Wednesday, November 15, 2006

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

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't mind that I emailed a link to Crowley...

Anonymous said...

Could there possibly be more wackos on one university's payroll?

Anonymous said...

Crowley refers to the "well-oiled PR machine" that has sullied the reputation of the University. The only machine sullying the reputation of the University are the left-wing, agenda driven faculty members who will sacrifice their students on a moments notice to push their agendas forward and an Administration that acts as an accomplice.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know this clowns e-mail?

Anonymous said...

"• 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?"

How do you photograph an event that DIDN'T HAPPEN????

As far as photographs during the time of the event....well, how do you know they aren't since the Defense nor anyone else knows what Mr. Nifong's timeline is.

Of course there is no longer a 30 minute window, now it is only 5-10 minutes, and his timeline is from 11:30 to 12:50 or somewhere in that neighborhood, and how surprising that there might be a few minutes when the Dancers were not dancing that there might not be some photos

Good grief.

Anonymous said...

tcrowley@duke.edu

Anonymous said...

Mr Crowley should stick to rocks

Anonymous said...

Crowley's comments are breathtaking, and very typical of what I am seeing with the Duke arts and sciences (Trinity College) faculty.

Not only do Duke faculty members make themselves willfully ignorant of the situation, they repeat half-truths and outright lies in order to justify their own dishonest actions.

I hope decent people everywhere make Duke University off limits to their children. Leftist professors love to talk about things like "safe space." Well, it is very clear that Duke University is NOT a "safe space" for the truth.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

I am very glad I do not have a child currently attending Duke. I don't think I could bring myself to sign the check. $40K a year for this kind of nonsense?

kbp said...

Thanks Liestoppers

His letter certainly reveals his position on the case.

I'm left with the impression many in his profession must feel they have to change the world.

Anonymous said...

What parent in their right mind would subject their child to a University that won't protect its students? Was Crowley one of the 88 or do the numbers keep growing?

Anonymous said...

Just e-mailed 'Professor' Crowley and congratulated him on his 15 minutes of fame...part of history now...what a fool!!!

Anonymous said...

I thought Brodhead took the position that he does not want to interfere with the legal process?

Why does he allow his faculty to do just that?

Anonymous said...

These people don't seem realize to realize that it is not the unproven accusations against these young men that is causing people to question Duke's reputation.

Anonymous said...

I hope the defense team has copies of all the letters like these---to get the change in venue.

Anonymous said...

a politically correct geologist at Duke! wonders never cease.

Anonymous said...

Professor Crowley is quoted "I don’t know what happened that night with respect to these students and that woman, but I DO KNOW [emphasis mine] that the following items about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case."

He then enumerated a series of questions & conjectures. I did not pick up one substantive point in his listing that might be classified as a fact that could be known by anyone.

I was not aware that Questions & Conjectures equate to knowledge. I must have missed something in Geology.

So much for the disciplined logic of the Scientific Method.

Anonymous said...

It is truly the faculty and administration that are "sullying" Duke's reputation.

My daughter is a junior in high school and you can rest assured Duke will not be on her application list - despite the fact that it meets a number of her criteria.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead MUST go. He is not responsible for hiring all of these delusional fools but he is responsible for tolerating their activities. What kinds of minds come up with this drivel?

Anonymous said...

bill anderson, please do not dare criticsie the caliber of minds at Duke. YOU teakc at some place called Frostburg or something that is not even in the ball park with Duke. The professors have a right to their opinion and some of the 88 taught these LAX guys personally and know first hand what disrespectful assholes they were, unlike a lot of you on here defending people who you never met!

Anonymous said...

above you need a spell check, and I hope the person running this site has your ISP and when the the family's file for slander they will add you to it.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the last comment speaks for itself. I believe that this is the first time that anyone has called Reade Seligmann a "disrespectful a**hole." From what I have read about him from other teachers, as well as from people who knew him (and not just LAX players), I find that he is quite different.

The anonymous poster is trying to tell us that Peter Wood's comments were on the level. I have my doubts about that, and K.C. Johnson has taken Wood's words apart.

I will tell the readers flat out that I have no respect for professors who attack their own students, especially for their own political gain. And I will stand by those words.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

10:59 am - I imagine that you likewise did not recieve your education from Duke, given your lack of ability to write.

Anonymous said...

I also need to add that Phillip Wood's comments directed at Reade Seligmann constituted a huge violation of professional conduct. Those who are not college professors might not understand just how important it is for us in this business not only to show some respect for our students, but also not to single out individuals for personal attacks.

In many places, Wood could have lost his job for his comments, or would have been severely reprimanded. At Duke, he is praised and put in charge of an important university-wide ad hoc committee. That Duke University would choose to openly reward someone who had committed an egregious violation of professional conduct is very, very telling about Duke and about Richard Brodhead.

I am sure that many of the readers are involved in professions where certain codes of conduct, both written and unwritten, are in place. You know what happens when you or someone else violates those codes. Thus, you can see why I am so upset at what is happening at Duke.

I also find it interesting to see just how far many on the Duke faculty will go to demonize their students who apparently are well-thought-of elsewhere.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Bravo Bill Anderson!!! I think its outrageous what Crowley wrote. I won't acknowlege his title as a teacher; he no longer deserves it.

Anonymous said...

Well now that you have a comment from someone in the sciences, you still cannot figure out that the support for evidence, due process, legal determination rather than your extra legal speculation and ridiculous rants might come from someone other than the humanities faculty at Duke. And still you can't figure out that there are clear thinking, reasonable people who are opposed to your brand of justice (which for you folk means stop the case because we outsiders think the evidence does not warrant a process). Get real people. The support for the processes of legalism are wide and deep at Duke, and don't include you people who would rather substitute poor, biased, wistful judgment for constitutional processes.

Anonymous said...

i did not go to duke but i will defend its administration and teachers as it is almost an ivy league institution unlike frostburg U , where Bill Anderson teaches.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Frostburg State is a lower-tier institution, but at least at Frostburg, it is understood that teachers are not to publicly tell lies about their students.

And he is right, I do not have an Ivy League degree (K.C. Johnson does, by the way), but at least I understand the codes of conduct of my profession.

I'll also say that the insults I have received regarding where I teach do not bother me. I like the True FSU, and I like and respect my colleagues very much. In other words, I am happy and proud to be there, and if the behavior I am seeing from the Duke faculty is indicative of the atmosphere at that place, well, then I am glad as heck to be an ignorant hick.

Yes, there are many good people at Duke, and I have heard from some of them. But I sure would not want to work at a place where people who literally wish to destroy our entire system of law are able to intimidate people who disagree with them. That is one heck of a price to pay for the honor and prestige of working at an elite institution.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

"Wish to destroy our entire system of law"? Give me a break! The problem you people have is that three white boys get to experience the consequence of their conduct--a case determined by a jury, evidence, and a court room appearance. That's what drives you people nuts. That the system of law is calling into question the conduct of boys whom you would otherwise and rather be immune from it. Fearful that something might come out you would rather not hear? Worried that when the DA goes after their past conduct it will sully the reputations you have invented on the internet? I think so.

Anonymous said...

...worried that when the DA goes after their past conduct it will sully the reputations youhave invented.......

Wonder if any of them will turn out to be drug addled strippers that steal cars and attempt to run over LEO, wonder if any of them will turn out to be embezzlers that steal 25K from their employers?

No Mike, you will just trot out some "unsavory" web sites they visited for the village idiots to see and feign shock at.

Good luck with that, best you have since there is no real evidence I suppose.

Now, get back to work, does any work happen on the sixth floor ?

Anonymous said...

Just because Colin Finnerty was found guilty of assault in DC does not mean he did this crime too. He deserves our support and presumption of innocence. One mistake does not always lead to another. I am sure some of these fine young men have made mistakes in the past. That doesn't mean it should all be aired out in a courtroom. I worry that their reputations will be further destroyed by having the parties or whatever come out in a Court TV show. They should have some privacy as well as our prayers.

Anonymous said...

why should they have privacy when their lawyers are dredging up everything the victim has done wrong in the last 10 years? oh i forgot, the duke 3 are white and therefore they have rights the victim does not have and their misdeeds and perverted interests deserve privacy. i think not!

Anonymous said...

Ummmmm Bill, did you mean Philip Wood the author of this piece or Crowley?




Bill Anderson wrote:

I also need to add that Phillip Wood's comments directed at Reade Seligmann constituted a huge violation of professional conduct. Those who are not college professors might not understand just how important it is for us in this business not only to show some respect for our students, but also not to single out individuals for personal attacks.

In many places, Wood could have lost his job for his comments, or would have been severely reprimanded. At Duke, he is praised and put in charge of an important university-wide ad hoc committee. That Duke University would choose to openly reward someone who had committed an egregious violation of professional conduct is very, very telling about Duke and about Richard Brodhead.

I am sure that many of the readers are involved in professions where certain codes of conduct, both written and unwritten, are in place. You know what happens when you or someone else violates those codes. Thus, you can see why I am so upset at what is happening at Duke.

I also find it interesting to see just how far many on the Duke faculty will go to demonize their students who apparently are well-thought-of elsewhere.

huesofblue said...

11:51 wrote:

"Worried that when the DA goes after their past conduct it will sully the reputations you have invented on the internet?"

Evidence of prior bad acts is generally inadmissible at trial. It’s not a worry here.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I wouldn't care if these men had rap sheets a mile long. Until there is physical evidence that a rape was committed, all three are innocent.
Since the DA saw no reason to investigate the crime before he indicted, there should be no trial either.

Anonymous said...

prior bad acts are inadmissible unless they are similarly patterned with the act for which they are accused. 1 hate crime = another hate crime. 1 assault = another assault. I bet it gets admitted. I bet you don't think it will. But of course, you didn't think Nifong would get reelected either. So far, you are 0-1.

Anonymous said...

verbal assault=rape? Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

The standard for our system of law is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There also exist explicit procedures regarding indictment that have been violated on numerous occasions.


From what I am reading in the Herald-Sun and from Nifong himself, the legal standard in this case apparently is "innocent beyond any doubt." Since many in the Durham area simply explain away exculpatory evidence via conspiracy theories, there can be no meeting of the standard that apparently prevails in this case.

That is what I mean by overturning law as we know it. Now, I realize that the poster is not going to be swayed by anything. He already has declared that his standard of guilt is race-based, and if he were on the jury, no doubt he would choose to ignore any exculpatory evidence presented by the defense, no matter how strong it is. After all, ANY exculpatory evidence can be explained away by a conspiracy theory, so why bother.

But I do hope that others reading this board understand the real legal quandaries that Nifong has created. If Nifong and his supporters prevail, and somehow make it through appeals (which I doubt, but justice in North Carolina is a crapshoot), then other prosecutors would be emboldened to do the same thing elsewhere.

Go to the website of the Innocence Project. Many of those men (many of them black) have had their rape convictions overturned by exactly the same kind of exculpatory evidence that the poster here demands that Nifong and a jury reject.

Look at the pictures of those men, and realize that the poster is declaring that he is willing for those wrongfully convicted men to remain in prison so that Durham can have the racially-motivated conviction of Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans.

He cannot call for exculpatory evidence to be valid in one case, but invalid in another. And I can tell you that prosecutors everywhere are political animals, and that if they can gain a "victory" in Durham, they will do everything possible to make sure that other wrongfully-convicted people remain in prison indefinitely.

I am sorry that the black community in Durham is willing to sacrifice wrongfully-convicted black males elsewhere just so that they can "win" in the Duke case. I guess the power of hatred and resentment are much stronger than the power to do what is right.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

I meant PETER Wood. My bad!

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Just because she happened to identify the player who also had another assault charge and that could point to an uncontrollable anger or rage doesn't mean he's guilty of this one. And if there were other charges like this we would have heard of them by now, right? I mean her identification of him is just a coincidence. I'm certain his lawyer does not see this as a problem, even though the DA will probably use this as more of his "evidence."

Anonymous said...

You know, there were some white people who voted for Nifong. Why is it you think Durham voters for Nifong were just black people? Your worst nightmare is that blacks and whites together see the travesty of dropping the case. Not a single post indicates why they think whites helped put Nifong back into office. Until you begin to understand this, you will stick with your all the black people are on one side and all the whites on the other scenario. And this just doesn't connect with the facts.

Anonymous said...

to : Bill Anderson at 12:28

time for a plea bargain! Nifong drops the charges in exchange for losing his license to practice law.

wumhenry said...

The assertion that the lax players "had a previous history of rowdiness tarnished with racial comments" is libellous! Someone ought to alert the players' attorneys, in case they missed this.

huesofblue said...

12:25 wrote:

"prior bad acts are inadmissible unless they are similarly patterned with the act for which they are accused. 1 hate crime = another hate crime. 1 assault = another assault. I bet it gets admitted."

12:25

"prior bad acts are inadmissible unless they are similarly patterned with the act for which they are accused. 1 hate crime = another hate crime. 1 assault = another assault. I bet it gets admitted."

North Carolina rule of evidence 404(b) states:

“Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. – Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.”

Your post refers to modus operandi, which is an unnamed exception to the Rule 404(b) exclusion of certain evidence. It comes into play when the prior crimes are VERY similar. As the North Carolina Court of appeals explained in STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE WILLIS (Filed 7 March 2000):

“For evidence of another crime to be admissible as relevant to the issue of identity under Rule 404(b), the modus operandi of the other crime and the crime for which the defendant is on trial must be sufficiently similar to support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both crimes. State v. Hamilton, 351 N.C. 14, 20, 519 S.E.2d 514, 518 (1999). “[T]here must be 'some unusual facts present in both crimes or particularly similar acts which would indicate the same person committed both crimes.'” Id. (quoting State v. Moore, 309 N.C. 102, 106, 305 S.E.2d 542, 545 (1983)).

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2000/990289-1.htm

The Willis Court went on to hold that it was error in a common law robbery case to admit, over defendant's objection, evidence that defendant had been convicted of common law robbery for an incident occurring eight days after the events in the instant case, where “[t]he only commonality between the two crimes is that the perpetrator of each robbed a stranger and used force to commit the robbery.”

Now granted, I might be wrong on this, but everything I know about evidence tells me that this evidence isn’t going to get in unless the defendants open the door by introducing evidence of the players good character. I think their lawyers are too smart to do that.

Anonymous said...

12:43 has raised a good point that deserves an answer. Most of the Evil Gang of 88 are white, and on the margin, whites put Nifong over the top.

However, I have not read anything from Durham whites that outright demands a conviction and that all exculpatory evidence be ignored. That is not to say that whites there have not said or written those things, but rather that I have not seen them. Since I am not omniscient, my not having seen them does not mean that they do not exist.

But there is no mistake that the driving force for the continued prosecution and the public pronouncements of guilty as charged come from the black community of Durham. Not one organization, black minister, and the like in Durham has questioned any of the evidence and all continue to insist that the Duke 3 are guilty as charged. I, too, read the "Our Hearts World," which basically declares that any questioning at all of the accuser is a vile act of racism.

From the outset, this case was seen in the Durham black community as a "must" conviction. James Coleman has been a dissenter, but he has a strong record of legal scholarship and is not beholden to the NAACP or the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. In fact, Coleman recognizes that the outcome of this case, should the Duke 3 be found guilty in a sham trial, would be a setback for advancements made by blacks in the law.

I have been accused many times on these blogs of being a racist, and that the only reason I support the Duke 3 is because the accuser is black and the accused are white.

Yes, I also stood up for the six black football players at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga who were accused of gang raping a white freshman. From the outset, I suspected the sex (which actually took place, unlike in the Duke case) was consensual, and that is pretty much what came out at the preliminary hearing, with the charges being dropped.

The difference was that prosecutors did not seek to pursue further charges, and there was a preliminary hearing, unlike in the Duke case, where Nifong bypassed the hearing in order to gain indictments.

Again, I realize these words mean nothing to many of the readers of this blog. I support the Duke 3, so by definition, I must be a racist. When I pointed out on another blog that my two adopted sons are black, I was accused of doing the adoption out of vicious racial hatred of the boys.

(Those poor boys each day tell me that they love me, and I tell them I love them, too. However, the writer from Durham knows much better than I and realizes it all is a ruse for me to be able to live out my racist fantasies.)

At any rate, I have come to realize that the black community in Durham does not wish to hear anything but guilty, guilty, guilty. There is nothing we can do, but to continue to push the truth. If people wish to ignore it, that is up to them.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Open question for those who feel strongly that this case should continue to trial.

If the evidence provided during the trial was the same as the evidence that we know to date...
1) How would you rule if you were on the jury? Would you be able to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt"? What evidence that we already know about would sway you one direction or the other? What evidence are you expecting to learn at a trial that would cause you to feel differently?
2) How do you feel about these 3 young men being put through this exercise given the evidence that we are aware of?
3) How would you feel about Mike Nifong if this is the only evidence that he has?


Here's how I understand the evidence.

The Prosection's evidence that I'm aware of is:
1) An inebriated woman was questioned by police after her companion complained that she would not get out of the car. Police admitted her to the hospital.

2) While at the hospital, a claim of gang rape was made and a rape examine determined that she had injuries that could have come from rape or other sexual activity.

3) In the following weeks, the woman participated in several photo id sessions and during the last one was able to identify 3 men who were at the party where she was hired to dance. Those three individuals were charged with the crimes the woman alleged. It troubles me that there were no "fillers" in the line-up as would be standard procedure in most id sessions.

Those three points sum up my understanding of the prosecution's case. Of course there are other, extraneous factors that will be brought into play such as an assault conviction by one of the players and the corraborated allegation that racial slurs were directed at the dancers (possibly in response to unkind words from the dancers to group). There also will be discussion the lacrosse team's past "out of control" parties and public urination citations. However, those things don't seem like the meat of the prosecution's case, nor do they seem very relevant.

The Defense's case as I understand it is:
1) There is no indication that a rape took place: a) no DNA from the defendants (although there was DNA from another male friend) on or about this woman's body several hours after this allegedly violent attack took place with no condoms used (according to the alleged victim's testimony); b) no witnesses (including the fellow dancer) to this crime.
2) At least one of the players that the victim identified during the photo id was demonstratably not present when the alleger claims the crime took place.
3) The id process that identified these three men was seriously flawed and appeared little more than a crap-shoot as to who would have to stand trial.
4) The seriousness of the alleged victim's injuries is not consistent with the violence and trauma that she claims occurred...she was performing her athletic dance routine within a couple of weeks of the alleged attack, while at the same time the authorities were claiming that she was in great pain and severly traumatized.

There will be other factors brought up such as the alleged victim's past convictions and previous allegations of gang rape, her use of prescription medications and her lifestyle and previous work engagements. However, the above four points seem to be the meat of the defense's case and are enough for me to believe that no rape took place that night.

For the record, when I first heard about this case in late March, I really thought that something horrible had happened to that woman that night. However, as the physical evidence (DNA) and statements from other people connected to the alleged victim and that night (other dancer, strip club manager) came in I realized that it is unfathomable that a violent gang rape took place in that bathroom.

What do those who believe this case has merit think about the evidence and how do you see it differently from the way I do?

Curious

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the New Order of University Education.

Go to this site and look for yourself. It is the site of Horowitz's Book.

http://dangerousprofessors.net/

Anonymous said...

Crowley needs to see the latest Greta Vansusteren report at Foxnews.com...some of the best legal analysts in the US, along with a prosecutor discuss this case. Also Greta has a law degree and has practiced law as well.

Needless to say they do not show much (any) support for Nifong...They too, are wondering where the NC Bar and other civil rights agencies are hiding?

They have also questioned the judge for not moving this along.

Now what do say Mr. Crowley??

Anonymous said...

The 2:15 poster nails it. Yet, from what I have been reading from people from Durham, they seem to think that what has been presented qualifies as "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.

I wonder how one of them would feel if they were in a courtroom, knowing that the jury was hellbent on convicting them, and knowing that the evidence against them did not meet any qualified legal standards. It happened in Scottsboro, and now the people of Durham are determined to make it happen again.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

" i will defend its administration and teachers as it is almost an ivy league institution unlike frostburg U "

Why - what's your point?

When you have learned everything available within the walls of Frostburg U, or any non-ivy or "almost ivy school", then you can report back to us.

Duke Alum

Anonymous said...

9:10

This clown is now part of history and he can't take it back. Quick someone scan and keep a copy so it doesn't disappear like the Listening Letter.

gc said...

It is disgraceful for the poster to attack Prof. William Anderson for his credentials. Look at his body of work. Whether you agree with him or not his writing is intelligent, eloquent, thoughtful and very much in the style of KC Johnson.

I am here for one reason, the 3 boys. I did not attend Duke nor did I ever plan on sending my children to school there. For the same cost, one can get just as good an education elsewhere and far away from Durham. Fortunately for me I am emotionally detached from Duke unlike the Duke alumni who are rightfully disturbed by the shame that Brodhead, Alleva and the 88 have brought to their beloved university.

When it is time to send my children off to college, I hope there will be professors in the mold of KC and Bill Anderson to guide them.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that this guy is trying to pull a Ward Churchill? What else could explain it since we all know what has came out about this case? I hope these kids sue Duke and everyone of these professors.

Anonymous said...

To Professors Anderson and Johnson,
Don't the comments of Duke professors, referencing students who they actually taught, violate the Federal Educational Right to Privacy Act? It would seem to me that Starn's and Wood's (if I remember correctly) comments would fall in this category.

Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

I read the rock perfesser's rant, and somehow I can't get the vision of Rosanne Rosanadanna out of my head.

Anonymous said...

I can think of only two words to describe this person:

"Blooming Idiot".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
i did not go to duke but i will defend its administration and teachers as it is almost an ivy league institution unlike frostburg U , where Bill Anderson teaches.
11:40 AM

You can tell that you're making progress when comments devolve to Ad Hominem Attacks .... or rather Ad Collegium Attacks.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but I cannot even take that as an ad hominem, just an "ad stupidem." As I said before, I am very happy at the True FSU and feel privileged to be there. That I am not Duke or Harvard material just does not bother me.

As I told my department chair when I was in grad school, I am not going to be an elite scholar, but there is a place for me in this business, and I am happy to have the opportunities that I have.

The critic is using this to discredit me, because he is inferring that since I am of inferior intellect to people who teach at Duke, then I have no right to criticize them. That, of course, comes from the back end of a bull. I feel free to shoot at them, and I am sure they would feel free to aim their arrows at me.

Now, I will say outright that I do not RESPECT people like Grant Farred, and do not consider him to be a legitimate scholar. I realize that might seem outrageous to some, but I like to look at someone's body of work before making such comments. I have looked at Farred's CV, and it is full of the publications in the race/sex/class based journals that have proliferated since the founding of the race/sex/class departments.

Believe me, much of the deconstructionist stuff that goes into those journals is nonsense, and scholars of the past would have recognized it. Furthermore, guys like Farred cannot hold a candle to the likes of K.C. Now, there is a scholar whom I respect.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Bill,

Duke has brought enough shame upon itself with "Duke Alum" adding to it with his/her ignorance.

TombZ said...

Crowley aptly personifies the expression,

"Dumber than a box of rocks."


Conversely, to Bill Anderson,

"You rock!"

Anonymous said...

It's nice to "rock." Now, it is bedtime. I have to tend to my day job again.... K.C. may never sleep, but I am past 50 and my kids are going to be up early.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

lets get some things straight, bill anderson.

1.no one is accusing you of adopting black children out of racial hatred but your racist comments on here about the durham black community not having enough sense to know who to vote for and that they cannot be jurors is insulting and indicates you do not have a good sense of history and understanding of the black perspective and that is needed to raise black children so that they can survive this racist society. I would further like to add, like a lot of people on this blog, you imply blacks are racist for no reason and just woke up one day and decided to get whitey. You need to read some Black history books(you need to do this anyway at some point for the benefit of your sons as they need to know their heritage) and find out that blacks learned racism first hand from whites and black racism is largely a reaction to how blacks were treated in the past and are still treated sometimes. You also imply that blacks are inherently unfair and are knowingly persecuting innocent men in this case but this is NOT TRUE as a lot of people in the black community DO NOT believe they are innocent at all and the others want a trial as they are not completely sure.

2.duke is almost ivy league level and rivals some of the actual ivy league schools in terms of its faculty and its programs and accomplishments. I think it is ludicrous for someone at a school without those high standards and worldwide reputation to try to act as if the professors at duke are intellectually inferior. also, the professors did not violate any privacy act as the ones speaking out did not single out specific players by name. they just mentioned they were lax team members. they are entitled to your opinion just like you are entitled to yours.

Anonymous said...

As reported by KC Johnson on his e-mail correspondence with Professor Crowley, Crowley apparently does not even know the defense lawyers by name, referring to Cheshire (presumably) as the BEARDED ONE. To single someone out by name one would have to know that name first. Yes, that is intellectual superiority for you.

Anonymous said...

Right now I don't think being a Professor at Duke isn’t a real resume builder. From the letters and comments I have read the vast majority of Duke Professor have a poor understanding of the case and it doesn’t stop them from making ignorant remarks. The Duke 88 are just bigots.

Personally except for Professor Coleman I will take Professors from Frostburg State & Brooklyn College.

Anonymous said...

In response to the grossly ignorant comments made at 12:16pm:

Google "Bill of Rights" and read about DUE PROCESS. Read all of it. The accused most certainly DO have rights that the accuser does NOT have.

Further correction to your moronic bilge:

Mangum's extensive criminal history was first revealed by the media through their own research, NOT by the boys' defense attorneys. Mangum's background came out almost immediately.

As for perverted interests deserving privacy, you really have no clue about what the comparison really is. On one hand, we have a woman who entertains men in hotel rooms in the wee hours with dildo demonstrations. On the other hand, we have a group of normal young men doing the same things being done by young black men at NCCU and THOUSANDS of college kids across the country - drinking, partying, and behaving in varying degrees of obnoxiousness by committing very minor infractions and disturbances.

I think you're just sour grapes because your unsavory accuser has an extensive criminal history of committing wanton, dangerous offenses and an extreme propensity for destroying everyone and everything in her path of self-destruction.

Anonymous said...

To 3:08 am and Bill Anderson:

It was an NCCU student senate leader who first (that we know of through the media) stated that the white Duke boys should be convicted as racial payback, whether they committed the crime charged or not. Nothing the black leaders and followers in Durham have said or done since then has erased that stunningly vicious and ignorant remark. In fact, there have been numerous indicents since it was said that have compounded the damage of that statement and others like it.

If that's what's being taught in Durham's higher indoctrination camps, be it seen through NCCU students or Duke faculty, neither institution has anything on Frostburg. Right now, it looks to me like Durham's only redeeming features are Professor Coleman and a handful of solid defense attorneys.

The boys need a change of venue, and so does Duke. What a shame that Duke can't be picked up and moved to a more deserving locale, purging most of the faculty and the administration in the move.

Anonymous said...

My comments regarding the black community in Durham reflect what I have read. The comments on this blog from blacks in Durham all have said that any exculpatory evidence is the result of a conspiracy theory. Victoria Peterson declared that Duke had "tampered" with the DNA samples. All of us are familiar with Chan Hall.

I did not make up those comments. They were said and I read them, as did the rest of you.

My point is not that the blacks in Durham are "too stupid" to be on a jury. Obviously, I do not believe that.

What I do believe, however, is that the pressure from the black Durham community on black jurors to convict no matter what will be tremendous. Does anyone think that Victoria Peterson will be silent if blacks on the jury vote to acquit? Will students at NCCU be silent?

We know the answer to this. My problem with the black community in Durham is the same problem I have had with the whites in many trials involving blacks, and especially where evidence is in doubt. Blacks KNOW what it is like to be railroaded, misidentified, and the like.

But in Durham, from the rhetoric I read both in the news and on this blog, the word is this: Whites have mistreated us, so we will get back at them by convicting the Duke 3 of rape and kidnapping, no matter what evidence is produced.

That is not racist, no matter what one may say. The truth is not racist, but it still is the truth.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Crowley said..

"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?"


There ARE pictures during the time when the alleged rape occurred. They are of Seligman...at an ATM.

Anonymous said...

BTW who said there are not other pictures? More damning pictures and maybe even a video clip taken on a cell phone?

I don't know, but the Defense doesn't have to reveal them until much closer to the trial. Nifong continues this farce despite all that we have seen. I suspect the Dfense knows that and saved some for later.

Anonymous said...

actually, even Dan abrams remarked about the gap in the photos he saw in the file. the only person with ? new photos/visual info in discovery lately is nifong,who produced email and photo and dvd evidence at the last hearing.