphy rule: crimes allegedly committed by athletes in which members of the media interview Murphy for her opinions deserve wall-to-wall coverage. But if Murphy isn’t seen as an expert, than excess coverage leaves the message that “that some people’s lives are more valuable than others.”

Your daily dose of hypocrisy (and media criticism), courtesy of Poynter’s favorite adjunct law professor.

A Question for Wendy Murphy

In today's Boston Globe, Wendy Murphy asserted, “I was told by a reporter that the defense refused to release more than 1,000 pages of evidence.”

The only "secret" documents in the case heretofore unavailable for public view are Crystal Mangum's medical records. If Mangum's dwindling band of supporters wants the public to see those files, defense attorneys tell me they would gladly join Murphy and Mangum's other backers in urging the court to unseal them.

Therefore, a question for Wendy Murphy: why is Crystal Mangum keeping the only "secret" material in the case away from the public? Given Ms. Murphy's desire for openness, will she now call for Mangum to consent to the unsealing and publication of her heretofore secret medical file?

The New England School of Law, where Adjunct Murphy teaches, lists the below as her contact information. Perhaps these questions need to be presented to her by the public, so she has an opportunity to respond.

Phone:(617) 422-7410
Fax: (617) 422-7453
wmurphy@nesl.edu

This website lists an alternative email for her: wmurphylaw@aol.com

Globe Readers Rebuke Murphy

Two letters in today's Boston Globe rebuke adjunct professor Wendy Murphy's misleading, guilt-resuming recent letter to the paper. A West Roxbury writer noted, correctly, that "it's hard to imagine a more compelling vindication of Cathy Young's opinion of Wendy Murphy's stance in the Duke 'rape' case than Murphy's own letter condemning it. I have rarely read a more twisted and venomous piece of self-serving innuendo." Lee Richardi notes that Murphy hopes "we are to infer that she is fair-minded and protecting the public's right to know, when what she is really doing is defending her own right to poison the well and hope that we are foolish enough to drink from it."

A reader from Arlington blasts Murphy for her tendency to "sensationalize limited information." Christopher Walters concludes, "As an adjunct professor of law who dabbles in tabloid news, perhaps Murphy could benefit from some renewed focus on such legal tenets as 'innocent until proven guilty,' and worry less about mainstream journalism's guardianship of our so-called right to know. I'm sure her students would benefit."

Given what we've seen of Murphy in this case, it's rather frightening to imagine what she's like in the classroom.

Poynter & The Serial Fabricator

I recently did a post at Minding the Campus examining how the media responded to the Times’ Patrick Witt article—a piece of “journalism” that’s looking worse by the day, and which the Times public editor has now repudiated.

The most extraordinary (and counterintuitive) critique came from Poynter’s Kelly McBride—who faulted the Times, which had bent over backwards to frame the case against Witt as negatively as possible, for not doing enough to ensure that Witt’s accuser’s story was represented. To bolster her line of argument, McBride turned to adjunct law professor Wendy Murphy, who had distinguished herself in the lacrosse case for her willingness to fabricate, fabricate again, and fabricate some more.

Poynter describes its mission as promoting “excellence and integrity in the practice of craft.” The organization claims that “we teach . . . ethical decision-making,” with teaching “focused on the highest standards of journalistic value.” How could this type of organization turn to a serial fabricator such as Murphy?

In an e-mail, I provided McBride with a list of many (but not all) of Murphy’s public, factual inaccuracies (as well as her various unsubstantiated opinions and denigrations of due process). McBride replied that she saw no problem at all in her use of Murphy as either a source or a seminar instructor. She even seemed willing to rationalize Murphy’s difficulties with the truth, describing the list in the following manner: “Some of those statements are her opinions. Some of them are statements she made based on her expertise in the subject area. Some of them are taken out of context.” I invited McBride to identify any of the factual errors as items “taken out of context”; she did not reply.

No one would expect McBride to be an expert on Murphy’s record in the lacrosse case (although the media’s failures, and Murphy’s role in them, was explored at great length in the American Journalism Review, which presumably is on every Poynter faculty member’s regular reading list). But it seems as if Murphy’s serial fabrications mattered not to McBride, who affirmed that even after hearing of them, she’d eagerly invite Murphy back to teach at Poynter.

McBride’s response confirms observations from Alex Pareene, who described Murphy’s career as showing that “there are, in the mass media, absolutely no consequences for blatant, constant lying,” and Radley Balko, who came away from his own experience of Murphy inventing facts to ask, “At some point you have to wonder, is it even possible to be too shameless for cable news?” It seems that as long as Murphy still gets quoted by the media and retains the backing of like-minded figures within the “victims’ rights” movement, two alleged Murphy qualifications mentioned by McBride, she’ll receive Poynter’s seal of approval—factual inaccuracies and wildly intemperate, unsubstantiated opinions be damned. Would Poynter be as cavalier if women or minority groups had been the targets of Murphy’s bile?

-------------------

Between April 5, 2006 and December 31, 2006, Murphy made no fewer than 18 factually inaccurate statements in her TV commentary about the lacrosse case. She made at least eight more factually inaccurate statements about the case in December 21, 2006 and January 9, 2007 “talking points” forwarded by “victims’ rights” groups, plus at least one factual error in a late 2006 USA Today op-ed. Twenty-seven outright errors of fact on a single case is quite a tally. And that list, of course, doesn’t include Murphy’s misleading statements that were phrased in the form of questions or speculation, or her use of unsubstantiated rumors.

Facts are facts, and McBride’s insinuation that “context” could somehow transform Murphy’s factual errors into “facts” is absurd. But context does matter in interpreting factual errors. That Murphy’s factual errors weren’t random but almost always tilted against the lacrosse players suggests she wasn’t simply amazingly sloppy (a problem that in and of itself would seem to disqualify someone as a Poynter source or seminar instructor). Instead, Murphy’s fabrications bolstered her preconceived views, suggesting deliberateness to her fabrications.

In this respect, and despite McBride’s implication, the broader context of Murphy’s remarks was even more damning than the myriad factual inaccuracies taken alone. Beyond factually inaccurate descriptions of North Carolina legal procedures or some defense motions, each time in such a way to reinforce the ultimately-disbarred Mike Nifong’s position, Murphy’s serial fabrications tended to fall into one of three general categories:

(1) The April 4, 2006 photo array, which provided the only specific evidence used to indict the three falsely accused players and which Nifong had ordered the DPD to confine to members of the lacrosse team, did not violate DPD procedures, because many lacrosse players didn’t attend the party, and therefore these non-attendees could be deemed fillers. Confirmation for this “fact” came from a neutral source on the criminal case, Duke president Richard Brodhead.

Here was the Poynter source/seminar instructor on May 2, 2006: “According to Durham president, the president of the university, he said March 22 in a press release, many players weren’t there that night. Well, what does that tell us? It tells us the defense motion [on the lineup] is a bunch of nonsense, because if many players weren’t there, it’s a darned good chance if this was a hoax that she could have gotten it wrong.” Murphy returned to the theme in a December 21 e-mail: “The line-ups were not unlawful. According to the president of Duke, ‘many’ players were not at the party—and many NON-players WERE.” [Emphasis added in both instances; capitalization in original.]

Murphy’s description of Durham’s lineup procedures was wrong: Nifong had publicly identified as suspects all 46 white lacrosse players, the only people included in the April 4 photo array, and the Durham Police Department procedures required photos of five non-suspects for each photo of a suspect. Wouldn’t a lawyer understand the definition of a non-suspect?

In the event, the most extraordinary element of these two statements came in Murphy’s invention of a Brodhead statement regarding the party’s composition. John Burness, Duke’s then-P.R. head, confirmed that Brodhead made no statement, of any kind, about the case on March 22, 2006; and that Brodhead never claimed, one way or the other, to possess knowledge on who did or did not attend the party. Murphy simply made up a statement to corroborate her preconceived viewpoint.

(2) Considerable evidence actually bolstered the prosecution’s version of events, although defense attorneys or the media concealed some of this evidence.

Murphy looked to bolster false accuser Crystal Mangum’s credibility to pointing out that “Brett and Matt happen to be the real names of two of the captains who lived in that home.” (At least in some of her myriad stories, Mangum had claimed that her attackers were named Adam, Matt, and Brett.) But Murphy’s statement was factually inaccurate: the first names of the captains who lived at the house were Matt, Dave, and Dan, and their names had been widely reported.

In a May 2, 2006 interview, Murphy pointed to hidden evidence (that, in fact, didn’t exist and that the police and Nifong had never claimed existed). Dismissing test results that indicated no DNA matches to any of the lacrosse players, Murphy asserted that “the broomstick DNA has not yet been revealed.” The only problem: there was no “broomstick DNA,” since even the mentally imbalanced Mangum had never claimed an assault by broomstick.

Turning her concealment argument to the lawyers, Murphy suggested that the defense attorneys had “withheld” 1000 pages of documents (sometimes she said the figure was 1200). In fact, Judge Osborn Smith had ordered the pages to be sealed, because they contained Mangum’s psychological records. That ruling had been made in open court, and was widely reported; defense attorneys releasing the records would have placed them in contempt.

When all else failed, Murphy accused the lacrosse players and their attorneys of criminal obstruction, as in her assertion that “all the photographs showing how really fine [Mangum] was when she left scene [photos frequently cited in various defense motions] were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.” [Emphasis added in both instances.] Even the utterly corrupt Mike Nifong never challenged the photos’ veracity, and the subsequent AG’s investigation confirmed the photos’ accuracy by cross-checking various other forms of electronic data.

(3) The lacrosse players behaved as if they were guilty; or had profiles that would lead a fair-minded observer to believe they might be guilty.

In one of her first appearances on the case, on April 19, 2006, Murphy reported some basic, and seemingly troublesome, “facts”: “All of them [the lacrosse players] took the Fifth. All of them refused to cooperate. All of them refused to give a DNA sample, until the court produced an order compelling them to do so.”

Each of these three statements was a lie. No player ever invoked the Fifth Amendment, at any point in the case. The three captains who lived in the house where the party occurred cooperated (foolishly, in retrospect) wholly with police, including voluntarily giving DNA samples and offering to take lie-detector tests. A few days before this parade of falsehoods, the Poynter source/seminar instructor had invented a statement by an unidentified neighbor asserting that members of the 2006 lacrosse team had committed “other sexual offenses.” No such statement existed, and no members of the team had committed “other sexual offenses.”

The pattern of Murphy making up “facts” to portray the lacrosse players as behaving suspiciously continued throughout the case. One of the people picked by Mangum, Reade Seligmann, had an unimpeachable electronic alibi (he had called a cab with his cell phone, and then was shown on a time-stamped ATM video more than a mile away from the captains’ house) for the time of the alleged attack. This was a major problem for Nifong, but not for Murphy; in a December 21, 2006 e-mail, she simply altered “facts” to make Seligmann look guilty. She wrote, “In fact, the guy Seligman [sic] who claims his cell phone calls ‘prove’ his innocence actually lends support to the theory that he was the first guy to assault her—which is what she claims—and that it was oral—because he could have assaulted her for the first few minutes—then thought to himself ‘I’ve got to get out of here’—which explains why he frantically and repeatedly called a cab. who frantically calls a cab to see if they’re coming—in a space of five minutes—especially considering that the guy went to an ATM and a pizza place when he left—no real emergency there. Isn’t it convenient that he just happens to be one of the guys she accused?”

This statement had no relationship with the truth. Though Mangum never told the same story twice, she never claimed that one of her attackers left during the attack, nor that any of her attackers had used a telephone, nor did she ever make any clear claim that Seligmann could be identified as “the first guy to assault her.” Seligmann, whose cell-phone records were posted on the web for Murphy to see, didn’t “frantically and repeatedly call[] a cab”; he called the cab once, and the cab came a few minutes later. And before Murphy’s statement, no one had ever claimed that Seligmann went to “a pizza place when he left.”

--------------

Perhaps the most outrageous thing that Murphy said during the lacrosse case was not, because of the way she framed her remark, a demonstrably untrue statement. On May 3, 2006, in an appearance on “CNN Live,” the Poynter source/seminar instructor mused, “I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child.”

An unsubstantiated insinuation, on national TV, that a college student was sexually molested? That’s a disgusting statement—indicative of a coarse mind and a bullying temperament, not “dynamic and thought-provoking,” which is how McBride describes Murphy. Yet McBride, by her own admission, wasn’t surprised to see the Poynter source/seminar instructor make such an assertion. If insinuating child abuse against people* about whom she knew nothing isn’t enough for disqualify Murphy in McBride’s eyes, what would constitute going too far? And how, possibly, could a figure who made such a remark provide instruction “focused on the highest standards of journalistic value” that would promote “excellence and integrity in the practice of craft”?

In recent months, the departure of Jim Romenesko somewhat tarnished Poynter’s reputation, as has the organization’s uneven (or worse, as SI’s Richard Deitsch might suggest) performance as ESPN ombudsman. But I always had believed that Poynter was committed to journalistic integrity, and never considered that it might be an organization that would use a serial fabricator as both a source and a seminar instructor for guiding journalists’ behavior.

It appears that I was wrong in these beliefs. And unlike Wendy Murphy, I’m willing to admit when I make a mistake.

*--modified for clarity

The Serial Fabricator Strikes Again

[Update, 6 May, 10.33am: As of this morning, the comments section in which Adjunct Prof. Murphy made her false statements is not visible on the P-L website.]


[Update, 5 May, 11.39pm: Rule 8.4(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct deems it "professional misconduct for a lawyer to  . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." It is hard to see how Murphy's lengthy, and repeated, fabrications in her public comments about the lacrosse case do not violate this standard.]


Adjunct law professor and serial fabricator Wendy Murphy, Esq., is at it again, this time on the pages of the (Quincy, MA) Patriot-Ledger. Pressed on her pattern of fabrication in the lacrosse case, Murphy unleashed the following:

I also very much value bloggers who note the Duke case. It enables me to repeat things the public rarely gets to read about the case. Once again, I'll include a few key facts [sic] here: 

The victim [sic] was offered 2 million dollars to recant a couple of months after charges were filed, AFTER everyone involved in the case knew what she'd told police - and AFTER everyone involved in the case knew the key evidence - including: statements from eyewitnesses at the scene and results from tests conducted on a broomstick that was seized by police because men at the party reportedly threatened to rape the victim [sic] with a broomstick. Test results on the broomstick have never been released, nor have thousands of pages from the investigation including eyewitness statements. After the victim [sic] was offered 2 million dollars to recant, she hired a very powerful attorney in Florida who has never revealed what legal services he provided. If she lied, SHE should have been prosecuted - not the district attorney - but parents of the men involved said publicly they didn't want her to be punished. 

The public should be demanding full disclosure the entire file - or at least disclosure of all eyewitness statements and all reports related to forensic testing on the broomstick. 

Murphy has a remarkable ability both to outright lie and to issue highly misleading statements (for which she lacks evidence) but which also can't be disproved since it's impossible to prove a negative. That said, she manages at least four false statements in 217 words:

(1) There was no "forensic testing on the broomstick," because no evidence exists that the police ever seized a broomstick. How police could release testing that never occurred Murphy does not say. [A note: on 27 April 2006, on national TV, Murphy gave a completely different interpretation about forensic tests on this non-existent "broomstick evidence," asserting that the DNA tests showed no matches to lacrosse players "because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn't produce DNA when you put it inside someone."]

(2) No version of events--even any of the myriad, contradictory versions of events offered by false accuser Crystal Mangum--ever claimed that any of the falsely accused players "threatened to rape the victim [sic] with a  broomstick." Two statements (those by one of the captains and the other dancer, Kim Roberts) referenced an unindicted player boorishly urging Roberts to use the broomstick as a sex toy in the dancers' "show"; both statements said Roberts took offense; and no one (except Murphy, it seems) mentioned the broomstick as an element of any crime.

(3) Mangum was not "offered 2 million dollars to recant." The claim originated from an article from "reporter" Cash Michaels; a subsequent investigation by the DPD not only found no evidence of the claim, but had Mangum herself denying it. Michaels' source, Mangum's "cousin Jakki" (a/k/a Clyde Young), subsequently admitted that months would pass during which she did not speak to her "cousin."


(4) Mangum never "hired a very powerful attorney in Florida." The attorney to which Murphy referred, Willie Gary, briefly offered to represent Mangum pro bono, but does not appear to have ever actually met her, and in any event quickly lost interest in Durham affairs. Moreover, Gary's involvement in the case (such as it was) occurred before, not after as Murphy claims, the false report of a bribe offer--rendering illogical Murphy's mention of Gary.

Beyond the false statements, Murphy provided at least two misleading ones:

(1) North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper elected not to prosecute Mangum not because of what the parents said or wanted, but because, as he publicly noted on 11 April 2007: (1) Mangum's mental illness was so extensive that she might have believed her myriad false tales; and (2) he feared that prosecuting Mangum could delay the healing process in Durham. In any event, the decision on whether or not to prosecute Mangum had nothing to do with Nifong being prosecuted for criminal contempt, which involved his lying to a judge in open court about whether he had turned over all the DNA evidence to the defense.

(2) It's quite true that roughly 1000 pages of the case file never were released. But as Murphy well knows, no reporter ever saw that material because Judge Osmond Smith sealed the pages, which included the records of Mangum's mental health treatment. Murphy's insinuation that this material would somehow enhance Mangum's claims--as opposed to showing clearly why Mangum lied--is beneath contempt.

Keep in mind: this is the person that the "good-journalism" organization, Poynter, not only uses as a source, but considers worthy of an invitation to guest lecture in a seminar for journalists.

I have e-mailed the Patriot-Ledger's web editor to ask about the paper's policy regarding the posting of false statements by P-L writers, and will update this post if I receive a reply.

Trouble for Wendy Murphy

A Nebraska judge has dismissed a motion filed by Wendy Murphy, and has suggested that Murphy violated Nebraska law by filing a motion (in a sexual assault case) even though she is not licensed to practice in the state.

Georgia Goslee--who is licensed to practice in North Carolina--said she wasn't familiar with statutes there. And now Wendy Murphy wants to practice in Nebraska, even though she's not licensed.

They make quite a pair.

Murphy's Latest

The government-funded Centers for Disease Control describes the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) as an organization that “identifies and disseminates information, resources, and research on all aspects of sexual violence prevention and intervention.” The NSVRC itself obtains part of its funds from the federal government, through a grant from the Center for Disease Control (though it is careful to point out that its website’s contents do not necessarily reflect the government’s viewpoints). The group’s honorary board includes Pennsylvania State Treasurer Barbara Hafer and former Syracuse University quarterback Don McPherson.

On January 9, the NSVRC posted an item called “Talking Points: Duke University Lacrosse Team Rape Case.” (Of course, the rape charges had been dropped 18 days before.) According to the NSVRC’s accompanying statement, “The following talking points offer some context and facts about this case in an effort to help support advocates in responding to the media.” Two voicemail messages left for NSVRC communications director Susan Lewis to ask which unidentified NSVRC figures “reviewed” the document before its posting received no reply.

As Bill Anderson pointed out at the Liestoppers Board, another victims’ rights group forwarded an earlier missive, this one dated December 21—ironically, the day that the accuser dramatically changed her story.

The author of both the “talking points” and the e-mail? Wendy Murphy. Her statements bring together a collection of Murphy’s distortions and outright inaccuracies (reviewed earlier in this post). It is almost as if she believes that she has the right to make defamatory public statements without consequence.

Reade Seligmann

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “In fact, the guy Seligman [sic] who claims his cell phone calls ‘prove’ his innocence actually lends support to the theory that he was the first guy to assault her—which is what she claims—and that it was oral—because he could have assaulted her for the first few minutes—then thought to himself ‘I’ve got to get out of here’—which explains why he frantically and repeatedly called a cab. who frantically calls a cab to see if they’re coming—in a space of five minutes—especially considering that the guy went to an ATM and a pizza place when he left—no real emergency there. Isn’t it convenient that he just happens to be one of the guys she accused?”

Of course, on December 21, the accuser wholly changed her story, and contended that Seligmann did nothing to her, because he said he was getting “married” the next day.

Contrary to Murphy’s statement, Seligmann called a cab not “frantically and repeatedly,” but once, at 12.14am. The cab arrived five minutes later. This information has been in the public record since May 1, when Seligmann’s attorney filed a motion laying out his alibi. The media has widely reported this fact.

Until the Murphy e-mail, no one, as far as I know, has ever claimed that Seligmann went to a “pizza place.”

At no point in any of her myriad, mutually contradictory stories did the accuser claim that one of her assaulters was using the phone at any point during the attack or left the scene during the attack.

Defense “Spin”

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Remember that all the information we are hearing is coming from the defense side and spinners.” [emphasis added]

She wrote her e-mail partly to respond to revelations from the Dec. 15 court session, in which Dr. Brian Meehan admitted that he and Nifong entered into an agreement to intentionally withhold exculpatory DNA evidence. The hearing was open to the public—it was not confined to the “defense side and spinners.” Reporters from the N&O, Herald-Sun, WRAL, FOX, Duke Chronicle, and Los Angeles Times were present; I was live-blogging the hearing. A transcript of the hearing was made publicly available, and I posted it on the website.

Most people do not consider court documents to constitute “the defense side and spinners.”

Murphy (Jan. 9 statement): “The actual discovery documents turned over to the defense number in the many thousands of pages, yet approximately a thousand pages have been withheld by the defense. That is, the defense has shared some, but not all of the evidence provided to them by the prosecutor.”

This statement is the first I’ve heard of the defense withholding anything in the case, much less “approximately a thousand pages.” If Murphy has evidence of such a conspiracy, she should present it publicly.

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Defense attorneys can lie with impunity—prosecutors can’t even tell the truth without getting in trouble.”

In fact, Rule 4.1 of the state bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct holds, “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.” Nothing in the provision excludes defense attorneys from its terms.

December 15, 2006 Hearing

Murphy (Jan. 9 statement): “One can argue that Nifong’s withholding of this information was proper because the [accuser’s] sexual history, like the sexual history of the defendants, is constitutionally protected private information. It is improper for any prosecutor to disclose this information without a hearing at which a judge must make a ruling to decide whether sexual history is relevant to an issue in dispute.”

Murphy appears unaware with North Carolina law, passed in 2004. The state’s open discovery statute requires all results of forensic tests to be turned over to the defense. The prosecutor does not have the authority to withhold any information, anywhere in his file, from the defense.

Speedy Trial

Murphy (Dec. 9): “The simple point is—the defense COULD demand an immediate trial, right now—but they’re not . . . In short—if this were truly a weak case with no evidence, the defense would be pushing for a speedy trial.”

Once again, Murphy appears unaware of both the facts of the case and North Carolina law. In fact, Seligmann’s lawyer, Kirk Osborn, specifically asked for a speedy trial, a request that Judge Ronald Stephens denied. (Ironically, the other arch-Nifong defender, Georgia Goslee, cited this request to flail the defense, saying it was improper for defense attorneys to seek to rush the state.) Osborn then filed a motion to this effect, which was never ruled upon. North Carolina’s state constitution has no speedy-right provision, and the state operates instead under a “case management” system.

The “Bribe”

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “The defense would have the public believe that this was a false report made to get money, but remember that according to a well-sourced news report by the Wilmington Journal in June 2006, the [accuser] rejected a payment of over 2 million dollars last spring to back out of the case.”

Yet again, Murphy appears unaware of the facts of the case. This allegation came via the accuser’s cousin and sometimes spokesperson, “Jakki” (who has complained at various points in the case that months have passed without speaking to the accuser) and the scarcely more credible Cash Michaels. The Durham police—no friends of the lacrosse players—investigated the claim. On June 30, the accuser told police that she had never made such a claim to her cousin, and police found no evidence to substantiate it. So Murphy is making a claim that neither the accuser herself nor the Durham police consider truthful.

The Workings of the Judicial System

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Defense attorneys can spin, distort, and omit facts while the prosecution must remain silent until trail.”

This statement, of course, is absurd. Nothing has prevented Nifong from filing responses to any defense motions. He has not done so.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “When defense attorneys unfairly taint the jury pool against the interests of the victim, there are no similar sanctions against them because a judge cannot punish the accused for the bad behavior of his lawyer.”

Yet again, (a familiar refrain), Murphy appears unaware with the facts of the case. Since July 17, both sides have operated under a gag order, which has limited what either Nifong or defense attorneys could say about the case to the media. Indeed, Nifong’s pre-election comments would seem like the most blatant violation of this order. But had the judge deemed any defense action a violation of the gag order, the judge could have held them in contempt of court. Even Nifong never asked for such any sanction.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Defense attorneys are well aware of their right to ask the judge who handled the DNA issue to punish Nifong for suppressing evidence by dismissing charges; the fact that they did not complain to the judge strongly suggests an obvious understanding on their part that Nifong did nothing wrong.”

The Nifong-Meehan conspiracy only came to light on December 15; a full transcript of the hearing wasn’t available until several days later. Shortly thereafter, the Linwood Wilson “notes” appeared and the accuser’s story dramatically changed, setting into motion the chain of events that culminated in Nifong’s departure. Defense attorneys still have the right to seek sanctions against Nifong, a right they must balance against the need to create collegial relations with the new prosecutors.

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Criticism has surfaced concerning the fact that Nifong did not interview and talk to the [accuser]. We do not know the history of his interaction, or his offices’ interaction with the [accuser].”

In fact, Nifong stated in court on October 27 that neither he nor anyone from his office spoke to the accuser about the facts of the case. And he admitted on Dec. 22 that the previous day’s session with Linwood Wilson constituted the first such interview. Both events, which laid out the “history of his interaction, or his offices’ interaction with the [accuser],” received extensive media coverage.

Change of Venue Motion

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “If this case is as weak as the defense attorneys would have us believe, and if there is so little upon which to build a case, then it is indeed interesting that they were concerned enough to have filed this motion for change of venue. This suggests that in fact the defense is taking the case seriously and doing all it can to do battle on behalf of their clients.”

This statement is, simply, bizarre. Can an attorney actually be criticizing a defense team for “taking the case seriously and doing all it can to do battle on behalf of their clients”?

Electoral Analysis

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “Nobody seems to care that despite claims that the prosecutor brought charges so he could win the 'black vote,’ he didn’t win the majority of black votes in the primary and more important, he lost a ton of wealthy white votes—something he surely knew would happen if he brought charges—yet he brought the charges anyway.”

In fact, Nifong, who appeared to be dead in the water before the case broke, won a convincing plurality of the black vote (by somewhere between 15 and 18 points, compared to a 3-point margin of victory) against a black candidate endorsed by Durham’s major black PAC and a white nominee (Freda Black) who had aggressively courted black voters. “Wealthy white votes” are few and far between in Durham, and the 20 percent of Durham voters who were Republican couldn’t vote in the primary. Losing those voters posed no problem for Nifong in May.

The Evidence

Murphy: “It is not unusual for there to be minor inconsistencies in victims recalling traumatic events.”

In this case the accuser has differed—among other things—on:

• the number of alleged attackers;
• the number of other dancers present;
  
• what each of the alleged attackers did;
• what time the alleged attack occurred;
• the names by which the alleged attackers called themselves;
• the name by which she called herself at the party;
  
• whether the alleged attack was a rape or a sexual assault;
• whether she was intoxicated;
• whether she was punched;
• whether she was kicked;
• whether the second dancer was an accomplice in the rape;
• whether the second dancer stole her money.

The accuser has also identified people with 100 percent certainty as attending the party who could prove that they did not attend the party and in one case did not even spend the night in question in Durham.

Such a list extends beyond “minor inconsistencies.”

Murphy (Jan. 9 “talking points”): “Additionally, there is some indication that the [accuser] may have been drugged; there were reports of her going from sober to totally unaware and then back to not-intoxicated by the time she reached the hospital.”

Yet again, Murphy appears to have demonstrated her unfamiliarity with the case. A toxicology screen on the accuser was negative; and the accuser admitted taking Flexeril with alcohol despite instructions not to do so.

Imagined Events

Murphy (Dec. 21 email): “The line-ups were not unlawful. According to the president of Duke, ‘many’ players were not at the party—and many NON-players WERE.”

Duke president Richard Brodhead never claimed to know who and who did not attend the party; Murphy is simply making up the statement.

In any event, her point is irrelevant. On March 31, Nifong instructed the police to confine the lineup to all 46 white lacrosse players—each of whom had been publicly labeled a suspect eight days before. Durham procedures—as have been widely reported—require five filler photos per suspect.

Murphy (Dec. 21 e-mail): “It is also important to remember that the defense claims NOW that they wanted to meet with the DA to show him evidence of their innocence—but the simple truth is—a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was scheduled BEFORE charges were brought and at the last minute, the defense CANCELLED the meeting. Thereafter, the evidence was brought to the grand jury. The defense has no business complaining about not having a chance to show evidence to the prosecutor.” (CAPS in original.)

Not even Nifong has claimed that “a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was scheduled BEFORE charges were brought.” In fact, until this Murphy e-mail, I’m unaware of anyone commenting on the case in any forum who has made such a claim.

Moreover, Murphy appears unaware of Rule 3.8, comment 2 of the state bar's ethics code: “A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.” A prosecutor refusing to meet with defense attorneys to examine evidence they claim will prove the innocence of their client obviously violates this rule.

---------

One victims’ rights advocate with whom I spoke said that the movement as a whole would be loath to criticize a prosecutor who was standing up for the complaining witness. But posting inaccuracy-laced material such as Murphy’s undermines the movement’s credibility. How could anyone who has closely followed this case hereafter trust any statement from the NSVRC, knowing that the organization disseminated Murphy’s “talking points”?

As for the Centers for Disease Control, perhaps it would be worth knowing how the federal government could, even indirectly, be funding the dissemination of Murphy’s assertions on the case.

Updates

One of the most important themes of the lacrosse case was the almost complete lack of accountability among anyone not named Mike Nifong. Professors who flagrantly violated the terms of the faculty handbook or student bulletin (much less basic ethics)? Not punished, and in some cases even promoted or offered better jobs. Reporters who appeared to see their job as carrying Mike Nifong’s water (so as to better advance a politically correct agenda) rather than pursuing the truth? Not punished, and in some cases even offered new and more prestigious jobs. “Experts” whose performance revealed their utter lack of expertise, at least if we define expertise as based on facts? Not declared figures without credibility, and instead many continued to be consulted on the very same topics about which they illustrated their ignorance.

The effects of this non-accountability: those who engaged in misconduct (or worse) in the lacrosse case are free to offer repeat performances. Take, for instance, so-called sex crimes expert Wendy Murphy. Fresh from being deemed not merely an expert but an appropriate instructor for a Poynter seminar—even after a Poynter representative was informed of Murphy’s fabrications—Murphy was interviewed by AP education writer Justin Pope, who labeled her a “victims’ advocate who has filed numerous Title IX complaints on behalf of victims.”

The article focused on how universities should respond to allegations of campus sexual assault. Without even mentioning Murphy’s comments about the lacrosse case (the highest profile claim of campus sexual assault in the past decade)—much less her history of fabrications when discussing the issue—Pope quoted Murphy as if her views merited credibility. “Colleges must protect victims, [Murphy] says. That means abandoning the fantasy they can make everybody happy by also offering accused students the full due process rights they'd enjoy in a criminal trial. ‘You can't run a school that way,’Murphy said. ‘If every once in a while a school has to be sued at the cost of being fair to all students, so be it.’”

Set aside the astonishing nature of Murphy’s statement in a society that values (or at least professes to value) due process. Can anyone imagine an AP reporter turning again for expertise to a scientist, or a businessman, or an attorney exposed as a fraud in a high-profile case? And even if in the highly unlikely event that the AP did so, is it imaginable that the reporter would have not mentioned the grave doubt about the credibility of his “expert”?

By the way, AP isn’t the only national news bureau that could be faulted on the no-accountability standard. Late last year, Reuters hired away Duff Wilson from the New York Times to join the organization’s investigative team. Let’s hope Wilson’s bosses steer him clear of criminal justice issues—at least when any amount of skepticism of the prosecutor is warranted. Let’s also hope that Reuters employs better fact-checkers than does the Times.

Another article for the non-accountability file: this piece from the Times, penned by a former national correspondent for the newspaper. How many readers of the article, I wonder, had any idea that one of the (two!) Group of 88 members quoted, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, had views such as these? While it’s not the job of the media to report every view a source might have expressed, when interviewing an extremist on the topic of his or her “expertise,” surely some requirement for context exists. Or, to phrase it differently, if most Times readers knew that Bonilla-Silva had termed our country “gringoland” and the “United States of Amerikkka,” and had conceded that even some of his own students considered his course material to be “anti-white,” would they have paid any attention to his comments in the article?

(Providing such context, it seems to me, should also occur on the rarer occasions when media members interview extremists of the right. Perhaps the best example is Tony Perkins, the head of an SPLC-designated hate group who regularly appears on all three major cable networks without his hosts referencing his extreme statements.)

Finally, a lawsuit update: the cases continue to inch their way through the judicial system. There’s no word on the fate of Duke’s appeal of the Beaty motion-to-dismiss ruling, which Judge Beaty has allowed to indefinitely delay discovery. Duke, meanwhile, is battling attorneys for the unindicted players, in the hopes of blocking any discovery from Duke’s p.r. firms. Given that a central element of the unindicted players’ case is that Duke violated their rights to protect the university’s reputation, this information would seem relevant.

In the Ekstrand case, Duke has demanded a protective order regarding discovery material—the university clearly doesn’t want any more embarrassing Brodhead e-mails to be attached to Ekstrand motions.

And regarding the FERPA matter (the university’s inexplicable decision to turn over FERPA-protected keycard information to the authorities, and then to wait for weeks before informing the students or their parents about what the university has done): ignorance is bliss appears to be the Duke litigation strategy. During the discovery process, Dean Sue Wasiolek spent more than six hours discussing the issue, yet—based on the filings—appeared to claim that she knew little of what occurred. Duke’s comment: Wasiolek is the university’s expert on the matter.

It’s good to know an apparent violation of the federal law to protect student rights generated such concern among Duke’s upper administration.

The Wendy Murphy File

To suggest [the indicted players] were well behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?
--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child.
--“CNN Live,” 3 May 2006

I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.
--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

Three elements of this case distinguish it from its high-profile criminal counterparts. First, the behavior and statements of the students’ own professors were cited as grounds for a change of venue—an action all but unprecedented in modern American criminal law. Second, blogs have played an important (and, I would argue, helpful) role. Third, the 24-hour cable news networks seized upon the case from the start, and have continued commentary more sporadically thereafter.

Sometimes, these shows have offered quality commentary—the “Abrams Report” early on, some broadcasts of “Greta” in recent weeks. Often, however, these programs feature little more than talking heads, with one adopting a pro-prosecution slant and another praising the defense.

A frequent guest on MSNBC, FOX, and CBS has been Wendy Murphy. Usually described as a former “sex crimes prosecutor” and law professor at Boston’s New England School of Law, she’s actually an adjunct professor, an inconvenient fact she rarely, if ever, reveals. Murphy defended Nifong in a recent USA Today op-ed—and her remarks were eviscerated by Liestoppers, which also has nominated her as a “hag of the hoax.”

Murphy’s bizarre claims to USA Today prompted me to perform a Lexis/Nexis search of her myriad case-related appearances. The results were deeply disturbing. In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.

Given that the preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states that “a lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice,” Murphy’s behavior raises some serious questions:

• What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

• How could the Massachusetts Bar license such a figure to practice law?

• How could Dean John O’Brien of New England School of Law allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

Untrue Statements

Section 3 of the Preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states: “As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law, and work to strengthen legal education.”

Murphy, on the other hand, has regularly gone on national television and cultivated not knowledge but its opposite, over and over again offering factually inaccurate statements.

1.) (22 December 2006) “One of the reasons I think she should be thought of as fairly credible is that she rejected a 2 million dollar plus offer by people on behalf of Duke at the outset.”

In fact, the accuser told police on June 30 that she had never been offered any money, by anyone, to drop the case.

2.) (1 May 2006) “All the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.”

In fact, these photographs have been cited in various defense motions, and even Nifong hasn’t challenged their veracity.

3.) (11 April 2006) “You know, these guys actually . . . some of them have been, according to neighbors, reportedly been involved in not only carousing activity but other sexual offenses.”

I am aware of no statement, by any neighbor, accusing any of the players of involvement in “other sexual offenses”; the Coleman Committee Report established that they had no such records.

4.) (19 April 2006) “All of them took the Fifth. All of them refused to cooperate. All of them refused to give a DNA sample, until the court produced an order compelling them to do so.”

In fact, Dave Evans, Dan Flannery, and Matt Zash gave multi-hour statements to the police, voluntarily gave DNA samples, and offered to take lie-detector tests. No player has invoked the Fifth Amendment at any point in this case.

5.) (17 April 2006) “These kinds of [photo] time stamps . . . could be off by a wide margin. But it’s important to note here the other woman involved here has heard this spin, if you will, by the defense, and has said ‘That timeline is way off.’”

In fact, while in two early interviews Kim Roberts criticized the players and their attorneys, she never made the statement, or anything resembling it, that Murphy attributed to her.

6.) (19 April 2006) “If you think that I would believe for a minute the spin coming out of one of these defense attorneys, given their silence around the DNA report, their deafening silence and lawyering up in the immediate aftermath of the crime.”

In fact, most of the players waited more than a week after the party to retain counsel.

7.) (17 April 2006) “Brett and Matt happen to be the real names of two of the captains who lived in that home.”

In fact, the three residents of the house were named Matt Zash, Dan Flannery, and Dave Evans.

8.) (21 April 2006) “It could have helped her, if she had been drunk . . . but she clearly wasn’t.”

In fact, the accuser informed UNC doctors that not only was she drunk, but she followed the dangerous course of consuming alcohol while taking Flexeril, risking side-effects that included badly impaired judgment.

9.) (27 April 2006) “It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn’t produce DNA when you put it inside someone.”

The search warrant for the lacrosse house contained no mention of a broom; and at no point in her myriad stories did the accuser claim assault by a broom.

10.) (2 May 2006) “The broomstick DNA has not yet been revealed.”

In fact, no “broomstick DNA” exists, since the police never seized a broomstick.

11.) (5 April 2006) “She had a torn genital area.”

In fact, in a recent court filing, even Mike Nifong conceded, “There is no scientific or other evidence independent of the [accuser’s] testimony that would corroborate specifically” a charge of rape.

12.) (24 May 2006) “Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty.”

In fact, no credible study exists contending more than 99 percent of people indicted are guilty.

13.) (16 May 2006) Remember, this is the guy [Dave Evans] who the victim said she’s 90 percent certain he assaulted her, and then as it turns out, she also apparently described that she scratched him, and we find his DNA under her fingernails.

In fact, the DNA report could not exclude Evans; no definitive match existed, as Dr. Brian Meehan made clear in his December testimony.

14.) (11 May 2006) “According to Durham president, the president of the university [Duke?], he said March 22 in a press release, many players weren’t there that night. Well, what does that tell us? It tells us the defense motion [on the lineup] is a bunch of nonsense, because if many players weren’t there, it’s a darned good chance if this was a hoax that she could have gotten it wrong.”

In fact, Richard Brodhead made no statement, of any kind, about the case on March 22; and he never claimed, one way or the other, to possess knowledge on who did or did not attend the party.

15.) (2 May 2006) “She was under the influence of a date rape drug.”

In fact, a toxicology report indicated no such finding.

16.) (13 June 2006) “The defense, very early on, filed a motion--I’ll call it a motion to shut up the prosecutor--so the prosecutor could suffer a suppression of evidence, a motion to dismiss the charges, as punishment for speaking publicly.”

In fact, as this library of defense motion reveals, no such motion exists.

17.) (22 June 2006) “The defense today, if this really is a big hoax, could have said to the judge, in writing or verbally, ‘Judge, I want a trial date ASAP.’ Call it a speedy trial motion; call it whatever you want. They had a right today to ask that this case go to trial immediately. And the whole thing would be over by August.”

In fact, North Carolina does not grant defendants such a right—and, contrary to Murphy’s repeated assertions, Reade Seligmann’s attorney, Kirk Osborn, filed such a motion.

18.) “And maybe what she said, which makes her particularly credible, is, ‘These guys didn’t ejaculate on or inside of my body,’ which means she deserves extra credibility because no one’s suggesting that she lied about whether there would be DNA found on her person.”

In fact, depending on which story she happened to be telling, the accuser claimed that either one or two of her alleged attackers ejaculated.

The above 18 items involve incorrect statements of fact, not peculiar opinions. Again, I ask:

• What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

• How could such a figure be licensed to practice law?

• How could New England School of Law, which describes itself as an “educational community characterized by substantive instruction with a strong foundation in ethics,” allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

Wholly unfounded speculation

Quite beyond her factually inaccurate statements, Murphy has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation—imagining evidence that she would have no reason to believe exists, or events that she would have no reason to believe occurred. Examples include:

1.) (19 June 2006) “Let me tell you what I think [Nifong] probably has—statements from some of the players who are probably cooperating because they actually have a conscience and think it matters when you tell the truth. And I bet she has GHB in her blood.”

2.) (26 Dec. 2006) “There’s a good chance a few of [the players] actually saw what happened and may well be cooperating.”

3.) (26 Dec. 2006) “Are there photographs? We know there were before photographs and after photographs. There’s a chance there are during photographs.”

4.) (5 April 2006) The players were “thinking, ‘I was entitled to do this. I’m a member of a wealthy white boy’s school in a community that allow me to do what I want when I want. They’ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time. Why not go home and celebrate?’ . . . The e-mail shows that these guys were of the mind that whatever had happened to this woman was just another day at the beach. They’ll rape her, sodomize her and tomorrow they’ll kill her.”

5.) (6 April 2006) “Either [Coach Mike Pressler] didn’t tell [Duke administrators] the whole truth about what happened, he helped the guys cover up or encouraged it.”

6.) (11 May 2006) “[The accuser] said I’m 100 percent certain it was this guy and that guy. And the third guy I think who’s about to be indicted is apparently named Dan. There are four Dans on the team. I want to put some money on the fact that a Dan will be indicted next week.”

7.) (9 April 2006) “If the DNA isn’t going to match, they wouldn’t need to do this. It’s almost comical that they think a photograph is proof positive that a rape didn’t happen. It’s not a smoking gun. It’s a muddying of the waters.”

8.) (10 April 2006) “What [the players] did was clam up and say, ‘Let’s stick together so we can get away with this.’”

No evidence exists to substantiate any of the above statements.

Denigrating Due Process

Section 3 of the Preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states the following: “A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

Murphy, on the other hand, has exhibited what borders on contempt for due process, as the examples below suggest.

1.) (August 7) “How about the defense attorneys shutting up.”

2.) (May 2) “Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke . . . When they make administrative decisions about student behavior they don’t owe them any due process.”

3.) (May 1) “I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.”

4.) (May 1) “Defense attorneys lie with impunity.”

5.) (April 10) “These guys, like so many rapists—and I’m going to say it because, at this point, she’s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim.”

Occasionally, Murphy has offered statements that, with passage of time, come across as unintentionally ironic.

On August 7, for instance, she asserted that “the defense attorneys are hiding [DNA reports].” We now know that someone was hiding DNA material—but it wasn’t the defense. And on June 19, she stated, “I want to vote [Nifong] up. Whatever, you know, next rung of the ladder prosecutors can go at, he deserves to be promoted and celebrated.” In light of the state bar’s filing of ethics charges, I doubt many people would consider Nifong a suitable candidate for promotion.

Again, I ask:

· What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

· How could such a figure be licensed to practice law?

· How could New England School of Law allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

Old "Friends"

A variety of figures whose performance in the lacrosse case drew widespread condemnation surfaced in the news over the past week—with scant, if any, suggestions that they had learned any lessons from their misbehavior.

---------

In a race to the bottom for lack of integrity, it’s hard to choose between Selena Roberts and Alex Rodriguez. Now working for Sports Illustrated, Roberts broke the story that Rodriguez had tested positive for steroids in 2003. In an interview about her story with the MLB Network’s Bob Costas, Roberts affirmed that her obligation as a journalist was to “find the truth.” She expanded on this in an interview with ESPN Radio, where, according to Harry Stein, she opined, “What we tried to do is be very specific about what we heard and make sure that we found credible information and reliable people, and that we buttoned up every single hole to make sure to be absolutely right . . . It’s like being in court—once you say something, you can’t just strike it.”

It’s not clear when Roberts adopted this definition of her profession’s aim: her writing on the Duke case demonstrated an aversion to, rather than a quest for, the truth.

Perhaps Roberts’ focus on Rodriguez is fitting justice. Just as Rodriguez’s career will be forever tarnished by his admission that he broke the law over a several-year period, so too will Roberts be forever tarnished by her decision to set aside the standards of her profession to advance a preconceived ideological agenda, use her Times column to spew falsehoods, and then refuse to own up to her errors.

-----------

Selena Roberts looks like a beacon of truth and righteousness, however, when compared to Wendy Murphy. In the lacrosse case, the adjunct law professor compiled a record for untruths second only to that of Mike Nifong. (New England School of Law’s dean did not respond to repeated e-mails asking how he could continue to employ—as a professor of law—a figure who publicly and repeatedly stated outright falsehoods.)

The adjunct law professor was back in the news last week, in an article on “sexting” (teenagers sending nude pictures of themselves or their boyfriends/girlfriends as text messages). The Boston Herald, identifying Murphy as someone “who lectures on sex crimes at the New England School of Law,” reported the adjunct professor as saying that “sexting” almost has become an “epidemic.” Murphy added, “I know it seems heavy-handed to bring child porn charges. Law enforcement is using the only tool it has for what has become a huge problem nationwide.”

The evidence Murphy cited to show that “sexting” has almost become an “epidemic,” and that it “has become a huge problem nationwide”? None. But why let evidence get in the way of a preferred storyline, even if it involves support for charging 13-year-olds with child porn?

The other “expert” quoted in the Herald story was Sari Locker, a self-described “sex educator and TV personality,” whose official website photo is a bit on the . . . revealing . . . side. It’s good to see that Murphy is continuing to keep good company.

---------

By the end of the lacrosse case, virtually the only publication that treated Murphy seriously was the Wilmington Journal, where Cash Michaels would regularly quote, without skepticism, from Murphy and either NAACP “case monitor” Irving Joyner or North Carolina NAACP head William Barber.

As the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in modern U.S. history was occurring in his midst, Barber did all he could to prop up the case offered by the perpetrator of that prosecutorial misconduct. Whether it was publishing an error-laden, guilt-presuming 82-point “memorandum of law” or going to the Duke Chapel to continue his organization’s character assault on Duke students, Barber spent more than a year strenuously advancing Mike Nifong’s efforts.

Last week, Barber was honored with the Paul Green Award by, of all, organizations, the North Carolina ACLU.

I share Barber’s opposition to the death penalty, and agree wholeheartedly with the NAACP’s efforts against the practice. That said: How can an organization committed to upholding civil liberties extend an award to a figure whose public conduct in such a high-profile case had exhibited an utter indifference to the importance of civil liberties?

---------

Finally, Clark University has chosen to honor Karla Holloway. Next week, the Group of 88 extremist will give the keynote address at a Clark University conference entitled, “Evolutionary Momentum in African American Studies — Legacy and Future Direction.”

Holloway’s honor serves as a reminder of a principal academic lesson from the lacrosse case: in an academic environment dominated by peer review, terms like “excellence” or “quality” mean very different things than what non-academics might expect. That an Ivy League institution like Cornell could hire Grant Farred while hailing his scholarly credentials as excellent, or a top-tier liberal arts college like Clark could bring Holloway in to give a keynote address shows how such inherently subjective terms as “excellence” or “quality” are defined in the contemporary academy.

Updates: Times, Cline, FERPA, Chafe

[Updated, Friday, 1.03pm: Duke has filed its discovery requests in the McFadyen lawsuit. University lawyers are asking for potentially thousands of documents, including logs of Facebook accounts, e-mails to their teammates and their parents, high school grades, drafts(!) of class papers, tax returns, and medical records since 2001.

The document requests suggest that the university's legal strategy will focus on attempting to blame the lacrosse players for any damages they received, presumably by trying to detect stray items in Facebook posts or e-mails. The strategy is unsurprising: if the Brodhead administration's actions are indefensible, the university has little choice but to go after the plaintiffs. That said, it's still striking that as the same university that wants thousands of documents from its former students has been willing, thus far, to hand over only 27 documents of its own.]

New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane, last seen searching out Wendy Murphy for guidance about how his newspaper should report sexual assault cases, posted a provocative item this morning asking if the Times should be a “truth vigilante.”

Brisbane said that his post was prompted by reader concerns about the paper’s repeating false candidate claims (such as Mitt Romney’s repeated assertion that Pres. Obama embarked on a tour to “apologize” for the United States) without reporters pointing out that these claims were . . . false.

Of course, it’s hard to give any credibility to someone, like Brisbane, who sees Wendy Murphy as an arbiter of truth. In any case, the Times’ indifference to repeating false items obviously predated the current campaign. The factual errors from Duff Wilson’s reporting remain uncorrected.

-----------

Durham County’s “Minister of Justice” is back in the news this week. Tracey Cline, continuing her quixotic case against Durham judge Orlando Hudson, filed papers demanding Hudson’s removal from a yet another criminal case, on spurious grounds that he is biased against her office.

N&O reporter Andrew Curliss noted that Cline’s filing repeated factual errors that she’s made in previous legal documents (even if the office struggles with basic research, does anyone from the Durham DA’s office bother to read the newspaper?). At least, however, Curliss notes that Cline's 30-page submission was “much smaller than previous filings by her that attacked Hudson.”

BTW: Cline came second for worst prosecutor of the year, 2011, to John Bradley.

------------

I have a post at Minding the Campus using the recent example of former St. Joe’s basketball player Todd O’Brien to point out how universities too often abuse FERPA, using the law not as it was intended (to protect student rights) but instead as a shield to avoid public criticism.

That post suggested (and a browse through FIRE’s archive would confirm) that universities too often interpret FERPA far too rigorously. But the post also acknowledged the one high-profile instance in which a university ignored FERPA so as to serve short-term public relations interests—Duke’s decision to give the DPD keycard information on the lacrosse players—without a subpoena, and without telling the students or their parents. Intriguingly, among the handful of documents turned over to Bob Ekstrand in discovery was an email from Duke falsely claiming that the university had followed FERPA’s terms.

---------

Finally, Politico reports on a new PBS movie focusing on Bill Clinton and the former President's many, many affairs. Among the people quoted in the article--U.S. history's race/class/gender specialist, none other than William Chafe.

The Group of 88'er conclusion: Clinton's lack of control over his behavior was "terrifying." There's no indication whether Chafe will be endorsing a full-page ad in the Chronicle denouncing Clinton.

Hat tip--O.S.

“Students Are Not The Enemy of . . . Faculty Unless We Invite Them To Be”

The past few days appear to have launched “Hypocrisy Week.” First, the New York Times public editor turned to Wendy Murphy—Wendy Murphy!—for guidance on how journalists should cover sexual assault cases. Then, the Chronicle of Higher Education turned to Cathy Davidson—Cathy Davidson!—to deliver a plea about protecting students’ due process rights on campus.

During the lacrosse case, Davidson distinguished herself for her “revisionist” interpretation of the Group of 88 statement, which she displayed in a January 2007 N&O op-ed. In a bizarre inversion of reality, the Group member claimed that the period between March 24 and April 6, 2006—when Duke administrators, professors, some students, and “activists” regularly denounced the lacrosse players—in fact featured a Duke campus with widespread, boisterous defenses of lacrosse players coupled with racist attacks on black women. “It was,” fantasized she, “as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women.” (In an e-mail circulated at the time, Davidson confessed that she penned the op-ed after consulting with a lawyer, and being informed that Group members could be vulnerable to civil suits.)

Davidson’s latest stab at commentary came in response to the pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters at UC-Davis—which today led to the suspension of the campus police chief. Cal-Davis deserves all the criticism that it gets for this incident, and I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff on the issue. Yet there’s something . . . peculiar . . . about seeing Cathy Davidson standing up for due process, given what was (at best) her indifference when three of her own institution’s students faced the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in recent U.S. history. It’s even more remarkable to see her pen an article entitled “A Plea to College Presidents: Exercise Your Moral Leadership,” given the failed “moral leadership” exhibited by her own institution’s president in the lacrosse case.

Davidson, however, appears unable or unwilling to detect her hypocrisy. “Students are not the enemy of administrators and faculty unless we invite them to be,” writes the Group member. If nothing else, the Group of 88 statement invited dozens of Duke students to recognize that some of the most outspoken faculty members on campus viewed them as the enemy.

The Davidson essay is notable for another matter relating to academic hypocrisy. Over the past several weeks, I’ve heard of troubling instances in which CUNY faculty members have brought the Occupy Wall Street protests into their classrooms, including at least two occasions of professors “encouraging” their students to actually attend the protests. Davidson seems to see little problematic with such conduct, noting approvingly that she has “heard from faculty and administrators who see the Occupy activities as appropriate for thoughtful conversation and debate across a numerous departments, whether economics or ethics.”

It would be interesting to see how many professors who see OWS as a “teachable moment” had a similar reaction to the Tea Party movement, which in many ways was OWS’ mirror image from 2009-10. (I rather doubt that Davidson had such a reaction, for instance.) From defenders of the academic status quo, we often hear (correctly, in my opinion) that the partisan affiliation of professors, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the quality of education. But that argument becomes much harder to sustain when professors so blatantly bring their political sympathies into the classroom.

“Students are not the enemy of administrators and faculty unless we invite them to be.” Cathy Davidson certainly knows of what she speaks.