"-only ersatz drivel known as the "Buzz" when read, was so full of distortions, inaccuracies, and all-out falsehoods, one could only rank the ramblings of the writers with the screed of Nifong himself. Let us look at each section and expose the distortions. WARNING! This is somewhat LONG (because there are MANY).The alleged victim was continually described simply as a stripper or as the “accuser.” The young men on the other hand, were seen in three 60 Minutes interviews together or with their families. It was clear – these boys were “our boys” in the public eye, while the alleged victim was not.
Not even out of the first paragraph and already this is blatantly false. First off, the Ed Bradley interview of the did not appear until October of 2006. What were they referred to that point? "Our boys?" Hardly: From Nancy Grace ("gang rapists") Mike Nifong ("hooligans") , anti-Semitic, racist Houston Baker ("farm animals") and so on.
Or how about the NC Carolina equivalent of the "independent" media Buzz-like trash, the Independent Weekly which describes them as "crass" goes on to quote Peter Wood, rabid leftist Duke professor as "arrogant, callous, dismissive--you could almost say openly hostile." (The claims by Wood and IW were later discredited by a committee headed by Prof. James Coleman.)
Samina Khanna perhaps the worst in the News & Observer made statements about the lacrosse players not even close to accurate (even while the rest of the press could claim Nifong's with holdings at fault). No Khanna went even farther to withhold information about Mangum. This includes Kim Roberts (the other stripper who, unlike Mangum, was sober and not high during the event) who called Mangum's account "a crock".
What about Drape, who actually did support the players in the New York Times. Did they stand by "our boys" as the writers say? I'm sure Duff Wilson, who Bill Keller replaced him with could answer that.
Nor do the authors, who in the second section fall into the Richard Brodhead, "Whatever they did is bad enough..." faux attitude, make any reference to Kim Curtis, who engaged in capricious grading against the non-accused players, or Wendy Murphy (a favorite of Grace) who made malicious lies, including but not limited to refusal to submit to DNA tests or to talk to prosecutors. In truth, all team members submitted to at least two tests by the time Mangum finally got around to deciding (finally) on which of the three had "raped" her. Wantland and Sanger should also look at comments made by hack Irvin Joyner or Rev. Barber. Yet worst of all, examine the way Duke's own faculty treated "our boys" in their anonymous source-based add about protesters calling for castration, burning down buildings, and worse, and-"thanking them for not waiting" and to hell with due process and presumption of innocence. None of course means anything to Sanger nor Wantland, who are "not legal experts" (the first statement they make that is true. And the last).
Ironically, who do they point to as their legal source? Left-wing commentator/operator Susan Estrich who originally criticized the slamming of Mangum by the defense, later after eating much crow, called her "A Liar. " Another former rape victim Ruth Sheehan in the News and Observer wrote a sincere apology for her screed early on. We need not quote her, she speaks well enough herself. It is amazing that the most hard line victim of rape, would give one of the greatest compliments to the victims of false accusation. Not that it would matter much to Sanger nor Wantland who are not "legal experts" nor does is seem about the statements of journalists who were once raped themselves.
When a a case is dropped, this doesn't mean it was "false" (a lie), so much as "unsubstantiated" (not enough evidence). Simply because something cannot be legally proved, does not mean it didn't happen.
Laughable. For people who claim not to be "legal experts" they sure were right! If the two had bothered to do any research at all on this topic, the significance of AG Roy Coopers proclamation would have made this statement unnecessary. Cooper did not declare the "charges dropped" because of lack of evidence of a rape. He declared them "Innocent" with a capital I due to the overwhelming evidence that there was no rape. You don't need to be legal experts (and we certainly are not) to notice the difference. Cooper all based this, anyone who later reads why he did not bring perjury and false incrimination charges against Mangum, not only on the DNA tests showing that everyone BUT the players had slept with Mangum, but also upon Mangum drug use, not to mention her previous felony conviction, and even a previous attempt by Mangum to use the rape card to frame someone.
[Researchers] in trauma say that "all the perpetrator asks is that we do nothing," while the victim asks that we believe and acknowledge the pain experience.
Considering the amount of Seroquel, it was unlike she could experience any pain of any kind other than weight gain, headaches, and dry throat (not that this means much to Sanger nor Wantland, who along with not being legal experts probably are not pharmacology experts either). And of course they gloss over the role of SANE nurse Tara Levicy who (if Mangum did not commit perjury) definitely did.
Actually we take that back-a mistake on our part.
Levicy was not a nurse. She was a nurse in training.
Yet, someone who claimed, as Sanger and Wantland believe, "believed that no woman who said she was raped ever lied," could hardly be (if one reads the link above) a credible source for medical reports. The doctor (Manley) who actually took the medical records of Mangum noted "no sign of rape" and that her [Ms. Mangum's head], back, neck, chest, breast, nose, throat, mouth, abdomen, and upper and lower extremities were all "normal." Only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, something caused by several sources including, recent sexual intercourse, drinking, drug use. Mangum, prior to the party, had done all of these. Not that this matters much to Sanger nor Wantland, besides not being "legal experts" seem not to be experts in reproductive physiology. Remember: they wish to focus on the sexual assault.
After getting caught in passing off notably false (ie, according to Sanger and Wantlands definition: lies) medical reporting. The real clincher came out. Was Levicy even medically qualified? Hardly, turns out as KC Johnson writes, "Her undergraduate degree, from the University of Maine, came in women’s studies—the discipline that produced copious Group of 88 members, and home of feminist law theory, which contends that women never lie about rape." So reprehensible was inSANE Levicy, that she has a whole lawsuit to herself!
The reality is-we weren't in the room. We do not know what happened.
Actually you two, we do. And if you were reading thus far you would know that given Kim Roberts testimony (especially), very little if anything of Crystal's story is valid. What's more, we know that the one Mangum named specifically during the lineup (Reade Seligmann) had an impeachable alibi. Not that this means much to Sanger nor Wantland, who are not "legal experts." We may not know all that happened in the house, but we do know quite well what did not happen:
Sexual Assault (Rape).
In workshops Ross has facilitated, groups will estimate 20-30 percent (*source?*) of all allegations sexual assault (rape) are false. Recent research suggests that the actual reports are likely quite low, between 2-8%.
What research? "Likely quite low?" Not only limited to this section but throughout the article the writers rely on pithy qualifiers such as "often" "suggests" "likely" and so on. What is this research that Ross reports that the rate is two to eight-percent? We are not told. Who did it? Perhaps it is Sanger or Wantland's own?
Unlikey, given the amount of research given to this simple topic they have demonstrated. In addition, one would think that as brazenly arrogant of people to dismiss the facts of the Duke case as they are, the writers would have no problem citing their own work. The only search found of that type of number comes from Susan Brownmiller and a Ms. column citing reseach by Mary Koss. "Recent research" you say? If you consider the 1990s (Koss) or 1975(!) (Brownmiller) "recent." Heather MacDonald (who remarks on these studies), however, does cite some recent research including disappointing rape reports (for the feminist rape industry member that is) that are required by federal law to be reported by universities. Not that it means anything to Sanger nor Wantland, who are not "legal experts."
So why does this event scare them so that they feed us with false (lies) answers? The Duke scandal represents a threat the the rape industry. Ideological, pseudo-academic yokels (like Duke's own faculty cheerleaders like Davidson, Lubiano, Halloway, and Deutsch) with thinner publications and vitas than anorexic teenagers are entrenched around the country, in classrooms, seminars, workshops (like Ross). They are literally making a living, like snake-oil salesmen, by peddling their cure all potions-namely that we should all feel guilty instead of false (lying) accusers. Like the Tara Levicy's, their dubious authority is more to them than the facts. If anything Doin it Well should be thanking "our boys" from saving Mangum (notice how throughout this entire article of theirs we must satisfy ourselves with some sort of "She who must not be named" folly?) from, in addition to lying, drug abuse, prostitution, theft, also perjury. Instead of calling out Mangum, they cover her, and now make it more difficult for real rape victims to speak out. And when they do, what happens?
Let's go back to Duke to find out:
A real rape occurs at a black fraternity at Duke. How does Duke respond? Brodhead refused to meet with the victim even once. Meanwhile Duke Provost Larry Moneta, who illegally gave police code authorization to the police to search all the lacrosse players dorms, the anti-Semitic Sheldon Hackney lackey, who tried to railroad a student (with the help of Houston Baker) at U Penn for daring to call riotous rousers "water buffaloes" blames the victim saying ""part of the reality of collegiate life and of experimentation and some of the consequences of students not always being in the right place at the right time." Where was the media on this one? Where were Sanger and Wantland?
Having published all this hitherto, we must nonetheless acknowledge the fact that the writers did indeed take the time to even address the subject-one that most universities and academics are avoiding like the plague that PC has in turn first infected the nation. Nevertheless, given the nature of journalistic duplicity and malpractice that has been a hallmark of the Dailly Illini (who's parent company also runs the Buzz which the column appears in), we must take their undertaking with a grain of salt the size of the Dead Sea. After all, given the sublime editing of Illiomedia, how do we know if that was even the question put forth by "Mr. T." If he is out there, perhaps he can tell us. We would love to know.
Therefore in response to a column that has withhold almost as much exculpatory evidence as Nifong himself did, with so many false (lies) statement's, we name "Doin it Well" as TASSers of the highest order.
Posted by Hound No. 2
