Murphy's Law

As the Hoax nears death, Wendy Murphy desperately attempts to promote the fading fraud. Having proven repeatedly that truth is but a minor inconvenience, Murphy’s latest efforts demonstrate just how far she is willing to distort reality in order to advance her agenda. In an email to supporters and a six page talking points memo published by the government funded National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Murphy appears to have found it necessary to contradict Defendant Nifong and the prosecution’s “evidence” and witnesses, including the false accuser herself, in order to continue to perpetuate the Hoax.

Murphy Email

Despite Dr. Brian Meehan and Defendant Nifong both admitting that they agreed to provide incomplete DNA testing results to the defendants, Ms. Murphy has deemed their public confessions nonsense.

“forgive me if this is repetitive or cross--posted but I have to respond to the latest in the Duke case in light of latest developments including that the defense claims the prosecutor had a secret deal with the DNA expert to hide evidence -- this is all such nonsense –"

Falsely, Murphy asserts that this information comes not from co-conspirators Nifong and Meehan themselves, but rather from the defense attorneys.

“First -- remember that all the information we are hearing is coming from the defense side and spinners --.”

In court and on national television, Dr. Meehan, hired by the State of North Carolina to help in the prosecution of the case Murphy venomously advocates, admitted that he conspired with Defendant Nifong to withhold the complete test results. In a statement to the press following the court testimony of Dr. Meehan and in a three hour interview with the New York Times, Defendant Nifong admitted that withholding the evidence was wrong. Murphy, however, would have her supporters believe that this revelation comes from the defense attorneys, rather than from the conspirators themselves.

Not surprisingly, while the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against Defendant Nifong, Murphy nominates him for prosecutor of the year. Ironically, Defendant Nifong faces the possible loss of his license to practice law for his countless extrajudicial and deceptive statements, yet Murphy praises him for a silence that she imagines. While DA Michael Nifong has become a pariah among his fellow district attorneys, so much so that the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys publicly issued a unanimous statement against him, Murphy falsely paints him as a role model.

“the prosecution is saying nothing and for that, he deserves prosecutor of the year award. The defense has been attacking and baiting him for months -- and his response has been quiet confidence -- good for him -- other prosecutors should take a lesson.”

Again, despite the apologetic admissions of Defendant Nifong and co-conspirator Meehan, Murphy contends, falsely, that they had the right to withhold evidence from the defendants. For Murphy alone, DNA evidence that offers evidence of actual innocence can be acceptably hidden, despite the violation of discovery laws such an action represents.

“Second -- there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor NOT revealing that a victim had other DNA in her body or on her underpants. Nor is it improper for the DNA lab NOT to reveal the information.”

As expected, the North Carolina State Bar has a different view of the impropriety of a District Attorney withholding evidence as today they have amended the charges (Amended State Bar Complaint Against Defendant Nifong ) filed against Defendant Nifong to include the misconduct that Murphy deceptively defends. (Perhaps they were not included on Murphy's listserve.)

"New ethics charges have been filed by the State Bar accusing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court in the Duke lacrosse case.

"The amended complaint cites findings from April 2006 that DNA tests found on the alleged accuser excluded all of the Duke lacrosse players as potential contributors.

"The complaint also states Nifong was told of the test results by Brian Meehan, the director of the DNA company where the tests were performed.

"According to the complaint, during one of the meetings in April, Nifong and Meehan agreed that the findings would only include "tests for which DNA found on specific evidence match or was consistent with DNA from known reference specimens."

"The amended complaint also states that Nifong and Meehan agreed the "potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and test results" would not be provided to defense attorneys." WRAL

With logic that perhaps only she understands or believes, Murphy argues both that DNA testing should not be a part of a rape investigation, and that an accuser who repeatedly contradicts her story and whose multiple versions of events are each belied by all other evidence, including her previous renditions, is actually more credible than if her tale remained consistent.

“Irrelevant and constitutionally protected private information is often unveiled during rap kit exams -- which is why I have long advocated AGAINST doing any testing without a court order - and I teach those who deal with such evidence not to test the evidence”

“In any case -- if the victim was going to lie maliciously -- why say she was only 90% sure of the ID of one guy? Why would she have inconsistencies in her statements? Her lack of certainty undermines the claim that she made it all up.”

(The prospect of Wendy Murphy teaching “those who deal with such evidence” is beyond frightening.)

By voicing her disdain for DNA testing as a means to identify perpetrators of sexual assaults, it would appear, at first, that Ms. Murphy believes that an accuser’s words (apparently the more contradictory the words are the better it is) is the only evidence required in cases of sexual violence. However, in her efforts to hastily combat the damage to the Hoax done by the revelation of the Meehan/Nifong conspiracy, it appears that Murphy disputes the conclusion that the accuser’s word is golden. Murphy shows herself willing to contradict the accuser and the facts, if it helps to promote the Hoax.

“In fact, the guy Seligman 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.”

“There's been no mention that the victim rejected over two million dollars of hush money last spring -- an offer from a group "on behalf of Duke". She wanted no part of the payoff.”

Despite the accuser’s statements to Durham Police investigators that she was never offered any hush money, Murphy falsely claims that she rejected the fictional offer. Murphy’s continued advancement of the fake bribe story reveals that she is totally unconcerned about what the accuser has actually claimed, and only interested in putting forth deceptions that allow unfounded suspicions to help her make more noise.

Murphy’s email predates the accuser's latest version told on December 21, a version which contradicts Murphy’s, as the accuser now says Seligmann didn't assault her at all, let alone first and orally. No doubt, Murphy will soon tell us that this enormous contradiction proves that the accuser is telling the truth now, even if she wasn’t then.

Murphy’s invention of repeated phone calls by Reade Seligmann to the cab company, despite publication of his and the taxi driver’s phone records that show only one phone call to request the pick up, reveals as well that Ms. Murphy is equally unconcerned that her false assertions are readily disproved. While Murphy asks “who frantically calls a cab in a space of five minute,” perhaps the more relevant question is “Who frantically distorts the truth for several months to promote a fraud?”

Murphy continues her deception by cleverly attempting to debunk the notion that Defendant Nifong’s race baiting effectively secured his election victory. As “evidence,” Murphy points to the primary election and cites the failure of Nifong to receive a majority of the black vote, while inventing factors such as a “ton of wealthy white votes” and a phantom opponent described as a “conservative wealthy white guy.”

“and 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 short, he easily could have skated into his election by NOT bringing charges as evidence by the "type" of opponent that was propped up to run against him -- a conservative wealthy white guy.”

Conveniently, Murphy ignores the facts that neither of Nifong’s two primary opponents, Freda Black, a white female, and Keith Bishop, a black candidate endorsed by the county’s black PAC, were conservative wealthy white guys. Importantly, despite facing a black opponent backed by the black PAC, Nifong's racial pandering garnered him a plurality of the black vote. Later, when faced with two white male opponents in the general election, Nifong’s race baiting was rewarded with an incredible 95% of the black vote.

In the charges filed against Defendant Nifong, the State Bar notes that the prosecutor was first informed of the case when a non-testimonial order for DNA testing was sought. Bizarrely, Murphy attempts to argue that defense attorneys cancelled a fictional meeting with Nifong, Evans, Seligmann, Finnerty, and police, before Nifong was even aware of the case.

“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.”

Perhaps intent on setting a world record for the most consecutive false statements in a single email, Murphy concludes with several tired, repeatedly disproved false assertions: that the decision to bring charges was not at the discretion of Defendant Nifong alone; that Defendant Nifong secretly holds additional evidence, including photographs of the assault that never happened, in further violation of NC discovery laws; and that the defense hasn’t asked for a speedy trial or denounced Defendant Nifong’s delay tactics.

Talking Points

Under the guise of offering “context and facts,” the talking points memo published by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, and funded in part by your tax dollars, echoes Murphy’s deceptive email. Demonstrating her trademark disregard for truth, Murphy begins her talking points by accusing the defense attorneys of violating the State Bar’s Professional Code of Ethics, while applauding Defendant Nifong’s supposed adherence to the same code. According to the talking points and despite the fact that it is Nifong, and not the defense attorneys, who now faces the prospect of losing his law license for his numerous false and inflammatory statements, Murphy encourages her fellow advocates to reverse the roles of truth teller and deceiver when speaking to the media.

"The following talking points offer some context and facts about this case in an effort to help support advocates in responding to the media.

“Over the past nine months, the public has been exposed to the partial disclosure of factsalong with speculation, misinformation, biased interpretation and strategic maneuveringby the defense. This has led to a distorted public perception of many of the facts in the case. Principally at work in this perception has been the defense attorneys’ strategy ofrevealing only selected portions of the evidence, excluding many important details and withholding other relevant and significant information. This kind of strategy becomes the basis for much of our public information and unfortunately for what we think is the truth in the case.

“The current public impressions of the ‘facts’ in this case primarily result from procedural rules that effectively allow the defense to selectively discuss and sometimes distort, certain pieces of evidence, while the prosecutor may not discuss the case at all – not evento rebut false accusations. For example, the defense can disclose evidence that theybelieve is helpful to the defense but refuse to disclose evidence that proves their clients’ guilt.

“The same is not true for the prosecution because if the prosecutor reveals the strength ofhis case, the defense can complain that this unfairly taints the jury pool or causes too much prejudicial pre-trial publicity. If the judge agrees, he can punish the prosecutor by suppressing evidence or dismissing the charges.

“But 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.

"For these reasons, the public’s awareness of evidence is almost always favorable to the accused and far from a full disclosure of the truth.”

Murphy puts forth the false assertion that the December hearing was held to determine whether the rape kit results should be disclosed to the defense. To aid her deception, she invents arguments she imagines to have been made by the defense at the hearing she recreates to fit her purposes.

“In December 2006, the judge handling the case conducted a hearing to determine what ifany DNA material found during a rape kit examination should be disclosed to thedefense. The defense argued they should be allowed access to all information indicatingthe victim had prior sexual contact with men other than the defendants because theyhoped to provide the jury with an alternative explanation for the victim’s vaginal injuries. The judge agreed and ruled that the rape kit results be turned over to the defense.”

“The reason for the DNA hearing was for the judge to make determination regarding the release of information on the DNA material.”

In truth, Judge Smith had already ruled in September that the defense was entitled by law to the complete results of, and underlying data from, the DNA testing. At the time of the hearing in December, the defense was already in possession of those results, which the court had forced Nifong to turn over to them at the October 27 hearing.

On the basis of this invented December hearing and the imagined arguments put forth in the hearing that exist in her mind only, Murphy repeats her arguments that the withholding of this evidence was proper in the interests of protecting the accuser’s privacy. Ironically, the rationalization offered by Nifong and Meehan for their admitted failure to turn over clearly exculpatory evidence that the defendants had rights to was not based on the accuser’s privacy, as Murphy pretends, but rather, incredibly, on their supposed concern for the privacy of the “hooligans” who were tested and cleared by the hidden information.

Murphy expands her defense of Defendant Nifong’s conspiracy with Dr. Meehan to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence by suggesting that the defense team’s failure to seek sanctions against Nifong, after he was forced to remove himself from the case for the conflicts presented by the State Bar’s pursuit of his misconduct, indicates that they approve of his admitted failure to make timely disclosure of the exonerating evidence. With an odd abuse of logic, Murphy contends that the defense’s failure to appeal a non-existent ruling, to the Appellate and Supreme Courts, by the trial judge on sanctions they have not yet asked for indicates something other than her own detachment from reality and desperation for the Hoax to continue.

“Why didn’t the defense file an appeal to the North Carolina Appellate Court or the NCSupreme Court if they really thought the DA had violated the defendants’ rights?

“In fact, if there were any truth to the defense’s claim that Nifong’s handling of the issueviolated the constitution, they would have sought sanctions from the judge that handledthe motion and if they were correct, the judge would have at least criticized the DA, orsanctioned him in some manner, but he did no such thing. And if the defense truly believed Nifong violated some procedure or law, and the judge declined to issue sanctions, they would have appealed to a higher state court in North Carolina, or even to the Attorney General in North Carolina. They did not do so.”

The balance of the talking points encourage repetition of the tired, nonsensical, and untrue refrains we’ve heard repeatedly over the past several months:

• Despite the accuser’s denial that she was offered hush money, let’s promote the rumor anyway.
• Despite the defense’s motion for a speedy trial, let’s claim they haven’t filed one and pretend that it means something.
• Despite Nifong’s admission in dropping the rape charges that he had no evidence, let’s hint that he has more evidence hidden.
• Despite the defense attorney’s professional, legal, and moral obligations to vigorously defend their clients, let’s say that in doing so they indicate their client’s guilt.

The talking points clearly present the extreme contortions of truth undertaken by Wendy Murphy and the NSVRC, in an effort to encourage fellow advocates to aid in the dissemination of distortions and falsehoods in the interests of prolonging the Hoax. It is apparent that what matters to them is not the realities involved, but rather the opportunity the Hoax provides for giving a voice to a cause they strongly support. A cause that for them is seemingly more important than the foundations of the criminal justice system, which has become threatened by their advocacy. Willing to place lie on top of lie, Murphy again demonstrates that, for her, any means justifies the end she desires, regardless of the consequences her deception holds for those it directly affects.