Wendy Murphy Strikes Again

In a horrible distortion of fact, that should surprise no one who was witnessed her continual disdain for truth on cable pseudo-news shows throughout the duration of the Hoax, New England School of Law professor Wendy Murphy presents a defense of District Attorney Nifong’s continual deception in an op-ed published by the USA Today.

Despite Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s admitted 50-plus interviews, his recent three hour interview with the New York Times, his numerous statements in pre trial hearings, his multiple motions filed with the court, his in-court responses to several defense motions, multiple statements from the accusers' family, many public and police statements by “outcry” witness Kim Roberts, multiple statements, written and oral, by police investigators and spokespersons, and the release of several statements, written and oral, by the accuser to the police, Murphy continues to put forth the false assertion that we have only heard from defense attorneys.

“For nine months, we've heard only from defense attorneys in the Duke case, and they've refused to release certain evidence.”

What certain evidence the defense has refused to release, Murphy, of course, does not specify. Murphy also ignores the fact that much, if not all, of the information put forth by the District Attorney, the pseudo-victim, and the police has proven to be false, including several statements to the court.

To continue, Murphy incredibly asserts the Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants rights rather than punished for violating them. Bizarrely, Murphy contends this reward is deserved because Nifong has refrained from releasing some unknown, and non-existent by most all accounts save hers, evidence against them. Despite Nifong’s admission in his dismissal of the rape charges that he has no evidence other that the faltering word of his pseudo-victim, Murphy pretends that he might yet have something hidden in further violation of discovery statutes. Considering that he had no qualms about hinting at evidence that did not exist and leaking distortions of the scant “evidence” that did, it takes a huge stretch of imagination to believe that the DA without a conscience would, in consideration of the defendants, hold something back.

Incredibly, Murphy asserts that, in violation of discovery laws, Nifong may be withholding incriminating statements from the witnesses who have signed affidavits for the defense or photographs of an incident that never happened.

“Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong may have eyewitness statements from the defendants' friends and photos of the incident. If so, Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants' rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.”

As “other things to consider” in support of her position, Murphy revives the debunked rumor that the accuser declined a $2 million dollar offer to back out of the case.

“The Wilmington Journal reported last June that a cousin of the alleged victim said she'd rejected offers of $2 million from Duke alumni to back out of the case.”

Citing as her source, the Wilmington Journal, Murphy fails to note that the rumor was discredited by Durham Police investigators and the accuser. The Wilmington Journal, Murphy’s cited source, has published the details of the investigation that disproved the rumor in a follow-up to its initial presentation of the transparent claims by continually discredited cousin Jakki, yet Murphy irresponsibly chooses to ignore the absence of substantiation, and proof of falsehood, while choosing instead to perpetuate the disproved rumor.

Additional considerations, that Murphy puts forth as supportive of her argument are equally unfounded. She contends, falsely, that the police lineup was not unfair by suggesting that the exclusion of non-LAX party attendees, and in the inclusion of the two players who have since proved to have not been in attendance, makes it fair. Ignoring the fact that the procedure, which violated DPD policy and the recommendations of the NC Actual Innocence Commission, was dictated by DA Nifong as a last gasp effort to manufacture an excuse to bring charges against someone - anyone, Murphy approves.

“The photo lineup was not unfair. Not all party attendees were players, and many players were not at the party. Thus, it is false to say there were "no wrong answers" the accuser could give in making identifications.”

To continue, Murphy suggests, falsely, that DA Nifong has relied on others to interview the accuser. Considering that the accuser was not interviewed by anyone from the DA’s staff until nine months after the accusation, it is difficult to imagine that Murphy herself can even believe that he relied on “responsible others” to do what never happened until after the withholding of exonerating DNA evidence was made public. Additionally, Murphy asserts that support for Nifong is widespread yet she fails to cite a single supporter to bolster her claim.

“Nifong is criticized for not speaking to the victim about the case, but his reliance on responsible others is proper. It protects him from being removed from the case as a "witness." Many law enforcement, forensic and legal professionals support the prosecution and have not backed off despite the hype.”

As her final consideration, Murphy presents additional distortions regarding the propriety of withholding discovery and the accusers' “injuries." Suggesting that it was proper, on behalf of the accuser, for Nifong and Meehan to conspire to hold back the exonerating DNA test results, a position that neither Nifong nor Meehan has taken, Murphy implies that DNA from several men not included among the admitted consensual partners of a “victim” is protected by rape shield laws. Ignoring the fact that the rape examination detected no vaginal injuries and only diffuse edema, Murphy states otherwise while suggesting, falsely, that the judge allowed discovery of the full DNA testing results for a reason other than the demands of North Carolina discovery law.

“Everyone learned last spring that DNA in the rape kit did not match that of the defendants. Information "held back" involved other men's DNA. This constitutionally protected private information should never be disclosed unless a judge deems it relevant. The defense argued that the evidence provides an alternative explanation for the victim's vaginal injuries, and the judge agreed.”

Thankfully, the USA Today did not run Murphy’s op/ed alone but rather presented it as a counter argument to its own call for the removal of DA Nifong. That the counter argument is presented by a crackpot such as Wendy Murphy is telling, as is the fact that her postion is bolstered by the same distortions that have been used to perpetuate the Hoax from day one. When one argument is bolstered by fact and the other by distortions, it becomes quite easy to discern where the truth lies.