Wendy Murphy Interview

In a television interview with Jim Braude of New England Cable News, Wendy Murphy threatens to continue her vicious campaign against NC Attorney General Roy Cooper, the exonerated defendants of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, and their attorneys for a "very long time." While accusing the State of North Carolina's top prosecutor of basing his decision to exonerate the Hoax defendants on political motives rather than factual innocence, Murphy cites the Wilmington Journal as the source for her continued claims that the false accuser was paid off and the Associated Press as the source for her accusations that defense attorney's withheld 1,200 pages of evidence.

Click To View: Wendy Murphy TV Interview

The Jilted Cheerleader

For the duration of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, Reverend John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and pastor of One Love Ministries, has been a loyal and vocal supporter of Durham County’s rogue District Attorney, Mike Nifong. The Attorney General’s Nifong/Mangum Hoax Summary of Conclusions appears to have finally brought some clarity to the once ardent Hoax apologist.

After standing by Defendant Nifong for a year while the rogue prosecutor tried to imprison innocent men, Fitzpatrick, the jilted cheerleader, expressed his disillusionment to the Herald Sun:

"It's kind of deflating to think he could prosecute someone when the evidence was so insurmountably lacking," lawyer John Fitzpatrick said of Nifong, who has declined comment…"I would love to hear why [Nifong] chose to proceed on this case," he said.

To understand the totality of Rev. Fitzpatrick’s turnaround, we’ve prepared a chronology of his encouragement, support, and apologies for Defendant Nifong and his hijacked Hoax.

April 10, 2006

"So far, he's showing he's not afraid to take on a challenge," said John Fitzpatrick, a lawyer in Durham for 10 years who is not connected to the Duke lacrosse case. "But he's got to come through with a charge."

...

Fitzpatrick, the Durham lawyer, said the case might not be the only thing voters will consider in the district attorney race, but it will certainly have a bearing.

"His chances for re-election are not going to be made and determined on this one case. It can help or it can hurt. It's the handling of the case that the public wants to see," Fitzpatrick said.

May 11, 2006

In an initial round of analyses, the State Bureau of Investigation found no DNA from the 46 lacrosse players in or on the dancer's body, on her clothing and belongings or under her fingernails.

However, a private laboratory then was contracted to do additional testing. The final results from those tests were not yet available Thursday.

Two other lawyers not involved in the case said the new findings could be significant.

"The district attorney has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but not beyond every doubt," said one of them, John Fitzpatrick.

"If there was DNA evidence under a fingernail, I think it lends credence to the victim's story," Fitzpatrick added. "It could help corroborate what she has said. The momentum had been swinging in favor of the lacrosse players. This could swing the pendulum back toward the prosecution."

May 24, 2006

Several attorneys not connected with the case said Tuesday if a rape had occurred without condoms, the likelihood would be great that DNA from the assailants would have been left in or on the woman's body.

"That would be expected," said lawyer John Fitzpatrick. "But the flip side is, how would she know if a condom was used? A rape victim usually doesn't have time to ask her attacker to use protection."

Fitzpatrick also said the lack of vaginal injury, or trauma, might be a matter of semantics.

"You would think there would be more than tenderness if there had been forcible entry," he said. "But it could all be in how you play the words. No one can say a rape isn't traumatic. But what constitutes traumatic physical damage? That's the question."

July 31, 2006

Lawyer John Fitzpatrick, who is not connected to the lacrosse case and who teaches periodically at the UNC School of Government in Chapel Hill, said Monday it could have great impact for the prosecution.

"It is evidence to show that some kind of orgasm occurred. It gives more credence to the prosecution's theory that something happened. It is a potential link to a crime. It is a big thing," Fitzpatrick said. "The prosecution can say the semen was there because the alleged victim was right. Of course, the defense will probably try to explain it by saying the guys just masturbated."

December 3, 2006

The new association's first meeting was held Thursday night, with roughly two dozen people in attendance. Attorney John Fitzpatrick was named president.

"We're not going to come from an angle of griping or an angle of fussing at the DA this time," Fitzpatrick said in an interview. "We'll come from an angle of helpfulness instead.

December 23, 2006

Earlier in the day, John Fitzpatrick, head of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, lauded Nifong for dismissing the charges.

"I think that if the DA has new information that a penis was not involved, there's no way he can proceed on a rape charge," said Fitzpatrick, who is not involved in the case. "It's admirable that he dismissed that charge."

Fitzpatrick said the dismissal conceivably could strengthen Nifong's case on the kidnapping and sex-offense charges.

"He no longer has to explain away the lack of semen," Fitzpatrick said. "If a penis was not used, it would automatically explain the lack of semen. Mike [Nifong] doesn't need the semen part now."

January 10, 2007

“We still don't know all the facts."

February 5, 2007

John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, also was scratching his head over the governor's statement.

"An answer like that is more confusing than it is clarifying," he said. "It's an answer without substance. It begs the question of consistency. Does this same standard apply just to Mike Nifong or to other appointees as well? That's what people are asking. The public clearly voiced their position that they wanted Mike Nifong to be DA. He just answered the call of the people."

February 27, 2007

"The public has a right to hear her side of the story from her mouth under oath," says John Fitzpatrick, a black defense lawyer.

April 3, 2007

"He may have recognized the magnitude of the media exposure without appreciating the possible effects of it," said Fitzpatrick. "One could interpret his response to the bar as somewhat of an apology. It might have been a cry for forgiveness. We in the community should embrace that."

April 11, 2007

Suspicions lingered in Durham's black community, said local attorney John Fitzpatrick. He said Cooper's move to overrule a grand jury indictment fuels the perception among some "that the justice system could be bought."

April 12, 2007

“Just because a district attorney makes a mistake on one case, that does not mean he’s going to make a mistake on every case. Hopefully, he’s learned his lesson here. Hopefully, he will realize that he should handle these cases different next time,” said John Fitzpatrick, a defense attorney.

April 12, 2007

But John Fitzpatrick, an attorney and president of Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association who has been a strong supporter of Nifong through both primary and general elections, said he thought Cooper went a little far when he used the word "innocent."

"That's why we don't have three-member juries instead of 12-person juries," Fitzpatrick said.

With Rev. Fitzgerald's departure from the Cult of Something Happened, the running for Last Idiot of the Hoax is down to Patrick Baker, Bob Ashley, John Bourlon, Victoria Peterson, and Wendy Murphy. Murphy's appearance alongside Cash Michaels on Boston's WTTK radio yesterday afternoon to promote her latest false accusations - Kim Roberts and Crystal Mangum were bribed - makes her the even money favorite for the title.

Philip Wood

Breathing Life into a Dead Hoax

As yesterday’s Hoax-ending announcement approached, news that the imminent decision would be to dismiss all charges was leaked to the media. On Tuesday evening, ABC News reported that all charges would be dropped, and on Wednesday morning the Associated Press did the same.

News & Observer 4/11/2006:
Attorney General Roy Cooper plans a news conference at 2:30 p.m. today to announce his decision in the Duke University lacrosse case.

ABC News and the Associated Press cited unnamed sources as saying Cooper would drop sexual assault and kidnapping charges against three former lacrosse players.

With news of the decision out in advance of the actual announcement, speculation focused on the content and tone of the anticipated dismissal. Many expected that Attorney General Roy Cooper might take the easy way out and simply offer a "lack of evidence" or an "uncooperative accuser" as the basis for the decision to end the Hoax.

"I think the critical thing could be the wording," Duke law professor Paul Haagen said. "It could simply say the state can no longer prove its case, which would be a very harmful outcome for the community." Or, Haagen said, the decision "could provide a full accounting of why the case should never have been brought." Baltimore Sun

"Often it is said that one cannot un-ring a bell. Today, Roy Cooper has an opportunity to attempt to do just that by making clear the charges were based on a false accusation, a slipshod investigation, and a politically motivated persecution. Should he fail with that responsibility to justice ... the damages done to the victims of the Hoax will endure." LS

To his great credit, NC Attorney General Roy Cooper demonstrated courage, conviction, and a commitment to justice with his firm declaration of the innocence of the three victims of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax. It’s difficult to imagine how Cooper could have delivered a stronger declaration of the factual innocence of the maliciously prosecuted young men.

"We have carefully reviewed the evidence collected by the Durham County prosecutor's office and the Durham Police Department. We have also conducted our own interviews and evidence gathering. Our attorneys and SBI (State Bureau of Investigation) agents have interviewed numerous people who were at the party, DNA and other experts, the Durham County district attorney, Durham police officers, defense attorneys and the accusing witness on several occasions. We have reviewed statements given over the past year, photographs, records and other evidence.

"The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

"We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.

"We approached this case with the understanding that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event. However, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.

"The prosecuting witness in this case responded to questions and offered information. She did want to move forward with the prosecution.

"However, the contradictions in her many versions of what occurred and the conflicts between what she said occurred and other evidence, like photographs and phone records, could not be rectified.

"Our investigation shows that:

"The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser's story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself. Next week, we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred.

"In this case, with the weight of the state behind him, the Durham district attorney pushed forward unchecked. There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado. And in the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly. Regardless of the reasons this case was pushed forward, the result was wrong. Today, we need to learn from this and keep it from happening again to anybody."

The dismissal order filed with the Durham County Superior Court would leave no doubt that the factual innocence of the falsely prosecuted innocent men had been conclusively proven. For each of the three defendants, prosecutors James Coman and Mary Winstead, would formally state:

"The re-investigation of this matter indicates that this individual is innocent of the charges brought against him and in the interests of justice these charges are dismissed." Dismissal Order

Incredibly, however, there are some who continue to promote the illusion that an assault occurred, despite the exhaustive investigation conducted by the Attorney General’s special prosecutors, Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, and the firm declaration by AG Cooper that the evidence indicated no assault occurred, the falsely accused were innocent victims of rogue prosecutor Nifong's rush to judgment, and "innocence" rightly should be cited on the official dismissal orders as the reason for exoneration. Word of the end of the Hoax was met with blind resistance by various pundits, organizations, and individuals, many of whom had enabled the Hoax and were among the worst assailants of the innocent young men.

Leader of the lunatic fringe, Wendy Murphy, whose ridiculous prediction of riots in the streets failed to materialize, continued to perform CPR on the lifeless Hoax:

“But suspicions still linger against the Duke team, as victims rights attorney Wendy Murphy, who has long supported the accuser, proved yesterday. She said the woman either lied and should be prosecuted, or was paid off, presumably by the rich Duke families.” Boston Herald

The North Carolina NAACP, whose website continues to boast the libelous 82 count indictment - “Crimes and Torts committed by Duke Lacrosse Team Players” - crafted by the organization's Legal Redress Committee Chair, Alan McSurely, misrepresented Roy Cooper’s declaration of factual innocence in a formal statement issued by Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the North Carolina Conference, who once upon a time called for the community to embrace the truth.

"We must face the truth and the justice that the truth demands...we must recognize that in a moment like this moment we need the guidance of God and a moral compass, which keeps us focused, that only the truth can set us free." -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, "Meeting the Challenges of Community and Justice in the Midst of Crisis," April 5, 2006

"If his office believes the state lacks sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of each crime took place, then it is the State’s constitutional duty to dismiss the charges. We trust that the SBI has left no stone unturned in the investigation of this case." -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II failing to meet the challenges of community and justice while refusing to face the truth, April 11, 2006

NAACP case monitor, Irving Joyner, added to Barber’s promotion of the erroneous illusion that Cooper had dismissed the case because of reasonable doubt of guilt, instead of the truth that the investigation determined the defendants' actual innocence, by expressing reservations about the reasons for dismissal and troubled concern over the relief that accompanied news of the exoneration:

“Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University who has been monitoring the case for the NAACP, said the black community will want to be satisfied with the reasons for the dismissal -- especially since early days in the case, black leaders were concerned that a low-income black woman's word would not be taken against that of privileged white men.

“Joyner added that he is "troubled and concerned by the carnival atmosphere being created here -- that these three men are somehow coming home for a victory party."
Washington Post

Hoax-igniter Samiha Khanna dismissed Cooper’s unambiguous statement that the investigation found no shred of evidence supporting the accuser's false allegations. Instead, Khanna continued her pattern of distorting truth, hinting of mythical, unspecified "clashing" evidence supporting the accuser’s false accusation:

“Piece by piece, the criminal case that Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong built … The clashing evidence in the case has divided two groups judging a woman they never have met - those who still believe her, and those who never did. … The public will rely on a patchwork of facts revealed through court records, hypotheses posted on the Internet and blurry photographs to draw conclusions about the accuser.” Khanna

Not to be left out of the post Hoax efforts to breathe new life into the dead lie, at least one Duke University professor joined the “just because the investigation found them innocent doesn’t mean nothing happened” crowd.

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward.” -- Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

Andrew Cohen, who went so far as to invent court orders and conversations that never existed in his efforts to condemn the falsely accused, also continued to promote the illusion that an assault may have occurred. Referring to the proven liar as an “alleged victim,” Cohen reprehensibly hints that something may have happened:

“For the alleged victim, today is the first day of the rest of her life, too. She now can try to begin to move on from this sorry episode and make meaning out of it. Is she a victim, too, a victim of her status as a stripper and a hazy memory? Only she and the young men know for sure. Perhaps in time she, too, will be able to share with us her version of events from that seedy night.”

Harris Johnson, whose bigotry helped cement the impression of a racially divided Durham, stood by the DA whose effective race-baiting preyed upon Johnson and others of like mind.

"The attorney general should make it clear whatever evidence he does have, and the lack of evidence that would support dropping it. That way it would dispel any false perception that it was just being swept up under the rug," said Johnson, who in November praised Nifong's handling of the case because it showed justice couldn't be bought by the wealthy.

Johnson added that he thinks the State Bar's actions against Nifong have been selective, in that it's previously failed to administer more than "a slap on the wrist" to prosecutors guilty of withholding evidence in death-penalty cases.

"The attorney general and the bar should look at those kinds of situations and use their good judgment in looking at Nifong," Johnson said.

Students from NCCU, the site of the infamous pep rally for indictments one year ago to the day, and other Durham locals also refused to accept the exoneration.

"I don't think [Nifong] meant wrong, that it was a rogue attack. I think he went more with his passion than maybe his professionalism. He might have been wrong in some instances, but I don't think he was totally wrong." — A.J. Donaldson, an N.C. Central University senior

"The whole situation is so flaky at this point. I just question everyone's motives in the whole situation. Even to this day, I think there's some sympathy for [Mangum], but it has been prolonged and the university has gotten a lot of negative publicity. You don't know who to believe." Jason Jowers, N.C. Central University senior

"I thought it was unbelievable cause somebody who does a crime like that and gets caught on it, they should be put away, not have the charges dropped on it especially if people have gotten evidence against them on it. So, as far as that goes...in my opinion, the people responsible for it deserve to get put away for it and those who had nothing to do with it in the first place they should be the ones who are let go. I mean, if a girl went to the party, whether she was drunk or sober, high or not, she still said no, but the only word she has is hers against all theirs, and that's the only thing that got them off, that she didn't have anyone there with her, so that;s probably the only reason that they say it's a no contest case, cause it's her word against all theirs saying no." -- Bryan Parham NCCU 20, Sophomore

"Candice Benbow, a graduate sociology student who said she knows the accuser, said she had to sit down when she heard about the charges being dropped.

"I knew it was going to happen," Benbow said sadly. "You're rich and you're white and the world is pretty much your oyster. I will stand on the belief that something happened to her, but she was up against Duke money."

"It clearly will be a conversation on campus," Benbow said.

"I do believe something happened but we don't know," said a neighbor, Lafardella David, 68, a retired chef. "No one will ever know. Money is involved," he said in a reference to the status of the families of the accused. "If you got the money you can't do no wrong."

"Prosecution definitely screwed up on that...they're not innocent, they should go to jail!" --Michael McKoy NCCU Student

"I think they should look more into the situation because a rape charge is not something to be dropped it is something to be taken seriously" -- Sade Ridenhour (to the Greensboro News-Record), NCCU Student

"The prosecution definitely screwed up, the players they shouldn't be let by because they are athletes, they need to very much go more into this situation." -- Sade Ridenhour (to the LA Times), NCCU Student

In total, the enduring resistance to accepting the truth as unequivocally declared by Attorney General Cooper after a comprehensive investigation demonstrates both the continued disinterest in truth among the enablers and the lasting damage done by the words and actions of Defendant Nifong and his willing accomplices in the media, the community, and the academy.

Murphy Predicts Riots in the Streets

Appearing on FOX News yesterday, rabid Hoax proponent Wendy Murphy predicted "riots in the streets" of Durham if the charges against the victims of Durham County D.A. Mike Nifong’s hijacked Hoax are dropped, as anticipated. Ostensibly, Murphy was there to discuss the allegations against three University of Minnesota football players, arrested Friday on suspicion of raping an 18-year-old woman. Quickly, however, her segment turned into another bitter assault on the demonstrably innocent victims of the Hoax.

Citing the difference between the immediate arrest of the football players, who were identified by the alleged victim in Minnesota, and the "failure" of Durham police to quickly arrest the lacrosse players, who were only described vaguely as "short," "chubby," and "white" by the false accuser, Murphy bemoaned the disparate treatment. Offering the usual rhetoric of "white and rich" vs. "black" as the cause for the difference. Murphy's comments bring to mind the words of Cash Michaels in an interview with NPR's Juan Williams last April.

Describing the sentiment in Durham's black community, Michaels said:

“If the alleged suspects were black players and the victim was white, they would have been rounded up, arrested, and they would have been waiting in jail for their DNA results.”

Murphy's inciting commentary also reflects several comments made last April at the frenzied NCCU pep rally for indictments.

"Why did the accused rapist get a chance to chill out at the Duke University. The moment that they were accused there should have been an arrest. I want to know why were they not arrested?"

"We all know that if this happened at Central, and the young lady was from another school or another persuasion, the outcome would have been different. They would have been in jail."

"You all know that if this happened—the young lady was from another school or another persuasion, the outcome would have been different. They would have been in jail."

"My understanding from this family this young lady has identified the three men who have raped her. They should be in jail."

"Within the last couple of years, a white female was assaulted allegedly by a black male, a black student at Duke was going to his work study job, the police grabbed him, put him in jail, and later said oops, sorry, mistaken identity, but you met the profile. Those lacrosse players met the profile, why weren‘t they arrested? Now, what is the differences? Is it the billion-dollar a year operating budget of Duke which can buy anything and everyone?"

Incredibly, as Hoax observers await the anticipated dismissal of the charges, Wendy Murphy's commentary hearkens back to the pep rally atmosphere that Rony Camille, student and assistant editor of NCCU's “Campus Echo” newspaper described on April 11, 2006 as "really, really, really tense" in an interview MSNBC's Dan Abrams.

ABRAMS: Explain to me, Ronnie. Listening to a lot of the sentiment there at your university, it sounds to me like if you step back from—step back a little bit and you talk about this rationally, what they are really saying is we have seen other examples where the police have misbehaved or where police have targeted people because of their race. It really doesn‘t sound like they have got a real good argument about why anyone should have been arrested here, right?

CAMILLE: Yes. Dan, and it‘s getting right now really, really, really tense. I was there earlier today and just to see the students and members of the community ask these questions to the D.A. was just really, you know, it made you think for a second about what was going on.

ABRAMS: See, I guess I don‘t understand what it is they want from the D.A. They want him to just go forward and arrest, you know, it sounds like the D.A. has identified, based on our analysis of everything he has said. It sounds like the D.A. has identified maybe one, possibly two of the people but not all three. Are the people in the community saying just go arrest the whole team?

CAMILLE: That‘s what they are—basically the overall feel is that they want, you know, the team should have been arrested. DNA should have - - the extension of the DNA should have taken, you know, two weeks and it was overextended.

ABRAMS: Uh-huh. They have got to know, you know, it‘s a good school, smart people, they have got to know that that‘s craziness, right, the idea they are going to go in and they are going to arrest the whole team?

CAMILLE: Well, you know, there are some people that don‘t really think logically...

After setting the stage by repeating the cries of last spring, Murphy, who in a December email to colleagues proclaimed Defendant Nifong her "prosecutor of the year," expanded on her vitriolic diatribes of the past year with her new prediction of "riots in the streets."

Making Ms. Murphy's comments most disappointing, last week there were visible signs of acceptance of the end of the Hoax from leaders in the black community. A Hoax supporting website, sponsored by the North Carolina NAACP, the Triangle Urban League, and three local black newspapers, cited concerns about the integrity of the investigation and the reluctance of the false accuser to cooperate with authorities as reasons for pulling its site down.

“OurHeartsWorld.com, the website sponsored by a coalition of community groups across North Carolina, is no more…

“Evidence turned over to the defense attorneys representing three players who were ultimately indicted for three first-degree felonies reportedly failed to confirm her allegations…

“The NCNAACP, the Triangle Urban League and three Black newspapers in North Carolina cosponsored the website…

“In December 2006 it was revealed that the accuser could not substantiate her rape accusations…

“Of course, the allegations against Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong per his handling of the investigation and exculpatory DNA evidence was also a factor in our growing weariness about the integrity of the case.

“And just recently, word that the accuser is not cooperating with the special prosecutors of the State Attorney General’s Office has also concerned us.

“If the essence of our support for her was ensuring her right to tell her story, but she isn’t doing it, then the reasons for continuing that support are fewer and fewer.

“We have consulted with the co-sponsors of the website, and they agree with our assessment that the time has come to pull the plug.”

Floyd McKissick Jr., the Chairman of the Durham County Democratic Party, also expressed concerns about the fairness of Defendant Nifong's treatment of the Hoax victims and wonderment over whether Nifong's misconduct was limited to the Hoax.

"The African-American community of Durham wants fairness, and the view is that if Mr. Nifong was not fair in this case, what's he going to be like in other cases?"

McKissick's comments echo the words of esteemed Duke Universtity Professor of Law, James Coleman. In an interview with Ed Bradley, Professor Coleman acknowledged the transparency of Nifong's motives while foreshadowing McKissick's query with his own.

"I think that he pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy you know big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.' You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?' What does it say about what he's willing to do to get poor black defendants?"

As with most hyperbolic comments made by Ms. Murphy throughout her advocacy of the Hoax, her latest prediction seems based on little more than her own entrenched prejudices and selfish desire that the falsely prosecuted young men be sacrificed on the altar of her radical agenda. Despite the likely unfounded nature of her claims, Murphy's recent appearances in local black newspapers as a guest columnist and legal "expert" can only lend credence to her claims.

It should be noted, however, that even the most extreme critics of this site have recently downplayed the possibility of riots, calling that likelihood "trivial." Our most frequent heckler, who once predicted riots and contends that some Durham preachers described the deaths of Kirk Osborn and Ed Bradley as signs of God's vengeance, admits that riots, as predicted by Murphy, are not anticipated.

"you know nothing about Durham in general and less than nothing about the Durham black community. How can you get a sense of what the people in the black community know and think when you literally know none of them? Have you spoken with any Durham blacks? No. You are relying on an article from someone who spoke to maybe three black people in Durham. Well, I live here, go to church here and let me tell you that many of the churches are sending prayers up for Nifong and the victim and some of the preachers have preached on the case, including the deaths of Osborn and Ed Bradley and the subject of bought justice--you would definitely not like to hear the text of some of those sermons(lets just say that the defense and the bloggers like yourself are depicted as supporter of Evildoers and therefore servants of Darkness and are reaping the consequences). The support of Nifong in the black community is still strong.

"If you knew anything about Durham you would know that the attorney general is aware of this and is trying to wait for Spring Break at NCCU or even the end of the semester to annonce his dismissal to avoid any problems from the NCCU students. Durham has had riots before( in the 1960's) and that is the part of the town that went up first and it is close to downtown. This is a trivial concern, though, as times have changed and I do not think there will be any riot about a dismissal."

To its credit, it appears that FOX News pulled Murphy's sulfurous segment in later airings of reports on the University of Minnesota allegations.

Duke Prof Channels Wendy Murphy

What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson?

.

Have logic and justice left and gone away? This question should be on everyone’s mind after reading Duke Law School Professor Robinson Everett’s defense of DA Nifong in the Herald-Sun yesterday.

.

Professor Everett endorsed DA Nifong in the primary and general elections. Unlike Citizen’s Committee Co-Chair Kim Brummel, who demanded Nifong apologize for his unethical conduct, Professor Everett apparently sees nothing wrong with DA Nifong’s decision to hide evidence in the Hoax. He apparently believes that Wendy Murphy understands the issues raised by Nifong’s conduct better than his fellow Duke law professor James Coleman. Everett argues that it is unclear whether “Nifong had any duty to provide the defense with evidence about the presence on the accuser’s body of semen from other persons who were not lacrosse players.” Everett cites North Carolina’s rape shield law, rule or evidence 412 and suggests that it allows a District Attorney to hide evidence he doesn’t think will ultimately be admitted at trial.

.

Everett states:

“Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence that alleged victim had sexual relations with persons other than the lacrosse players; but, after examining the rule, I doubt that those exceptions would apply in this case. Therefore, Judge Smith, who will try the case, may not allow the jury to hear this evidence – although the evidence clearly should be admissible that the tests revealed no semen from the lacrosse players on the body of the accused…I wonder whether the district attorney violated any constitutional or statutory requirement if he had the laboratory delete from its “reports of test result” those that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.”

Rule 412 states the following:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:

(1) Was between the complainant and the defendant; or

(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant; or

(3) Is evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior so distinctive and so closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove that such complainant consented to the act or acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented; or

(4) Is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.

Let’s set aside (4) and its potential relevance for the time being. How in the present case is it even remotely possible to argue that (2) does not apply? How can anyone, let alone a distinguished professor of law, argue that multiple DNA samples found on the accuser in this case are not “evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendants”? Isn’t that exactly why the other DNA from at least four unidentified males is relevant? Nifong didn’t even try to argue the Robinson Everett/Wendy Murphy theory to the court, to the media, or to the NC Bar Grievance Committee. Does Professor Everett really believe the lawyer he publicly endorsed for district attorney is so incompetent that he didn’t raise an obvious argument in his own behalf and instead chose first to deny knowledge and then to make up a story about protecting the players’ privacy? Even with his career on the line, does Everett actually believe that Nifong just missed that argument or forgot his true motivations?

.

Perhaps DA Nifong’s reluctance to use Everett’s argument was due to the fact that he said repeatedly on national television and to local Durham media that he believed the accuser’s story because of the medical report from Duke Hospital, which he asserted showed vaginal trauma, and which the police described in multiple search warrants by stating, “Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.”

.

Setting aside the fact that the medical records said no such thing and only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, is Professor Everett seriously arguing that DNA found in the vaginal vault, in the rectum, and on the accuser’s underwear that doesn’t match any of the lacrosse players should be excluded from evidence because it isn’t relevant? Is he seriously arguing that DA Nifong was justified in withholding this evidence, even as his office leaked to the press the “non-exclusion” of Dave Evans from a DNA pool created from multiple plastic fingernails found in the trashcan in Evans’ bathroom? How exactly could a defendant respond to such claims in Mr. Robinson’s evidentiary neighborhood? The prosecution would assert the “injuries” were caused by the defendant, because if the defendant didn’t cause them, who did? Then the defendant would say what? Does Robinson Everett really believe a court would prevent a defendant from suggesting that the multiple donors of the recovered DNA samples may have caused the “injuries”? As controversial as rape shield laws are, does Everett really believe they operate that irrationally?

.

Furthermore, the additional DNA samples in this case are highly relevant for two other important reasons. First, the accuser claimed that at least one of the accused ejaculated. The apparent justification for why no DNA was found is a magic towel that managed to wipe away all the accused’s DNA, but left the DNA of other men. How can the defense be precluded from offering the other DNA as evidence against the magic towel theory? Second, the accuser claims that she didn’t have sexual relations with anyone prior to the party and only had sex with her boyfriend a week earlier. This claim is directly relevant to the significance attached to any medical evidence of “trauma” in her vaginal area. How can DNA evidence to the contrary possibly be considered irrelevant to the question?

.

Most importantly, it must be noted that Everett supports his argument by miscontsruing the rape shield law in stating, "Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence." In fact, Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow presentation of evidence at trial and does not speak to receipt of evidence except to specifically state the opposite of what Everett falsely claims: "...all evidence relating thereto shall be open to inspection only by the parties, the complainant, their attorneys and the court and its agents."

.

Further, the statute outlines the procedure by which the evidence in question must be presented to the court so that a ruling on admissibility is made by a judge and not the prosecutor.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless and until the court determines that evidence of sexual behavior is relevant under subdivision (b), no reference to this behavior may be made in the presence of the jury and no evidence of this behavior may be introduced at any time during the trial of:
(1) A charge of rape or a lesser included offense of rape;
(2) A charge of a sex offense or a lesser included offense of a sex offense; or
(3) An offense being tried jointly with a charge of rape or a sex offense, or with a lesser included offense of rape or a sex offense.

Before any questions pertaining to such evidence are asked of any witness, the proponent of such evidence shall first apply to the court for a determination of the relevance of the sexual behavior to which it relates. The proponent of such evidence may make application either prior to trial pursuant to G.S. 15A-952, or during the trial at the time when the proponent desires to introduce such evidence. When application is made, the court shall conduct an in camera hearing, which shall be transcribed, to consider the proponent's offer of proof and the argument of counsel, including any counsel for the complainant, to determine the extent to which such behavior is relevant. In the hearing,the proponent of the evidence shall establish the basis of admissibility of such evidence. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Rule 104, if the relevancy of the evidence which the proponent seeks to offer in the trial depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court, at the in camera hearing or at a subsequent in camera hearing scheduled for that purpose, shall accept evidence on the issue of whether that condition of fact is fulfilled and shall determine that issue. If the court finds that the evidence is relevant, it shall enter an order stating that the evidence may be admitted and the nature of the questions which will be permitted.

Nowhere in Rule 412 is there a provision for allowing the prosecutor to usurp the role of the court in determining what evidence is admissible and what evidence must be provided to the defendants. It is difficult to understand how the court could rule on the admissibility of evidence hidden from it by a prosecutor. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin appears to agree with our assessment that Everett misconstrues the letter of the statute:

"The State primarily argues that the undisclosed information is not material because it would not have been admissible, as it does not meet the Pulizzano exception to the rape shield law...

.

"We also disagree with the State's argument that this evidence is not material because we determine that the State's nondisclosure of this evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of Harris's criminal proceeding. While the State argues at length that the undisclosed evidence is not material because it does not meet the Pulizzano test, we find this argument to be unpersuasive because the State never afforded Harris the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion in the first place. We need not determine whether the five factor Pulizzano test would have been met in this case because even if the test would have been met, the circuit court would still have been obligated to balance Harris's right to present the evidence against the interest of the State in excluding it." State v. Harris

Robinson Everett ignores all these well-known facts and obvious questions and suggests that Nifong was justified in hiding evidence “that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.” One wonders whether Everett is following any of the facts in this case or is instead just writing letters to the News & Observer and Herald-Sun because he assumes his intellect is so superior that the community would benefit from his baseless musings. We can only hope that justice’s version of “Joltin’ Joe” and the rest of the defense team can ultimately convince the special prosecutors to dismiss the charges in this Hoax. Until that day comes, Hoax enablers like Robinson Everett can only cause the rest of us to look to the sky and remember that “heaven holds a place for those who pray.”

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.

Cartoon celebrity impersonator revealed

There seems to be some confusion as to the contestant pictured above. While we expected the placement of the contestant, the long dress, the 9-inch nails, the fright wig, the obvious resemblance to the Bride of Frankenstein, the naming of the contestant in the article and the included quote about the broom's DNA to give it away, it appears that further clarification is required. The contestant depicted is actually only a cartoon celebrity impersonator of Ms. Murphy and is not really her. We apologize for any confusion.

No Heads of Household, Hostess Ho Ho's or Garden Hoes have been harmed during the making of this cartoon.

Hag of the Hoax

With the approach of Labor Day, the annual return of that great American tradition,.. the Miss America Pageant... comes to our minds. LieStoppers is not sexist, but, in a chivalrous way, we seek to recognize several media damsels who stand tall above the crowd in their reporting on this case.

In that spirit, LieStoppers is proud to announce its own "Beauty is a Beast Contest":

Miss Hag of the Hoax 2006.

Miss HOH, as we call her fondly, must be no ordinary media star! No, she must possess certain outstanding abilities, and her reporting on the Duke Hoax must exhibit some, if not all, of the following characteristics:

An ability to continually misinform the public on basic facts of the case

A malicious contempt for accuracy

Mean-spirited flights of fancy

Vengeful viperous behavior

With so many worthy candidates gracing the airwaves, choosing Miss Hag of the Hoax 2006 will be a formidable task.

To suggest your favorite candidate, please post in the comments below.

Links to their qualifying quotes are not required, but will enhance your candidate's chances of winning. Please nominate your favorites today. From those nominees, LieStoppers will announce the lucky finalists.

Readers votes will then decide the winner.

Our first contestant hails from the great state of Massachusetts.

Raven-haired Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor, and an adjunct professor at Boston's New England School of Law.

She teaches a seminar on sexual violence. Wendy, who has never heard an accusation she didn't like, possesses an exceptional vocal range and a keen ability to interrupt. Wendy has mastered the art of speaking in absolutes, filling her opinions with words like "always", "never" and "it's a fact." She is famous for her view that all rape claims are true, and all evidence supports the credibility of the accuser, regardless of what that evidence is. Her views suggest that she is apparently hoping for the day when all men accused of rape will be denied a trial and go immediately to a penal facility.

Examples of Wendy's more notable contributions to the Duke Hoax are below:

April 9, 2006 - WRAL [Before the first DNA test results were released]

"If the DNA isn't going to match, they wouldn't need to do this," she said. "It's almost comical that they think a photograph is proof positive that a rape didn't happen. It's not a smoking gun. It's a muddying of the waters." Wendy Murphy #1

LieStoppers: Of course, as we all know, the DNA didn’t match, but that didn’t stop Wendy.

April 10, 2006 – Nancy Grace [After the first DNA test results were released]

"Look, I think the real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists -- and I'm going to say it because, at this point, she`s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim. These guys watch "CSI," and they know it`s a really bad idea to ejaculate on or in the victim. And maybe what she said, which makes her particularly credible, is, These guys didn't ejaculate on or inside of my body, which means she deserves extra credibility because no one`s suggesting that she lied about whether there would be DNA found on her person.Wendy Murphy #2

LieStoppers: Wendy, if the woman said no DNA would be found, why did the DA order the entire team to submit to DNA testing? Why did his office file a motion saying “The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim”? In fact, we now know that the accuser told investigator Himan that two of the supposed attackers ejaculated. What does that do to her credibility?

April 28, 2006 – Paula Zahn Now

"And, by May 15, if we hear there were date rape drugs in her blood, and the broomstick was recovered with her DNA on it... this case is over..."Wendy Murphy #3

LieStoppers: More nonsense. There never was a toxicology report and in none of the accuser’s multiple stories she claims that she was assaulted with a broom. What did we hear by May 15? That DNA was recovered from inside the accuser matching her boyfriend. Again, that didn’t stop Wendy.

May 17, 2006 - Tucker

CARLSON: I want you to look into the screen and I want you to tell me and our viewers that doubts are not beginning to mount in your mind about the prosecution in this case. Are they? MURPHY: No. No doubts. No doubts in my mind... Wendy Murphy #4

LieStoppers: No doubts whatsoever Wendy? Even though there was no DNA match after you suggested there would be, even though there was no date rape drug after you suggested there would be, and even though there was no claim of broom use like you suggested there would be?

June 5, 2006 - Tucker

"Let‘s pretend you—let‘s pretend you understand math on some basic level. Statistically speaking, if over 99 percent of people indicted are, in fact, guilty, just play the odds, Tucker… I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth. Wendy Murphy #5

LieStoppers: We believe this last statement should be sufficient to disqualify Wendy Murphy from ever commenting on a legal matter again, particularly on a rape claim. Her commentary has been outrageous and disgraceful. Her comments have earned her the first nomination for Miss Hag of the Hoax.