Friday, July 16, 2010

Duke University destroys Lacrosse evidence

Like cat burglars in the dead of night, Duke University, on the morning of Monday, July 12, 2010, stealthily moved its backhoe with its huge claw into position on property located at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard in Durham, and commenced razing the historic bungalow. Purchased by the university just months prior to the infamous Duke lacrosse spring break beer-guzzling stripper party of March 2006, the house, which sat vacant since the incident, fell into disrepair, according to Duke official Michael Schoenfeld. He told WRAL that it was an eyesore, and that it was not torn down for any symbolic reason.

The reason the property became an eyesore is because its owner, Duke University, did not maintain the property and had every intention of letting it become an eyesore for the purpose of justifying its destruction. Duke certainly maintains its other properties in excellent condition. The house on Buchanan Boulevard had become a symbol of Duke’s shameful past, and Duke officials had every intention of seeing it removed. To prevent any interference in their plans, they initiated a blitzkrieg strategy that had the structure leveled before any objections could be made, or even awareness known of their battering intention. By the time the media heard about activity on the property, the house was half demolished.

The house at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard, being a historical landmark, should have been preserved and, if nothing else, possibly used as a center for counseling or treatment. Its shameful past history should not have forced it to face the wrecking ball. There are other structures, such as the palaces along the Ivory Coast of Africa which served as a holding cell for Africans who were captured and destined to go to the New World to toil as slaves, which have a much more horrendous past and they were not destroyed. In fact, they are now treasured for their historical value… a true life museum that affords its visitors an up-close and personal experience of the horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth century African slave trade. The Nazi death camp of Auschwitz is another example of property with a despicable and inhumane past which was not torn asunder and buried. It was preserved; if for no other reason than to serve as an ugly reminder of the brutal extent of man’s inhumanity to man. In a like vein, the Duke Lacrosse Party House should have been preserved for its historical and social value.

However, with recent revelations about the trumped up charges of February 17, 2010 against the falsely accused Crystal Mangum (the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case), the possibility, though remote, of renewed interest in conducting an objective investigation into the Duke Lacrosse case, undoubtedly gave impetus to plans for the house’s quick demise. As Ms. Mangum’s credibility grows, even in light of the biased representations in the mainstream media, people are beginning to question Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” and his assertion that “nothing (criminal) happened” that night in 2006. With the party house now nothing more than a memory, the dimensions of the bathroom and the alleged discrepancies in the photographs taken inside the house which some construed to be “doctored,” these issues can no longer be adequately explored. Further, the collection of evidence, DNA and otherwise is lost forever. The crime scene is no more. Duke has successfully covered its tracks.

Crystal Mangum was silenced from presenting, in court, her story about the Duke Lacrosse case. Now being the falsely accused, and out from under the thumb of a public defender who was working in the best interests of the state, Ms. Mangum has been putting her story before the public, even though the media negatively skews it as much as possible. Yet the trumped up charges against her are becoming more exposed, and they are not even a house of cards; they are nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and hot air.

How much do you know about the incident involving Ms. Mangum that occurred the night of February 17, 2010 and the trumped up charges against her? Click on the link below to get access to our ten question quiz, and find out what your SJ.Q. (Subjective Justice Quotient) is on the subject.



Anonymous said...

Well said--at least the part about Duke's "rush to crush".

That house should have been preserved, both as an historical site, as well as an evidenciary site (regardless of what 'evidence' one expected to find there).

Anonymous said...

Whatever they did was bad enough.

Anonymous said...

this makes no sense but then again the ravings of a crazy man have really started to go from bad to worse over the past weeks. you're actually getting scary sidney. if they were trying to destroy evidence why wait three plus years to do it? disgusting to compare that house to germany and africa.... somebody get harr a straight jacket and end this thing once and for all.

Anonymous said...



Nifong = Liar said...

Nice blogspot page, gramps. Think you can post some links to some Usenet boards discussing this topic? I tried to search for some on AltaVista, but couldn't find any! If you can direct me to one, send me an ICQ at nifongisapieceofgarbage.

Anonymous said...

liar @ 4:45 - try googling "duke rape case for cretins"

Anonymous said...


610 North Buchanan Blvd.

It was a crime scene alright.

The Gang Rape of Duke University.

The Gang Rape of Durham.

The Gang Rape of the North Carolina Justice System.


The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said...

Anonymous @ 6:27 PM - The Gang Rape of the North Carolina Justice System.

Indeed. Nifong tried to do an end run around due process, with the help of DPD, Duke, the NAACP, and many of the natives in Durham.

Fortunately he wasn't successful. He should have been brought up on criminal charges.

Has he lost his house yet?

Anonymous said...

Has Victoria 'Fried Chicken' Peterson commented on the razing of the house?

VP, of 'burn the house down!' fame, along with her racist NBPP buddies.

Anonymous said...

Duke should put up a historical marker that reads
"Nothing happened here"

Anonymous said...

Crystal Mangum could have filed suit in civil court. She has backed away from doing so.

Her credibility is diminishing.

Nifong Supporter said...

Hey, Commenters.

How did you do on the Quiz? Let me know what your Selective Justice Quotient (SJ.Q.) is.

It's time now for another installment of "Million Dollar Bail." Unfortunately there is a plethora of examples of individuals in North Carolina who commit crimes far more egregious than those trumped up against Ms. Mangum, who get little or no bail.
But we all know why she is being selectively mistreated... payback!
And at taxpayer expense. Give me a few minutes to post, and I would be interested in your comments.

Anonymous said...

Duke should put up a historical marker that reads
"Nothing happened here" said the Nazis at Auschwitz.

Sidismyhero said...

Hey Anonymous @1:31 pm -- I didn't know the Nazis at Auschwitz commented on Duke University. Can you cite a source for that?

Anonymous said...


try searching: " fascist lacrosse assholes "

Sidismyhero said...

Nazis and Fascists, oh my!
In concordance with Godwin's Law, debate is now over. This particular thread can be ended, and you, dear Anonymous@1:31pm, are declared loser.


Anonymous said...

what debate ?

Anonymous said...

If Crystal Mangum wanted to get her story out, why, in two appearances to promote her memoir, did she refuse to answer questions about the Lacrosse case?

Anonymous said...

A dozen lacrosse lawyers were able to squeeze
into the bathroom. No kidding. Someone placed
a ten dollar bill in the toilet and threatened to flush it.

Anonymous said...

"Crystal Mangum was silenced from presenting, in court, her story about the Duke Lacrosse case."

Crystal could have filed a civil suit and, thereby, told her story in court.

Trial lawyers take civil lawsuits usually on a contingency fee basis. If crystal did have a case, she could have sued for 7 figures worth of damages and trial lawyers would have flocked to represent her.

The only conceivable reason she would have not to file a civil suit would be that she did not have a case to present. She had no chance of recovering damages and, ergo, no trial lawyer wanted to represent her.

Anonymous said...

Okay, and the absolutely 110% innocent nothing happened
no evidence lacrosse boys decided to spend several million
dollars on a dozen lawyers because they did it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ July 22, 2010 5:48 PM:

Are you Mike Nifong?

Your post is a rehash of the Mike Nifong statement, why would anyone need a lawyer if one were innocent and had not been charged with anything? Had Mike Nifong taken the case to trial and made that statement in the court room, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial. The Constitutionally guaranteed right to legal representation forbids a prosecutor from saying that a defendant having legal representation is a evidence of guilt.

Should one charged with a serious crime not have legal representation? Are you saying the Miranda decision of the US Supreme Court is invalid?

Blogger said...

I have just installed iStripper, and now I enjoy having the hottest virtual strippers getting naked on my desktop.