<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I did a lot of trashing and bashing in my head 
Maybe not on CC</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the two boys who haven’t graduated will go back to Duke?</p>
<p>Hi andi:</p>
<p>I think they have both decided to go elsewhere. I don’t blame them.</p>
<p>Neither is returning this Fall, at least. Reade Seligmann’s statements have pointed pretty strongly in directions other than Durham, and the Finnerty Family have definitely stated a great deal of unease at the prospect of having Collin in Durham while Michael Nifong is still the DA; he’s going to London School of Economics for the Fall.</p>
<p>I really can’t blame either of them at all. There was a march just this past weekend that stopped at the 610 Buchanan house, and there were thinly veiled calls for racial violence in an opinion column in the NCCU student paper. I surely wouldn’t want to be within the county line under those continuing circumstances.</p>
<p>Thanks. I can totally understand - it will be hard enough to put this behind them but being back at Duke would make it next to impossible. LSE will be a great change.</p>
<p>A letter to the Editor by Wendy Murphy to the Boston Globe.
<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/05/01/much_untold_in_duke_rape_case/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/05/01/much_untold_in_duke_rape_case/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently Wendy believes that Cooper lied and Nifong was telling the truth?!?!?
(Even Nifong has issued and apology, of sorts.)
link to the article that got Wendy upset. <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/16/a_rush_to_injustice_in_the_duke_rape_case/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/16/a_rush_to_injustice_in_the_duke_rape_case/</a></p>
<p>I may not always agree with the Boston Globe, but this time they got it right. From the article linked above:</p>
<p>"But many people wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good crusade. "</p>
<p>Also states:</p>
<p>“In fact, it’s about time we humanized men who are victims of false accusations of rape. Feminism has made great strides in bringing attention to the tragedy of rape and the pain of its victims. Now, the Duke case may bring much-needed focus to the tragedy of false accusations. It is not anti female to say that some women do lie about rape – any more than it is anti male to say that some men rape women. The vindication of the Duke Three may in the end be a victory for true gender equity.”</p>
<p>Wendy needs to find a new cause… :o</p>
<p>Evidently students do not learn the principle of “the preponderance of the evidence” in Murphy’s class (much less “beyond a reasonable doubt”).</p>
<p>Wendy Murphy is the worst kind of fanatic. I’ve seen her many times on television, and she never hesitates to discard any and all facts in order to support her very obvious and twisted agenda. IMHO, she’s a very troubled woman who has miraculously found tons of air time in which to share her considerable dysfunction with the masses. How ANYONE could employ her is beyond me.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Wendy’s personal philosophy makes it much easier to live with ones-self as a lawyer. Any client she has deserves to have the court find in the client’s favor, and when they do not, it is clearly a problem with society rather than anything having to do with the client or the attorney. Forget the drugs, forget the DNA evidence, forget the alibi evidence, forget the illegal lineup -
</p>
<p>Which brings us back to [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,<em>damned</em>lies,<em>and</em>statistics]Benjamin Disraeli…</p>
<p>Wendy Murphy is a harpy and a total crackpot!! We’re supposed to believe that the NC Atty. General and the two special prosecutors lied, had someone payoff the accuser and Kim Roberts and that the piles and piles of exculpatory evidence are all bogus?? and Nifong is being railroaded? Right…</p>
<p>I’m with berurah on this one–why on earth do the networks ask her on the air?? </p>
<p>BTW I don’t think Nancy Grace has said one word about the Lax case since the guys were exonerated–there’s another apology we will never hear!</p>
<p>Now that the semester is coming to a cose, I can finally work on a project I’ve had in mind for quite some time. I want to take the [Badger</a>, Badger, Badger](<a href=“http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/]Badger”>http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/) flash, replace “Badger” with Nifong, Mushroom with “Wendy Murphy” and “Snake, a snake, ooh it’s a snake” with “Nannnnnncy Grace, oh, it’s Nancy Grace.” At least for the latter, no alteration to the image will be required…</p>
<p>Murphy’s blindness is not atypical of a person who is driven by ideology. The idea that “we don’t have any idea what the real evidence is in this case” at this point demonstrates a willful ignorance, not just passive cluelessness. And I have to disagree with the idea that this kind of blindness to even obvious reality makes for a “good lawyer.” To a certain extent, a lawyer has to be loyal to his or her clients, and that requires overlooking personal character flaws at times. But to be a good lawyer you always have to want to know every fact, and have as accurate an idea of what the other side has at all times. Murphy isn’t a good lawyer, what she is is a typical “expert for hire” - a person with seemingly impressive credentials who can be relied upon to give the “right” “expert” testimony every time. (The legal terminology for these experts is “whores”)</p>
<p>Another interesting Murphy quote can be found here: <a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300001[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300001</a> I think that explains some of the other published ideologically-driven comments we’ve seen linked to here in recent days…</p>
<p>Ad in yesterday’s Chronicle</p>
<p>“The following petition was endorsed by over 1,000
Duke Students along with recent graduates:
WHAT DOES A SOCIAL DISASTER SOUND LIKE?
On April 6th of last year a full page ad ran in The Chronicle signed by 88 professors and 16 academic programs and
departments at Duke University. Weeks before any indictment was issued, in disregard for due process, our own
professors projected guilt onto our peers on the lacrosse team. In the ad they not only tacitly supported the accusations
of the now utterly discredited accuser, but praised protestors who similarly rushed to judgment, while levying baseless
accusations of racism against our student body.
In a time of intense emotions and enormous stakes, when our community dearly needed a call for calm, for patience, for
rational and careful thinking, these professors instead took a course of action which escalated tensions, spurred
divisions along lines of race and class and brought our community into greater turmoil. Their actions also further
undermined the legal process and most likely emboldened a rogue district attorney.
WE, THE STUDENTS OF DUKE UNIVERSITY,
DEMAND AN APOLOGY FROM THE GROUP OF 88
As students who love Duke we are ashamed by the apparent decision of these faculty members to exploit a tragic
situation to further their own political and social agendas. As an institution of higher learning we expect our professors
to provide a model of intellectual integrity to which we can aspire—not to act with reckless disregard for fairness, justice
and jurisprudence, and then callously refuse to make an apology or accept responsibility for their actions.<br>
For those who would argue their ad has been mischaracterized we offer the following excerpts, which leave no doubt as
to the material it contained—
“Students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman…”
“‘If something like this happened to me…what would be used against me—my clothing? Where I was?”’
“No one is really talking about how to keep this young woman herself central to this conversation, how to keep her
humanity before us…”
“To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for
making yourselves heard.”
Some of the Group of 88 went even further in their ill-begotten rush to judgment. Some professors are alleged to have
maligned lacrosse players in their courses; Professor Kim Curtis is alleged to have failed a student (with a 3.5 GPA)
simply because he was a member of the team.
Other professors have made some truly shocking public statements, such as—
Prof. Houston Baker’s claim of “Young, white, violent, drunken men among us - implicitly boasted by our athletic
directors and administrators - have injured lives,” and his remark that the lacrosse team “may well feel they can claim
innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black
woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again?”
Prof. Mark Anthony Neal’s claim that, “”Regardless of what happened inside of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd, the young men
were hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed.”
President Brodhead has yet to come forward and defend his students against the assaults launched by his own faculty.
WE CALL UPON PRESIDENT BRODHEAD TO
FINALLY STAND UP FOR HIS STUDENTS
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
PAID ADVERTISEMENT”</p>
<p>I had to post this. I wrote to an author who had written that the lacrosse girls were “ignorant” for wearing the innocent armbands (he also wrote some other ugly and, I believe, sexist things). Well, unbelievably, he responded. Here is the thread of emails (I will take out the address and my name) The author is Stephen Smith of the Philly News</p>
<p>I initially wrote:<br>
</p>
<p>He responded today with:
</p>
<p>I responded back:
</p>
<p>I’ll let you know if I get anything back.</p>
<p>Wow, to tell you the truth, I didn’t know columnists would actually respond to an email!</p>
<p>I haven’t heard from Nancy Grace yet, and I wrote her an email the same day ;)</p>
<p>Why is this still being discussed?</p>
<p>The boys are innocent, end of story. </p>
<p>Anyone claiming they are guilty still needs to move on and start whining about something else.</p>
<p>Because there are still interesting repercussions going on and it is stimulating to discuss them with people who want to.</p>
<p>There are a bunch of other threads and topics that might catch your fancy ;)</p>
<p>BTW, I don’t think anyone on CC still thinks they are guilty, but there are some in the media who wish they were.</p>
<p>
<em>cough</em> Not so sure about that… ;)</p>
<p>The problem is that no matter how much they were exonerated legally of any crimes, there will always be people who increduously think these 3 guys (who were randomly selected in the first place) are guilty. And that is why this incident and the past year are not a “blip” in these guys’ lives. In fact, they are forever tainted by this false accusation. There will always be people who are convinced they did wrong. Hard to believe or imagine it, given the evidence to the contrary and the words of the AG. </p>
<p>By the way, the public ad by 1000 Duke students, posted above, is well done. I’m glad they did it since the 88 faculty members who signed the other ad have not commented publicly any apology or anything remotely close since the boys were cleared of wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Ah, the redoubtable Mr. S. Smith… Basically, he is saying that strong women, coached by a strong woman, should shut up and play rather than express an opinion.</p>
<p>I love how he doesn’t allow the fact that they were right deter him from his opinion… Sigh…</p>
<p>I suppose it really is more important to be consistent than to admit to being wrong?</p>
<p>To EMF above - the problem is, this issue has continuing repercussions in the collegiate world and is thus an active topic for discussion on a forum such as this. Just recently, Dr. William Chafe called out “bloggers” while simultaneously decrying same for denying individuality. Erm, hello, I’m an individual too! And then there’s Wendy Murphy, who has single-handedly done more damage to feminism and to victim support than anyone in this case.</p>