During a robust Wake County school board meeting on July 20, 2010, Keith Sutton, an African American board member, waded into an unruly crowd attending the meeting in an attempt to calm emotions. One of the officers from the Raleigh Police Department, which presented a strong show of force, grabbed the arms of the business-suited Sutton and brought them behind his back in the process of handcuffing him. The officer involved was halted when school staff members came to Sutton's defense, explaining to the officer that he was a member of the school board.
Although unharmed, this humiliating and unwarranted near-arrest experience was deserving of an apology from the Raleigh police chief Harry Dolan and/or the officer responsible for the laying on of hands, according to Mr. Sutton. Needless to say, that apology was not forthcoming. Instead, Chief Dolan blamed Sutton for getting between police and demonstrators… never mind Sutton's intent or actions as they were evidently irrelevant. It all has to do with positioning. Now I am not aware of there being a crime on the books for being placed between alleged demonstrators and police, but in the North Carolina justice system, anything goes. To save face, Sutton said that Captain Stacy Deans apologized to him on July 20th, which goes to show that Sutton should have left well enough alone and not sought an official apology from the chief. Also, it shows that there are some decent and responsible people among Raleigh’s Finest.
Some people, such as myself, may believe that race played a role in the actions of the near-arrest officer and the resulting situation. Just ask yourself this, if school board Chairman Ron Margiotta or member John Tedesco had positioned themselves between demonstrators and police would they have had their arms yanked behind their backs? I don’t think so.
This unfortunate incident brings to mind my near-arrest experience on the campus of Duke University on April 14, 2010. I was at the Duke University Law School to hear Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, at an event which was open to the public and advertised to be on a "first come, first served" basis. So I arrived a couple of hours early wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt, and being a gregarious person by nature, I struck up conversations with a few individuals, and gave some of them my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong business card. After the hour presentation, I was leaving the room en masse with other attendees, with the intent of catching the bus and heading back to Raleigh. I was intercepted by a uniformed guard (whether security or campus police I do not know). He informed me that I had to leave the campus, which I was in the process of doing before his interference. He accused me of trespassing, and when I asked him why, he told me that he did not know… that Duke was a private institution and had the right to trespass anyone it wanted. As he explained it, he was only doing his job. He told me that the building manager had asked me to leave, but would not take me to see her, so I expressed my displeasure to him. Fortuitously for me, law professor James Coleman happened by and after I flagged him down, he interceded on my behalf. Had it not been for his input, I believe that I would have been arrested that day. I explained to the guard that I was leaving the campus and that he did not need to follow me, but he responded that he was going to see to it that I left the campus because I was causing a “disturbance.” (When questioned he couldn’t tell me what disturbance I had allegedly caused. I explained to him that he was the one causing the disturbance by interrupting me as I was leaving the campus.) Even though I was walking from the building to the bus stop, the guard took it upon himself to call in reinforcements. Within seconds, a patrol car pulled up and an officer joined him. There were now two men in uniform shadowing me. Before boarding the bus, the guard told me that I was nearly arrested on three occasions during our brief period of contact which could not have been more than fifteen to twenty minutes.
What this goes to show is that, like in the Sutton situation, one does not need to do anything illegal or wrong in order to wind up in jail… especially if you are disenfranchised or a person of color. Surely, my behavior did not warrant the harassing and humiliating treatment of Duke University’s security. The guard did not even know why he was asking me to leave the campus… he was only following orders, as he explained. At least Mr. Sutton and I did not get arrested, unlike Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. As you may remember, Gates was arrested for becoming upset about the humiliating and harassing treatment he received when police investigated him for a possible “forced entry” onto his own property.
Unlike Sutton, however, I did not seek an apology from Duke University, I sought an explanation about my abusive treatment from Pamela Bernard, the general counsel for the school. Instead of an admission to me of wrong-doing by Duke, she did the next best thing for herself… delegate the problem to someone else. Michael J. Schoenfeld, the Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations, replied with a letter dated May 10, 2010, in which he conjured up a cockamamie excuse and laid blame for the triggering of actions against me on the Duke police. He stated that I was asked to leave the campus for repeatedly violating the Duke policy against solicitation, which, according to Mr. Schoenfeld, constituted passing out my business cards and asking people to visit the website. It was unclear from Schoenfeld's letter whether it was okay to pass out business cards as long as I did not ask people to visit my website, or whether it was okay to ask people to visit my website as long as I did not give them my business card. Mr. Schoenfeld then expects me to believe that a person who accepted a business card would then take the time to report it to the Durham police. Surely, the Durham Police have more important issues with which to contend than the handing out of business cards.
I don’t know who ordered me kicked off campus that day in April (although I seriously doubt that Durham Police had anything to do with it) and that is not something upon which I dwell. What I find disheartening and alarming is that when guilty of wrongdoing, Duke elected to lie and scapegoat. Instead Duke chose the low road of blaming me and laying the decision to have me ousted from campus on its police. The appropriate steps to take would have been to admit its missteps and take steps to see that it doesn’t occur in the future (… also, an apology would have been appreciated).
In Keith Sutton’s case, as in that of Professor Gates, I believe skin color played a major role. Although I believe that skin color may have been a contributing factor in my situation, my allegiance to the principles of seeking justice for selectively and unjustly disbarred prosecutor Mike Nifong was the overriding issue. As the media has made perfectly clear, and is in large measure responsible for forging it, there has been for some time a new class against which to discriminate… Nifong supporters. Duke University has no problem with doing just that.
It is important for people (especially the poor, disenfranchised, and those of color) to realize that they can be arrested without reason or provocation. Know too, that when it happens, you are less likely to get an apology and more likely to be given a serving of lies and a scapegoat.
NOTICE: Update on “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper – Episode V: Clash of the Super-Hero Titans – Initial Encounter.” This ambitious project is more than halfway completed. It contains 17 parts and is larger than the previous four episodes put together. There are a plethora of local celebs and dignitaries in this episode, including a cameo appearance by Durham Mayor Bill Bell… and even a blog commenter has a major role. I am hopeful to have it completed and posted by year’s end. (Unlike the previous three episodes, Roy Cooper dons his cape, cowl, and buccaneer boots and returns to super-hero action.)
Also, the website is being revamped to give better exposure of our members, as the original opening page is getting cramped as membership grows. Also, the navigation will be much easier with the new format. Expect to see the change in the next week or two.
Finally, you may be aware of the subscription option for the blog that was recently installed for your convenience. You can, of course, continue to access the blog through the website, or blogsite directly.
Monday, August 23, 2010
When in the wrong… lie and scapegoat
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
You obviously think the suspension of two of the three falsely accused Lacrosse team members and subsequent exclusion from campus by Duke was not inappropriate.
You maintain you believe Ms. Mangum was assaulted at the party. You have offered no basis for that belief other than that Ms. Mangum alleged she was assaulted and that she identified three assailants with 90% to 100% certainty.
Two of the three men she identified had solid evidence they were at the party when Ms. Mangum said she was assaulted. She said she would have been 90% certain David Evans was the third assailant if he had had a mustache. I point out again, the wanted poster showing pictures of the Duke Lacrosse team, team photos of the individual players made before the party, showed David Evans did not have a mustache. In addition, Ms. Mangum actually identified with that degree of certainty a fourth man as an assailant. Why was that man never indicted. Was it because Mr. Nifong had previously publicly vouched that there were only three assailants?
Timothy Cole was identified with 100% certainty by a rape victim that he was her assailant. Subsequent DNA testing exonerated him. Unfortunately, he died in prison before his exoneration. What does that say to you about 100% identification?
Why did the evidence from the SBI show that no Lacrosse Player had assaulted Ms. Mangum, if the SBI crime lab was so disposed to support prosecutors? Do not cop out and claim that a sexual assault could happen without leaving evidence. The assault Ms. Mangum described, which description is recorded in the medical record, was a rape which would have left behind evidence.
Further, do not cop out by claiming there was a history of underage drinking and public urination on the part of Lacrosse team members. The three innocent men, I say again, were charged with first degree rape, not underage drinking or public urination. These have no relevance to the case.
Why was there no evidence of a rape found on Ms. Mangum's person?
Why did Ms. Mangum say 9 months after the supposed assault that she could not recall being penetrated? She told medical personnel she had been penetrated. She told Mark Gottlieb she had been penetrated when Sgt. Gottlieb improperly conducted the third photo lineup.
Why did Michael Nifong in public vouch that he was certain that a rape had taken place?
Correction:
Two of the three men she identified had solid evidence they were at the party, from the previous comment, should have read
Two of the three men she identified had solid evidence they were NOT at the party
.
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM DRANK HEAVILY DAY OF PARTY
POLICE RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS
.
".DUKE LACROSSE TEAM DRANK HEAVILY DAY OF PARTY
POLICE RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS"
So what. The members of the LaCrosse team were charged with first degree rape, not underage drinking. There was no evidence a rape had occurred.
Incidentally, Crystal Mangum was under the influence at the time of the party. She admitted to takinf Flexeril on top of drinking alcoholic beverages. While that may have been legal, it was in no way responsible drinking.
Why do you turn a blind eye to Ms. Mangum's irresponsible drinking.
.
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM DEFRAUDED
ESCORT AGENCY WHEN SOLICITING PROSTITUTES
.
.
COMMENTER ACTS LIKE ASSHOLE
NEVER SUBSTANTIATES ACCUSATIONS
REFUSES TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE
RELIES ON INNUENDO
.
.
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM FLED PARTY HOUSE
AS POLICE WERE CALLED; WITNESSES DESCRIBE
ANGRY STREET SCENE
.
.
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM CAPTAINS HID FROM POLICE
AS LATE NIGHT SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATION COMMENCED
.
.
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM FAILED TO REPORT
INCIDENT TO SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OR COACHES
AS ASSAULT VICTIM WAS EXAMINED AT DUKE HOSPITAL
AND QUESTIONED BY POLICE
.
Anonymous @ August 23, 2010 5:19 PM:
You are incorrect. The Lacrosse team requested caucasian strippers, and they were neither the first nor the only Duke organization to ever do something like that.
August 23, 2010 6:12 PM:
This is another example of an ad homonem attack, which is used by individuals who are confronted by truths they can neither refute nor deny. Thank you for admitting the truth.
August 23, 2010 7:12 PM:
Again incorrect. No claim of any crime was ever made until the party was over and the house was empty. Kim Pittman's 911 call did not allege rape or claim the two strippers had been in the house. Ms. Pittman said she and her "girlfriend" were either walking or driving by the house and were called "n----r". Ms. Pittman called the authorities a second time to have them remove an intoxicated Ms. Mangum from her car. The police took Ms. Mangum to a facility for detox. At that facility a nurse asked Ms. Mangum if she had been raped. That was the first mention of rape in the case.
@ August 23, 2010 8:59 PM:
Wrong again. No rape investigation began on March 13, 2006. Ms. Mangum was not asked about rape until the AM of March 14. Ms. Pittman's calls to the police did not allege rape. No investigation was begun until later in the morning of March 14. Detective Sergeant Shelton, who was one of the first to question Ms. Mangum found her story not to be credible. The rape investigation did not begin in earnest until after Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, who had a known bias against Duke students, and DA Mike Nifong, who needed a racially charged issue to get voter support from the black community, got hold of it.
@ August 24, 2010 7:04 AM:
The Duke students did not know there was an issue until Detective Sgt. Gottlieb and DA Nifong made it an issue. The Lacrosse team captains accepted responsibility for the party and apologized. The team cooperated fully with the authorities. The police officers who initially questioned Ms. Mangum, did not think her allegations were credible.
I suggest you read one of the definitive, true accounts of the case, either IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH, RUSH TO INJUSTICE, or, particularly UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, read the DIW blog, or the Liestoppers' discussion board if you are really interested in the facts of the case.
"I suggest you read one of the definitive, true accounts of the case, either IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH, RUSH TO INJUSTICE, or, particularly UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, read the DIW blog, or the Liestoppers' discussion board if you are really interested in the facts of the case."
You gotta be kidding.
Anonymous @ August 24, 2010 9:48 AM
I do not kid.
I made that statement expecting to elicit a reaction such as yours. Thank you for living down to my expectations.
What is your version? What evidence supports you?
Sidney Harr? That would be like Idi Amin saying Hitler was a great man.
And what has happened to the proposal that Mr. Nifong write a book about the situation?
If there is evidence to prove that Crystal Mangum was raped why have people like Sidney Harr and Crystal Mangum and Vincent Clark failed to present it?
Crystal has steadfastly refused to answer questions ever since she claimed at a book promotion that she was raped. Vincent Clark has presented nothing to support her allegations. All Sidney Harr has done is state he believes Crystal and then come up with some preposterous story of a carpet bagger jihad.
Can you do better?
There you go again Sidney ...... playing the race card again. Didn't you know that the race card is maxed out!!!!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/race-card-is-maxed-out
Surely with the intellect you purport to bring to this blog, you could come up with a less hackneyed reason for your treatment on the Duke campus. But then again perhaps not.
From the facts of the matter you published on this blog, the Duke Police were well within their rights to have had you arrested.
As a punishment you should write the following 1000 times:
"As a socialist, I am too stupid to come up with a legitimate reason for my treatment on the Duke Campus"
. .
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM IMPLICATED IN SEXUAL ASSAULT
BY FORENSIC EXAM OF VICTIM AT DUKE HOSPITAL
[note to true believers: you will be wasting your time
arguing this point although we know that won't stop you.]
. .
. .
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM PARTY HOUSE
SEARCHED UNDER WARRANT
POLICE RECOVERED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
WHICH CONFIRMED VICTIM'S STATEMENTS
. .
. .
DUKE LACROSSE TEAM CAPTAINS QUESTIONED
ADMITTED TO POLICE
PLAYERS TOOK VICTIM'S MONEY
. .
When in the wrong... lie and scapegoat
Well gee Sidney,
I thought you had changed the name of your blog! The above would be a perfect new name for it.
All you have done since inception is lie and justified your lies by scapegoating ... The Lacrosse team, the Defence Attorneys, AG Roy Cooper, The current DA ,The assistant DA........
How very typical of the response of the "victim" mentality of AA's of your generation
Sidney, it was your Nifong T-shirt
which ticked off the Duke law faculty.
Did you see a greasy rodent named
Bob Ekstrand sneaking around the hallways?
Anonymous @ August 24, 2010 5:49 PM
You again are wrong. The exam revealed no forensic evidence of an assault.
@ August 24, 2010 9:52 PM
The search of the house turned up no evidence which implicated the players in a sexual assault on Ms. Mangum. One of her false fingernails was recovered which had on it DNA which was consistent with David Evans, but not a match to David Evans. It was found in a trash can which contained items with Mr. Evans DNA.
@ August 24, 2010 9:54 PM
Ms. Mangum alleged the players took her money but also that Kim Pittman took her money. Why do you not provide the evidence, a quote of the admission. In any event, the charges against the innocent men were first degree rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. They were never charged with any kind of theft. If the Lacrosse players had admitted the theft of Ms. Mangum's money, why did Mr. Nifong not charge them with that? Mr. Nifong was desperate to have Lacrosse team members accuse other Lacrosse team members.
I suggest you look at the sources I have already mentioned.
Answer this question. Why was none of Ms. Mangum's DNA ever found in the bathroom where she was supposedly assaulted?
Anonymous @ August 24, 2010 9:52 PM
The evidence corroborated which of Ms. Mangum's statements?(she was not a victim).
Ms. Mangum gave multiple, conflicting statements to the police. She even at times denied she was raped.
Anonymous said...
Sidney, it was your Nifong T-shirt
which ticked off the Duke law faculty.
What I do not understand is why Duke University should have any animus towards Mike Nifong, the district attorney who was merely doing his job. I agree with you that anti-Nifong fervor, fanned by the biased media, was the reason I was mistreated and abused on the Duke campus, and not the lame excuse given by Mr. Schoenfeld (solicitation based on handing out a few business cards).
Sidney
You claim the carpet baggers want vengeance against Cryatal Mangum. You say Mr. Cooper was cooperating with the carpet baggers.
In April of 2007, Mr. Cooper said that Ms. Mangum would not be prosecuted. Why would he do that if he was in bed with the carpet baggers? Why would the carpet baggers not wreak vengeance on him for that?
Why did the carpet baggers not act against his campaign for re election?
Note to anonymous @ August 24, 2010 5:49 PM:
"[note to true believers: you will be wasting your time
arguing this point although we know that won't stop you.]"
I would rather believe in the actual truth than the vicious clap trap upon which you base your faith.
Anonymous @ August 23, 2010 6:12 PM
I thank you again for recognizing, in your own perverse way, that the truth is, no sexual assault was perpetrated on Ms. Mangum.
We are not sorry the unadulterated facts of the case
fail to suit the bastardized "Wonderland" version of the
usual conniptors. Perhaps you should glue a copy
of the attorney general's report to your foreheads,
as a constant reminder- the lacrosse boys stole
the victim's money.
Here's a link to the AG's report.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1363100/
Please show me where it says that money was stolen.
"Two of the attendees,while using the bathroom, noticed that one of the dancers had left her cosmetics bag behind in the bathroom. Each separately took money out of the bag and were told by Flannery and Evans to return the money to the bag."
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
You claim the carpet baggers want vengeance against Cryatal Mangum. You say Mr. Cooper was cooperating with the carpet baggers.
In April of 2007, Mr. Cooper said that Ms. Mangum would not be prosecuted. Why would he do that if he was in bed with the carpet baggers? Why would the carpet baggers not wreak vengeance on him for that?
Why did the carpet baggers not act against his campaign for re election?"
Prosecute Ms. Mangum for what? What law did she break with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case? If I'm not mistaken, she was the victim. It's totally absurd to even suggest prosecuting her... besides, to do so, would bring to light the questionable actions of the beer-guzzling, stripper-oogling Duke lacrosse party-goers. Neither the attorney general nor the Carpetbaggers want that to come out in court.
So the money was returned. No money was stolen.
To who?
The money was never returned. It took a police search
warrant to get it back from the lacrosse players.
Roy Cooper is a liar.
So you wanted us to look at Cooper's report. Now, because his report doesn't say what you wanted, you find he's a liar.
Sidney
With regard to Ms. Mangum as a victim you have been grossly mistaken ever since you started your blog. Ms. Mangum was not assaulted at the party. The evidence conclusively showed she was not raped. She falsely accused three innocent men of raping her. She filed a false police report. That is a crime.
Sidney
In case you haven't noticed, the falsely accused Lacrosse players ARE trying to bring to light what happened on March 13. They have filed lawsuits, which means they have opened themselves to discovery of what did happen. Discovery has not happened because defendants like disgraced former DA Mike Nifong and the city of Durham have been desperately trying to avoid discovery.
Why are the defendants in those suits so afraid to go to trial and exonerate themselves.
Why did AG Cooper decide not to prosecute Ms. Mangum for filing a false police report even though he had probable cause to do so?
Why did the carpet bagger jihadists not act against his bid for reelection?
Sidney
What have you done to bring out the activities of the Lacrosse team and of the so called carpet bagger jihad. If what you say is true, they are guilty of multiple crimes and torts. Why have you and your committee not engaged the services of a lawyer to file charges in either civil or criminal court?
For all the upper case anonymous comments:
Typing your clap trap in upper case letters shows you know only how to use the caps lock key on your keyboard.
Anonymous @ August 25, 2010 8:40 PM
Male cow solid excrement.
Anonymous @ August 25, 2010 1:00 PM
I have read the report of AG Cooper and have viewed the video of his announcement.
There is nothing about any theft on the part of any member of the Lacrosse team.
Are you a drinker who has been cut off from his supply? One feature of Delerium Tremens is seeing things that are not there. Just ask physician Sidney Harr.
Sidney
In case you have not noticed, what happened at 610 Buchanan Avenue on the night of March 13 to March 14 has already come to light.
The party was not the out of control drunken orgy you misrepresent it to be.
Neither stripper did anything particularly worth oogling.
No sexual assault was perpetrated on Crystal Mangum;
Anonymous @ August 23, 2010 5:19 PM
By your comment, you are accusing Crystal Mangum and Kim Pittman of being prostitutes.
Sidney
If you and your committee really had credible evidence that Ms. Mangum was raped, you would have retained a trial lawyer on her behalf. The trial lawyer would have recognized the evidence was credible, would have realized the chance of a 7 or possibly 8 figure recovery, and would have taken the case on a contingency fee basis.
If that had happened, there would have been now an ongoing lawsuit by Ms. Mangum against her alleged assailants. If the evidence were credible, her alleged assailants would be scrambling to settle before discovery.
None of that has happened. Ergo, you do admit that there is no credible evidence that any sexual assault was ever perpetrated against Ms. Mangum.
Please explain
"Prosecute Ms. Mangum for what? What law did she break with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case?"
According to one of your anonymous posters (Aug 23rd, 5:19), Ms. Mangum could be prosecuted for prostitution.
Who dragged Crystal into the bathroom and attacked her?
Were her assailants the same ones who stole her money?
You know all those white boys look alike to the colored people.
"Who dragged Crystal into the bathroom and attacked her?
Were her assailants the same ones who stole her money?"
No One
"If I'm not mistaken, she was the victim."
You are mistaken
Since this IS the Justice4Nifong site, I'll quote Mr. Nifong one more time:
"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party."
So, yes, Sid, you are mistaken --
No rape, assault,robbery...No crime, no victim. Don't like it? Take it up with Nifong....
Hey, I just read they arrested CGM again for violating the terms of her bail arrangement.
Wonder whether Hammond and Hammond will lose part of their money?
Bail set at $150,000 now.
The court is tired of CGM's bullshit, and isn't likely to care about her excuses.
Incidentally, Sidney, the picture they have of CGM in today's N&O is much better than the one you have in the J4N site. You should consider changing it.
Sidney
You wrote "...to [prosecute Ms. Mangum for filing a false police report] would bring to light the questionable actions of the beer-guzzling, stripper-oogling Duke lacrosse party-goers. Neither the attorney general nor the Carpetbaggers want that to come out in court."
Incidentally, the proper spelling is ogling, not oogling.
On the one hand you say the carpet bagger jihad is a powerful entity which was able to get Michael Nifong removed from the case, to get him charged with multiple ethics violations, to get him disbarred, to get him convicted of criminal contempt of court. You say the jihadists got Brian Meehan's wrongful termination suit against DNA Security dismissed. You say the jihadists had Crystal Mangum arrested and imprisoned on trumped up charges, were responsible for her bail set so high. You allege that the jihadists control the legal system in North Carolina.
On the other hand you say, if Crystal Mangum had been charged with filing a false police report, the jihadists would have been unable to prevent information unfavorable to them from coming out in court.
Does anyone besides me see an inconsistency here?
Sidney, in your own words, what does this mean: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
OOOPS!!!
I see I used the incorrect "oogling" in a comment rather than the correct "ogling".
Send me to the blackboard to write 500 times Ogling, not Oogling.
Great work with Crystal, Sid....We see now that following the sage advice of the J4N crowd is NOT a good idea.
Anonymous @ August 26, 2010 11:13 AM
You must write on the board, I Ogle, not oogle.
Sidney, in your own words, tell us what Mister Nifong meant when he said to Benjamin Himan, You know we're f----d".
Regarding Anonymous @ August 26, 2010 11:09 AM
Sidney, don't you see how powerful and influential the jihadists are? Are they preventing Ms. Mangum from revealing information about the so called beer-guzzling lacrosse players?(sarcasm smiley)
If they are so powerful and influential, why did they not express their displeasure at Mr. Cooper's decision not to prosecute her?
Why would the jihadists be so concerned about unfavorable information back then and so unconcerned now?
Anonymous @ August 25, 2010 1:00 PM
A couple of unadulterated facts are that Crystal Mangum was not raped, The men she accused were wrongfully prosecuted, and Mr. Nifong never charged them with theft.
Take it up the butt
with a lacrosse stick
Durham taxpayers.
They's big money to be made
wid all these lawsuits.
We ain't gonna let no two-bit
nigga ho get in are way.
Thank you for the correct spelling of "ogle."
The blog posted today, August 26th, has to deal with the admirable attributes of Mike Nifong... a true "Minister of Justice."
Sid -- In "Million Dollar bail...a case comparison - Part 11", you stated that Mr. Tart was just placed on house arrest and was not given bond.
Another poster has challenged you on this. This poster apparently knows Mr. Tart and knew the victim as well, and has stated that Mr. Tart's family paid his bail.
You need to either provide evidence to support YOUR side of this story, or apologize for your lack of information AND correct the erroneous statements you have made
Anonymous @ August 26, 2010 12:32 PM and August 26, 2010 12:52 PM
T/o repeat, an ad hominem attack happens when someone confronts a truth which he does not want to confront and which he can neither refute nor deny.
Sidney
Your blog for today does not show any of Mike Nifong's admirable attributes because he has demonstrated none. While you may believe differently, your opinion has absolutely no weight, especially in view of the established facts.
Are you sure an ad hominem attack
isn't when lacrosse players beat up faggots ?
Anonymous @ August 26, 2010 9:00 PM
An ad hominem attack example is when someone who irrationally hates the Duke Men's Lacrosse team says, "Are you sure an ad hominem attack isn't when lacrosse players beat up faggots ?"
Post a Comment