Strange Bedfellows

As the implosion of the Hoax threatens to bring the farce to its long overdue end, the most ardent promoters of the Hoax have now teamed up in a desperate attempt to resuscitate the dying fraud. Having proven time and again that truth is no obstacle when it comes to advancing her agenda, Wendy Murphy continues to wage her war on civil rights and the criminal justice system. In her latest contribution to the perpetuation of the lie, Murphy joins local activist and Black Press columnist, Cash Michaels, who has personally referred to the efforts to promote the Hoax as a “war.”

Perhaps intent on supporting the Wilmington Journal’s demand, issued on behalf of the entire North Carolina African American community and backed by the not so subtle threat of dire political consequences, that Attorney General Roy Cooper threaten to bring false charges of obstruction of justice against the un-indicted lacrosse players, Cash Michaels turns to widely-ridiculed Wendy Murphy to rebut three esteemed law professors whose comments reveal that the Wilmington Journal’s editorial extortion aimed to bully AG Cooper into further violating the constitutional rights of the lacrosse team.

“You see, Mr. Attorney General, save for the three captains who lived at the house where that perverted, underage drunken Duke lacrosse team off-campus party took place, none of the other 30 or more players and/or guests who reportedly attended that soiree’ have ever given Durham police investigators or the Durham District Attorney’s Office a signed statement as to exactly what happened…

"Mr. Attorney General, your task, challenge and duty isn’t just to go over Mike Nifong’s case to see how badly he screwed it up.

"Your job now, if you call yourself honestly promising “a fresh and thorough review of the facts,” is to indeed compel every last witness attending the party that night, to come forward and truthfully tell what they saw and heard.

"All of it!!!

"You see, this puts you in a weird situation, Mr. Cooper.

"… You can’t possibly be fully accountable to the citizens of North Carolina, who you and your office constitutionally represent, unless you indeed do “a fresh and thorough review of the facts” in this case, which must include interviewing everybody at that party.

"But here’s your problem, Mr. Cooper.

"All of the players lawyered up, according to some of the knuckle-dragging leaders of the “free the Duke Three” movement, because they were afraid of being railroaded by that “mean, nasty and corrupt” Durham D.A. (funny how they knew how “corrupt” Nifong was BEFORE he took the case).

"… So surely all of these brave, upstanding, fine young leaders of tomorrow – many of whom engaged in, all together now, “a drunken, perverted party” where they peed
off the patio and railed against two Black strippers because the players’ raucous behavior scared the daylights out of them – are relieved, and will now graciously, and willingly, sit down with SBI agents and, for the very first time in ten long months, actually truthfully tell what they saw and heard.

"Under threat of obstructing justice, of course.”You can’t play games with this, Mr. Cooper. Those boys must talk if you’re doing a full and transparent investigation…

“After all, as a Democrat, just like Mike Nifong, you need the Black vote for any future political aspirations.

“Sincerely,

"North Carolina’s African-American community...”

The latest offering from Cash Michaels, who has repeatedly defended his coverage of the Hoax by insisting that his job is not to expose the Hoax but rather to play to a targeted audience, features insightful comments from law professors James Coleman (Duke), Irving Joyner (NCCU), and Joseph Kennedy (UNC). All of the three profs agree that threatening charges, as demanded by the Wilmington Journal on behalf of all North Carolina African Americans, against the teammates of the innocent defendants is unlawful.

“Prof. Joyner said. “They can not be compelled to answer questions from an investigator.”

“UNC-Chapel Hill’s Prof. Kennedy concurs, noting that the AG cannot sanction any of the witnesses for not cooperating.“I would offer is that it is not obstructing justice simply to refuse to speak with investigators,” Kennedy said. “The only time you are legally obliged to answer questions is when you are under compulsion of court process (such as a subpoena). Once subpoenaed, you can still take the Fifth Amendment, of course.

“Just to be clear, however, you don’t need to invoke the Fifth Amendment in order to refuse to talk to an investigator who knocks on your door or calls on the telephone,” Prof. Kennedy added. “There is no legal obligation to cooperate.”

“Duke’s Prof. Coleman, who has been a staunch critic of Durham D.A. Mike Nifong’s original handling of the case, maintains that despite being at the party where serious felonies were alleged to have happened, all of the lacrosse players present had a right not to cooperate.

“I don’t think it is appropriate to ascribe anything negative to the decisions of the students to get lawyers,” Coleman told The Carolinian/Wilmington Journal newspapers. “As you recall, at the beginning, Nifong was threatening to prosecute all of the students as possible accomplices because he claimed they failed to come forward to assist with the investigation.“I would advise any person in their situation to get a lawyer,” Prof Coleman said. “I would especially advise a person who is innocent to get a lawyer.”

Ironically, the assessments made by the three professors align perfectly with Mr. Michaels own parental advice, as presented several months ago at Ruth Sheehan’s Metro Blog.

"And if one of my children was present during an alleged criminal situation they had nothing to do with, but someone may have been hurt as a result of, no, I wouldn't want any cloud over my child, which means I would instruct her to tell all (with the help of counsel)." Cash Michaels at Ruth's Metro Blog

Knowing that Mr. Michaels would advise his own child in exactly the same manner as the lacrosse parents advised their own sons, it is difficult to attach sincerity to his repeated arguments that the decision to “lawyer up” is an indication of anything but adherence to common sense and deference to parental wisdom. There's a clear contradiction between Michaels' asserting that his instruction to his own child to speak with the help of counsel would be motivated by not wanting a “cloud over my child,” and his forceful efforts to place a cloud over other people’s children for doing exactly what he admits he would do for his own. It would appear that, with little else left to make hay about, the attempt by Michaels to continue to sully the lacrosse team for their fictional wall of silence is little more than an effort to milk the dying hoax for every last drop of circulation enhancing and audience appealing propaganda.

Not surprisingly, co-warrior Wendy Murphy attempts to affirm Michaels’ public attacks on retention of counsel, while contradicting Michaels’ personal assertion that wanting to retain counsel before speaking to authorities would be part of the cloud removal process. Murphy also adds her own unique vision on parenting by suggesting that, rather than advising counsel, she would employ blackmail with her own child.

“I disagree somewhat with the point that uncooperative witnesses who hire lawyers deserve deference rather than pressure and suspicion,” Murphy says.

“If my son were at that party - and not a suspect – I would never let him NOT talk to police. I would threaten not to pay his tuition if he didn’t tell the truth about what he saw.”

For Michaels and Murphy, it appears that what matters most is not an accurate telling of events surrounding the investigators' refusal to meet with any members of the lacrosse team, including the defendants, after counsel was retained. What matters most, apparently, is continued deception and distortion aimed at promoting the Hoax in the interests of prolonging the mutually beneficial grandstand it provides for their separate agendas.