Crowley's Full of Hot Air

In an exercise of extreme hypocrisy, Duke University Geology Professor, Thomas Crowley, pens a guest column for the Herald Sun bemoaning the “half baked and half true” opinions of people with no legal qualifications who “don’t know what they are talking about” yet question the validity of the Duke Hoax persecution. Perhaps feeling neglected from his five minutes of Hoax fame, Professor Crowley adds his own fully baked and almost fully untrue assessment of why the Hoax should persist.

“I am surprised at the number of letter writers to your paper who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out of before even it goes to trial. I don’t know what happened that night with respect to these students and that woman, but I do know that the following items about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case.

• The Duke lacrosse players were no angels – they had a previously established history of rowdiness tarnished with racial comments, and one of the accused had been previously arrested for anti—gay comments while drunk.

• Why are photographs available before and after the alleged event, but not during it? Is it possible that photographer did not want to document what happening during that time?

• Why was the woman sober when she arrived and staggering to the point of passing out a mere 30 minutes later? Was she possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink? If so, what were their motives?

The accuser has in turn been accused of misleading statements about what happened and how long it took. Of course, some of this could be intentional deception, but it could also reflect the alcohol (and drugs?) and the stress and distortion that came with anxiety and terror. It is very common for people to distort time when they are being traumatized, whether they had a drink or not.

District Attorney Mike Nifong has also been roundly criticized. I agree his statements at NCCU were inappropriate, but his statements to the media at the beginning of the case were open to interpretation about motives. I think many people might have felt totally off guard and swept away but the tidal wave of media attention that so quickly came down after the case was publicized. I am hesitant to be totally critical of Nifong’s response because I could not say for sure if I too might have been swept away by all that was happening.

But Nifong learned his lesson and kept mum since then. By contrast, the defense lawyers continue to make inappropriate public comments about the accuser to the point of blackening her name to set the potential jurors. These lawyers are continuing to manipulate the law and the public, yet they are being criticized by virtually no one.

And there is a well-oiled PR machine by some Duke advocates that is contributing to this confusion and sullying the name of the university by assuming they too know what the final answer is.

As stated before, I do not know what happened that night. I have no preconditioned preference for whether the accused were guilty or not.

If not, so be it. If so, so be that too. But, I most certainly do not think the case should be thrown out just because some half baked and half true legal opinions by people who don’t know what they are talking about, and by a group of lawyers and advocates who seem to be doing their best to confuse the public.”

While the geology professor interjects himself into the debate by condemning other commentators' lack of knowledge, he most clearly reveals his own. Most hypocritically, Crowley comdemns those with no legal qualifications for expressing opinions and then proceeds to present arguments that not only contradict factual items that have been revealed but also that appear to directly argue against many of the conlusions drawn by fellow facutly member, Duke Law Professor James Coleman.

Months after the Coleman report found that there was no history of racist behavior among the team, Professor Crowley chooses to perpetuate this fallacy, while ironically accusing others of “doing their best to confuse the public.” Contrary to Professor Crowley’s deception, the Coleman report found:

"None of the misconduct involved fighting, sexual assault or harassment, or racist slurs." There was no evidence "that the cohesiveness of this group is either racist or sexist."

Bizarrely, Professor Crowley revives, several months after it has been debunked by scientific hair analysis, the suggestion that a date rape drug may have been employed. Curiously, his fully baked suggestion comes in the wake of the latest confirmation that random blackouts were common occurrences for the accuser.

“Days before a woman said Duke University lacrosse players raped and beat her, she was passed out cold at a Hillsborough strip club and had to be carried to the parking lot, according to the club's former manager.

“In that gravel parking lot on the night of March 11, the four people carrying the woman accidentally dropped her, said Yolanda Haynes, the club's former manager.

“Haynes' account of that night at the club offers a possible explanation for the scratches doctors would later note on the accuser's body. The story adds potential ammunition for the lacrosse players' lawyers who say the allegations of rape are lies. The account also describes behavior, including incoherence and unconsciousness, that is consistent with how the woman was acting the night of the lacrosse party.” N&O

Further demonstrating his ignorance, Crowley attempts to absolve DA Nifong of his numerous violations of the State Bar’s prohibition against a prosecutor making extra judicial statements, by offering that Nifong's motives may be “open to interpretation.” Perhaps Duke Law Professor James Coleman missed that clarification in the State Bar rules when informing us the statements, which Crowley attempts to justify, instead demonstrate misconduct grave enough to offer grounds for appeal.

“During the segment, James Coleman, a Duke University law professor, said he thought Nifong had committed prosecutorial misconduct by speaking out before charges were filed.”

"If this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction thrown out based on misconduct," Coleman said. N&O

Crowley continues to prove his own lack of qualifications to opine on the Hoax by wondering why the defense team is not criticized for fulfilling their legal obligation, as described in State Bar rules, to “make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.” Rather than recognizing this obligation to protect their clients, Crowley, a geology professor, instead chooses to falsely accuse the defense attorneys of manipulating the law.

Although he has no legal qualifications and obviously little knowledge about the facts of the case, Professor Crowley finds it his place to offer public opinions, suggestions, suppositions, and even accusations that contradict, not only facts that are readily available to him if he chose to educate himself, but also countless legal experts with far greater expertise than that offered by his multiple Geology degrees.

Perhaps the good Professor will excuse us if we consider the opinions of Duke Law Professor Coleman just a bit higher than his own. While Professor Crowley's lack of legal qualifications, and obvious absence of relevant knowledge, may not offer credibility in this discussion, his extensive climate studies may explain why he is so comfortable presenting an argument so full of hot air.

Philip Wood