Friday, June 22, 2007

Eviscerated

In these exchanges, Lane Williamson overpowered Nifong attorney Dudley Witt, whose case was so weak that he almost sounded as if he were making arguments for the prosecution.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suspect that Nifong's lawyers, after reviewing the evidence against him, advised him to surrender his license and forego the Bar hearing. Nifong, pigheaded to the end, insisted on going forward, and his lawyers were left to try and defend the indefensible. It's a whole lot easier to defend someone you like and believe in, than it is to defend an arrogant SOB who's clearly guilty, and who won't listen to anything you try to tell him. I agree that Nifong's lawyers weren't very compelling in their arguments on his behalf, but I think their client got exactly the kind of representation he deserved.

Anonymous said...

KC, this dissection of the hearing video is really above and beyond the call of duty. Fantastic work.

jamil hussein said...

I think the DA has a strong case here. Just wait until he reveals his shock evidence!

Nifong's hat trick said...

Nifong's obligation was to find out the truth, end of story!

And, what's with Nifong wanting to try the case the "old fashioned way?" Does the "old fashioned way" allow you to ignore evidence?

Perhaps Nifong would like his own case tried the "old fashioned way" like they did in "Hang 'em High!"

Anonymous said...

NEWS BULLETIN

There is a highly defamatory article about the Duke lacrosse case in current issue of the online journal Black Athlete Sports Network. The defamatory author is--get this--an assistant professor of management at Syracuse University. I've already contacted the chancellor and his chair.

Please visit the management dept at the Syracuse site. Click on Corporate Sponsors. I've already spoken to the following, so don't bother calling them:

Steven Barnes--Bain Capital
Colleen Arnold--IBM
Joanne Hill--Goldman Sachs

I'd appreciate it if posters would contact other sponsors, as I'm on deadline today.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

addendum

autor of article is Boyce Watkins. Title of article has "Dukes of Hazzard" in it.

Sorry--P

Anonymous said...

acrosse Attorneys File Motion for Criminal Charges Against Nifong
Duke_Lacrosse

Posted: Today at 10:02 a.m.
Updated: 10 minutes ago

Durham — Defense attorneys for three former Duke lacrosse players have filed a motion asking a Durham judge to hold former District Attorney Mike Nifong in contempt of court.

mb said...

Polanski,

Don't bother with the Chancellor of Syracuse, Nancy Cantor - she's a feminazi of the worst kind. Her record at Illinois, and before that at Michigan, proves her to be as PC as they get in academia, and that's saying a lot.

You're wasting your time with this one.

Anonymous said...

Polanski--I read that article. The author made clearly false and defamatory about these boys--including that they had a "habit" of denigrating black women" which is a lie.

Why do black people always get away with this kind of thing? How did that get past an editor? It's blatant racism and that guy ought to lose his job.

Those boys need to contact libel lawyer Linn Wood out of Atlanta and start making some money off their ordeal.

BobC

Anonymous said...

Sorry Polanski... I didn't perceive that Dr. Watkins opinion piece was defamatory. It was stupid, but not defamatory.

For example, Dr. Watkins wrote "But it is also quite conceivable that the rich and powerful parents of these privileged students, who have spent millions in legal fees and have millions in their bank accounts have "persuaded" this struggling single mother to step to the side."

His statement is as stupid and unsupportable as me saying that because Dr. Watkins is a man of color, it is quite conceivable that he only achieved his PhD and position as a Professor at SU because of racial preferences, and not because of the thousands of hours he spent studying and researching.

I don't believe my contrived and completely unsupportable statement for a second, nor do I believe his. It was written for shock value, nothing more. Perhaps he is bored with teaching and wants to replace Opie and Anthony on XM or Howard Stern on Sirius?

Joe K

Anonymous said...

Joe K,

Can you read? He accused Collin, David and Reade of being "rowdy frat boy alcoholics who abuse women of color." Two actionable statements in 1 sentence.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Joe--I believe a good lawyer could show that these boys have never had a single racial complaint filed against them, EVER, so that clown's statement was FALSE--and in the current racist storm surrounding these boys (the death threats, the intimidation, ect) I think mental anguish and duress would be easy to prove.

And one other thing--I am so tired of the lies about these boys being millionaires. One of them had to borrow 400k from a family friend just to defend himself legally, which is odd behaviour for a guy with "millions in his pocket." Also--what is this 'struggling single mother" crap? She is a drug addicted prostitute/stripper who makes $800 per party--which is, I'm sure, more than most people reading this forum make. Just the idea that this clown tries to make her sound noble is just outrageous. Where is her child when she's getting falling-down-drunk and stripping and servicing her four males in one night?

Unbelievable. Don Imus loses his entire career over a stupid comment, but this kind of crap gets down-played and excuses get made! I am so tired of the double standard.

BobC

Anonymous said...

Polanski:

You may be right... I'm not a lawyer... I read that line as a joke, as satire in the overall context of Dr. Watkins article.

Rather than going after Watkins, the root claim of his piece revolves around the false accuser. And if you like conspiracy theory, like Watkins seems to, it is reasonable in that context to ask the question: Why haven't the families gone after the false accuser? Those who regularly follow this blog understand the practical reasons against this course of action. But the downside of not pursuing her is that it leaves an avenue open to conspiracy theorists.

And to answer your question, yes, I can read.

Joe K

Anonymous said...

See the Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal today with respect to the just desserts of Nifong and no corresponding sanctions on Fitzpatrick for persuing a frivolous and unfounded prosecution of Libby where there was no underlying crime and with knowledge on the part of Fitzpatrick that no underlying had been committed.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

Heck, just send the link to Cheshire--he'll get them sued, I hope!

Anonymous said...

Polanski:

What's the article????? Who's the author?????

Anonymous said...

Joe--I feel they SHOULD go after the accuser. They aren't going to because they implied (in several interviews) that they feel Magnum is mentally ill. She accused an ex-boyfriend of rape a while ago, so apparently that means she's just crazy to some people. I see her as vindictive and evil--but then again a lot of people treat women like children. Maybe I'm too mean, but I hate double standards--always have. If we can hold a man accountable for his actions (Nifong) then Magnum oughtta pay as well.

I wonder why she gets a free pass? Is it because she's a woman or is it because she's black? I look at her as a really, really bad example of parenthood as well--and I have to say that if she were white people would be saying what is this woman doing having a child?

BobC

Chitwahn O'Donnell said...

KC, I gotta be honest. I'm not sure that this guy's lack of ability as a lawyer is a suitable subject for this blog.

What are we to learn from this? This guy's just a crappy lawyer? OK.....

Anonymous said...

The Syracuse professor article is at the Black Athlete Sports Network site. Author is Boyce Watkins. Article is within the Top Stories box at the top of homepage. Article has "Dukes of Hazzard" in title.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Bob C: Agree families should go after Magnum. I think it is necessary for closure, but it will take time and money.

Back to Dr. Watkins, whose home page is at the following:

http://whitman.syr.edu/facstaff/bowatkin/

He has a link to his media appearances here:

http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/bowatkin/

And one of his media links has him on a CNBC talk show called Donny Deutsch, which is a talking head shout fest:

http://www.blackmanbush.com/donny.mp4

You might be able to directly play the .mp4, but if not, convert it to a .mp3 on-line at:

http://media-convert.com/convert/

and you can play it on your PC.

Listening to his appearance, he appears to be a shock-value-media-and-attention-prostitute-nutjob like Nancy Grace and the others.

Joe K

Anonymous said...

excerps from Nifong Trial Lets The 'Dukes Of Hazzard' Off The Hook

by Boyce Watkins, boycewatkins@blackathlete.com

"Since the trial took place, these guys have received high paying jobs on Wall Street, heroic half-time docudramas on national television, and an unprecedented extra year of eligibility from the NCAA.

Most accused and acquitted rapists don't get such royal treatment. I can't help but compare this case to the O.J. trial 13 years ago. In both cases, you had an athlete allegedly committing a heinous crime against someone of another race and gender, serious misconduct on the part of the accusing parties, and a questionable history for the alleged victim."

"The woman in the Duke trial was portrayed as a ghetto hoochie slut with no future, taking advantage of clean cut college students.What's the difference here?

I believe something happened in that house. The contentiousness was evident from the witnesses who saw the men yelling the n-word at the women as they were leaving the party.

The men were rowdy and drunk, and even they may not remember what they did that night. Let's be clear about another fact: Being found not guilty is quite different from being found innocent.

I do not believe these guys were innocent.

Since the alleged victim's story changed, she has gone into hiding and hasn't said a word in public. It could be because she is a liar or had amnesia. But it is also quite conceivable that the rich and powerful parents of these privileged students, who have spent millions in legal fees and have millions in their bank accounts have "persuaded" this struggling single mother to step to the side.

After all, she was stripping to pay her way through college, so they could probably bribe her with the money in their glove compartments.

Is it my right to believe that something happened that night, in spite of their acquittal? Yes, it is. That is exactly what America has done to O.J. Simpson. The Duke Boys are not innocent victims.

They are rowdy, disrespectful, thuggish frat boy alcoholics who abuse women of color. They are also, ironically, the future leaders of our country. They live in the same spirit as President Bush, and reflect everything that is wrong with America.

I'm done now, you now have my permission to get angry."

Thanks for permission to be angry. I would be angry at Syracuse but I have more sense than to allow my son to attend either Syracuse or Duke.

DNA evidence has no place in a court of law does it Dr. Watkins? It is only useful when it proves YOUR case. If something happened as you contend, why was the DNA of four other men (none of whom was a white LAX player) found in or on DGM's body. Did you realize that the white LAX players had their DNA tested or did that fact elude you? Does it matter in the least that Reade Seligmann had documented evidence to show that he could NOT have been at the phantom rape. Did it occur to you that the one who was identified as drunk to the point of passing out was CGM (documented by her partner)? I'm sure Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty will be glad to know that they already have exclusive Wall Street jobs. Can you give us the employers who are paying them these millions that you imply they are earning? Have you checked with your pal Jesse to see if he's cut the check to CGM for her education? OJ may be innocent. I wasn't privvy to all the facts, only the ones that came out in the trial. It seems to me that he had a million dollar defense as well. Do you decry his money for the defense team as well?
You are no better than the lynch mobs of 100 years ago. Your attitude seems to be don't confuse me with the facts. I believe something happened in that house. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Yes you are. It would appear that your sphincter has put such a choke hold on your air supply that your brain has now atrophied. Something did happen that night--there was a party. Yes the guys were wrong to hire a stripper. CGM was wrong to sell her body for money (don't give me the poor little black girl argument--there are plenty of honest, decent jobs that she could have gotten).
You and the G88 are shining examples of what's wrong with academia. Morally bankrupt but filled with attitude. Our society will never get beyond race or gender problems as long as hatred is espoused by people like you and the 88. Whites and males by no means have a lock on racism and sexism. That's obvious by reading your article.
AF

james conrad said...

as a native of washington d.c., a place where, if one throws a rock out the window, you'll kill a lawyer, i agree with the first poster on this thread, no lawyer, no matter their talent, was going to be in a position to defend nifong. how does one defend incompetence and stupidity? and williamson rightly points out that even if that was the case, how is the public protected by continuing to allow nifong to practice?

Anonymous said...

I wonder why she gets a free pass? Is it because she's a woman or is it because she's black?

The core of any case against a false accuser is that s/he knew or should have known the charges were false. It's the knowing that makes the charging malicious and therefore actionable.

Chesire and the other defense lawyers have already addressed this issue, as did Williamson in the Nifong hearing (albeit briefly IIRC). Magnum quite likely BELIEVED her stories, each one of them, when she was telling them. And if she didn't, her mental illness makes it impossible to argue that she must have known the accusations were false.

THAT is why she has not been and will not be prosecuted or sued. The legal case cannot be made - period.

TaterCon said...

WRAL's website has the full 43 page motion posted re:Defense motion to find Nifong in Contempt of Court.

Anonymous said...

3:11

No one seriously believes Mangum believed her lies--no one!

Do you seriously believe that garden-variety manic depression is a mitigating factor here?

The bottom line is that society is afraid to punish women--and especially black women.

In other words, we treat them like children--at our own peril.

To reiterate, there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that Mangum was psychotic at the time she concocted her BS story.

If you have some credible evidence, please share it.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Joe--they won't go after Magnum because she will claim poverty and will never pay a dime. It will cost more to sue her than they will ever recoup.

BUT-magnum needs to be prosecuted for her false allegations. Maybe her kid will be better off if Mommy goes to jail.

bobC

Anonymous said...

Do you suppose Freedman and DimWitt
are the attorneys of choice for the criminal contempt and civil rights violations trials? Are they still representing him, and if not, who wants to step up NOW and defend him against the coming suits? How is he going to pay them?

Anonymous said...

Magnum quite likely BELIEVED her stories, each one of them, when she was telling them. And if she didn't, her mental illness makes it impossible to argue that she must have known the accusations were false.

That's ridiculous. Only if she is chronically delusional. Are you suggesting she was and continues to be grossly psychotic? She's a sociopathic druggie prostitute, for God's sake, and not very bright to boot. She suffers from nothing that would impair her from telling the truth.

Nice try at trying to cop a mental illness defense for her. Too bad it won't fly.

Anonymous said...

"Do you suppose Freedman and DimWitt
are the attorneys of choice for the criminal contempt and civil rights violations trials? ...How is he going to pay them?"

-----

Fredman is one of very few attorneys specializing in defense of legal vermin in State Bar proceedings. My guess is that neither he nor Nifong much wishes to extend the representation into other arenas.

It won't surprise me if Nifong chooses to represent himself at the contempt hearing -- to paraphrase B. Franklin, it will serve him right to have "an asshole for a lawyer".

Nifong may not be independently wealthy, but he is not poor, and never will be. He will collect a vested pension of about $60,000 per year for life, and those funds are immune from garnishment in any lawsuit(except for child support).

So far, Nifong's only "punishment" is a comfortable, early retirement.That's why he needs real punishment -- in prison.

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that this will happen -- even though the evidence is compelling. The "powers that be" are the sort of people who think that taking away a guy's law license is simply the most horrific, most crushing and degrading humiliation that a human can endure, and they will not have the stomach to give Nifong what he really deserves. I hope I'm dead wrong about that.

Anonymous said...

Two things:

KC, why are you directing what appears to be personal criticism towards Witt? Given what he had to work with, how could he make respectable arguments?

It is certainly not appropriate to judge Witt merely for being Nifong's advocate in a disciplinary hearing, but from my view, you come close to doing exactly that. You can certainly criticize his performance, but, honestly, is that fair given what he had to work with. Once Nifong decided to contest the charges, there was nothing else Witt could do, other than withdraw as counsel (which creates another negative inerence about his client). So, what's your beef with Witt? If you don't like his arguments, please tell me which arguments he could have possibly used to defend Nifong?

Second, re: Mangum comments on this board. I am a little surprised by the continued calls for her head.

Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a reasonable argument that she should be charged. And I am not saying Roy Cooper would have been wrong if he had charged her. But remember, one of Nifong's many sins was improperly using his discretion and power to bring charges in this case. Roy Cooper did the opposite, he looked at all the facts and in deciding to declare the players totally innocent, he also used his discretion not to bring charges against Mangum based on his own investigation. He decided that it was not in the best interests of justice to pursue a prosecution of Mangum. Is that improper? Why is it being questioned? It seems odd to (correctly) bash Nifong for his lack of discretion but then implicitly question Cooper (by saying Mangum should be charged) for using his discretion in trying to reach a just conclusion.

Anonymous said...

It isn't about the truth, and it never has been. Nothing is going to convince people like Watkins and Cantor of any innocense on the part of the three lacrosse players or the lacrosse team itself. It is about their own world view and a deceitful racism at its heart. The evil Cantors, Watkins, the Ward Churchills and their ilk have a field day with this sort of thing. The truth is not as important to them as is a purpose to do evil. Their efforts are perverse but effective. The big lie often is, and it is interesting that their vapid, vocuous rantings are protected by a larger society that they seem to despise. No other society would tolerate them or fear them.

Anonymous said...

4:14

I'm not sure I understood your post. Are you suggesting that there should be outrage against Cooper for not indicting Mangum?

If that's what you were writing, I agree with you. Cooper is a PC bitch, right up there with Brodhead.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

If Freedman is one of very few specializing in defense in State Bar cases, and he has Witt as an associate....how bad must the NOT good ones be? This is his SPECIALTY?????

Anonymous said...

whore

Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hOre; akin to Old Norse hOra whore, hOrr adulterer, Latin carus dear -- more at CHARITY

1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money

This black whore made a calculated decision to falsely accuse these 3 people. Her goal was money. So let us stop making mitigating statements regarding her mental state - other than the fact that she's a dumb black whore.

Anonymous said...

People like Watkins have one huge
blind-spot going here, and one which we all know and have known. Not one of those Lacrosse players was EVER EVER EVER going to touch one of those black prostitutes....not when they had their pick of beautiful, intelligent, educated and available white young ladies. Didn't have to, didn't want to, wouldn't get paid to get diseased...NEVER NEVER NEVER. That is why white on black rape is virtually unheard of. Face it Watkins...ain't no way they'd touch one of those. EVER

Anonymous said...

I think Nifong shouldn't be prosecuted, because he might have believed his own lies.

That's absurd--nobody'd say such a thing. But people say Magnum isn't responsible. What is the difference?

Earl Hofert said...

Here is Dr. Boyce Watkins' website:

Watkins

This guy does black folk no favors. The article is defamatory, and one wonders how its author became a professor of finance. (Affirmative action?)

Anonymous said...

From Watkins site:

“The People’s Scholar” presents a mix of Financial Theory, social commentary, and down-to-earth socio-political thought that is essentially unprecedented within American Business Schools. He is also the host of the national radio show "Boiling Hot with Boyce Watkins", a fast-paced current events show aimed for an African-American audience.

Another moronic race baiting pimp as a diversity hire. Typical. Hello, Syracuse College, this clown really add to your academic integrity?

When responsible parents take seriously where they pay their hard earned tuition money, refuse to subsidize fools and hold the administration's feet to the flames, these con artists will disappear.

Anonymous said...

That's ridiculous. Only if she is chronically delusional. Are you suggesting she was and continues to be grossly psychotic?

Yes, 3:59, that is exactly what I am suggesting. What is known publicly about her diagnosis is quite consistent with persistent delusions on this topic and not necessarily on EVERY topic.

That's not ridiculous. It's an unfortunately all-too-common component in mental illnesses that stop short of putting someone in an institution against their will.

You speak from ignorance compounded by anger. The latter is understandable. The former is something you should be ashamed of, if you insist on passing judgement in areas where you aren't knowledgeable.

Anonymous said...

What is known publicly about her diagnosis is quite consistent with persistent delusions on this topic and not necessarily on EVERY topic.

So, Magnum is delusional only on a specific topic, the rape "topic" that could bring her public rebuke or a perjury charge, wow, what a convenient mental disorder. Delusions of convenience don't square with anything within the DSM IV, but, why let facts stand in your way.


It's an unfortunately all-too-common component in mental illnesses that stop short of putting someone in an institution against their will.

You aren't making any sense. And, I'm not the least bit angry. My comments reflect common sense and my clinical experience.

Anonymous said...

If you know the DSM IV then you know that patients with schizo affective disorder are a) often misdiagnosed as bipolar and b) quite often manifest persistent delusions.

Anonymous said...

I do know the DSM, Magnum was most likely a personality disorder fueled by drug dependence.

Schizoaffective, hardly. She is not a schizophrenic. Her behavior is not consistent with that disorder.

Why are you so invested in her having a major mental disorder?

Anonymous said...

Is Negro thug disorder in DSM?