Sunday, December 13, 2009

Title: ABC News plays the “Race Card” using Duke Lacrosse player Devon Sherwood

An online article by Chris Francescani of the ABC News Law & Justice Unit was posted on October 31, 2006, and titled: “Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped.” The sole black player, Devon Sherwood, a 19 year old, and youngest member of the team, allegedly attended the “stripper party” on March 13, 2006, and stayed through to the end of the abbreviated performance by the two African American women, according to an interview that he gave to Chris Cuomo on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Mr. Sherwood stated that his three teammate Duke Lacrosse defendants had been stereotyped (by whom, he did not say) based on their class and skin color. Sherwood claimed the stereotype used against his teammates is: “Well, their daddies are gonna buy them the big-time lawyers, and they’re gonna get off.” Well, it seems as though the stereotype turned out to be quite prophetic as their daddies did get big-time attorneys (Joseph Cheshire, James Cooney III, and Wade Smith), and they did get off… even without a trial. Attorney Brad Bannon, of Joseph Cheshire’s law firm, instructed the assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead to direct Attorney General Roy Cooper to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and to say that “nothing happened.” Which is exactly what happened. They lived up to the stereotype and reinforced it. If the stereotype fits, wear it.

But it was not just the daddies of the defendants who worked feverishly to spin the Duke Lacrosse case in favor of the defendants. Groups of boosters and supporters of the Duke lacrosse team hired powerhouse attorney Bob Bennett (who represented President Bill Clinton) as part of an aggressive public relations effort to argue that a rape did not occur at the party, even before any indictments were handed down.

And although many are quick to accuse former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of trying the case in the media (unsubstantiated gibberish), it is the attorneys for the players (prior to any indictment being handed down) who divulged to the media that DNA failed to connect any of the 47 member team to the alleged attack. Even players’ parents had started to speak out about the case, according to USAToday online article posted April 12, 2009, titled: “Clinton lawyer joins team to represent interests of Duke lacrosse players.”

The online article about the October 31, 2006 interview is but one shameful example of ABC News’s use of the “Race Card” in order to play Jedi mind-tricks on the public in order to spin the case. Beginning with the article’s headline (“Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped”) which infers that the white lacrosse players have been somehow victimized… regardless that the stereotypes proved to be right on. The fact that a black lacrosse player is defending the reputation, character, and integrity of his white teammates, is suppose to be convincing evidence to the African American community that the Duke lacrosse players are decent and honorable people. However, no where in the article does it mention that fifteen (nearly one third of the 47 member team) players had prior run-ins with the law (under-aged drinking, disorderly conduct, public urination, etc.), including the captain and subsequent defendant Dave Evans. The Duke lacrosse team was notorious for hosting raucous parties, and the president of the university had even warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off field shenanigans. Devon Sherwood speaks only in glowing terms of his teammates, even though there is reason to believe that racial epithets were hurled, including the “n-word.” Mr. Sherwood does not know which of his teammates made the slurs, they have not manned up and apologized to him, nor were they pointed out to him by other teammates. Still, he considers the 46 other team members to be his “brothers.” And Devon’s reaction is that the slurs used against the two black dancers was nothing more than a mistake that he is willing to forgive. I believe such a statement is made to encourage other African Americans to overlook the racist hate-speech of Devon’s white teammates, and to forgive them, as well.

Devon also states that he believed that when the three defendants came to him (advising him not to believe what he hears) that they were showing their concern for him, when in fact their actions had more to do with protecting themselves and getting Devon’s support. Had Devon been around when the dancers were leaving, maybe some of the players might have refrained from using racial slurs within his earshot. In addition, the online article by Francescani dwells on the cotton shirt insult rather than the n-word epithets, again to minimize the malevolence of the racially charged verbal attacks on the dancers. Although Devon stated in the interview, “I believe in the character of my teammates,” I am not impressed with the character of teammates who use epithets and the n-word to maliciously demean African Americans, period.

Finally, the interviewer gets Mr. Sherwood to say that he thought Mike Nifong had used race “to his advantage to get re-elected.” It is difficult to ignore the issue of race when Duke lacrosse players shout out racial slurs at two African American women. It is also evident that the players did not want African American dancers to begin with. When using false pretenses to hire the dancers, the Duke lacrosse player using an alias, specifically requested that the escort service assign white dancers. Race was not an issue that any diligent prosecutor could ignore in prosecuting the case. As for all of the hype about prosecuting the case in order to get re-elected, that is not even a realistic premise. Although the city of Durham may consist of 40% African American population, a great majority were disillusioned and not even registered to vote. The percentage of registered African American voters who did vote was most likely extremely low, as well. On the other hand, Duke University and Duke lacrosse supporters who were at odds with Mr. Nifong for not automatically dropping the charges against the three golden boys, were very motivated to see Mr. Nifong toppled in an election. I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong detractors were more motivated in their advocacy to see Nifong lose the election than individuals sympathetic to his actions in taking on the prosecution of students from on of the city’s biggest employers. The myth bandied about by the media, North Carolina State Bar, Attorney General’s Office, and other Nifong detractors is that Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case for political gain. The reality is that by going against the powers that be on the state level and at Duke University and prosecuting the Duke players, he severely damaged his chances to win re-election. That is why the Durham district attorney primary in 2007 ended up being as close as it was. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mr. Nifong followed the dictates of the Attorney General and Duke University (by following protocol and dismissing the charges against the Duke students) that he would have won the primary contest in a landslide.

I don’t begrudge Devon Sherwood his close friendship with his teammates, and I am proud of his academic accomplishments at such a prestigious institution as Duke. What I find appalling is the way that the media (ABC’s “Good Morning America” and its online news website) had flagrantly taken advantage of Devon Sherwood in order to push its agenda of supporting the Duke Lacrosse defendants and undermining Mike Nifong and his prosecution of the case. ABC shamefully played the race card with its interview of the Duke Lacrosse’s sole black player, Devon Sherwood.

50 comments:

Justice58 said...

Sidney,

You made another slammin post!
(slammin: something which is very good);)

Just mentioning Devon Sherwood makes me throw up! His black card needs to be rejected! He's a sellout! Devon Sherwood must have had a terrible memory lapse when it came to the behaviors of his team mates?

Still, he considers the 46 other team members to be his “brothers.” And Devon’s reaction is that the slurs used against the two black dancers was nothing more than a mistake that he is willing to forgive.


Ummmm hmmmmm...Because that was perfectly fine for his team mates to use racial slurs against women that were invited into their home. See, those women were "just strippers"! IT'S OKAY TO HIRE "THEM" ~ IT'S NOT OKAY TO BE "THEM"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

This Blog is more fun than the Muppet show!

Miss Piggy just loves Kermit.

William L. Anderson said...

I'm glad the issue is out in the open. This blog really is about racial "solidarity." If Devon Sherwood does not say what Irving Joyner and William Barber and Sidney Harr want him to say, then he is a racial "sellout."

Never mind the facts. At least I know now why you put up this blog, and why you continue to repeat things that did not happen. In the end, it is all about "solidarity" and "sticking together."

Justice58 said...

Duke Lacrosse Team Had Reputation for Swagger

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/677

(04/06/06 -- DURHAM) - At Duke University, they like to say there's only one real fraternity on campus: LAX, shorthand for lacrosse.

Long before the university was rocked by allegations that lacrosse players raped a stripper during an off-campus party March 14, Duke's highly ranked team had a reputation for swagger and a powerful sense of entitlement.

Now administrators are starting to wonder whether they put up with it for too long.

"Taken as a group, is there a special history of bad behavior with this team?" Duke President Richard H. Brodhead said Wednesday in announcing the resignation of the coach, the cancellation of the rest of the season and the opening of an internal investigation.

A black stripper who was hired to perform at a team party has charged that three white players choked and raped her in a bathroom in the early morning hours of March 14. Witnesses said she was also taunted with racial slurs.

See, it OK to hire a stripper, it's not OK to be a stripper!

No arrests have been made; police are awaiting DNA test results on the team members. The team's captains have acknowledged hiring a stripper and allowing underage drinking, but have denied any rape occurred.

Even before the scandal, the nearly all-white team had come to personify an arrogant elite on this privileged campus, a collection of Gothic-style buildings dominating the landscape of this working-class city almost evenly divided between black and white.

Nearly a third of the team's 47 members have been charged in recent years with offenses such as disorderly conduct and public urination.

Neighbors have described the leased single-story white home where the alleged attack took place as a kind of "Animal House." A rusted tin shed out back is spray-painted with players' nicknames and jersey numbers, and a primitive white painting of a lacrosse player adorns the roof.


Did Devon Sherwood know this about his team-mates?

Oh wait...here's what Devon Sherwood stated.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2617301&page=1

"I'm 100 percent confident," he said. "I know nothing indeed happened that night at all."

Asked how he could be so sure if he wasn't present when the alleged attack took place, Sherwood said he knew the defendants well enough.

"I don't hesitate," he said. "I believe in the character of my teammates.



Devon Sherwood makes me throw up! How disgusting!

Justice58 said...

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/688

Finnerty Assault Trial

WASHINGTON -- Duke University lacrosse player Collin Finnerty instigated an attack on two bar patrons in Georgetown last year, allegedly shouting anti-gay slurs and asking one man if he'd perform a sex act, according to trial testimony from his accuser yesterday.

The 19-year-old Garden City native and two former Chaminade High School classmates allegedly surrounded Jeffrey Bloxsom and Scott Herndon during the wee hours of Nov. 5, taunting and shoving the pair as they tried to walk home. The group then briefly brawled, leaving Bloxsom with a bloody lip and bruised cheek, prosecutors charged on the first day of Finnerty's trial in District of Columbia Superior Court.

Justice58 said...

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/688

Finnerty Assault Trial

In a dramatic hour on the stand, Bloxsom told the court that a drunk Finnerty shoved him and stood close to his ear, shouting, "Say you're a fag!"

Bloxsom, 27, who isn't gay and had dinner with his fiance hours before the attack, said he replied, "I'm a fag," hoping his pursuers would let him go.

Instead, he claimed that Finnerty taunted him further by asking if Bloxsom would perform a sex act on another man; again, Bloxsom said he would in hopes of avoiding violence.

A few minutes later, Bloxsom -- who said at one point he tried to get away by pushing one of the men -- said he was on the ground, after being punched by an unidentified member of Finnerty's group. Herndon testified Finnerty punched and kicked him, although he suffered no significant injuries.

William L. Anderson said...

Sidney, there are two questions I have. First, if you are so sure that the AG was hiding a mountain of evidence, and you have that evidence in your possession, then you need to contact the U.S. Department of Justice. After all both the U.S. AG and the President of the United States are African-American, and I am sure that they are interested in cases where white males have raped black women, and then paid off everyone to hush and suppress the truth.

In other words, if you have all of this information, you should not sit on it. No, you should do your duty as a citizen and report this crime and cover-up to the USDOJ. I am sure you would have a willing audience.

Second, if Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann (who allegedly paid off the cabbie and probably tampered with the camera at the bank and the electronic devices at the restaurant where he purchased food) and David Evans were such dangerous rapists, then why did Nifong not arrest these rapists immediately after Crystal "identified" them on April 4, 2006?

I mean, if these young men were dangerous criminals, as you claim, then they should have been arrested immediately. In fact, had Nifong arrested them on that day, then they would have had a preliminary hearing, and then we would have seen what you believe to be Nifong's irrefutable evidence that all these terrible things came to pass.

After all, the preliminary hearing would have been held either before Orlando Hudson or Ronald Stephens, and I am sure that neither of them would have questioned the evidence and would have bound all three over to the grand jury.

It just seems strange to me that Nifong, given all of this "mountain of evidence" you and your group claim that he possessed, did not establish the facts in the preliminary hearing. You see, had we had that hearing, then I am sure that all of us would have been as enlightened as you and your Committee for Nifong have demonstrated yourselves to be.

So, I would urge you to report this crime immediately, given that the statute of limitations has not run out. There still is time to prosecute these young men under a variety of state and federal charges, so you need to get on it immediately.

Justice58 said...

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/688

Finnerty Assault Trial

In a dramatic hour on the stand, Bloxsom told the court that a drunk Finnerty shoved him and stood close to his ear, shouting, "Say you're a fag!"

Bloxsom, 27, who isn't gay and had dinner with his fiance hours before the attack, said he replied, "I'm a fag," hoping his pursuers would let him go.

Instead, he claimed that Finnerty taunted him further by asking if Bloxsom would perform a sex act on another man; again, Bloxsom said he would in hopes of avoiding violence.

Justice58 said...

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1091582/


According to student " Larisha Stone", there were previous offenses of racism directed at a fraternity where the lacrosse team intruded on a cook-out & racial slurs were hurled. Larisha Stone asked what was Duke going to do about holding the team accountable.



Did Duke University hold the team accountable?

William L. Anderson said...

By the way, you might also want to give my name to the USDOJ, since this blog has accused me of being involved in a "conspiracy" to hide this mountain of evidence you claim exists. Yes, you can have the DOJ investigate my non-existent correspondence with Roy Cooper and his staff. It would be a most interesting conspiracy accusation, but I am sure you are up to it.

Nifong Supporter said...

To William L. Anderson:

The blog is about the media playing the "Race Card" to try and mold minds of the African American media consumers. ABC used Devon Sherwood in an attempt to make their case that the Duke Lacrosse team members are people of good character (although nearly a third have been brought up on charges of disorderly behavior and public urination), and that they not racist despite shouting racial epithets and using the "n-word."

It is definitely not about racial solidarity. Irving Joyner and I do not see eye to eye on many issues surrounding the Duke Lacrosse case, and Reverend Barber is not in communication with me, so I don't know what he thinks. I don't think that either of them have been too vocal in the Duke Lacrosse case.

William L. Anderson said...

Both Joyner and Barber were VERY verbal on the LAX case. They were not minor players in this.

Justice58 said...

Both Joyner and Barber were VERY verbal on the LAX case. They were not minor players in this.


Oh...and you weren't with your open letters to the Attorney General?

JSwift said...

the attorneys for the players…divulged to the media that DNA failed to connect any of the 47 member team to the alleged attack.

The attorneys correctly viewed the DNA evidence as strongly exculpatory and expected that Mr. Nifong would drop the already public case.

Your reference to the DNA results raises again the question of why you have not replied to my comment.

In the thread for your December 2 post (“MSNBC analyst needs more than a pretty face”), I noted in a December 2, 5:34pm comment: “that, unless you are remarkably uniformed (a possibility I do not discount), some of your statements bordered on dishonesty. I identified the most egregious example of what I considered to be a potentially dishonest statement [November 12 5:16pm; November 15 7:28pm].” (The references are to earlier comments to which you did not reply.)

You asked on December 3, 7:24am: “write down what you consider to be the most egregiously dishonest statement that I have made, and I will answer it.

I responded to your request on December 3, 6:27pm:

“On your November 12 post, you made the following assertion:



Lack of DNA test results from the accuser's rape kit exam being linked to any of the Duke lacrosse players was not exculpatory


I commented: "This statement is false. No rational person believes that the lack of positive DNA test results taken immediately after an alleged rape in which the attackers did not wear condoms "was not exculpatory." The failure to find DNA that matched any of the players provides strong evidence that tends to establish the innocence of the defendants accused in such an attack." 



On November 13, you responded, ignoring the substance of my comment and providing no justification:



With regards to the lack of DNA evidence being exculpatory, such would only apply if the narrowest definition of sexual assault applied…intercourse with ejaculation and no condom

The remainder of my comment consists of a more complete explanation why “[y]our statements that the lack of a DNA match to any of the defendants in this case was not exculpatory are utterly preposterous and completely indefensible.” I will not reproduce it here, but ask that you reread it.

I reminded you on December 7, 6:22pm that you failed to provide the answer you promised.

You have had 11 days to respond. I have concluded that you view your credibility as a low priority.

William L. Anderson said...

Why is it that lack of the DNA of Darryl Hunt on the body of Debra Lynn Sykes was exculpatory, but the lack of DNA of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans on the body of Crystal Mangum is NOT exculpatory?

As for the accusation that I was in on some sort of conspiracy with Roy Cooper by writing some "open letters" that I doubt he ever read, I would have to say that Irving Joyner and William Barber are much more influential in North Carolina politics than I ever could be.

But, to go back to Sidney's claim about the DNA, I guess that all of those people freed by the work of the Innocence Project really must have been guilty after all. Unless DNA science is different when lacrosse players are involved. Yeah, that's it. The laws of science are different in Durham than they are anywhere else in the country.

Tell me, are the laws of science so different that you had to use different kinds of medical care in Durham? I guess you believe that Darryl Hunt should be back in prison, given that DNA no longer matters.

Justice58 said...

As for the accusation that I was in on some sort of conspiracy with Roy Cooper by writing some "open letters" that I doubt he ever read


Please! Save it! Were you trying to influence the AG decision with those letters? What were you trying to accomplish?

Anonymous said...

"Attorney Brad Bannon, of Joseph Cheshire’s law firm, instructed the assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead to direct Attorney General Roy Cooper to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and to say that “nothing happened.” "

Proof please.

What did Bob Bennett actually do?

"And although many are quick to accuse former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of trying the case in the media (unsubstantiated gibberish),"

Pretty significant evidence of Nifong's media blitz was presented at his BAR hearing ... as well as in the motion for a change in venue. Unsubstantiated gibberish?

Yes, after Nifong's media blitz, the defense attorneys countered. Nifong made a big deal of the DNA testing, it would exonerate the innocent... Yet when it came back negative, he knew it was negative for a full 10 days before releasing the information/report to the defense. In fact, it was around that same time that he found out not only was there no DNA from the lacrosse players on or in the accuser, there was DNA from 5 other men. Not exculpatory? Hogwash.

Was the 2006 lacrosse team notorius for hosting raucous parties? Was it the 2006 lacrosse team that caused Brodhead to ask the coach to rein in his players? I don't think so.

You refer to slurs & n-word epithets -- plural as if there were many. Can you provide evidence of two or more?

Nifong a diligent prosecutor -- the same guy who hadn't spoken the the accuser about the facts of the case, who wouldn't meet with defendants and their attorneys who were willing to give him evidence of innocence, who twisted the evidence he did have (condoms/no condoms, DNA/no DNA, their timeline/his timeline, date rape drug, the list goes on and on).

You present what you say as fact but offer nothing (NOTHING) to support your "facts"...

Justice58 said...

One of the players used the words "she's just a stripper" as if it didn't matter about her because of what she did for money.


See, it was ok to hire the strippers but not ok to be a stripper!

Ms Mangum was tried in the media because she dared to bring charges against the spoiled rich white guys. Michael Nifong was only doing his job as a prosecutor that he was elected to do.

The case should have went to trial to determine guilt or not guilty. This is why we have a justice system. Cases shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and verdict announced by the freaking Media.

Justice58 said...

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/672


VANITY FAIR: Kim Roberts, Other Dancer in Duke Rape Case, Talks to Vanity Fair


"They just hollered it out,'Nigger,' 'Nigger,' 'Nigger,'" said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."

March 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Here's another incident before the lacrosse rape scandal:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1091582/


According to student " Larisha Stone", there were previous offenses of racism directed at a fraternity where the lacrosse team intruded on a cook-out & racial slurs were hurled. Larisha Stone asked what was Duke going to do about holding the team accountable.

Justice58 said...

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/672


VANITY FAIR: Kim Roberts, Other Dancer in Duke Rape Case, Talks to Vanity Fair


Excerpts from the July 2006 hard copy version

It was when she was in the car with the other dancer getting ready to drive off, she said that she heard one of the boys in the field yell the word, "nigger," followed by several other boys shouting the racial epithet.
Roberts was not the only person who heard a racist comment. Jason Bissey, the next door neighbor, said in an interview he heard one of the players say, "Hey, b*tch, thank your grandpa for your nice cotton shirt!" as the Honda was driving off.

Walt said...

"ABC used Devon Sherwood in an attempt to make their case that the Duke Lacrosse team members are people of good character (although nearly a third have been brought up on charges of disorderly behavior and public urination), and that they not racist despite shouting racial epithets and using the "n-word.""

Even if what you say is true, that hardly makes any of the team members rapists.

Justice58 said...

Even if what you say is true, that hardly makes any of the team members rapists.


Beginning with the article’s headline (“Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped”) which infers that the white lacrosse players have been somehow victimized… regardless that the stereotypes proved to be right on. The fact that a black lacrosse player is defending the reputation, character, and integrity of his white teammates, is suppose to be convincing evidence to the African American community that the Duke lacrosse players are decent and honorable people.

Walt said...

"One of the players used the words "she's just a stripper" as if it didn't matter about her because of what she did for money."

Justice 58, you disappoint as well. Bad language, if true, hardly equates to rape or sexual assault.

"Ms Mangum was tried in the media because she dared to bring charges against the spoiled rich white guys."

Not so fast. Crystal was not tried in the media. Her word was taken as true, even after it was obvious to anyone who read her many versions of what when on that she was not telling the truth. Once a few in the media realized that, her comments were not reported without justifiable analysis. And ultimately the media finally realized that she was willing to change her story ad infinitum.

"Michael Nifong was only doing his job as a prosecutor that he was elected to do."

Surely you jest. No prosecutor, including Nifong was elected to ignore the facts and pursue a prosecution that lacked any probable cause. No prosecutor, including Nifong, was elected to ignore evidence that someone else may have committed a crime, if you believe Crystal's primary story that she was raped.

"The case should have went to trial to determine guilt or not guilty."

Then it was right to try Allen Gell a second time?

"This is why we have a justice system. Cases shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and verdict announced by the freaking Media."

Then Nifong should not have gone to the media in the first place. It was Nifong who violated the Rules of Professional Conduct about pre-trial publicity. It was Nifong who made statements that presumed guilt of people not yet charged. It is Nifong, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, proceeded forward with the case.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

"Beginning with the article’s headline (“Sole Black Duke Lacrosse Player Says White Teammates Stereotyped”) which infers that the white lacrosse players have been somehow victimized…"

The wrongfully accused were indeed victimized.

Walt-in-Durham

Justice58 said...

The fact that a black lacrosse player is defending the reputation, character, and integrity of his white teammates, is suppose to be convincing evidence to the African American community that the Duke lacrosse players are decent and honorable people.





We know that isn't true. Is this decent & honorable?


Hey, b*tch, thank your grandpa for your nice cotton shirt!"

"They just hollered it out,'Nigger,' 'Nigger,' 'Nigger,'" said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."

Justice58 said...

The wrongfully accused were indeed victimized.



Da Hell you say!

Those thugs were no victim!

Justice58 said...

http://www.hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic

Kim Roberts 4/21/06:
Quote:


Linwood Wilson's conversation with Roberts:


Quote:
-----------------------------------
"I need to tell you guys that I have thought about the time frame that night," Roberts said, according to Wilson's account. "I had originally said I wasn't away from her [Mangum] for more than 5 minutes but after thinking about it and what all I did it was more like 15 minutes or maybe a little more.

Walt said...

"Da Hell you say!"

Even if they were thugs, and they were not, the wrongfully accused were victimized by the police and a prosecutor who were willing to ignore evidence and at best pursue a charge that was unsupported by probable cause.

Walt said...

"Kim Roberts 4/21/06: I need to tell you guys that I have thought about the time frame that night," Roberts said, according to Wilson's account. "I had originally said I wasn't away from her [Mangum] for more than 5 minutes but after thinking about it and what all I did it was more like 15 minutes or maybe a little more."

Kim Roberts, like Crystal Mangum had a habit of changing her story. That goes directly to her credibility, or lack thereof. However, her 5 minute estimate is supported by the time stamped digital photos from the night of March 13-14, 2006.

Walt-in-Durham

Justice58 said...

Even if they were thugs


Any person who invites a guest into their home and suggest the guest use a broom as a sex toy, steals the guest' money, calls the guest a bitch and yells nigger, nigger, nigger at the guest IS a lowdown filthy THUG!

It's OK to hire a stripper but It's not OK to be a stripper!

Walt said...

?Any person who invites a guest into their home and suggest the guest use a broom as a sex toy,..."

Crystal was not a guest, but an invitee. A performer, paid for a performance, which she failed to deliver.

"...steals the guest' money,..."

Never charged, let alone proven.

"...calls the guest a bitch and yells n*****, n*****, n***** ... IS a lowdown filthy THUG!"

You can name call all you want, but that does not justify pursuing a baseless prosecution against them for a serious felony.

Walt-in-Durham

It's OK to hire a stripper but It's not OK to be a stripper!

Justice58 said...

You can name call all you want, but that does not justify pursuing a baseless prosecution against them for a serious felony.


Where did I say naming calling justified prosecution for a serious crime? Show me where I stated that?


We're talking about thugs & their thuggish behavior!


Walt:Even if they were thugs, and they were not, the wrongfully accused were victimized by the police and a prosecutor who were willing to ignore evidence and at best pursue a charge that was unsupported by probable cause.


Any person who invites a guest into their home and suggest the guest use a broom as a sex toy, steals the guest' money, calls the guest a bitch and yells nigger, nigger, nigger at the guest IS a lowdown filthy THUG!


Don't try to shift the conversation, Walt? Those thugs stole Ms Mangum's money and got by with it. When did going into someone's purse and stealing their money not a crime? Even Roy Cooper stated Ms Mangum's money was stolen. Are you calling Roy Cooper a liar? And if Roy Cooper stated the money was stolen, why no charges. He found out about it during the investigation. I'm guessing stealing is a crime if only certain persons are doing the stealing?

Walt, with all due respect...you're full of sh!t!

Anonymous said...

From "It's a crock" Pittman...

"They just hollered it out,'Nigger,' 'Nigger,' 'Nigger,'" said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."

Except no one but Pittman heard it... not even Jason Bissey who didn't miss much.

You can't have it both ways -- she's either believable or she's not.

She was also walking or riding by the house with her girl friend or someone she just picked up... and she's involved in this big case and wants to make some money too....

Neither Mangum nor Pittman count as witnesses to racist comments -- they're both proven liars.

Justice58 said...

Coward 8:57,

Except no one but Pittman heard it... not even Jason Bissey who didn't miss much.


You a lying coward who want to over-look the behavior of rotten thugs. You're so disgusting! I hope you rot in hell.

Justice58 said...

They did get off… even without a trial.

Walt said...

"Don't try to shift the conversation, Walt...."

You would be the one trying to shift the conversation, by impugning the character of the wrongfully accused to divert attention from Nifong. Let's remember the facts, Nifong brought a case with no probable cause against people who committed no rape or sexual assault. Nifong, before charging anyone, went to the press to claim that a terrible crime was committed. Once the baseless prosecution was commenced, Nifong lied to the court and opposing counsel in violation of the rules of professional conduct. In furtherance of the baseless prosecution, Nifong violated the state's open file discovery statute to perpetuate the baseless prosecution, thereby deriving three innocent men of their constitutional rights. That's what this blog is about.

Walt-in-Durham

Justice58 said...

Probable Cause:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

Anonymous said...

Latest Score:

Pearls 17 - Swine 0

Walt said...

"When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined,...

Except there was never any grounds for suspicion. Prior to the indictment, Crystal gave several contradictory stories about what happened. She took at least two lineups. During the flawed lineups, she identified only two people with 100% certainty, Brad Ross, who was not even in attendance at the party and Reade Seligman who had a photo confirmed alibi for the time of the alleged attack. Right then and there, PC failed.

"there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been."

I have never bought the malicious angle. I have always thought Crystal was simply drunk or drugged up on the night of March 13-14. When she was removed from Kim's car at the Kroger parking lot, she had to come up with some story to explain her condition that would not land her in a mental hospital. From that point, Shakespeare took over. (Oh what a tangled web we weave.) But, if you think Crystal was being malicious, then I'm willing to hear you out.

Walt-in-Durham

Justice58 said...

I have always thought Crystal was simply drunk or drugged up on the night of March 13-14.


She wasn't drunk or drugged up when she arrived at that party. She started having problems only after she had been given a drink at that party.

Walt said...

"She wasn't drunk or drugged up when she arrived at that party."

Like I said, I'm not a believer in the Crystal as a malicious actor in the hoax, but you can try and make that argument.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Good to see that the Liesobbers board is hitting the skids, sinking to all time new lows.

That place is like being in a chicken coop. They all just bawk about the same stupid things, and are nothng more than racist hypocrites.

If this case involved 3 black men accused of raping a white stripper, they would be all for the stripper because she is white.

They have turned this into a race and class case, then ban people who do not share their twisted and biased opinions.

I am not a supporter of Nifong by far, nor do I support the 3 Stooges and the whore.

The ENTIRE issue is that a District Attorney was criminally negligent, the corruption within the leaders of the city and state served only to aid him in his malicious criminal activities, and the DOJ is a complete farce!

The FACT is that something DID happen, but millions of dollars have been spent to keep all of the facts from becoming public.

The lawyers, players, and families add their tidbits under pseudonyms, and turned this into a carnival.

The disgusting reality of this entire case is that Nifong is/was not the only knave, NOTHING has changed, accept to get worse, and the cow ran way with the spoon.

It is like nobody has the courage to oust the people involved, used Fong as the royal scapegoat, and turned this into a race issue to distract any rational person into seeing nothing but smog.

I am still dedicated to ensuring there WILL be a DOJ investigation, as the crimes committed in office by Fong and crew reaches much deeper than misconduct.

Crimes against humanity have/is occuring in Durham, and I am sure in each city, but Durham is personal to my family. My brother's murder, and organ theft have been avoided far too long, and I will NEVER end my quest seek JUSTICE, and will not be silenced by a cash settlement!

Personally, I would like to have a REAL discussion with both sides over the REAL issues of CORRUPTION!

Certainly this is something both sides must agree on?!

Rhonda Fleming
Justice4Jack
Sister of Allen Jackson Croft Jr.
Murdered May 11, 2005 in Durham
Justice4all2005@yahoo.com
www.myspace.com/Sinnderrella
PLEASE read my page and blogs, there is much ado about something!

My petition for a DOJ investigation:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/doj-fda-investigation

Anonymous said...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/doj-fda-investigation

Edit to above^

Anonymous said...

OMG its Ridiculous Rhonda!!

Posting here is a new low; even for you Ron

Anonymous said...

OMG its Ridiculous Rhonda!!

Posting here is a new low; even for you Ron

Low and ridiculous?! Staging a murder as a suicide, then selling his body is INSANE, truth is stranger than fiction!

At least the people here respect me, even though I have said from the beginning that Nifong is still going to be charged with his part in the cover-up.

I do not care who "believes" me! I am not here to convince a soul, but to continue my quest for JUSTICE, and a DOJ investigation, PERIOD.

Rhonda Fleming
Justice4Jack

unbekannte said...

Biased prejudice racist bigot fanatic know nothing injustice58:

You are claiming thatthe Lacrosse players are criminals in spite of the hard evidence which does exonerate them. In comparison to tha, sacharine, any statement that cgm was just a stripper really pales.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous,you ask what would have happened if the accuser had been white and the accused black. Nothing on the scale of the Lacrosse hoax would have happened. Decent(HA) honorable(HA HA) distinguished(HA HA HA) exemplary(HA HA HA HA) minister of[he doesn't know the meaning of]justice(HA HA HA HA HA) wanted an issue which would endear him to the black voters of Durham. Prosecuting a black man for raping a white woman would not have done that.

Anonymous said...

We're talking about thugs & their thuggish behavior!


Walt:Even if they were thugs, and they were not, the wrongfully accused were victimized by the police and a prosecutor who were willing to ignore evidence and at best pursue a charge that was unsupported by probable cause.


Any person who invites a guest into their home and suggest the guest use a broom as a sex toy, steals the guest' money, calls the guest a bitch and yells nigger, nigger, nigger at the guest IS a lowdown filthy THUG!


Don't try to shift the conversation, Walt? Those thugs stole Ms Mangum's money and got by with it. When did going into someone's purse and stealing their money not a crime? Even Roy Cooper stated Ms Mangum's money was stolen. Are you calling Roy Cooper a liar? And if Roy Cooper stated the money was stolen, why no charges. He found out about it during the investigation. I'm guessing stealing is a crime if only certain persons are doing the stealing?

No, you are all talking about 3 wealthy white men, not children, who hired prostitutes to perform for them on college campus, already breaking 2 laws by drinking, and hiring prostitutes!

To sum it up, they hired hookers too drunk to perform, took their money back, and she cries rape.

What happened in between is moot. The facts that are known is that a Federal District Attorney and city CONSPIRED to FALSELY convict men who were innocent of rape, and is why AG Cooper stepped in, so he could cover his own political bum!

Rhonda Fleming
Justice4Jack

Mark Orgel said...

Nifong trying the case in the media is gibberish? You are obviously demented. Nifong made dozens of misleading statements to the press! You are hallucinating!

Anonymous said...

So you are proud of Devon for his academic record, but you think he is an idiot and got talked into things. You can't have it both ways. Either he is smart enough to know what is true, or he isn't. You point out that he seems rather smart, so why not believe him.
As for the "racial slurs" well, you know, find me an Africa American that doesn't use that word. Not thats any excuse, really. It just doesn't add up to a rape.
If they used a word most black people say three hundred times before breakfast or not isn't really the point, is it? Shall we start arresting black people every time they use it?