For those who believed the lacrosse case was over, the past two weeks brought news on two fronts. First, Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck, on behalf of the three falsely accused players and their families, presented representatives of the City of Durham with the outlines of a devastating potential lawsuit against the city, former DA Mike Nifong, several police officers, and other individual defendants. The initial demands: $30 million, plus a wide array of procedural reforms, unless the city caves in and settles.
Second, after acting DA Jim Hardin urged a state criminal investigation of Nifong and others, reports surfaced that Justice Department investigators had arrived in the Triangle to look into the case.
Meanwhile, we have learned, Duke, its administrators, and its extremist professors are not out of the legal woods yet either. The University settled months ago with the three falsely accused players. But now a high-powered legal team representing most of the other 44 members of the 2006 lacrosse team is exploring a possible lawsuit. The grounds would include mistreating the entire team, including misleading smears of the players by Duke President Richard Brodhead and dozens of professors.
The first two moves are a reminder that the law enforcement misconduct in the lacrosse case extended well beyond Mike Nifong. Stuart (who co-authored this post) and I thought we would wind up our week of guest-blogging by reviewing the performance of Nifong’s criminal justice enablers.
Two people were vital in sustaining a case with no evidence and a complaining witness utterly lacking in credibility for Nifong to exploit. After the DA took over the case, the duo did everything possible to help him keep the charges alive.
The first was Tara Levicy, the sexual assault (SANE) nurse who wrote up Mangum’s Duke Hospital report. A women’s studies major in college, Levicy worked for several years for a Maine company that ran nature tours. She then changed careers, got a nursing degree through an accelerated program for liberal arts majors, and moved to Durham. Eight months later, she was a SANE trainee.
Levicy later told a defense attorney that she had never encountered a woman who lied about rape. She came across as an ideologue. And she applied her women-don’t-lie ideology to the lacrosse case regardless of the evidence.
Since Levicy was still a trainee at the time, Dr. Julie Manly, a resident physician, conducted the physical exam of Mangum on the morning of March 14, 2006. Yet Levicy, essentially a note-taker, told a police investigator two days later that the exam showed signs consistent with a sexual assault even though the medical records said nothing of the kind. (Neither the Durham Police nor Nifong ever interviewed Dr. Manly.) By March 21, Levicy was saying that Mangum had experienced “blunt force trauma,” even though nothing in Levicy’s own official report suggested such a diagnosis.
Over the next nine months, Levicy consistently changed her story to fit new prosecution theories of the “crime.” At the beginning, she had written that Mangum said her attackers were named Matt, Adam, and Brett and that they hadn’t used condoms. But when Nifong later claimed that the players used aliases and suggested that condoms might explain the lack of DNA evidence, Levicy adjusted her story to fit Nifong’s theory.
In a January 2007 statement, Levicy contradicted her initial report by saying that the “victim” had been uncertain if her “attackers” had used condoms and had been aware that they had used aliases. When asked by a defense attorney why, if Mangum were uncertain, Levicy had thrice written in her rape report that Mangum said “no” when asked if the assailants used condoms, the SANE nurse had no reply.
She also explained away the lack of DNA evidence with an unscientific feminist slogan: “rape is a crime of power, not passion.” As the interview continued, it became clear that Levicy didn’t understand that DNA could be obtained from items other than sperm. Skin cells, for example.
Most SANE nurses, it should be noted, are professionals. But a minority (how large is unclear) are, like Levicy, ideologues determined to use their medical authority to uphold an ultra-feminist view of rape. Asserted defense attorney Joe Cheshire: “There’s a Tara Levicy in every hospital.”
A second Nifong accomplice – or at least enabler – was Mark Gottlieb, the Durham police sergeant who supervised the case. Gottlieb was already notorious before the stripper party for arresting ten times as many Duke students (all for trivial offenses) as the other three Durham officers of comparable rank and assignment combined. Several students leveled credible allegations that he violated their rights in these arrests and lied in court to cover his tracks.
Gottlieb muscled his way into case after the initial responders had concluded that Mangum was lying. The sergeant, on the other hand, seemed interested not in finding out what happened but in proving Mangum’s allegations and settling scores with Duke students.
When Nifong ordered him to violate Police Department procedures and run a third photo-ID process confined to lacrosse players, Gottlieb did so unhesitatingly. By his own admission, in a March deposition for the State Bar, the sergeant gave at best misleading and at worst outright false testimony to the grand jury that voted indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.
But Gottlieb’s most remarkable contribution to the case came in July 2006, when he submitted an undated, unsigned typewritten memorandum that purported to memorialize events from months before. (When asked why he had no contemporaneous notes, Gottlieb claimed that he had kept them on a “dry-erase board,” from which they had been accidentally erased.) Among other dubious items, Gottlieb’s memo claimed that in a March 16 conversation, Mangum had given dead-on descriptions of the three players ultimately indicted — even though his partner’s contemporaneous handwritten notes showed that her descriptions had been radically different.
With people like Levicy and Gottlieb helping him out, Nifong was able to keep a non-existent case alive. A post later today will look at other aspects of the troublesome legal culture that figured in Durham’s persecution of innocent lacrosse players.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Non of this should surprise me though. I work on a University where a black civil rights organization came to campus last year saying that the Supreme Court was about to overturn Brown v. Board of Education. The leader of the group was a young black girl who knew absolutely nothing about the two cases before the Court other than their names. No professor, or anyone else, challenged this claim and many students mistakenly took away from the event a negative opinion of our government and the Supreme Court as a result.
Best,
Ben
A non-supervisory nurse like this young(?) woman is pretty far down the medical food chain. Still, she is a licensed profession and answerable to a state licensing board. I don't know how often nurses are professionally disciplined or for what besides the clearly felonious, e.g., playing "euthanizing angel," because over the years I have paid attention only to disciplinary actions taken against physicians, looking to see if I knew any of them and what caused them to be whacked (often "personal" issues like drug abuse rather than professional incompetence). I should think a responsible board of nursing might discipline her severely, perhaps stripping her of license. (Hmmm, another stripping, but different from the ones that set everything in motion.)
And then there is Ms. Levicy's employer, who I assume is/was Duke Medical Center. That could be another legal liability for the school, which surely has plenty already. (And if Levicy were to lose her nursing license or be severely disciplined by the board of nursing on account of her role in this case, that wouldn't be a good start for Duke responding to a tort claim.) When you sue the big guys, like Duke, you know its going to be an expensive fight, since they will spend a lot to defend and try to get you to spend a lot so you will settle for less, if you don't give up altogether. But the nice thing about suing those with deep pockets, and Duke's are surely very deep, is that they will be able to pay mega-$$$s when they are proven liable.
Truly the perfect storm with all these different elements come together to make it happen.
Now, will Brodhead last in his job? How much pain must Duke suffer before their trustees give the guy his walking papers, quietly to be sure?
What are the chances that, should they need a replacement, they won't look for his clone?
Keep in mind, the rest of the bozos are still there, many tenured, all plugged in to the race/sex/class complaining machine. And that machine doesn't need much to get spun up and start working on its own.
As we have seen.
So getting a replacement for Brodhead who would, outsiders would hope, get a handle on the Angry Studies cohort would cause a HUGE problem among the usual suspects.
Nope, it will have to be his twin brother.
Maybe Lee Bollinger. Everybody knows that, whatever he says, you can't take to the bank and any expectations you had based on what he said are fool's gold. He's just let dinnerjacket on to Columbia to do his thing, while ROTC is not.
Sounds like the very model of a modern university president.
He'd be good.
More to the point, only he or somebody very much like would ever get the job.
If the rights of partying frat boys are not worth protection, can you tell us whose rights are worth protection? Just list the groups worthy of protection, and list the groups who are not worthy of protection.
Such a policy would certainly cut down on lawsuits . . .
[Also, for the record, this wasn't a "frat party." The lacrosse players were not a fraternity; no sports team at Duke was (or is). It was a private party that occurred during spring break. Although some might be unaware, college students have been rumored to have engaged in tasteless entertainment during spring break from time to time.]
With a very tight sports team, the initial response for a day or two might have been to close ranks and protect the probably guilty on the LAX team. And a majority of LAX players might even have held to that position for months.
But within a week of the party, some loving parents would get ahold of their sons and insist that they (1) tell the truth, (2) not cover up a probable rape, (3) aid the rape victim, and (4) not ruin their careers and reputations protecting guilty teammates who didn't deserve protection. The parents would insist that their sons not ruin their lives doing the wrong thing out of misplaced loyalty
there are SOME good SA nurses and DV advocates, but on the whole, they are ideologues, and not interested in facts or objective investigations. "women don't lie about rape". just a couple of weeks ago, i had a TOTALLY bogus rape (that i knew was bogus after about 10 minutes of interviewing the "victim"). i went through all the procedures, collected the rape kit from the nurse, and she began her litany of how terrible this crime was, blah blah blah when it was clear she didn't have the first clue about how ridiculous the case, and the accuser was.
the best part... "women's study major in college". sorry, but WS is not an academic discipline. it's just an excuse for ideology to masquerade as scholarship.
i have met a few intelligent, conscientious and fair "DV advocates". but on the whole, they are similarly ideologically driven. i once saw one write an email to a sgt. requesting an officer change a report because it made the case harder to prove. the fact that the report was truthful was really irrelevant to her. it would make the CASE more difficult.
i could give at least a dozen examples, but the truth is that these people are not interested in justice. they are just as bad as racists in power, because they see everything through the lens of gender.
like i have said before, i know everybody rails against the drug war as being supposedly such an awful thing for civil liberties, etc. i am against the drug war, and think it sucks. but, i repeat: imo and IME there is far more injustice, betrayal of truth, and innocent people getting railroaded in these type of cases, than in drug cases.
thank you for so perfectly proving the points being made. i kept reading this and looking for hints of sarcasm. it's either very well done satire, or you are stating exactly the type of sexist, bigoted ideology that results in innocents being railroaded.
"partying frat boys" - hey, i was a parting frat boy in college. i also played (club team) lacrosse for a little while. i sucked, but it was fun.
glad to know that if i was ever falsely accused of rape, and lynched by a bigoted, classist, sexist mainstream media, that my rights wouldn't have been important.
...
"first they came for the partying frat boys"
When prosecuters abuse their power, they should be held to account, whether they have abused it against college athletes or whether agianst a ggroup of 6 poor blacks who have pounded a white high school classmate into unconsciousness. This is a legitimate role for the federal government, and all citizens should enjoy its protectoin when prosecutors transgress citizens' federal rights.
BTW, when Brodhead departs, Burness should go too. I wouldn't know Burness from Adam, but I remember his disingenuous response to the Commentary piece on the PSM event, and now I see he reprised the role for the LAX affair. It maybe that in both cases, this VP was only doing what PR types do when called upon for damage control. But if Duke changes its way of doing busines, then they won't be needing the likes of Burness to come behind with the pooper-scooper.
On Oct. 24, 2006, Prof. Steven Baldwin of Chemistry became the firstDuke faculty-member to publcly complain about the behavior of the Duke 88 towards the lax players as students, writing a column in the Duke Chronicle. In that column he said that those who faculty who had led the assault on the student lax players should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. The very next day (Oct. 25) Robin Weigman, Head of Women's Studies, publicly accused Baldwin in the Duke Chronicle of using "language associated with the lynching of African Americans", i.e., esentially accused him of at best being terribly insensitive and at worst of being a racist, because of the reference to tarring and feathering and riding the rail. The day after that, Baldwin was forced profusely to apologize in the Chronicle (Oct. 26). And THAT, typically, is how the 88 handled criticism of themselves.
But... I have checked with colleagues in my Dept who are knowledgable in African-American history, one of whom (Ira Berliln) is among the top three scholars in this field in the country. Both my colleagues said that in NO CASE--NO CASE--was tarring and feathering and riding the rail associated with lynching, including the lynching of African Americans. T &F was primarily an 18th century custom, mostly used in America against British officials and Loyalists; in the 19th century it was used against outlaws in the West, and sometimes by the U.S. Army. It is NOT AT ALL--not even in a minor way--connected to the lyching of black people. Wiegman's accusation was utterly false. My other colleague added that not only was tarring, feathering and riding the rail not historically connected to lynching, but it is not even falsely connected to lynching in popular memory.
Wiegman the Head of Women's Studies either knew what she was doing–namely, fastening on a superficial weakness in Baldwin’s letter and using it to obliterate the legitimate issue Baldwin had raised (which was the behavior of the Humanities faculty), replacing it instead with the explosive but utterly false issue of Baldwin’s own “use of language associated with lynching of black people”, or else Wiegman was a victim of the very hysteria which is associated with the Humanities and Social Sciences at Duke and NO other Faculty at Duke (including both Sciences and Law). In either case, it is legitimate to wish to know why the 88 either felt compelled to engage in such ruthless tactics as Wiegman did, and/or why the Humanities and Social Sciences were subject to a hysteria that no other faculty was.
In either case, this is a horrible story. In either case, Wiegman did enormous damage to Baldwin on the basis of an utterly false accusation. Baldwin was forced to apologize publilcly, but in reality it is Wiegman who owes Baldwin–and the entire Duke community–an apology, for wrenching up the racial tensions in an already tense environment, on the basis of an utterly false accusation.
I think we will have to wait a very long time for such an apology, however.
This is the kind of conduct that KC Johnson is complaining about in his book, and I think his complaint is legitimate
Problem is, when one of the anointed says "smacks of racism" even without the embellishments, it's all over.
Baldwin knew he was being hosed. But it makes no difference.
IMO, the defense to this is to presume that everybody, including the possible audience/readers of the screwjob letter knows better, too.
Wiegman knew she was lying like a rug. Baldwin knew she was lying like a rug. But, being somewhat conventional, he was of the opinion that everybody else believed Wiegman. Nobody did. Many would pretend to, but everybody knows this is a hosejob.
If the afflicted--Baldwin in this case--could simply remember that everybody knows this crap is a lie, they would know they could simply say, "Absurd, as you know."
They need not apologize for being hit with what everybody knows is a false accusastion
For what it is worth, Duke would sooner sacrifice East Campus than have these civil cases go to trial--or have professors do depositions (which would be shockingly unbecoming of such a lofty class).
I have been a grad student at Duke as well as done DV work in Durham County on a pro bono basis while in law school--this report is, as with the others, an accurate representation of what I have seen regarding the presumption-of-guilt mindset.
I associate tarring and feathering with the scene from Brother Where Art Thou? -- where the head Klansman is tarred and feathered and run out of the building on a rail (for impuning the "Soggy Bottom Boys", who are both escaped prisoners and have a hit record).
Lynching, bull-whipping,, and loosing of attack dogs are associated with attacks on Blacks in the South. But T &F is not.
It looks like Wiegman played the race card (like Nifong was doing) and everyone rolled over.
1) Historically (18th century), it was a community's punishment for those who misused authority and their supporters.
2) In literature (19th century), as Tony Tutins points out, it is associated with a community's punishment for con men.
What are Nifong and Gottleib and Levicy and Brodhead and the whole Group of 88 if not con artists, misusers of authority, and their supporters?
Thanks. I guess I should have made the implied point explicit: do these two face any potential risk from the criminal-justice side (such as perjury charges) or is a big $$ civil judgement the worst of their worries?
Prof. Ethan,
So should Baldwin have simply said, "Go to h*ll, sister, t &f has never been associated with lynching; and everybody--including you--knows that!" What a Sister Souljah moment that would have been!
Take someone who has a known history of attacking random bystanders when drunk/high. She has (perhaps accidentally) OD'd by taking a muscle relaxant followed by alcohol. She tells you something happened which didn't. Is she lying?
In order for someone to "lie" they have to tell something that they know isn't true, and it has too happen in a context where a reasonable person would believe them. The only people who "lied about rape" in this case are the people besides Magnum who claimed that they believed Magnum had been raped.
if you have some EVIDENCE that mangum is so mentally deranged that she believed her story , then present it.
but, yet again, we have people who want to jump to her defense with no reason to.
what you are doing is just weaker version of the apologists who refused to look at the evidence of innocence.
now, you are ASSUMING evidence of derangement to excuse an evil act.
also, it's MANGUM. not MAGNUM
man, the apologists for Mangum never give up. either it's "well something happened, we just can't prove it" or "well, they were drunk privileged frat boys who hired a stripper, so they suck anyway" and the recent favorite "she's deranged and didn't know what she was saying was a lie"
that's a bold statement. so PROVE IT.
i'll stand by.
Oh, yeah. You can just giggle, imagining how anxious the boys down at the prosecutor's office and the courthouse and the DPD would be for Mangum to say something intelligible. The SANE nurse started the ball rolling and the cops went along with it. What, if anything, Mangum said on her own is hard to say. If she can get a couple of brain cells lined up and synchronized, and that's the story she tells, two things happen. One is that she looks less guilty and the other is that Durham &Co. look even worse.
Making noise about prosecuting her might shorten her life somewhat.
The terms of the potential lawsuit strike me as a good step in that direction, especially the procedural reforms. With luck any settlement will incorporate those, as well as reimbursing the players' legal fees and any other economic damages. Among the reforms should be the abolition of tenure, which will hopefully spread to other institutions.
Making noise about prosecuting her might shorten her life somewhat"
the cognitive dissonance is pretty astounding.
she's a college student, a mother, and gainfully employed.
i have yet to see ANY evidence that she is mentally deranged to the extent that she believes that she was raped.
it's kind of a soft bigotry here. again, some people just REFUSE TO BELIEVE that women can (and do) lie about rape.
i've been in law enforcement long enough to know people can lie ABOUT ANYTHING.
one does not just assume somebody is too deranged to have been lying WITHOUT STRONG EVIDENCE of that.
whatever terrible things the SANE nurse, Nifong, etc. (and they all suck) did, there is still this reflexive willingness to assume the best about nifong.
so, she's not a victim of rape, she must be a victim of mental illness.
some people just refuse to believe that some people are just BAD people, weak people, vindictive people, evil people, etc.
there must always be some way to explain away the person's actions.
i am perfectly willing to believe the 'mangum was deranged theory' if somebody has REAL EVIDENCE to support it.
she's not a 5 yr old child being wamboozled into false stories of child rape (mcmartin). she's an adult, with a job. she's a college student, a mother, etc.
and after all, she's a black woman, single mother. she CAN'T be bad. she HAS to be a "victim".
yawn
Ummm, what are you talking about? Only the state can prosecute.
Do you mean having somebody take a civil action against her for the principle of the thing, knowing she has no assets to collect?
Deserve blame, yes; as much as Nifong, I don't think so. He undoubtedly trusted Nifong longer than he should have, but on the other hand, wouldn't *every* judge?
Perhaps, and had he been independently wealthy and not particularly interested in a continuing academic career, he might have.
"Oh, yeah. You can just giggle, imagining how anxious the boys down at the prosecutor's office and the courthouse and the DPD would be for Mangum to say something intelligible... Making noise about prosecuting her might shorten her life somewhat."
Suppose Scheck &Sullivan seek to depose Mangum in the hopes that her testimony might make the DPD look even worse and more culpable than it already does.
Would you expect that to have the same sort of negative effect on Mangum's actuarial prospects?
If Mangum were to suffer an unfortunate incident between being subpoenaed and being deposed, how would that be likely to affect Scheck &Sullivan's case?
gang raped AGAIN???
Ralph. I can't figure out what Scheck&Co would do with Mangum, what she has to tell them. If it's that the cops and Nifong were encouraging her to run with the story Levicy provided for her, yeah. That might cause some trouble with the actuaries.
3rd time could be the charm!
(You don't really think it says so much for her mental competency that she attends NCU, has birthed children by different men, and is gainfully employed, do you? I certainly don't.)
Don't LEOs look for motive when investigating crimes like murder? (Motive may be self-evident in rape cases.) If Mangum is not simply a whack job (see DSM-IV), then what motive(s) do you think she might have had to concoct her story? Her thought was to set up a lawsuit, one in which she would be the P, not the D? She thought it had been awhile since she last cried rape, so figured it was time to do it again, for whatever gratification or gain it might bring her? I find it hard to explain her as other than seriously whacked, and though her claims were so outlandish, or because they were so outlandish, a prosecutor might find it hard to get a jury to convict her.
Ralph Phelan, I don't know if Richard Aubrey meant to be taken serious or facetiously, or some combination thereof, when he suggested the possibility of a civil lawsuit against Mangum, though the P(s) could expect to collect no more than $1 from her even if a jury were to award them $Ms. But perhaps it would help Durham just a smidgeon if a court officially branded Mangum as a "liar," shifting some of the city's blame onto her. I don't expect anyone will elect to sue Mangum, but she may be called upon to testify in other civil and/or criminal proceedings. (Who would call her as a witness, and to what ends, though?)
correct. i did attend (but not complete) grad school for psychology fwiw
"moreove one who has had the opportunity to examine Mangum. cathyf was speculating about Mangum's mental competency and state of mind at the time, but IMO her speculation is not implausible given what we know about her accounts in the LAX case and her prior history bespeaking mental instability, to put it mildly. "
she did not state it as speculation. read what she wrote. again, i have little doubt that mangum is a little "off". about half of the criminals i arrest are similarly "off".
that is entirely different from being delusional to the extent that they truly thought a forcible penetrative rape happened, could pick people out who did it, etc. and then it didn't happen.
i'm not SPECULATING. im responding to evidence, cathy is stating AS FACT THAT MANGUM DID NOT LIE!!!!
i quote:
"The only people who "lied about rape" in this case are the people besides Magnum who claimed that they believed Magnum had been raped"
that is truly ridiculous. she is stating she KNOWS that mangum did NOT lie. it must be nice to be omniscient. much like the feminists who KNEW mangum was telling the truth initially.
it's the same disease. assume whatever puts mangum in the best possible light, w/o evidence, and state it as fact.
it's disgusting, frankly.
"(You don't really think it says so much for her mental competency that she attends NCU, has birthed children by different men, and is gainfully employed, do you? I certainly don't.) "
in regards to "schizophrenia" etc. it does in that people with schizophrenia are rarely able to lead such a "normal life".
again, i am not saying she is metnally competent. i am saying there is little if any reason to believe she ISN'T and a fair amount of stuff that gives credence to the fact that she's just a lying piece of garbage, not a schizo.
again, though, IM NOT THE ONE stating it's a fact that she isn't delusional. Cathy IS stating it's a fact that she IS
do you understand the distinction?
"Don't LEOs look for motive when investigating crimes like murder? (Motive may be self-evident in rape cases.) If Mangum is not simply a whack job (see DSM-IV),"
i have looked through the DSM literally scores of times.
" then what motive(s) do you think she might have had to concoct her story?"
to get back at the frat boys for refusing to pay her, insulting her, making her look like a fool, etc.
who frigging knows?
" Her thought was to set up a lawsuit, one in which she would be the P, not the D? She thought it had been awhile since she last cried rape, so figured it was time to do it again, for whatever gratification or gain it might bring her? I find it hard to explain her as other than seriously whacked, and though her claims were so outlandish, or because they were so outlandish, a prosecutor might find it hard to get a jury to convict her. "
again, all irrelevant. read what i said. cathy thinks she KNOWS mangum is delusional
she is the one who is delusional, because there is no way SHE knows that. it's just more "excusing mangum", the same as when this case first came out
it's just an edifice of the bigoted idea that women aren't ever liars about rape, etc.
also, i have investigated scores of rapes, and interviewd scores of rape victims and suspects. i knew the case was crap from the beginning.
i do not KNOW that mangum is not delusional, nor did i state that
i wish i could be as deluded and omniscient as cathy, though
I, for one, subscribe to the notion that women FREQUENTLY lie about rape. And there was certainly nothing in this case to make me want to change my mind.
often people faced with arrest/scrutiny by police will LEAP to pretending to be victims and/or trying to place blame elsewhere. as soon as she started with the "im a victim" thang, the whole issue of public intox was forgotten.
recall?
once a person starts in a lie, the next lie to support it (and on and on) gets easier and easier. and it gets harder and harder to come clean with the truth, because you are "locked in" etc.
much like cognitive dissonance causes people to feel discomfort when their "visions" (to quote sowell) are threatened, people who are locked into a lie get caught in this continuing spiral of lies, often more outlandish, to try to keep their head above water.
we've ALL seen this over and over again. tangled webs and all
dershowitz once said that rape is simultaneously the most underreported and overreported of crimes.
that puts it perfectly. iow, a smaller %age rapes vs. other part I crimes are reported (stigma, etc.). otoh, a greater percentage OF rapes that are reported are fake than other part I crimes, especially if one considers only fake reports where a SPECIFIC person is fingered (vs. fake crimes reported for insurance w/an unknown suspect)
"Prof. Ethan,
So should Baldwin have simply said, "Go to h*ll, sister, t &f has never been associated with lynching; and everybody--including you--knows that!" What a Sister Souljah moment that would have been!"
YES--I think Baldwin should've done that. But he was under terrible pressure to answer once the accusatioin of "using language associated with lynching" had been made, and he didn't know enough history at the time; later, he tells me, people who did know more of the history explained to him that Wiegman's claim was totally and completely bogus. But he wasn't a historian himself (a Chem prof), and by then he'd already apologized.
The false accusation of Wiegman badly damaged Baldwin.
It is possible that Baldwin appears much more moderate than Wiegman now that the truth is out, in part because he WAS willing to listen to the complaint of the other side; but the question is, how many people DO know the truth here about T &F? For her part, Wiegman herself has never apologized--though by now she surely knows the truth (if she didn't from the beginning). But the lesson appears to be that people such as Wiegman will use any weapon, because, after all, they are on the side of Good--and the A-bomb of weapons is an accusation of racism.
Though it eventually turned out to be based on a total misunderstanding of the connotations of "tarring, feathering, and riding the rail", the fact is that Wiegman successfully shifted the topic away from the behavior of herself and the other 88'ers, and onto Baldwin. And he simply didn't know how to defend himself from an attack on a phrase he used that he was very surprised had caused a problem. Of course, we now know he had good reason to BE surprised, since Wiegman's accusation was totally bogus.
I always associate it with Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "My Kinsman, Major Molyneux", set in the Revolutionary period and applied to a Tory officer.
If he had known that almost nobody believes it, his response could have been much different, and comfortable.
I suppose I'm getting off-topic here, but I just saw an article a few weeks ago about a contemporary tarring &feathering. I believe it involved a suspected drug pusher in Northern Ireland; don't recall the other details, though.
First, "schizophrenia" was pure speculation on cathf's part, but Mangum need not be floridly psychotic to escape criminal responsibility for her conduct. And mental illness comes in many flavors other than classic schizophrenia, so we need not and ought not get bogged down in a debate about whether that is a likely diagnosis or not for her, especially not in the absence of a reliable psychiatric assessment.
Second, not all schizophrenics are in hospitalized or sequestered in attics. Many, especially those who are properly medicated, lead what you see as "normal" lives, those being ones involving part-time attendance at a degree granting school, the birthing of children, and employment. My personal and professional experience of schizophrenics is not extensive, but it is sufficient to give me confidence in what I have just said.
Third, did Mangum "lie"? That's a debate more about the meaning we usually give words, not one over a legal term. Whether the consensus is that she "lied" or that she "did not tell the truth" matters little for any practical purposes. I will accept either.
Then again maybe the neighbor dragged it out front to sit [muscle shirt, shorts, and beer in hand] as he watched the media circus converge there after things fell apart for Mikey. And Damn, he never had returned those hedge clippers he borrowed last year.
1) All of the first responders other than Levicy reported that whe was alternately passed out and incoherent.
2) She reportedly took a muscle relaxant and then had a drink at the party. This is a very well-known way to accidentally become far more intoxicated than one is expecting to become (since the effect of the combination is much stronger than the sum of the effects of either substance taken alone.)
3) The reason that she took the muscle relaxant was that she had been injured in a recent incident where she had become intoxicated, attacked a woman customer at the strip club (seemingly unprovoked), passed out, had to be carried out of the club, and the guys carrying her dropped her.
4) There is a huge difference between and The latter requires far less in the way of mental coordination. Trained mental-health professionals know way better than to ask yes-no questions which put words in an interviewee's mouth and ideas in their heads. For people who have a tenuous grip on reality (and after ingesting a muscle relaxant and alcohol, how strong can your grip on reality be?) the last thing they need is outside help supplying subject matter for delusions. Given Levicy's constantly shifting stories, it looks to me like Levicy planted the whole gang-rape idea into Precious' head when Precious was in no state to dispute Levicy or even remember what happened.
Suppose that Precious' claim had been that aliens from outter space beamed down into the LAX players' living room, and that the three LAX players had given the aliens the codes for triggering the US's nuclear arsenal. Suppose that, based upon this "eyewitness testimony", Nifong had indicted the three players for treason. No reasonable person would consider Precious' story a "lie", and no reasonable person would consider that Nifong, Gottlieb, Levicy, etc. should have any excuse at all for believing her delusion.
Well, the Levicy rape story had just as much evidence as the aliens from outer space story -- namely absolutely none at all. This woman showed up at this party, and her derranged behavior was so repulsive that even beer goggles couldn't get these partying undergrads to want to touch her. (Which is why none of their DNA made it on to her person.)
The t&f complaint at Duke reminded of the several contretemps over the use of the word 'niggardly'.
In declining order of probability but increasing value if they get them:
(1)Incoherent rantings and ravings that will make it very hard for the DPD to justify having treated her as a credible witness.
(2)Names of Durham employees she had contact with that we don't know about yet.
(3)Details of how the DPD helped her pick the "right" (richest families) three to accuse.
(4)Claims of having been pressured not to admit she made it all up and drop the case.
(5)Names of Durham officials whose numbers were in her cell phone.
(6)Names of Durham officials whose DNA was in her ... I literally don't want to go there.
1 is to be expected. Ironically, once 1 is a given, Durham has nothing to lose by using it to refute 3 &4 by impugning Mangum's credibility.
If 2, 5 &6 involve nothing and noone of interest other than a few strip club owners the prospect of Mangum's testimony will cause little sleep to be lost in Durham.
If. on the other hand, they do implicate anyone higher up the food chain than Gottlieb....
Ben Davis is right. The feds are going to be preoccupied with trivia like the civil rights of white people until someone starts firebombing churches again.
Does Prof. Baldwin not have tenure? I looked at the Duke website, but couldn't really tell.
Nifong went out of his way not to talk to her directly, but only through Linwood Wilson and various DPD officers.
I wonder if it could be documented that it happened the way you say, and the details of how Durham employees were part of keeping her feeling "trapped." That would probably further increase Durham's liability exposure.
exactly. for the umpteenth time. i did not say she is not mentally ill. i did not say she is not mentally ill TO THE EXTENT that she actually believed her ridiculous claims.
i said that STATING AS FACT (which is what cathy did) that she did NOT lie, and thus necessarily was that mentally ill is not supported by evidence, and is PURE SPECULATION on her part.
she could be. she also could have been abducted by aliens. lets deal with evidence, not convenient speculation that oh so conveniently puts her in the best possible light
1) All of the first responders other than Levicy reported that whe was alternately passed out and incoherent. "
so what? this is not about just the night of the party. she REPEATED her story (albeit with 16 trillion inconsistencies) over and over again.
she wasn't drunk on those occasions.
and drunkenness is not an excuse for falsely accusing people of rape, nor is it tantamount to mental delusion.
"2) She reportedly took a muscle relaxant and then had a drink at the party. This is a very well-known way to accidentally become far more intoxicated than one is expecting to become (since the effect of the combination is much stronger than the sum of the effects of either substance taken alone.) "
yes. i've had a prescription for flexeril, so i am well aware of what muscle relaxants can do. i didn't go falsely accusing somebody of rape, nor did i imagine a rape that didn't happen. sorry, that doesn't fly.
"3) The reason that she took the muscle relaxant was that she had been injured in a recent incident where she had become intoxicated, attacked a woman customer at the strip club (seemingly unprovoked), passed out, had to be carried out of the club, and the guys carrying her dropped her. "
and. so, she's a violent, criminal idiot. nobody denies that.
"4) There is a huge difference between
"Tell me what happened."
"I was raped."
and
"Were you raped?"
"Yes."
The latter requires far less in the way of mental coordination. Trained mental-health professionals know way better than to ask yes-no questions which put words inq an interviewee's mouth and ideas in their heads."
and i will agree with you that UNFORTUNATELY many gender-biased SANE nurses, DV advocates, and even some police officers do ask leading questions like this ( i have seen it during DV's. an officer (assuming the woman is a victim) will ask "did he hit you?", instead of an open ended "what happened?" and of course, they will only ask THAT question of a woman. gender bias sux. regardless, that neither excuses nor causes the delusional idea that one was RAPED when one was not.
"For people who have a tenuous grip on reality (and after ingesting a muscle relaxant and alcohol, how strong can your grip on reality be?)"
pretty darn good. sorry. i'm fairly familiar with pharmacology, and i have also personally been in that situation. i had a NASTY muscle tear and was under the influence of flexeril and alcohol. the pain was unbearable. i did not all of a sudden become a delusional person who didn't know reality from fantasy. sorry. that's utter rubbish. it's no more acceptable to forgive false rape claims based on intoxication, than it is to excuse rape itself due to intoxication.
would you be willing to give a rapist a pass because they took some muscle relaxants and alcohol?
" the last thing they need is outside help supplying subject matter for delusions. Given Levicy's constantly shifting stories, it looks to me like Levicy planted the whole gang-rape idea into Precious' head when Precious was in no state to dispute Levicy or even remember what happened.
Suppose that Precious' claim had been that aliens from outter space beamed down into the LAX players' living room, and that the three LAX players had given the aliens the codes for triggering the US's nuclear arsenal. Suppose that, based upon this "eyewitness testimony", Nifong had indicted the three players for treason. No reasonable person would consider Precious' story a "lie", and no reasonable person would consider that Nifong, Gottlieb, Levicy, etc. should have any excuse at all for believing her delusion.
Well, the Levicy rape story had just as much evidence as the aliens from outer space story -- namely absolutely none at all. This woman showed up at this party, and her derranged behavior was so repulsive that even beer goggles couldn't get these partying undergrads to want to touch her. (Which is why none of their DNA made it on to her person.)"
again, this is all lovely but none of it is even remotely decent evidence that she is some sort of personal who is mentally delusional to the extent she ACTUALLY believed she was raped.
i HAVE interviewed TRUE delusional people. i had a woman who was EXCEPTIONALLY convincing (and convinced herself) that she was robbed. it's EXTrEMELY rare to meet somebody like that, but they do exist. let me tell you. her story did not repeatedly CHANGE. because she believed A story. mangum's story, otoh, conveniently changed because she most likely was LYING.
none of this addresses my main point as far as i can see. you did not say she MIGHT be delusional. you said she was NOT lying, thus either it happened (which i don't think you meant) or she HAD to be delusional, since if she wasn't delusional, she HAD to be lying.
that is your statement. and you simply have no way to know that. it's certainly possible. it's also possible aliens abducted her. but it's not a certainty, and that's how you stated it.
it all comes down to this automatic stance in trying to see her as a VICTIM.
Baldwin has tenure. He didn't protest Wiegman's lies not because he feared for his career (i.e., he was untenured), but because at the time he simply didn't know these were total lies. I am not sure how many people on the Duke campus know they were total lies even now. Tragic.
I do know that Baldwin thinks that Johnson and Taylor should get the Pulitzer Prize.
1. Several years ago a prostitution ring operated byDurham Police department was broken up. Its entirely plausible that the Durham cops are still involved in prostitution; at least to the extent of providing protection.
To this date it appears that the police are hiding some facts. To whom did the DNA found on Mangum's body belong? Police officers or Durham politicians?
2. Apparently Mangum was so "crazy" that she managed to become pregnant just a few days/weeks after the alleged rape. Its inconcievable to me that a woman experiencing such a horific crime of a sexual nature, with all its attendant physical and mental trauma, would recover sufficiently to have sexual relations in such a short period of time.
3. Nifong was in constant contact with Mangum although he claimed he never talked to her about the case. He himself admitted that his assistant was the conduit for his interactions with Mangum.
Nifong could not have carried out this “fiasco” without help from others, including his investigator and others in his office and, most importantly, officers in the Durham Police Department. This prosecution was almost certainly a deliberate frame of three young men for a crime that Nifong and the DPD knew had never occurred.
The DPD investigation violated departmental guidelines and procedures. Virtually every step of this investigation was deeply flawed. The DPD repeatedly failed to interview witnesses, investigate available evidence, re-interview witnesses when their statements were contradicted by evidence, and, most importantly, make any attempt to reconcile the many versions of the accuser’s story or to challenge her when her accusation was contradicted by all other evidence. The DPD ignored, avoided and ultimately hid exculpatory evidence. They allegedly attempted to create evidence by filing inaccurate affidavits and reports, providing false and misleading testimony before the grand jury, and intimidating and influencing witnesses. Members of the DPD apparently violated policy with their inflammatory public statements, the method in which they conducted lineups, and their failure to maintain a contemporaneous record of their activities.
This deeply flawed investigation demonstrated a complete failure in the DPD chain of command. Senior DPD officers apparently either failed to supervise the investigation or failed themselves to follow standard procedure.
Information available in media reports and in defense filings showed a case that had no substance and had fallen apart. In spite of these obvious problems, the chain of command took no apparent action. They either failed to step in to review the investigation or demonstrated an utter inability to comprehend its failure.
As one would expect in a case of this magnitude, Durham's leaders were aware of the investigation.
Durham City Manager Patrick Baker met with investigators on numerous occasions and briefed the City Council on the investigation. He gave repeated interviews in which he described the strength of the evidence. Many of these statements are now known to be patently false.
In an interview with the Durham Herald-Sun on April 1, Mayor Bill Bell stated that he was monitoring the investigation closely. In spite of the obvious flaws in the case and the massive procedural violations described in media coverage, Bell apparently asked no questions and took no action. Now, with the case exposed as a hoax, Bell is attempting to redefine his role.
This breakdown in the chain of command continued long after the case had fallen apart. In January, after Nifong’s agreement to hide exculpatory evidence had triggered the Bar complaint and his recusal, DPD Deputy Police Chief Ronald Hodge expressed the view that the case would move forward and proceed to trial.
In May, Baker and DPD Chief Steven Chalmers released their reports on the DPD's role in this fiasco. In these reports, they admitted no errors, effectively endorsed the many serious procedural violations committed by the DPD and attempted to place blame on defense attorneys who advised their clients to exercise their constitutional rights. In response to criticism of his report, Baker has adopted a new conclusion, wholly inconsistent with his report, in which he now places all of the blame on Nifong.
In an attempt to salvage his widely discredited report, Chief Chalmers made the incredible claim that “at the time we did go to the grand jury, Mangum’s accounts were consistent.” Based on Jim Cooney's summary to the committee investigating the DPD’s actions in this case, we know that Chalmers' claim is patently false.
This behavior goes well beyond enabling.
Let's not forget, as Ben Davis told us, these were just partying frat boys.
This poster obviously knows none of the facts.
First, Duke does have deep pockets, and Duke has already settled with the three indicted players. Although the terms of the settlement are not known, most observers believe that Duke paid a substantial sum in order to avoid discovery. The Duke settlement also covered Duke employees, including the administration, the Group of 88, and employees of DUMC. The non-indicted players are now rumored to be considering a lawsuit against Duke.
Some believe that "frat boys" have no constitutional rights. This refrain has been echoed repeatedly throughout this sorry episode. Remember, NC AG Cooper took the extraordinary step of declaring the indicted players "INNOCENT" and that there was "NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" that any crime had been committed. This statement goes far beyond a mere decision to drop charges due to insufficient evidence.
Despite the lack of evidence, the players were indicted..and the case plodded forward, making little progress. North Carolina law apparently provides a judge little authority to drop charges due to a lack of evidence. The prosecutor controls the timing of the case and in normal cases chooses the judge (this case was deemed extraordinary).
There is no right to a speedy trial. In this case, the young men were indicted in April and May 2006 with "no credible evidence." From the time of their indictment, the judge heard no motions on any subject other than discovery. Despite an investigation that had little to no activity after the middle of May, hearings were devoted entirely to discovery questions through December.
The first hearing devoted to a motion other than discovery was scheduled for February 5. This hearing almost certainly would have been postponed due to the pregnancy of the accuser. As a result, the players would have had no opportunity for almost a year to raise any issues about the evidence or lack thereof.
This case required an unprecedented action by the NC Bar to charge Nifong with ethics violations during the pendency of the case. This decision was made by one vote after Dr. Meehan, the head of the private DNA lab, testified under oath that he and Nifong has agreed to exclude from his report any information related to the male DNA from at least four unidentified males found in and on the accuser.
And many observers claim that the system worked.
____________________
As for Mangum's state of mind. There is evidence that she was instituted for a week in 2005. There is evidence that she has taken anti-psychotic medication. There is evidence that her psychiatric file is extremely thick. There is no doubt that she has serious mental issues.
On the other hand, doesn't this information make the fact of the existence of the Hoax more unreasonable, even silly? It shows you just how flimsy a cause has to be before people will jump on it just to preach their agendas.
Also, Mangum was videotaped for a lengthy time in April 2006 identifying four of her three attackers in a cold-blooded, calculated fashion. She also had her wits about her to change her story in December 2006 to "fill in" problems with the case in a police interview.
Most significantly to me, after the Hoax was destroyed and the North Carolina Attorney General declared Reade, Collin and Dave to be innocent, Mangum was still seen around town with her children. The question this raises in my mind is: If Mangum can be trusted with the custody of two very young children, how can she not meet the legal definition for sanity?