Man, I hope I get this much press when my book comes out.

Crystal Mangum, former stripper and prostitute who falsely accused former Duke University lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty, and Dave Evans of brutally beating, strangling, raping, and sodomizing her, asserted “without equivocation, that I was assaulted” at the infamous house party in March 2006, although there was no evidence of an assault. (Source)

Mangum released two chapters of her “memoir,” neither of which gets to the meat of the story. I presume “Meeting” was written by publisher Vincent Clark about his first encounter with Mangum. The excerpt jumps to the last chapter, “New Beginning,” which is nothing more than a shamelessly maudlin, self-absorbed, unfocused, and unsuccessful attempt to gain sympathy. Does Mangum audaciously maintain in the book that she was brutally beaten, strangled, raped, and sodomized in the bathroom? Can’t wait to read all about it.

Until then, download the excerpt in PDF.

If Mangum makes that claim, I can’t say I’d be stunned by her tenacity at mendacity. I’d hoped the woman would have the grace to acknowledge her lies and apologize to the men whose lives she held captive for a year, shrouding them in a cloud of doubt and suspicion, accused of the most heinous acts.

I would love – LOVE – to talk this woman one-on-one, sister-to-sister. Her handlers are closely guarding what they hope to be a cash cow, so e-mail and telephone interview requests won’t cut it. Am I motivated to go to Durham, track her down, and approach her ambush-style? If a news organization wants to pay for an exclusive (including travel expenses), I’m game.

By the way, here’s a weird tidbit: KC Johnson, premiere Duke case blogger and co-author of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case (now available in paperback), found out that state NAACP attorney Al McSurely, who published the infamously error-filled memorandum of law in support of Mangum’s side of the story, is the registered agent for the company that published Mangum’s piece of fantasy fiction.

Update: “[Publisher] Clark said the self-published book will be available through his Web site at midnight on a print-by-demand basis.”

Oh, brother.

Mangum said: “I have no comments about the details of the case…Threre’s no point in going into that, because the trial will never happen. So what’s the point? I just don’t see the point.”

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if she offers details in the darn book. What a tool.

Previous post:

• Crystal Mangum Goes for “Grace”

——————————————————————————————–

Update III (8/25): Here’s the press release that arrived in my inbox on Thursday night:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 22, 2008

Publication Date: October 1, 2008

Media Inquiries: Vincent Clark
vince@firefilmz.com
greenecourt@aol.com

919.630.3806

Michael Denisoff
MDenLA@oal.com

949.293.2797

http://www.firefilmz.com

http://www.denisoffconsulting.com

Poignant Memoir Reveals Details of a Difficult Life

(Los Angeles) – The Duke Lacrosse case is no longer the lead story on the network and cable news shows, but there is one central figure, who was there on the night in question and who’s voice has been silent. She’s been called an exotic dancer and a prostitute, and the public was led to believe she wanted to frame some “good college students” from Duke and put them in jail. Although most of the questions appear to be answered in the Duke Lacrosse Case, one still remains. Who is Crystal Gail Mangum? During the investigation and in its aftermath, she never spoke publicly, that is until now.

The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story is the only definitive account of the life and struggles of the woman at the center of the Duke Lacrosse case, the alleged accuser. Were it not for the Duke Lacrosse Case, she likely would be described as a bright, young woman from Durham, North Carolina, who has had a difficult life. Like so many of us, Crystal has made mistakes and has struggled to make amends. Her biggest mistake just happened to lead to one of the most controversial legal cases in American history.

Published reports throughout 2006 and 2007 portrayed Crystal as a gold-digging hooker searching for a big payday or as a unstable, troubled young woman.

The truth about Crystal’s life, her account of what happened on March 13, 2006, accusations, and the motives of the people criticizing her were never seriously explored. As people appeared from out of the woodwork to offer their opinions about Crystal, no one ever asked the one person who could set the record straight.

To complicate matters, the State of North Carolina was in the throws of a monumental legal battle. Criminal defense attorneys argued over how much evidence should be turned over by district attorneys in all criminal cases, not just the Duke Lacrosse Scandal; a principal called “Open File Discovery”. The result was a very complicated legal theory that collided with Crystal Mangum’s desire to have the case heard in open court.

The Last Dance for Grace can’t and doesn’t deal with the complex legal aspects of the case. Disbarred Durham County, North Carolina district attorney Michael Nifong was removed due to misconduct in the case. Nifong’s misunderstanding or some will say willful disregard for open file discovery was the reason the case fell apart. The muddling of facts about Crystal’s life, along with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s desire to settle the dispute over open file discovery, swallowed the case whole.

The Last Dance for Grace deals openly and honestly with Crystal Mangum’s life. It shows the portrait of a real person and not some caricature. Crystal’s story is at times heartbreaking. She has endured a series of very difficult periods in her life, but each time she has emerged stronger, striving to do better.

This book is an important tool to discuss race, class, sex and the judicial process. It also provides very important lessons for any young person trying to make good life-choices.

Crystal Magnum is donating one dollar from the purchase of each book to help battered women.

Editors Note: ALL inquiries concerning Ms. Mangum are being handled via fire! Books or Denisoff Consulting. Several indivduals have purported to represent Ms. Mangum. At no time in the past or presently has she been represented by anyone other than fire! Books or Denisoff Consulting. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTACT MS. MANGUM DIRECTLY OR DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN: Vincent Clark, Courtney Greene or Michael Denisoff!

——————————————————————————

Update II (8/23): A reader sent me a link to a video of Joe Cheshire, a defense attorney in the Duke case, talking about Mangum’s book.

Update (8/22): Good grief. There’s video.

It’s been a long time since I’ve written about the Duke “rape” case. Feast your eyes on this fresh fodder.

Disgraced Crystal Mangum, the former stripper and prostitute who accused three Duke University lacrosse players of strangling, beating, and brutally raping her (vaginally, anally, and orally) in a tiny bathroom at a house party back in March 2006, is writing her memoirs. Not an Internet rumor. It’s true!

The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story, scheduled for release on October 1, is Mangum’s sob story of a story. It, like everything else about her, will generate ridicule…unless it contains a big, fat apology to Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans.

From the press release:

“The truth about Crystal’s life, her account of what happened on March 13, 2006, accusations, and the motives of the people criticizing her were never seriously explored. As people appeared from out of the woodwork to offer their opinions about Crystal, no one ever asked the one person who could set the record straight.”

Don’t be shocked or dismayed. She’s an opportunist. There’s nothing illegal about hiring a ghostwriter to pen “her story” so she can make money from the sordid mess she made. This is America! Freedom of speech, capitalism, and all that.

Background

When I first heard about this accusation, I knew it was a straight-up lie. No way did those guys rape that drunk/high stripper. No way. How did I know? I just knew. Call it gut instinct. Even before the DNA tests, I knew I’d be proven right. The story just didn’t ring true. And I knew before the media bore down on the case exactly how they’d cover it. Race angle all the way.

I saw a woman with gang-rape fantasies trying to get paid. She was pitiful and ignorant. I called it early and got a lot of flak for it. But you know me. Sticks and stones, water off a duck’s back, and all that.

Mike Nifong, the now disgraced and disbarred district attorney, went after the players like a personal vendetta. Nifong was running for re-election against a black candidate in a heavily black city, and he seized the opportunity to fuel a class war and stir up the envy of people who, for one reason or another, didn’t like “rich” white boys who played lacrosse at Duke.

The men were indicted on charges of first-degree forcible rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping. Nifong was confident that DNA would link the men to Mangum. When it did not, he still pursued the case, ignoring exculpatory evidence and continuing to make misleading statements.

For example, he and DNA lab director Brian Meehan knew that genetic material from several men (none of the accused) was found on and inside Mangum, and conspired to keep this exculpatory evidence from the defense. Then he lied and claimed he’d turned over all DNA test results. And as it turned out, Nifong didn’t interview Mangum until months after she made the accusations.

After Mangum claimed not to remember whether she was penetrated by any of the men, Nifong was forced to drop the forcible rape charge.

The whole thing was awful. I watched Duke professors try to convict the accused men, using the opportunity to push their sadly outdated racial grievances to get even more undeserved stuff. I watched a usually anti-prosecution liberal media hang onto and favorably report Nifong’s every lie, publishing ridiculously simpering race-baiting stories. Mainstream media played up this “rich white boys rape poor black mother of two” story while ignoring or downplaying rape stories where the accused was black and the victim was white, which is more common than white rapist/black victim. (Ah, they were bored with those stories. That’s the ticket…)

I watched disgruntled blacks take out their rage and frustration on these lacrosse players, dredging up ancient history and propping up a scapegoat to blame for their own deficiencies. It was embarrassing.

I could go on and on. The way the media covered this case became a story in itself. There’s much, much more to the whole fiasco, and if you get bored at work today, check out the Duke Rape Case archives. If you’d rather not deal with 55 posts, check out Wikipedia’s entry on the case. For ongoing reports, visit the blog Durham-in-Wonderland, maintained by KC Johnson.

Aftermath

Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges against Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans. Nifong lost his job, his law license, and served only a day in jail for contempt. Cooper, for reasons I’ll never understand, declined to press charges against Mangum.

The three men filed suit against Duke University and reached a settlement. They filed suit against the city of Durham for federal civil rights violations. The unidicted lacrosse players involved in the case also filed suit against Duke and Durham.

If Crystal Mangum had any grace, she’d ask for God’s grace, get on with her life, make amends the best she can, and raise decent children. But she’s still trying to get paid.

Related Townhall colums:

• Nifong’s Swan Song
• Every One His Due
• Scottsboro Revisted
• Media Eat Up Absurd Rape Story

In other breaking news, it’s been determined that oxygen deprivation can lead to death…

Unrelated Update (9/19): Thanks for the shout-out, John in Carolina. I blogged about the Duke “rape” case because I wanted to challenge mainstream media’s “drunk white frat boys with rich fathers rape poor black woman forced to strip to feed her children” narrative. When the gang-rape story first emerged, I knew it was just her fantasy, one that would end up costing people a lot of money and a lot of heartache.

Now give yourself a hand for the work you’ve done, John.

Also see Professor Bill Anderson’s review of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

On a Duke case-related note, I must give a big shout-out to Michael Gaynor, lawyer and columnist, for his shout-out to me and for “scolding” Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson for not mentioning me in their new book, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

In his review, he writes:

“The authors’ tribute to Ms. [Jeralyn] Merritt, a white liberal, was deserved, but La Shawn Barber, the astute black conservative woman who surely should not have been ignored, went unmentioned. (As an astute black conservative woman, La Shawn probably will be disappointed, but not shocked, by that glaring omission.)

“The authors, La Shawn and I each independently went public with our views on the Duke case in April 2006, but La Shawn was first and she was great. (The authors began the book by writing at length about Devon Sherwood, the team’s only black player, which was fitting. Their omission of La Shawn is inexplicable to me.)
…
“To the authors: Omitting La Shawn from the definitive book on the Duke case is something for which ‘gentlemen’ will be quick to make amends to the lady whom Michelle Malkin dubbed ‘Sweetheart of the Blogosphere.’ Omitting to report that a blogger (me) had repeatedly reported (a fact, not a fabrication, some found inconvenient) the multiple male DNA months before the defense team reportedly realized and perhaps even suspected it was there to find was a failing, but not giving the righteous lady whom Mr. Nifong learned to rue her due should be grounds for jailing (almost).
…
“La Shawn was passionately and profoundly pounding away about the injustice of the Duke case, to the disgust of the race hustlers and political correctness nuts. Long before blogs Durham-in-Wonderland, Friends of Duke University and LieStoppers were created, La Shawn was on the case, unaffected by color, race or sex, calling a disgrace a disgrace.”

Thanks, Michael, and I hope Stuart and KC take the criticism in stride (because I’m not too disappointed). It’s a great book, and I’m glad to have played a small part in uncovering media bias and exposing Mike Nifong’s mendacity, race baiting, and recklessness.

Addendum: FYI, Stuart Taylor apologized for neglecting to mention me. I appreciated it, but I hope he’s not losing sleep.

In fact, he had not. He and DNA lab director Brian Meehan (and here) knew that genetic material from several men was found on and inside Crystal Mangum, the false rape accuser, and conspired to keep this exculpatory evidence from the defense. Then Nifong lied and claimed he’d turned over all DNA test results.

By the way, there were no DNA matches between Mangum or the indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, although she claimed they strangled, beat, raped (with no condoms), and sodomized her (including orally) for 30 minutes in a small bathroom.

Also see Wednesday’s post, PC and Injustice in the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Update (9/1): Nifong will serve a symbolic day in jail.

Read an excerpt of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and listen to Stuart Taylor talk about the case at NPR.

Related posts:

• NYT’s Duke DNA Double Standard
• Nifong Hits the Circuit; Unusual Leftist Recommendations

(Disclosure: I’m an Amazon Associate, and I get a small cut of the proceeds of every book bought through LBC. I’m paid with Amazon gift certificates.)

If you followed bloggers’ coverage of the Duke “rape” fiasco (which began in early April 2006 for me, a few weeks after the “rape”), you know that KC was the go-to blogger in the case. The appalling behavior of some of Duke University’s professors triggered his involvement. And Stuart was one of the first journalists to cry foul very early in the case.

For a good round-up of Duke case-related news articles and blog posts, see The Johnsville News.

Addendum: Are the formerly indicted lacrosse players gearing up to sue the city of Durham? An excerpt:

“[Reade] Seligmann hired Barry Scheck, a New York City lawyer who helped represent O.J. Simpson in his murder trial. Scheck also started the Innocence Project, which has used DNA evidence to free more than 100 people from prison. David Rudolf, a Chapel Hill attorney who represented former Carolina Panthers receiver Rae Carruth in a murder trial, is serving as local counsel for Scheck.

“[David] Evans and [Collin] Finnerty have hired Brendan Sullivan Jr. and Chris Manning of Washington. Sullivan defended former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and represented Lt. Col. Oliver North during the Iran-Contra congressional hearings…The former players’ representatives will meet next week with the city’s legal staff.”

Yes? Just a guess.

Update (8/30): Pet peeve alert – There is no such plea as “innocent.” Maddening. It’s either guilty or not guilty.

Related posts:

• Duke Case: Journalists’ Rush to Judgment
• Jaded Journalists Spice Up Black-on-White Rape Story
• Former Rogue DA Nifong Disbarred
• Every One His Due

Why on earth would the “newspaper of record” do that? Because the accused gang rapists are black and the alleged victim is white.

In the Duke “rape” case, the NYT published story after story, month after month, parroting the district attorney’s lines and tried its best to lend credence to disgraced and disbarred Mike Nifong’s case against three white men. The liberal journalists seized every opportunity to demonize the men accused and slant stories to that end, while setting the poor-oppressed-black-rape-victim narrative in stone.

The headline “Charge against a Player Raises Question of Justice,” should read “Delayed Trial For Gang Rape Victim Raises Question of Justice.” That’s what should be important, not whether some black rapist gets to play ball.

But we know that black-on-white crime bores the heck out of liberals, so to spice things up, they turn the issue on its head and focus on poor oppressed black football players.

Clay Waters of Times Watch, gets to the point much better than I do: “Faced with a black athlete as a suspect and an alleged rape victim who is white, the Times displays a concern for ‘racial overtones’ totally absent in its shoddy coverage of the Duke lacrosse ‘rape’ hoax.”

Indeed. Why wasn’t the NYT concerned about racial overtones in the Duke case, when it was clear to anyone with half a brain that Nifong indicted the white men accused of raping a black woman (with no DNA matches) in a heavily black city to win what otherwise would have been a tough battle to retain his job?

As I said, boring. The libs needed to spice things up, writing snide stories about “rich” white lacrosse players and oppressed black strippers.

The rape victim, now 15, won’t get any sympathy from left-leaning newspapers because she’s white and her rapists are black. Believe whatever you want, but it’s really that simple.

(Hat tip: KC Johnson)

Related post:

• Duke Case: Journalists’ Rush to Judgment

Monday, June 18: As you know, it’s not over for Nifong. He could face criminal contempt charges and civil lawsuits. The reason things have gotten this bad for Nifong is that he pushed forward a case in which he couldn’t place the accused men at the scene of the so-called crime (in fact, there was no evidence a crime even occurred), hadn’t spoken to the accuser until months after the indictments, intentionally misrepresented evidence, intentionally withheld evidence, and used the case to campaign for office. If he was inexperienced and overwhelmed trying a felony case of this magnitude, he should have asked for help, guidance, something.

Nifong merely is reaping what he’s sown for the past year, and it’s no one’s fault but his own. Check out my Townhall column, Nifong’s Swan Song.

I forgot to mention this yesterday. I believe all three former Duke lacrosse players testified at Nifong’s hearing last week. I read an account of Reade Seligmann’s testimony. He was the only white student in an “African American” studies course. After the accusations, his study partner gave him the cold shoulder and wrote an article about how the sexual assault of a black woman by white men signifies the return of the Jim Crow south, or some such BS. This kind of ignorance flourishes when admissions standards are lowered.

Add these books to your reading list:

• Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
• It’s Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered

Update (3:03 p.m): Just caught this. Reade Seligmann, the formerly indicted-for-rape lacrosse player with the alibi, says he, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans plan to sue Nifong. Good move. File suit against Duke University while you’re at it…

Later…Ha! Just found out via KC Johnson that Duke U has settled with Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans. Hmmm…how much?

Even later…And criminal charges, too? Better put Nifong on suicide watch…

—————————————————————————————————————-

The thing is done. It’s almost anti-climactic.

Former Durham County District Attorney Michael B. Nifong has been stripped of his law license. After a week-long trial and a tearful non-apology apology, Nifong saw his legal career go up in proverbial flames.

Yesterday afternoon, a three-member disciplinary panel found Nifong guilty of lying, misrepresenting evidence, and making inflammatory statements to the media, and they disbarred him.

History professor and blogger KC Johnson blogged from the week-long ethics hearing last week. (Johnson is the co-author of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.)

On Friday, Nifong offered a tepid apology: “To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused” and resigned as DA: “My community has suffered enough… It has become apparent, during the course of this week, in some ways that it might not have been before, that my presence as the district attorney in Durham is not furthering the cause of justice.”

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

At the end of the five-day hearing, Williamson struggled to explain the self-destruction of Nifong, who has spent his 28-year legal career as a Durham prosecutor.

“Why, why did we get to the place we got?” Williamson asked. “At the root of it is self-deception arising out of self-interest. … His self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class, a situation which if it were a plot in a John Grisham novel would be considered to be too contrived.”

According to [Disciplinary Hearing Commission Chairman] Williamson, Nifong grabbed hold of the case in the middle of a hotly contested election campaign. Escort service dancer Crystal Gail Mangum said she was raped by three men at a lacrosse team party. Nifong immediately went on a media blitz without reading police reports, talking with Mangum or waiting for DNA tests. Nifong asserted a racially-motivated assault occurred and labeled players “hooligans.”

The case crumbled, but Nifong continued to press on.

Nifong, desperate to win election in a heavily black city, used the only ammunition at his disposal: a phony, high profile gang rape case bubbling over with race and class tension.

If I were Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans, I’d sue Duke University, the Durham Police Department, and Mike Nifong.

News round-up at The Johnsville News.

Writer John Leo mentions the Duke case and the Christian-Newsom murders in his article about selective news coverage. (Hat tip: MM)

Although this post is closed, Notes on “The Rap on Culture” is open for discussion. The 16-page study I linked to is a must-read.

Report later…

Update (5/23 @ 7:00 a.m.): The National Press Club flyer reads:

“Spurious rape charges against members of the Duke University lacrosse team triggered a year’s worth of emotional news stories, blogs, and 24/7 media specials. Many allegations were flung and many reputations ruined, but in the end all charges were dropped. Now, the original prosecutor himself faces potential charges, and journalists must work through the wreckage to find lessons for the future.”

In the beginning…

The moderator was Alicia Mundy of the National Press Club Newsmaker Committee. A self-admitted liberal, Mundy began with a summary of the year-long Duke lacrosse case and shared an anecdote about panelist Stuart Taylor.

Taylor, columnist and co-author of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, realized very early on that prosecutor Mike Nifong didn’t have much of a case. He rushed a column to print in April 2006, worried that his column might be old news and others would beat him to the punch with this revelation. Taylor assumed many other journalists had reached similar conclusions, and he wanted to get his piece in. He was wrong. His was the only opinion piece from a member of the mainstream media (MSM) who was skeptical about the case.

Joseph Neff (pictured below right), an investigative reporter for The Raleigh News & Observer, said that national media descended on Durham. The first two weeks were “nuts.” The Duke case was “the most competitive story my newspaper has ever seen,” Neff said.

Rem Reider, editor of The American Journalism Review, said that “in the heart of the chase,” it’s tough not to rush to judgment and not get caught up in with the mob. Sometimes stories are taken beyond their news value because of the 24-hour news cycle. Journalists should be skeptical when covering stories. He reminded the audience of mostly aspiring young journalists (and me!) that the MSM are not a monolith.

Reider added that there was plenty of reason to have been skeptical about the Duke case early on, given the lack of evidence.

Mundy briefly mentioned the “blondes in distress” phenomenon, where stories of missing blonde women dominate news coverage for weeks on end. She asked Neff how much this media phenomenon affected his newspaper’s coverage. (Neff may have answered the question, but my notes don’t indicate it.) Neff talked about the group of 88 Duke professors that took out an advertisement, which was filled with anonymous, third-hand quotes from black students who claimed they felt oppressed and/or threatened at Duke.

Neff said the “Group of 88″ didn’t get on his paper’s radar until about a month after the ad ran. Local protests had more of an impact. His paper was getting calls from national media outlets that essentially wanted local reporters to come on their shows and do the reporting for them. According to Neff, hardly anyone at his paper obliged.

DNA

Taylor said that it was “pretty darned obvious” to any reasonable reporter by mid-April that the Duke case was full of holes. He discussed the DNA and how Nifong himself said the DNA would tell the story, ruling out players while proving others were involved.

In March 2006, the lacrosse captains put out a statement through Duke, asserting that there was no rape, that they were innocent, and that the DNA would prove it, just as Nifong had said. We all know what happened after the results came back. There was no DNA match between any of the 46 white lacrosse players tested and the stripper who cried rape.

At this point, Taylor asked, why didn’t the media press Nifong about this? The prosecutor said the DNA results would exonerate the innocent, so why, in the absence of a match, did Nifong continue with this case and the national media ignore the lack of a DNA match?

Joe Drape Exits, Duff Wilson Enters…

It was obvious that Stuart Taylor is no fan of the New York Times. He said the NYT was “infected” with political correctness, which affects the editors, reporters, and the way the paper covers news. A reporter named Joe Drape had written something about the Duke case, which the defense liked. They sent him information, hoping he’d do a big story about the mounting exculpatory evidence. Taylor, who must have first-hand knowledge of this, said Drape’s editors took him off the story and didn’t run it. The paper put another reporter on it.

Enter Duff Wilson, the NYT reporter who wrote a lot of Duke case stories. Wilson has been roundly ridiculed in the blogosphere because of his biased reporting.

Example: For one of his stories, Wilson relied on a 35-page report from one of the investigators. Neff said that he’d gone through Nifong’s 1,800-page document dump for a story he was writing and planned to use the 35-page report as an example of what was wrong with the case, yet Wilson based his entire story on it.

Taylor talked about the power and influence of the blogosphere and the dedication exhibited by some of the bloggers covering the case. He specifically mentioned LieStoppers (and KC Johnson, of course) and its thorough parsing of Duff Wilson’s big story.

Danger of the Narrative

Neff said that his editor had a “gut feeling” in the beginning that something wasn’t right about Crystal Mangum’s story and that his paper has a strict policy against using anonymous sources.

How should reporters cover cases like Duke? As long as reporters cover crime stories as routine court cases instead of as “metanarratives” of race, class, and such, they should be OK. The problem arises when reporters go beyond news gathering and rely on stereotypes rather than on facts. The narrative is quickly set, and other coverage reinforces it. In the Duke case, the narrative was that a group of racist, drunken, rich, white frat boys had raped a poor, oppressed black woman who went to school and worked to feed her children.

Even after more facts about Mangum came out, the narrative was set. What did we find out about her? That she was a “prostitute,” a word Taylor used, wasn’t much of a student and had a history of mental problems.

Even after “second stripper” Kim Roberts admitted on “60 Minutes” — national TV — that she threw the first punch, so to speak, by calling one of the players “small dick white boy,” the narrative was that she and Mangum were called niggers by the players. One player — one player — said something about thanking her grandfather for picking the cotton that made his shirt after her conjecture about his private parts.

Even after the “60 Minutes” airing, said Taylor, the NYT still was reporting that neighbors (fact: only one neighbor) heard players (fact: only one player) call Roberts a nigger (unverified).

Naming the Victim

Mundy asked about naming the accuser. Neff said that although the decision was not unanimous, his paper decided to name her. Taylor said he thought it was long past time to name her, although he has mixed feelings about naming victims. When papers name people accused of rape, it carries a presumption of guilt. What’s the remedy? If you don’t want to name the accuser, don’t name the accused, either.

Q&A

Race — I asked the first question, directed to all three journalists: “Were there any black reporters you knew who were skeptical about Mangum’s rape story from the beginning?”

Neff said that his paper’s photo editor, who is black, wouldn’t run a picture of the lacrosse players with their faces covered as they went to the police station. It made them look guilty, the editor said, and he thought it was too early in the case to run it. The paper ran the photo five weeks later.

Race is a sensitive issue in the newsroom. Reider mentioned the dangers of groupthink. A reporter’s job is to report facts. They make mistakes when they rush to judgment and follow the mob.

MSM is the story — An aspiring journalist wondered about the lack of self-reflective stories from the media in the aftermath of the case. Why did national media converge on this case, why did MSM cover the case the way they did, and why, in the aftermath, haven’t we seen self-reflective stories from MSM? In other words, the media’s biased coverage of the case should be THE story.

Taylor said that MSM does not like to explore its own errors. National media grabbed at a phony story, and few papers are willing to admit their biased coverage. He said the NYT became a laughingstock for its blanket and repeated coverage of the Augusta National Golf Club a few years ago. They wasted reporters and space on a non-story.

Reider said that the MSM’s coverage of the story is the new story and admitted that his publication, The American Journalism Review, should address this but hasn’t so far.

Bloggers — Someone asked Neff about bloggers. Did he find blog coverage of the case worth reading? He said he found well-researched and sourced blogs useful but didn’t find anonymous blogs very helpful. He did mention getting a scoop from the LieStoppers blog discussion board. The governor who appointed Nifong wouldn’t go on the record about Nifong recusing himself from the case. Neff said he learned, through the LS board, that the governor had spoken somewhere and denounced Nifong. Someone at the paper contacted the governor to confirm, and the governor went on the record.

In response to another question, Neff noted that many journalists got off to a bad start reporting the Duke case. They reported what Nifong told them. Why, in the same vein, didn’t they report what the NC attorney general said, who called the players “innocent”? Perhaps because it didn’t fit the narrative they’d stuck to for over a year.

Taylor added that even this far down the road, the NYT still is printing errors about the Duke case.

Reider closed the discussion with this: Let the Duke case be a lesson for young journalists. Try to avoid the rush to judgment and mob mentality. Report crime stories like the Duke case as routine court cases. That will help keep the focus on facts, not stereotypes.
—————————————————————————–

After the discussion, I spoke off-the-record with Stuart Taylor, who told the audience that he’s read some of my Duke case coverage (hope I make it into his book!) and Joseph Neff about various aspects of the media’s coverage. I also met a non-indicted Duke lacrosse player’s father, who said he’d read and liked my Duke case blogging.

Thanks for linking KC, Mark, NewsBusters, LieStoppers, Lorie, and Ace.

Tuesday, May 22: For more coverage of the Duke case, see the latest post, Journalists’ Rush to Judgment.

Wednesday, May 16: Michelle Malkin covers the Christian-Newsom murders over at Hot Air.

Later…Fellow BC Baldilocks comments about the Christian-Newsom case at Hot Air (emphasis in original):

“Shades of the Wichita massacre (those perverts even mutilated the dog). And, yes, I saw no MSM coverage of that evil incident either.

“As many observers have noted, crimes committed by blacks — regardless of the race of the victim(s) — do not fit the MSMs standard narrative of black people always being the victim. Such crimes don’t even fit Fox News’ narrative.

“In the runup to Stanley “Tookie” Williams’ execution, I said that we black people do not need other people to listen to and cater to the psychopaths in our number because it gives such monsters encouragment and it infantilizes black people as a whole. Well, I think that, by ignoring massacres like this one and like the one in Wichita, the MSM entities, through their inaction and cowardice, are doing just that. It’s one of racism’s sneakier and more insidious manifestations.”

Tuesday, May 15: Wow. *** [letter removed from site - letter writer said he forgot to include link to my post - I believe him] lifted an entire paragraph from this post for his letter to the editor at Chattanoogan.com (last paragraph). (Hat tip: Matt Sheffield)

Also, several people in the comment section mentioned that “white supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” sites have taken up the Christian-Newsom murder case as a cause. What that has to do with the main focus of this post — the media blackout and feminist non-outrage — is a mystery to me.

In a free society, unpopular speech is protected. That’s why we have something called the First Amendment. That some people are using this case to further their nefarious goals, whatever they may be, is called life. Deal with it. People of all colors do things to manipulate and influence — for positive and negative reasons.

That so-called white supremacists may use this post or the Christian-Newsom case to bolster their movement or whatever won’t stop me from calling things as I see them. It’s the risk we take in a country that allows freedom of speech. Well, it’s a risk I take.
——————————————————————————————-

I’ve been dragging my feet on this one, but it’s time to step up.

Early this year, a white couple was carjacked, tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black thugs. Christopher Newsom (23) was gang-raped, shot and set on fire. There are unconfirmed reports that the killers cut off his penis while he was still alive. The going-to-straight-to-hell murderers made Channon Christian (21) watch, and then they gang-raped her over four days and left her to die. There are unconfirmed reports that her breasts were cut off while she was still alive. (Also see this story and the Wikipedia entry)

I’ve been getting e-mail about this case since it happened, but I’ve been hesitant to blog about it. Flopping Aces published a big post about the case last night, which probably accounts for why I received a few more Christian-Newsom e-mails this morning. Here goes!

I’ve noticed that mainstream media are reluctant to report this story, especially when it first happened. In light of the blanket coverage the Duke “rape” case received, the paucity of coverage in this case seems a bit unbalanced. I mean, isn’t the brutal, black-on-white gang-rape, mutilation, and murder of two people more than or at least as newsworthy as a white-on-black gang-rape (which obviously was phony)? Even if the stripper’s allegations had been true, why was the Duke case burning up the airwaves while the Christian-Newsom case barely emits a spark?

What’s up with the lack of blanket media coverage? I’m not talking about a story here or there with case updates. The media should be swarming around this story. What happened to Christian and Newsom should be all over the airwaves and printing presses.

What’s up with the stunning silence of feminist types and hate-crime proponents? Forget Newsom. He was a white male. But what about Christian? Where are the pot-bangers and wanna-be castrators?

Have so-called black leaders said anything about what those thugs did? They have so much to say about everything else.

Every time someone starts telling the truth about black crime, someone else comes out of the woodwork to remind everyone that a “few” black criminals don’t define the black community. From my perspective, it’s difficult to argue that point with a straight face. Of course, the murderous deeds and thuggish ways of black criminals shouldn’t define all blacks. But if you try to pretend that it’s not a serious problem that blacks commit a disproportionate share of crimes — an incontrovertible fact — or that the lack of blanket media coverage and outrage has nothing to do with race, you’re being willfully blind and foolish.

As I see it, black crime is so commonplace that it’s just not interesting to white liberal journalists, especially black-on-white crime. And white liberal feminists are more outraged when white men use a so-called sexist term than they are with black-on-white rape statistics. I have yet to hear a feminist condemn what was done to Christian.

I’m disgusted by the whole incident, which is why I haven’t blogged about it. But I’m publishing this post and opening comments for people who want to discuss it. Be civil.

Update: Remember the international outrage over the beating and murder of a homosexual named Matthew Shepard? There was a TV movie and everything! I doubt Hollywood will touch the Christian-Newsom case.

A commenter linked to this. I don’t remember reading anything about that case.

Update II: Glenn Reynolds writes: “My earlier comment on the [Christian-Newsom] case has had me excoriated by some white-supremacist sites for covering up a hate crime…Well, to be a hate crime, the motivation has to be hate. I haven’t seen any evidence of that so far. It’s certainly true, of course — as LaShawn notes — that if the races were reversed the press would be all over this case and lots of people would be confidently pronouncing it a hate crime without any evidence other than the races of the perpretrators and victims, but since it’s black-on-white crime they’re making less noise. That’s the press.”

That’s the problem with “hate crimes.” All crimes are motivated by hate, but crimes committed by a perpetrator who utters a slur are considered worse than other crimes. What difference does it make if a thug is motivated by hatred of blacks or hatred of rich people?

In order for “hate crime” charges to be added to the Christian-Newsom case, somebody had to have used a racial slur, and a witness would have to come forward. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter who said what in the Christian-Newsom case or any other. Hate crime laws are redundant, not to mention nonsensical.

I call hate crime laws by their proper name: thought crime laws. They were devised to penalize certain people for thinking nasty thoughts about certain “protected” groups of people.

(See Hate E-Mail and Hate Crimes and links under “Related Posts”)

Update III: A commenter writes:

Because of the Duke non-rape case I looked up some National Crime statistics on the internet. It appears that about one-third of white women who report being raped say the attacker was black. But of the over 30,000 black rape victims in, as I recall 2005, none reported being raped by a white man. The percentage of blacks raped by whites is probably not zero, but it is certainly low. Statistics also indicate that black men are about 8 times as likely to commit murder as non-Hispanic white men. I kept some statistics here in Tarrant County a few years ago (before the huge influx of Mexicans, who seem to kill each other with great frequency) and came up with statistics that indicated that about half of the victims were killed by someone they knew. Of the half of whites killed by strangers, about 90% of the time the killer was black. On the other hand, of the blacks killed by strangers, none were killed by whites other than policemen. Most of these cases were barely reported in the news. But, some years later when some whites did kill a black man for no apparent reason it was national news. (By the way, I suppose everyone already would guess it, but women rarely ever kill a stranger.)

Resources:

• Stories about the case are difficult to find, but check the Google news archive.

Related posts:

• “Men in their thirties” Rob Georgetown Jewelry Store
• Crime Time: Annual FBI Thug Report

Did you catch the former players and the NC attorney general on “60 Minutes” yesterday? I was hoping the formerly indicted men wouldn’t be bitter and would continue to behave like gentlemen, and they didn’t disappoint. They talked about how emotionally draining it was to live under indictment for heinous crimes, facing prison and knowing they hadn’t done anything to that woman.

As for her, sister needs serious help. If she doesn’t care enough to get it for herself, perhaps she’ll do it for her three children. I’ll keep them in my prayers.

There are blogs out there dedicated to the case, so check them frequently if you want to follow developments. The Johnsville News rounds up most Duke case-related articles and blog posts. LieStoppers is a group effort (with at least one attorney), with news links and commentary. Crystal Mess is run by an attorney, and John in Carolina frequently covers the media’s role in this mess.

KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College professor, started blogging the case because of the unbelievably inappropriate behavior of pampered Duke professors, screeching about the white male patriarchy and signing on to a “listening” statement filled with anonymous and third-hand quotes from black students. He’s gone on to write articles and consult for ABC, and he’s working on a book. He’s attended several hearings in person, live-blogging the proceedings. His Durham-in-Wonderland is the top go-to blog on the Duke case. Bookmark or subscribe to all the Duke blogs if you need a daily fix.

Read my latest Duke case column at Townhall, “Every One His Due,” where I castigate the castigators. An excerpt:

It was like an episode of “Law & Order.”

Three, drunken, rowdy, privileged, elitist, indulged, slur-slinging lacrosse-playing white men accused of beating, strangling, raping (vaginally and orally), and sodomizing a poor, oppressed black woman forced to take off her clothes for strange men in order to feed her children, while the lacrosse team erected a “blue wall of silence,” barricading themselves within the old-boy protection of the moneyed white male patriarchy – no writer could have penned a more gripping drama.

Also see Star Parker’s “Getting perspective on Imus and Duke.”

Addendum: Read how DA Mike Nifong set about lying and downplaying the lack of DNA evidence, while forging ahead with the case and pandering to blacks at North Carolina Central University, a black college the accuser attended.

Thursday, April 12 @ 3:56 p.m.: Rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong says HE’S SORRY. Exact wording: “To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused.” (Source)

[Grammar pet peeve alert: "I apologize to the three students who were wrongly accused," not "that were wrongly accused." You're referring to people, man, not mere things. Generally, use who when referring to people and that when referring to objects.]

That’s a lawyer’s apology, alright. It should read:

“I apologize to the three students for race- and class-baiting their fellow students and for playing with their lives to win an election, knowing I had no evidence against them. I’m finished as Durham DA, and I deserve to lose my law license. I humble myself before you and hope you can find it within yourselves to forgive me.”

Thursday, April 12 @ early morning: It’s nice to be acknowledged by writers like Michael Barone (met him last year at CPAC). I haven’t done nearly as much as bloggers like KC Johnson (pre-order his book, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case) but I’m glad I did something. Instead of writing more about the case on the blog, I’ll put my commentary and research into a couple of op-eds I’m working on.

In the meantime, satiate your need for more Duke news at Google News. The former players will appear on “60 Minutes” this Sunday.

Triangle-area blogger Jon Ham has press conference photos and PDF copies of the dismissal orders.

Later…Tammy Bruce at 12:30 p.m. EDT.
————————————————————————————————–

*** 2:36 p.m. EDT — NC AG Roy Cooper calls former players “innocent.” Drops all charges and says, “no more criminal proceedings will occur.” Scroll down for live-blogging and updates ***

Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans are no longer facing sexual offense and kidnapping charges. ABC News is reporting that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce today that he’s dropping all charges in a case that shouldn’t have existed in the first place. Is ABC News reliable? I believe it. It will be official once Cooper makes the announcement at a press conference today. The former players and their families have traveled to Raleigh for the announcement. More here.

For over a year, these three men lived under suspicion of heinous crimes. Lost time, scarred reputations, millions of dollars in legal fees…

I hope the stripper-accuser, the now-named stripper who lied/cried rape, pays (legally) for what she’s done. And gets some help. She’s pictured at the far right. Date, March 16, 2006, three days after she supposedly was brutally beaten, strangled, raped, and sodomized by Seligmann — who wasn’t even in the house during her fantasy sequence — Finnerty, and Evans. Last December Durham County DA Mike Nifong, who’s fighting for his career, dropped forcible rape charges against the men because the stripper-accuser couldn’t remember whether she was raped. What a farce this whole mess was.

I started blogging the case about a month after the night in question (April 2006), and I’ve written 44 posts and two op-eds worth of public comments on the stripper-accuser’s obviously-phony-from-the-beginning gang-rape fantasy. I’ll have much more to say later. While I get my thoughts together, check out the “Duke bloggers”:

• The Johnsville News
• Durham-in-Wonderland
• LieStoppers
• Crystal Mess
• John in Carolina

Captain Ed says, “Next up: Disbarring Nifong.” I’ll drink to that! And thanks for acknowledging my early blogging of the case, Ed.

Update II (9:33 a.m.): FOX News is reporting that the AG’s office has reached a decision in the case and will announce it at 2:30 p.m. EDT today; defense’s press conference at 4 p.m. The Associated Press is also reporting all charges will be dropped.

Update II (2:06 p.m.): Although I seem to revel in it, I don’t enjoy blogging about this case. I used to love the stuff — chasing breaking news and scandals, getting trackbacks, comments, and big blogger links — but I don’t anymore. How I feel about this post proves what I’ve been thinking and occasionally blogging lately. As a rule, I don’t delete posts (though there have been one or two exceptions), so I’ll let this one stand. This likely will be my last “Duke case” post. I will “live-blog” the 2:30 news conference.

I made a judgment call to name the stripper. My conscience was bothering me, so I removed it. But as I said, I’ll let the post stand. I still believe she lied, and I still believe she has serious issues with gang-rape fantasies. I hope the stripper-accuser faces the legal consequences of her actions and gets the help I think she needs. I pray that this will be a turning point for her and that she seeks forgiveness from the people she wronged and from God.

2:36 p.m.: The press conference has started. NC AG Roy Cooper is speaking. “We carefully reviewed the evidence…conducted our own interviews…reviewed statements, photos and other evidence…shows clearly there is insufficient evidence.”

“…the result is that these cases are over and no more criminal proceedings will occur…”

Based on significance of stripper-accuser’s inconsistent stories “we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges…”

Accuser’s “statements were so inconsistent,” the AG believes that no attack occurred at that house.

“No DNA confirms the accuser’s story. No witness statements confirm the accuser’s story…she contradicts herself.” The evidence Cooper’s office has contradicts her story.

Cooper gives a stinging indictment against Mike Nifong. Powerful statement. I’ll post the video as soon as it’s on YouTube. [Roy Cooper VIDEO at Hot Air]

Roy Cooper’s statement.

Nifong has no hope of saving his career.

Cooper says his office has considered charging the stripper-accuser, but decided that it’s “in the best interest of justice” not to charge her. I suspect he’s alluding to her psychological problems. Hinted that she may believe all her wild stories. He mentioned sealed records.

FOX News names the stripper-accuser. I chose to remove her name from this post. I’m still watching FOX. Shep Smith is going to have a stroke if he doesn’t calm down. I’m just as indignant, but relax, man. You’ll live longer.

KC Johnson, of the wonderful Durham-in-Wonderland, is live-blogging from Raleigh.

3:53 p.m.: Lawyers for Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans will hold a news conference at 4 p.m. EDT. Instead of trying to live-blog, I’ll just link to the statement and video afterward.

Joseph Cheshire, Evans’s attorney, is speaking for the players and their families, who will not take questions at the conference. He’s introducing the families and the attorneys. Reade Seligmann’s father and I communicated via e-mail, and it’s good to put a face to a name. Sighs of relief!

Evans is making a long, eloquent statement in defense of himself and his fellow former players. Says he, Seligmann, Finnerty, or any other lacrosse players ever put up a “blue wall of silence” or refused to speak to Nifong or the cops, contrary to Nifong’s assertions.

Evans is thanking his family for making the sacrifices necessary for him to have an excellent lawyer.

Finnerty just finished speaking, and Seligmann’s at the podium. The recurring theme in all the speeches is the love and support of family and sacrifices each member has made to support and stand by the accused. In order for that to happen, people need the social capital of strong, intact families. They help each other emotionally and financially through tragic, traumatic events like being falsely accused of a gang-rape. The connection between intact families, strong communities, and standing firm in the face of injustice may not seem apparent to some, but it’s quite obvious to me.

Broken homes and broken down communities leave children vulnerable, at risk for poverty, underachievement, and prison, and without social capital to help them through tough times in their lives.

Two weeks ago, a Duke Chronicle reporter interviewed me about my coverage of the Duke “sexual offense” case. Though we talked for close to an hour and I said many things about the power of blogs to cover and report what the mainstream media ignore, this is what appeared in the article:

Regardless of which side they take, for many bloggers on the lacrosse case, it’s a labor of love, rather than a means for profit, because they say accepting advertisements would risk their independence.

But LaShawn Barber is different from most of the online commentators, and not only because her site is ringed by advertisements. As a black, female, Christian conservative, Barber naturally attracts attention in a case dominated by issues of race.

She has made a profession out of blogging, spending up to four hours per day on her own site-which receives 4,000 hits per day-and offering her consulting services to others.

“I’m not a feminist, and I don’t shout racism at the drop of a hat,” Barber says. “I’m very open about my faith and my politics, and that tends to make a lot of people mad-it makes a lot of black readers angry.”

With her picture and contact information directly available on the site, Barber stands in contrast to blogs written anonymously, such as John-in-Carolina, who will only identify himself as a Duke alumnus.

I’d hoped to see my blog-as-new-media quotes included, but as someone who’s interviewed people and had to leave out quotes that didn’t align with my story’s angle, I know that’s the way it goes sometimes.

Allow me to clarify one thing. My “independence” is not at “risk” because of advertisements on this site. Pajamas Media asked me to join knowing full well how edgy and controversial I can get. If I thought for one second that I’d have to be careful about what I blogged because of advertisers, I never would have signed up.

Rape in Durham

Have you heard the latest news about this rape case? Neither have I.

Duke Bloggers

The other “Duke bloggers” are running circles around me. Hey, I can’t keep up, so I concede the in-depth analysis about liberal academia and news round-up skills to them. With the exception of John in Carolina, those blogs focus exclusively on the Duke case:

• The Johnsville News, with the most comprehensive Duke news round-up posts;
• Durham-in-Wonderland, by history professor KC Johnson, currently co-writing a book about the lacrosse case with journalist Stuart Taylor. I’d advise certain “Group of 88” members to steer clear of KC in any public discussions about this case.
• LieStoppers, which has one of the most popular Duke case discussion boards on the web;
• Crystal Mess, by lawyer Mike McCusker, who’s feeling the pressure to blog frequently ;
• John in Carolina, by a Duke grad; investigating a possible conflict of interest between CrimeStoppers, Duke faculty, and the Durham Police Department

In this competitive world, you’ve got to play to your strengths. I’ll focus on an aspect of the case I’m intimately familiar with and probably more qualified to write about: the emotional factors motivating some black liberals (including certain Duke professors and journalists) to cast the white lacrosse players, proxies for all “privileged” white men, past and present, in the worst light possible, whether or not they committed sexual offenses on the night/morning of March 14, 2006. Somebody has got to write about it in a non-liberal way. And since the liberal angle is well covered, once again, I volunteer to provide an alternative viewpoint.

I wrote “probably more qualified” because I’ve felt some of those same emotions. I’m human, after all. The difference is that I resist the urge to publicly display those emotions and allow them to master me. I master them. And I have no desire to mask the emotions behind pseudo-intellectual arguments, making myself look more unintelligent in the process.

By the way, Wednesday marks the first anniversary of the “Duke rape case.” Questions:

1) What was your impression/reaction when you first heard about the so-called gang-rape committed by Duke lacrosse players? (Here’s mine, but don’t let that prejudice you.)

2) What has this case taught you about race relations in America, if anything?

You may discuss the latest in the Duke lacrosse case in this thread.

Later…In standard “mistakes were made” fashion, Nifong says he didn’t intentionally violate ethics rules. (Response in macromedia - anybody have a PDF copy?)

Even later… Nevermind. PDF copies available here.

Tuesday, February 27 @ 3:20 p.m.: The bloggers are buzzing about a new motion filed in the Duke sexual offense and kidnapping case. We know that DNA lab dud dude Brian Meehan testified that he and Mike Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory evidence. Among the 1,800 pages of discovery, defense has uncovered more info.

In Addendum to Motion to Compel Discovery; Expert DNA Analysis (PDF) filed today, defense contends that Meehan failed to disclose that DNA found in the accuser’s rectum didn’t match the lacrosse players indicted for the crime or any other male tested. (Pardon me, but yuck) The DNA of at least two males was found inside the accuser, and 11 of the 22 rape kit DNA extractions were from males other than the accused lacrosse players. According to the motion, the defense is still waiting for more data from Meehan’s lab. Defense believes there’s a “statistical likelihood” that the missing information will prove even more exculpatory.

In other words, the accuser was loaded with DNA from men other than the ones she claims raped, sodomized, strangled, and beat her, but Nifong and Meehan didn’t think the defense needed to know all that.

I sure hate it.

Sources and blogger reactions: KC Johnson, John in Carolina…

• More Motions Filed in Duke LAX Case
• Defense waits for DNA test results

Earlier…I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during this conversation. Hopefully, all charges against Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans soon will be dismissed, and the stripper-accuser will be charged with making a false police report, lying to officials, and whatever else they’ve got…

————————————————————–

The Duke “sexual offense” case saga is still ongoing, with something new happening every day. At most, I blog about the case once every week or two, and even then, only when inspired to write more than a few sentences.

Check out these “Duke bloggers” daily for up-to-the-minute information: The Johnsville News, Durham-in-Wonderland, LieStoppers, Forensics Talk, John in Carolina, and Crystal Mess. (By the way, if you frequently blog about the case, let me know so I can include you among the Duke bloggers.)

Nifong Hits the Circuit

Through no one’s fault but his own, Mike Nifong’s career and reputation are as good as ruined. Not only are his colleagues calling for his head and politicians demanding a federal investigation, appeals court judges are citing him as an example of prosecutorial misconduct in their court rulings. From the Herald Sun:

Internet bloggers and cable television pundits have long attacked Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong over his handling of the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case.

But Nifong only recently came under scrutiny from some of the loftiest legal sectors in the land.

Early this month, he was adversely mentioned in rulings from two out of 12 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, with one judge alluding to him as a prosecutor “run amok” because of the felony indictments he obtained from a grand jury last year against three Duke lacrosse players.

First, I’m proud to be among the “Internet bloggers” who “attacked” Nifong over his mishandling of the case. Second, the label “Internet bloggers” is redundant. There is no other kind of blogger than an Internet blogger. Blog is short for weblog, web is short for world wide web, and the world wide web is part of the Internet. To blog, one must use the web, which is part of the Internet. Therefore, being a blogger implies that you use the Internet.

Pardon the pet peeve alert, but I had to get that out.

That judges are citing Nifong in a negative context does not bode well for his career or reputation, to understate the matter. It’s worth noting that he was referenced in a dissenting opinion and footnote of an opinion, but still, the references generated press. In Nifong’s case, I don’t think the old saying, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity,” holds true.

Unusual Leftist Recommendations

I read on KC Johnson’s blog and in the Duke Chronicle that a group calling itself the Campus Culture Initiative Steering Committee (what? no blacks or feminists chairing the committee?), comprised of professors, administrators, students, and alumni, is set to release a report recommending changes to “improve the undergraduate experience” at Duke.

Before I get to the report, I have a couple of observations to share about CCI’s membership. Former committee member Karla Holloway, a black feminist English professor and Group of 88 member, quit her committees, including CCI, in protest of Duke president Richard Brodhead lifting Reade Seligmann’s and Collin Finnety’s suspensions. History professor Peter Wood already has slandered libeled the lacrosse team. [Wood's words were written, so he libeled the team, though he may have spoken similar remarks publicly.] Why were these two deemed qualified to recommend ways to “improve the undergraduate experience”?

Now, the report. Brodhead proposed several groups last year, prompted by the false gang rape allegations against the lacrosse players, and the committee is one of those groups. (Pictured: Chair Robert Thompson, Vice-Chair Larry Moneta, former member Karla Holloway, and “libeler” Peter Wood)

One of the committee’s recommendations is the usual mandatory, leftist, indoctrination-style race, class, and sex course. Predictable and trite. But two unexpected and unusual recommendations caught my attention.

First, one involves “raising the ‘low end of the admissions standards’ to ensure that all students are prepared and committed to engage actively in the intellectual life of campus.” Obviously, this is a reference to race preferences, the odious policy by which “minorities” with lower grades and test scores are admitted. I wonder why leftists are suddenly concerned about this and what it has to do with the lacrosse “sexual offense” case?

Hopefully, the report will elaborate, but my guess is that black students used the “rape” hoopla to vent frustration about feeling shut out of campus life academically. Ironically, it’s the administration’s fault that minorities have to deal with this. They’re admitted to these schools with lower grades and scores than their white counterparts in the name of skin color diversity, and the administration has little regard for whether they’re academically prepared.

The struggle to keep up with rigorous coursework is stressful in itself, but when you’re made to feel like some white liberal’s pet project and you carry the stigma of having been admitted under a separate and a lower-standards admission track, stress is tenfold. Perhaps Brodhead and the committee finally recognize that admitting students based on race despite academic readiness seriously undermines their campus experience and that raising standards will alleviate some of the alienation and stigma minorities may be feeling. We’ll know for sure (I presume) when the report comes out.

The second unusual-for-leftists recommendation is “discontinuing the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.” What does that mean? Since I don’t know the housing situation at Duke, I have to rely on readers who are. Are certain dorms reserved by race and/or ethnicity? Club affiliation? Athletics? This recommendation is particularly interesting if, in fact, there are dorms specifically for minority students. I’ve heard such things exist, but I don’t know if they exist at Duke.

Additionally, as people of the same race tend to self-segregate, the committee’s recommendation for a “change in the dining services model” must be an attempt to discourage the practice.

Despite the tone of this post, I admit that I’m optimistic about some of the group’s recommendations. Although a mandatory “diversity” course is unnecessary, administrators and faculty need to address the consequences of admitting underqualifed minority students and discourage self-segregation on campus, if the school claims to strive for diversity.

In my experience, when liberal types say they want to have an “honest” dialogue about “race and gender” differences, they don’t want to deal with differences that make minorities and women look bad. The point is to make the majority and men look bad. But if the committee aspires to meet its goal to “improve the undergraduate experience,” its approach must be honest and balanced.

Otherwise, the months spent deliberating and preparing the report will have been wasted, and the report itself useful only for wrapping fish.

Previous posts:

• Suspected Arrested in Durham for Rape
• Another Duke Rape Case?
• NYT’s Duke DNA Double Standard

Addendum: Duke’s Group of 88 professors are getting a lesson in the First Amendment. They castigated the lacrosse players based on their own racial prejudices and used them to vent frustration about their own personal issues, and now they’re whining about receiving hate e-mail. Welcome to America, land of free speech! As a recipient of it myself, I know firsthand how unpleasant it can be. But I also recognize that my public expressions have consequences, and hate mail neither shocks nor upsets me.

Update: A Duke student writes (emphases added):

When white Duke lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper and student at North Carolina Central University, the “racial left”-those whose worldview is dependent upon that belief that America is a racially oppressive society-unleashed unholy hell.

Protesters swarmed our campus and the city streets, they screamed vulgar condemnations, they tarred the whole team as complicit in a stonewall cover-up, they put up wanted posters, banged pots and pans. They cried out for justice and vengeance, demanded suspensions, expulsions and incarcerations. Worst of all, as they feverishly disregarded due process, they helped create an atmosphere of hysteria and madness which could only serve to embolden an unhinged district attorney who had the power to breathe life into the fantasies of the growing mob.

But when a black man was recently accused of raping a white Duke student at a party hosted by members of a black Duke fraternity, suddenly these great defenders of virtue fell silent.

There have been no protesters, no signs, no one chanting and screaming in front of the house where at least one member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. live demanding they “come forward” with what they know. No one is demanding President Brodhead take action or that we cure a sexist and racist campus culture in response to these accusations. No professors are running ads that convey guilt or claiming, as they did before, to know the alleged crime was racially motivated.

Indeed, and we won’t see anything approaching the reaction to the first case, which I’m convinced had more to do with race and class envy than it did the “rape.” Anyone who can’t see that by now is willfully blind.

Thursday, February 22: John Ham in NC blogs (emphasis added):

“The News & Observer today has a story with a similar theme to my post yesterday pointing to the differing reactions to the Duke lacrosse rape allegations and the Feb. 11 rape allegations at an off-campus fraternity party. What could possibly explain the lack of uproar? is the question the N&O asks but never answers because they are afraid to mention the words white and black.

“By talking to the very people who rushed to judgment in March of 2006 — the infamous potbangers and irresponsible professors who pushed a concern for due process out of their minds in their zeal to make ideological points last year — the N&O comes to the nonsensical conclusion that fatigue over the Duke lacrosse case is the reason for the lack of outrage this time.”

I almost snorted coffee out of my nose upon reading that gem. Fatigue, indeed. That’s BS.

——————————————————————–

Yesterday a man was arrested in the so-called second Duke rape case. Actually…the first one isn’t a rape case anymore. Legally, it’s sexual offense and kidnapping (since Nifong was forced to drop first-degree rape charges as the stripper-accuser’s gang-rape fantasy changed for the 100th time), but in reality it’s an embarrassing example of railroading, criminal conspiracy, and political profiteering that will spawn many books, articles, and what-not-to-do hypotheticals in law school criminal procedure classes for decades to come.

Anyway, someone named Michael Jermaine Burch was arrested and charged with second-degree rape. A Duke University freshman claimed he raped her in the bathroom at a house party on February 11, hosted by Duke students and members of the black fraternity Phi Beta Sigma. As you can see, the suspect is black. The alleged victim is white. The police, the media, and Duke University are proceeding cautiously this time around, and I wish it were for the right reasons.

All three ran recklessly over the men indicted in the first case. Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans were branded as white drunken rich frat boy racists who brutally attacked a black woman forced to take off her clothes for a living to feed her children. The district attorney, Duke’s administration and faculty, the media, and their various cronies were complicit in perpetuating stereotypes about the accused men and the stripper-accuser.

(For more Duke blogging, see The Johnsville News, the most comprehensive Duke news round-up blog out there, Durham-in-Wonderland by KC Johnson, who’s co-writing a book about the lacrosse case, LieStoppers, Forensics Talk, John in Carolina, Crystal Mess…)

Now, nobody is saying more than they have to. The police haven’t said much beyond their initial report, the media are mum, offering just the facts this time, and the administration and faculty, particularly Duke president Richard Brodhead and the leftist professors known as Group of 88, are conveniently muzzled. As more facts emerge, we will see less cautious reporting and tiptoeing, of course, but as for now, everyone’s playing this case the way they should have played the first one.

Honestly, who among the bitter, bored, and envious could resist demonizing a bunch of “privileged” white college boys, unleashing years of anger and frustration over their own failures or disappointments or inadequacies? It was too juicy to resist. They saw blood in the water, and they pounced.

Did painting the lacrosse players as drunken, raping hoodlums make them feel better? Initially, I suppose. I’m human, too. It gives me a guilty tinge of pleasure when I see someone I don’t like or someone who represents what I don’t like “get theirs.” I’d be a bald-faced liar if I said otherwise.

Burch is fortunate, in a way. Unlike the lacrosse three, he’s in jail (for now) (out on bail). He won’t have to listen to white men-hating white women called feminists using him to make generalizations and broad social commentary about the “white male” patriarchy or disgruntled white men-hating blacks making ridiculous comparisons between his case and plantation rape. Burch won’t have to deal with an out-of-control, race-pandering doofus like Mike Nifong convicting him before the trial even begins and criminally conspiring with so-called professionals like Brian Meehan and the Durham police to put together a weak case held together with homemade glue. (William Anderson writes about the consipiracy and the cover-up.)

Burch won’t have to deal with any of those things because he’s not a “rich” white male. Black man committing crime=boring. Black man committing crime of rape=snoozer.

Burch’s case will be a textbook example of how to investigate and prosecute a rape case, without regard for the alleged rapist’s race or the victim’s. As far as the media are concerned, some won’t be able to resist the race angle, whether it’s the usual black-on-white rape or the much less common white-on-black rape. I don’t expect most of them to pretend not to be intensely intrigued the next time they hear about multiple white men gang-raping a black woman. It sells! But the cops and the DA’s office, as government entities, have a duty to execute the law, which is colorblind. The media are allowed to act like idiots.

Before I wrap up, I have two questions I’d love answers to:

1) The party where Burch allegedly raped a woman in the bathroom was held at a house occupied by members of Phi Beta Sigma, a black fraternity. Unlike the Duke lacrosse party, illegal drugs were found inside the house. If the administration were consistent, they’d reprimand the fraternity, at the very least or have their charter revoked, at the most. Have you heard or read about any such reprimand or talk of revocation?

2) Given the disproportionately high rate of crime among blacks, this case provides a great opportunity for protesting pot-bangers, New Black Panthers, and puffed up, process-haired potentates to hit the microphones and speak out against the violence. (Chocolate City, here we come!) Instead of demonizing men like Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans, how about shaming career thugs who prey on everybody?

Ah, but it’s easier, more fun, more satisfying, and more profitable to burn “rich” white lacrosse players in effigy, hype up isolated incidents of white-on-black gang rape, and dump frustration about your own life onto them than it is to tackle the issue of shamefully high crime rates among blacks. Feminists, where the heck are you? I don’t hear any pots banging!

I’m almost embarrassed to ask this, but do you think the feminists and the panthers and the Sharptons will speak publicly about what I just mentioned? It’s rhetorical, really, but give it guess.

Addendum: Welcome to LBC, Lucianne.com readers. I’ve been blogging about the Duke case since last April. See the Duke Rape Case category, or read a selection of previous posts (and bookmark me while you’re here):

• NYT’s Duke DNA Double Standard
• Duke Rape Case: Unnatural Selection on Both Sides?
• Reade Seligmann: “Mom, she picked me.”
• Duke Rape Case: The Bloggers
• Salaciousness Sells
• Duke Rape Case: That Motion!
• Duke Rape Case: You Talking About Me?
• Journalist Says Lacrosse Women “Ignorant” for Supporting Accused Lacrosse Players
• Rape Shield Law and the Duke Rape Case