Nicholas Stix` Absolutely Definitive Account Of The Incredible Disappearing Duke Rape Hoax

Ten months into one of the most dramatic racial rape
hoaxes in American history, the suspects still can`t get
their lies straight.

By suspects, I do not mean defendants Reade Seligmann,
Collin Finnerty, or Dave Evans. They`re the crime
victims. The suspects are Durham, NC DA Mike Nifong who
finally backed off on

Friday asked North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper
to appoint a special prosecutor in the case;
Durham
Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb; Duke University President

Richard Brodhead
, various Duke administrators; the
almost 100 professors (including the Duke
88
“;
) who sought to have the victims railroaded,
and who incited hatred against them; the socialist

MSM
; hoaxer Crystal Gail Mangum; and assorted John
and Jane Does.

It would easy for readers who have not obsessively
followed the case to have filled in the gaps in their
memories with something like, `Well, the police and
prosecutors thought there was a rape, but the case fell
apart, and then they didn`t want to admit it`
So let
me indicate at the outset the most important facts you
need to know about this case.

  1. There was immediately ample reason to disbelieve
    accuser Crystal Gail Mangum, then 27, and no reason to
    believe her; the first police officer to have contact
    with her in the wee hours of March 14, Durham PD

    Sgt. J.C. Shelton
    , took her for a liar who was
    faking unconsciousness before she even spoke, and again
    caught her lying minutes after she did speak);
     
  2. .. Even if one initially accepted Mangum`s story
    of rape on the night of March 14, her countless
    contradictions, suspicious behavior and all, that story
    was thoroughly contradicted by the first DNA test
    results, which came back from the lab either on

    April 4
    or sometime between April 4 and 10; and
     
  3. There is no three. The next step for Durham DA
    Mike Nifong would have been to announce that there was
    no crime, and to consider whether to charge Mangum with
    making a false police report.

I recommend those curious as to what transpired that
night to consult the encyclopedic timeline provided by


The Johnsville News
, which shows that the
defendants had no opportunity to rape the accuser, in
conjunction with the police and medical reports on

Mangum`s conduct
at Kroger`s grocery, the Durham
Access Center and

Duke University Medical Center (DUMC)
(see also

here
), and the negative DNA results.

As (former?) Nifong supporter, Durham criminal
defense lawyer

Mark Edwards
, told the Raleigh News & Observer
on June 23, "Unless [Nifong] has a player from
the team who is going to testify that this rape
occurred, there is no way he will win this case and
there is no way this case should have ever been
brought."

The various guilty parties are now in a mad dash to
put new cover stories into circulation, and send their
original stories

down the memory hole,
in order to protect themselves
from public backlash, civil suits, and in some cases,
criminal prosecution.

The rape charges were thrown out on December 22, and
Prosecutor from Hell Mike Nifong is now defendant
Nifong, charged by the North Carolina Bar with ethics
violations.

So the Duke Three are home free … right? And even if
the case goes to trial, they`ll be acquitted by the jury
in minutes, right?

Wrong and wrong. Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans, and
Collin Finnerty, 20, 23, and 19 respectively, at the
time of the March 14 non-rape, are still charged with
first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping,
and thus remain in danger of spending up to 31 years in
prison.

Besides, it is not an acceptable response to
prosecutorial misconduct to say, as some people have,
including Duke University President

Richard Brodhead
, [send
him


mail
] to let
the trial be held and the players have the chance to be
"proved innocent." As K.C. Johnson, the CUNY
Brooklyn College historian who has been the

Emile Zola
of the Duke Rape Hoax

observed
, Brodhead et al., were "turning on its
head 220 years of

American constitutional history.
"

In the American criminal justice system, it is
illegal for a prosecutor to charge anyone with a
non-existent crime. And it is not the prerogative of any
jury to decide the fate of falsely charged defendants.

The only "crime" the three defendants are
guilty of, is of being white, heterosexual men. If those
three young white men go to trial in Durham, they may
suffer the obverse side of jury nullification—"heads
we win, tails you lose"
—being railroaded by a

black-dominated
, racist jury, with white jurors
either excluded or

too cowardly
to do the right thing.

In case you suspect I am exaggerating the danger to
the defendants, consider the words of

Irving Joyner,
[send
him


mail
] a
leading professor of law at accuser Crystal Gail
Mangum`s school, black North Carolina Central University
(NCCU), in Durham. Joyner serves as the

"case monitor" of the
NAACP,
which has continuously supported
the railroading of the white victims.

In June, over two months after the prosecution`s case
had been publicly exposed as non-existent, Joyner told


Sports Illustrated
, "[Nifong] still
has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham."

When K.C. Johnson e-mailed Joyner, asking him why he had
emphasized a jury in Durham,

Joyner responded
:

"A Durham jury may see
things differently than would an Orange or Wake County
jury because the Durham jury will probably have more

African-Americans
on it than would be involved in
most other counties in North Carolina…. This case
originated in Durham and should be tried here."

At the time, Joyner also bragged that the exculpatory
evidence would be thrown out, because of the "rape
shield law and other evidentiary barriers,"
and
spoke approvingly of "the value of [Nifong`s]
evidence,"
even though Joyner had to know at that
point that there was no crime and thus no incriminating
evidence. (Duke Hoax chronicler and Nifong critic

William Anderson
detailed on July 22 how Nifong
could use rape shield laws—yet another abomination we
have feminism to thank for—to railroad the victims.)

"A viable shot at victory"—not, as Nifong
critics K.C. Johnson and

Mike Gaynor
pointed out, a viable case.

"Evidentiary barriers." So much for forensics.

As

K.C. Johnson
pointed out on August 16, the NAACP has
in the case of the Duke Three contradicted every
position it had taken in recent years in defense of
defendants` rights, including its support of a gag
order, in order to stop the victims` attorneys from
defending their clients in the face of Nifong`s
defamatory media campaign; in supporting Nifong`s use of

corrupted photo lineup identifications
; and in
opposing a change of venue, despite the jury pool having
been hopelessly contaminated.

When Johnson wrote to the North Carolina and Duke
University ACLUs three times each, to ask why the
organizations have not protested Nifong`s violation of
the Duke Three`s rights, they refused to comment.

The ACLU ceased being a civil liberties organization
years ago.

And even with the rape charges thrown out, Sports
Illustrated
"legal expert"

Lester Munson
still seeks to

keep the hoax alive:

Munson: From the
beginning, the police and District Attorney Mike Nifong
had no forensic or scientific evidence of a rape….

SI.com: What`s next for the accused Duke
players?

Munson: They still face some serious
charges. There is little doubt that something unsavory
happened at the party on March 13. After the dismissal
of the rape charges, it will be easier for the accused
players to attempt to settle everything with a guilty
plea on lesser charges. The likelihood of a trial on any
of these charges is now greatly reduced.

SI.com: Can the Duke athletes now consider
any action against prosecutor Nifong or the accuser?

Munson: It`s possible that the Duke
athletes and their attorneys may discuss the possibility
of a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Nifong or the
accuser. The wiser course would be to drop any such idea
and seek a final resolution of the remaining charges.

So, after they had then spent nine months
successfully fighting for their lives against one of the
most criminal prosecutions in American history, Munson
[send him

mail
] thought
the Duke Three should just surrender, and do whatever
would save face for Mike Nifong.

Even if one had initially believed the
highly-doctored official story that the players had
raped Mangum, there was never any basis for the charges
of first-degree kidnapping and first-degree sexual
offense. Indeed, the remaining charges are so logically
dependent on the rape charge, that they can no more be
sustained after the rape charge`s dismissal than one can
remain up in a tree after sawing off the branch one is
sitting on.

Only through extreme sophistry can dragging someone
from one room to another within the same apartment be
construed to constitute "kidnapping," and the
sexual offense charge was redundant. As

Paul Craig Roberts
, the co-author with Lawrence M.
Stratton of

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice
has often pointed out, lawless
prosecutors today routinely

pile on illegitimate and redundant charges
, in order
to coerce defendants, whether guilty or innocent, into
accepting a guilty plea on one charge.

Munson`s psychological trump card is the
"something unsavory happened"
line. There is no
crime on federal or North Carolina law books against
committing "something unsavory."

Black racists
and their white allies who want
convictions, the law be damned, have favored variations
on that vague phrase. When Munson used it, he was
reaching out to racist, potential black jurors to
convict men who have not committed any of the crimes
they are charged with. And, as Munson is likely aware,

"something happened"
is also one of the lines
that black supremacist supporters

still use
on behalf of racial rape hoaxer Tawana
Brawley.

And why on earth would Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans
drop all thought of suing Nifong for malicious
prosecution? Each already owes hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal fees, will likely suffer from lifetime
diminished earning power due to the stigma of the case,
and in any event, has a legal and moral right to payment
for his suffering.

The reason Munson wants the persecuted players to
meekly submit to guilty pleas (and likely prison terms),
is because the pleas would require that the players
admit in court to having committed crimes they never
committed, thus making it impossible for them to sue
Nifong for malicious prosecution, and would greatly
reduce the likelihood of Nifong being disbarred and/or
criminally prosecuted. Munson`s advice is wonderful for
Mike Nifong!

I guess as far as Lester Munson is concerned, Reade
Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans don`t count
as human beings endowed with

certain inalienable rights.

One has to understand that for people like Irving
Joyner and Lester Munson, and organizations like the

NAACP
and the

ACLU
, lip-service to legal "principles" is
just a cover for racial/ethnic, sexual, and political
loyalties. For them, the point of all "principles"
and laws is to help their friends and harm their
enemies.

When, for instance, the NAACP has passionately
supported proposed laws protecting defendants` rights,
it did so because it believed that such laws would
benefit black defendants. Since the Duke Three are all
white,

the NAACP has passionately supported the violation of
those very rights.

Nothing short of dropping all of the charges against
Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans "with prejudice"
(meaning the charges may not be reinstated) will be in
the interests of justice.


The Night in Question

Although no rape is now even alleged to have been
committed, since Mangum`s official story is one of rape
and only rape, it is impossible to discuss the case
without discussing her rape charges.

The multiple "rapes" are alleged to have taken
place at some point between 12 midnight and 12:50 a.m.
during the night of March 13-14, at a house rented by
the Duke lacrosse team`s captains at 610 North Buchanan
Boulevard in Durham.

It was the beginning of spring break, and the players
had hired two "exotic dancers," Mangum (who works
under the name "Precious"), who is black, and Kim
Roberts Pittman (who works under the name "Nikki"),
black-Asian and then 31, from an "escort service"
to perform for two hours, at an agreed upon price of
$400 each. The players had asked for one white and one
Hispanic stripper.

Mangum was able to perform for

less than four minutes
(from 12 midnight until
between 12:03 and 12:04 a.m.), at which point the
performance ended, due to her being in a state of
extreme intoxication from having ingested the

dangerous mix
of the muscle relaxant Flexeril and
alcohol. An argument ensued over the unsatisfactory
performance. The women locked themselves in the bathroom
from approximately 12:04-12:20 a.m., before leaving the
house and spending the next thirty minutes outside.

If one consults the

timeline
provided by the The Johnsville News,
replete with time-stamped photos from the party, and
reports by Pittman and next-door neighbor Jason Bissey,
26, from their police and media statements, one will see
that Reade Seligmann had no opportunity to rape Mangum
between her entry into the house at 12 midnight and his
stepping outside, a few minutes after 12:04 a.m., while
she was locked inside the bathroom with Pittman. In any
event, Seligmann was constantly talking on his cell
phone, as he made nine calls between 12:05 and 12:16
a.m., and left in a taxi at 12:19 a.m.

The timeline also shows that the other men present
lacked a window of opportunity during which to engage in
a prolonged gang-rape alone in the bathroom with Mangum.

At 12:53 a.m., Durham police received an anonymous
911 call from a woman (Pittman), saying now that she and
her "black girlfriend" had driven by, now that
they had walked by the house where the lacrosse players
were, and that one of the players had called the women
the "n" word. (Pittman later admitted to the late

Ed Bradley
on the October 15 60 Minutes,
having first said a racial slur to a white lacrosse
player not from the Duke Three, before the player
returned fire.)

Unbeknownst to the public and the eventual suspects
until June—due to DA Mike Nifong`s prosecutorial
misconduct—Mangum`s story—or rather, stories—
unraveled
that very night
.

Pittman drove Mangum to an all-night Kroger`s
grocery. When Mangum refused to get out of her car,
Pittman told a security guard that Mangum was
unconscious, and asked him to call 911. At Kroger`s,
Durham P.D.

Sgt. J.C. Shelton
, the first officer on the scene,
reported that Mangum was intoxicated and faking
unconsciousness, and that Pittman had claimed that
Mangum was a stranger she`d "picked up … after seeing
white males yelling racial slurs at her."

In

interviews that night
with medical personnel at
Durham Access Center and DUMC, Mangum told

multiple, mutually contradictory stories
. She said
she was groped, but not raped. She said she was raped.
There were

twenty rapists
, two, three… and then five.

Crystal Gail Mangum ultimately claimed that various
players had locked her in a bathroom and, without using
condoms, orally, anally, and vaginally raped her over
the course of 30 minutes, that one or more had
ejaculated inside of her, and that she had spat out
semen.

At DUMC, when Sgt. Shelton confronted Mangum with her
(raped/not raped) contradictions, she broke down in
tears, and refused to talk to him any more. She only
revived the rape story when an inexperienced registered
nurse, Tara Levicy, who was only a probationary SANE
(Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) in training, directly
asked her, in violation of good practices, "Were you
raped?"

Kathleen Eckelt, a registered nurse and forensic
nurse examiner, wrote at her blog,

Forensics Talk
, that an interviewer should have
asked Mangum an

open-ended question
, such as "`Did something
happen?` `Do you want to tell me about it?` or `Tell me
what happened.` That puts it right back on the patient
to say what did or did not happen. She`s telling us.
We`re not telling her!"

Levicy`s violation of good practices may have had an
ideological basis. As K.C. Johnson

wrote on January 9
,

“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.

“She stated that one of her proudest moments in
college came when she produced and directed a
performance of Eve Ensler`s The Vagina Monologues.”

Since the heavily intoxicated Mangum emphasized
"extreme vaginal pain"
at DUMC, and when the doctor
there would not prescribe her painkillers, she went to
the University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals the
next day, telling a new story of "neck and back pain
and hitting her head."
After one UNC doctor,

concerned
that her psychological history made her a
prime candidate for "narcotics abuse" refused to
write her a prescription,

"A second physician
prescribed the muscle relaxant
Flexeril and 15 doses of Percocet, a powerful narcotic
painkiller."

Eckelt hypothesizes that Mangum`s journey began as an
attempt to avoid an arrest for public intoxication and
as "drug-seeking behavior."

To recap, the hoax was born of one crazy stratagem
after another of Crystal Gail Magnum. First, she refused
to get out of Kim Roberts Pittman`s car. Then, faced
with an arrest for public intoxication, she pulled a
non-responsive routine. But that backfired; as

Stuart Taylor
observed, she was about to be
involuntarily committed at the Durham Access Center,
when she first figured that claiming she`d been raped
might be the ticket out of that jam. Once that disaster
was averted, she recanted her rape story, which had
served its purpose. Then, argues Kathleen Eckelt, the
rape story again looked useful at DUMC, when it appeared
that it might gain Mangum her coveted narcotics.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the same three-week
period when Mangum was doing the rounds of local
hospitals complaining of horrible, incapacitating pain
and seeking narcotics, as Raleigh News & Observer
reporter

Joseph Neff
later revealed, a March 26 film showed
her doing her normal, limber, pole-dancing routine.

Mangum`s initial descriptions of her "attackers"
to police investigators

Benjamin Himan and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb
on March 16
bore no resemblance to any of the players who would
eventually be indicted one (Seligmann and Finnerty) and
two months (Evans) later, respectively. Four months
later, Gottlieb would fudge a

33-page report
"from memory" that
miraculously matched Mangum`s rigged photo lineup
identifications in April and May, but completely
contradicted the report Himan had typed immediately
after the March 16 interview, as well as the notes
written by SANE Nurse

Tara Levicy
during or immediately following her rape
examination of Mangum early on March 14. Gottlieb has
claimed that his report was based on three pages of
handwritten notes that he wrote at the time, but it has
since been revealed that

he wrote no notes at the time
, thus robbing his
report of all credibility.

Although Mangum claimed not to have had sex during
the previous week, later DNA results (the ones Meehan
testified that he and Nifong conspired to suppress)
showed that there was semen in her vagina and on her
panties

from several men,
but none from any of the lacrosse
players.

In telling the D.A.`s office on December 21 that she
no longer was sure she`d been raped, Mangum more or less
came full circle to her original statement from March
14.

As with the 1987

Tawana Brawley Hoax
, in which a 15-year-old, black,
chronic runaway conjured up a racial kidnapping and
gang-rape simply to avoid a beating at the hands of her
mother`s murderous boyfriend for running away for four
days, with Mangum, the racial rape hoax was just an
expedient to achieve an immediate goal.

As

The Johnsville News
showed on June 13, Nifong
had determined already on April 6, through interviews
with Mangum`s "driver,"

Jarriel Johnson
, that there was a reasonable
alternate explanation, through Mangum`s, er, work, for
her vaginal swelling prior to her going to the lacrosse
team`s house: "that in the 48 hours before the party
she had, by her driver`s account, been on at least four
one-on-one dates as an escort"
(What, pray tell,
does an "escort"
do on a "one-on-one date"?)

As of March 13, Crystal Mangum was a full-time
student with a "B" average at NCCU.

In 1996, Mangum claimed that she had been

gang- raped
by three black men three years earlier.
Her father has disputed her claim and Mangum never
pressed charges.

(Many observers have suggested that the 1993 case was
a hoax and a prelude to Mangum`s current hoax; I assume
nothing of the sort. Some of Mangum`s
behaviors—emotional instability, promiscuity, inability
to have a healthy relationship with a man—are consistent
with those of people who were

sexually abused
as children. However, having been
abused by some men in one`s youth does not give someone
the right to later terrorize a group of innocent men
with false claims.)

While

serving in the U.S. Navy,
Mangum cuckolded her
non-serviceman husband with another man,

whose child she bore.
After she was forced to
separate from the service, she and her husband divorced,
after which she bore the other man a second child. When
the other man deserted Mangum and their children, she
had to apply to family court to get his wages garnished
for child support.

In April, bloggers, followed by the MSM, revealed
that

Crystal Gail Mangum
and

Kim Roberts Pittman
were both convicted criminals.


In 2002
, the first time Mangum supposedly worked as
a stripper, she pickpocketed a taxi-driver customer`s
car keys; stole his cab; drove while intoxicated; fled
arrest, taking police on a high-speed chase; and
attempted to murder a policeman, by trying to run him
down. And yet, by the time she pleaded guilty, the
charges had been so reduced that Mangum spent only five
days in jail, over the course of three weekends.

Mangum also has a problematic psychiatric history.

On

November 4
, Joseph Neff, Benjamin Niolet, and Anne
Blythe reported in the Raleigh News Observer that
H.P. Thomas, who had been the security manager at a club
where Magnum performed, said that on March 18, Mangum
"basically [told her colleagues] `I`m going to get paid
by the white boys` … `I said, "
Whatever," because
no one takes her seriously.`"

Thomas also said that in the days following March 14,
Mangum showed no signs of having been traumatized, which
Pittman has also said about her behavior after leaving
the players` house.

* * *

Pittman had been convicted in 2001 of embezzlement,
for stealing $25,000 from a company where she had helped
out with the payroll. She also got only probation, and
did not serve time for her crimes.

Days after the alleged rape occurred, Roberts
e-mailed a public relations firm, to see how she could
spin the situation to her monetary advantage.

When someone comes to the authorities with horrific
charges that are utterly contradictory on their face,
the prosecutor must refrain from pressing charges
against any "suspects." If the charges are then
completely contradicted by the forensic evidence, as
well by the only available witness (Pittman), the
prosecutor must consider charges against the accuser.

A Desperate Man

DA Mike Nifong had never worked anywhere but in the
Durham DA`s office since graduation from law school.
Appointed DA by Democrat North Carolina Gov.

Mike Easley
, when Nifong`s predecessor was appointed
to a judgeship, he was running for district attorney for
the first time. He was in danger of losing the May 3
primary which was to decide the election. (At that
point, the Democrat candidate would run unopposed). And
with blacks making up 45 percent of Durham`s residents,
Nifong was desperate for black votes. And so he played
Mangum`s false charges for all they were worth,
demagoguing racist black Durham voters. With their
support, he won by a bare 883 votes (45 to 42 percent).

On March 27, Nifong began speaking on the record to
the media. At that point, unbeknownst to the public, it
was obviously unlikely that any crime had been
committed, based on Mangum`s March 14 statements, which
the Durham PD found lacked credibility. Nifong had no
suspects, let alone indictments. And yet, during the
next approximately two weeks, Nifong would give some 70
interviews to local and national media, condemning the
lacrosse team for erecting a "blue wall of silence,"
"stonewall[ing]" and refusing to cooperate with
investigators. He threatened to bring charges of aiding
and abetting against any players who did not come
forward with incriminating statements against their
teammates, and condemned the entire men`s lacrosse team
as "a bunch of hooligans" whose

"daddies could buy them expensive lawyers."

The problem was that, to borrow from

Mary McCarthy
, every word Nifong said was a lie,
including "and" and "the." The players had
been forthcoming and cooperative. They knew they had
committed no crime, save for underaged drinking, which
at least half of the Duke student body was guilty of.

The Lies of Mike
Nifong

D.A. Nifong has been caught telling so many whoppers,
and engaging in so much deceptive behavior that an
exhaustive list would leave room for nothing else in
this article. The following list is necessarily partial.
The

most comprehensive list
I am aware of, was prepared
by Nifong critics

John in North Carolina
and

Liestoppers
.

  • Nifong lied about how much evidence he had
    on the players;

  • Nifong did not turn over all
    evidence in the case file to the defense,
    exculpatory or otherwise, in violation of North
    Carolina`s 2004

    open discovery laws;

  • In violation of "North Carolina Rule of
    Professional Conduct 3.8 which prohibits a prosecutor
    from avoiding `pursuit of evidence merely because he or
    she believes it will damage the prosecutor`s case`"

    (K.C.
    Johnson
    ), Nifong refused to meet with Reade
    Seligmann`s attorney, Kirk Osborn, who sought to provide
    him with exculpatory evidence—time-stamped photographs
    of Seligmann variously at an ATM and in a restaurant,
    and a record of him swiping a card to enter his
    dormitory, all at the time Mangum had claimed he was
    raping her;

  • Nifong emphasized in his

    "March 23 application
    for an order to obtain DNA
    samples from the 46 white lacrosse players …"
    that
    "The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out
    any innocent persons"
    ;

  • On April 11, following the DNA results
    that ruled out all 46 white lacrosse players, Nifong
    stated that the lack of

    DNA evidence
    was not a problem, and "I would not
    be surprised condoms were used"
    (Mangum had already
    said they hadn`t been);

  • Witness Kim Roberts Pittman abruptly
    changed her position on what had happened on the night
    of March 13-14, after Nifong intervened on her behalf
    regarding a March 22 charge of violating her probation.
    Thus did Pittman go from denying to police investigator
    Benjamin Himan on March 20 that a rape could have taken
    place (she called Mangum`s charges

    "a crock"
    ) to saying on

    April 21
    that she believed a rape had taken place ("In
    all honesty, I think they`re guilty"
    ). Pittman has
    since re-recanted, saying that

    in an interview
    with 60 Minutes` Ed Bradley, which
    aired on October 15, shortly before his death from
    leukemia;

  • Nifong responded to black taxi driver

    Moezeldin Elmostafa`s
    aka Moez Mostafa`s, 37,
    statement that he had driven defendant Reade Seligmann
    away from the house at 12:19 a.m. by having Mostafa
    arrested and tried on a highly dubious shoplifting
    charge supposedly from a case from three years earlier.
    Elmostafa was acquitted on August 29;

  • Nifong suggested that the players might
    have given the "victim" a date rape drug, but had
    never had Mangum given a drug toxicology screen;

  • Nifong said the players choked Magnum (she
    had said nothing of the sort);

  • Nifong suggested, contrary to Mangum`s
    statements, that the players had raped her with a
    foreign object, rather than their sexual organs; and
    last, but not least,

  • "Nifong has never told the public of
    the complainant`s [March 14] recantation of the rape
    allegation"
    (John
    in North Carolina
    ).

And so, three men are in danger of spending over 30
years in jail, due to the expedient, ever-changing
stories of two obvious pathological liars—Crystal Gail
Mangum and Mike Nifong. Is this

any way to run a criminal justice system?!

* * *

On December 21, nine months after Mangum had made her
charges, Nifong interviewed her for the first time.
(What`s your hurry?) When she suddenly "wavered"
as to whether she had in fact been penetrated by the
penis of any of the players (the legal requirement for a
rape charge), Nifong dropped the rape charges.

On December 28, the North Carolina Bar charged Nifong
with

four violations
of state legal rules. The first
three charges are variations on the theme of Nifong`s
having, through stating his personal opinion to
reporters, prejudiced the public against the defendants,
poisoned the jury pool, thus making it impossible for
the defendants to get a fair trial. The fourth charge
was that regarding the facts of the case, he "engaged
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a) of the
Revised Rules of Professional Conduct."

Between March and May, the Bar will hold a
professional trial of DA Nifong, which could result in
no sanctions being levied against him, in his being
officially reprimanded and/or temporarily suspended from
practicing law, or in his being

disbarred.

One day after the Bar published its charges against
Nifong, the seven officers of the

North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys

signed a letter formally requesting of him that he
"recuse"
himself from the Duke lacrosse case.

As Betsy Newmark wrote

on December 23
, the conspiracy to withhold evidence
that Brian Meehan`s December 15 testimony indicated, has
"brought into question every other prosecution
[Nifong] has conducted in Durham County. If he`d
violate the North Carolina code in a high profile case,
what would he do in the hundreds of other cases that
don`t receive the public attention that this one has
generated?"

The Durham PD

Under Nifong`s direction, the Durham PD violated

standard North Carolina lineup procedure
, which
requires that each picture of a suspect be grouped with
seven non-suspects. (What in earth was a DA doing
running a police investigation?) The DPD

rigged photo lineups
by including only pictures of
white Duke lacrosse players. Thus, it was impossible for
the alleged victim to go wrong.

And yet she still did. Although the rigged photo
lineups were successful in eventually getting Mangum to
"identify" Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty,
when she "identified" Dave Evans as the third
attacker, not only did she say she was only "90%
sure,"
which was legally unacceptable, but she also
claimed that Evans had worn "a mustache" on the
night of the alleged attack. One of Evans` lawyers,
Joseph B. Cheshire V, insisted that Nifong knew his
client had never worn a mustache.

Durham PD Investigator Benjamin Himan made a false
sworn statement in an application to the court for DNA
testing, in which he misrepresented Mangum`s examination
at DUMC. I have already cited Sgt. Mark Gottlieb`s
misconduct.


The University, the Community, and the Media

Rather than respecting the presumption of innocence
and the suspects` right to a fair trial, the Duke
University administration and faculty did everything but
organize a lynching party.

As

K.C. Johnson
recounted in November,

“On March 25, in an
unprecedented move, the president cancelled (at the last
minute) the lacrosse team`s game against Georgetown,
citing underage drinking at the party. Then, on April 5,
Brodhead demanded Pressler`s resignation, cancelled the
lacrosse season, and issued a statement anchored by a
lament on the evils of rape-at a time when the players
were firmly denying any sexual contact, much less rape.
These moves enjoyed enthusiastic support from

Board of Trustees chairman Robert Steel
. The
president later issued a statement urging a trial, on
the grounds that it would give the accused players an
opportunity to be "proved innocent," in effect turning
on its head 220 years of American constitutional
history.”

The Duke lacrosse program was, at that point, clean
as a whistle, had a 100 percent graduation rate, more
honor students than any other ACC sports team, and Mike
Pressler was one of the most respected lacrosse coaches
in the country.

When Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were

indicted
on April 17, Brodhead immediately suspended
them from school. He would have done the same to Evans,
but Evans was only indicted on May 16—the day after he`d
graduated.

In shutting down the entire lacrosse season, firing
coach Pressler, and standing idly by as players were
harassed and demonized, and Pressler endured death
threats, Brodhead violated the players` presumption of
innocence and right to due process at Duke. He was
telling the world that the players were guilty as hell,
thus poisoning the potential jury pool, and putting the
players` and Pressler and his family`s lives in danger.

K.C. Johnson has

also reported that,
according to his sources, Duke
Dean

Sue Wasiolek
[send her

mail
] and
various other as yet unnamed Duke administrators, acting
on their own, violated the players` legal rights by,
among other things, lying to them in conjuring up a
non-existent "a non-existent `student-faculty`
privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any
criminal activity…"
while "Dean Sue Wasiolek
arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a
`facilitator` in arranging for a group meeting with
police."

And yet, perhaps the most insidious acts of the
Brodhead administration were the rewarding of professors
from the "88," who had already violated the
lacrosse players` rights, with additional, influential
positions on groups such as the

Campus Culture Initiative
, that were themselves
products of the rape hoax, and which permitted the
professors to consolidate their power, and thereby do
further damage to campus intellectual and social life.

Half-Baked

On March 29,

Houston Baker
, then Duke`s George D. and Susan Fox
Beischer Professor of English, one of America`s most
famous African American studies and English scholars
(which puts him in the company of such luminaries as

Leonard Jeffries
and

"bell hooks"
[Gloria Watkins]), and a former
president of the Modern Language Association, sent

"Awaiting the Restoration of Confidence
: A Letter to
the Duke University Administration,"
to Duke
administrators and to the media.

"How is a Duke community
citizen to respond to such a national embarrassment from
under the cloud of a `culture of silence` that seeks to
protect white, male, athletic violence and which
apparently prevents all university citizens from even
surveying the known facts?"

Baker spoke of "this horrific, racist incident."

“… [the players] may well feel they can claim
innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus,
safe under the cover of silent whiteness [?!]. But where
is the black woman who [sic] their violence and raucous
witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well
again?… Young, white, violent, drunken men among us —
implicitly boasted by our athletic directors and
administrators — have injured lives….

“… abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial
violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed
amongst us.

“… white athletes` violent racism … How many more
people of color must fall victim to violent, white,
male, athletic privilege…

“Surely the answer to the question must come in
the form of immediate dismissals of those principally
responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at
Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and
its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied
about the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the
evening of March 13, 2006.”

Blah, blah, blah.

In presuming the lacrosse
players guilty, Houston Baker was guilty of gross
professional misconduct, defamation, hoary racism,
seeking to poison the jury pool, of helping to endanger
the players` safety on campus and in Durham… and of
horrible English! His conduct was also actionable.

Unfortunately, since he
escaped Duke last fall for

Vanderbilt University
, Baker cannot be fired or
otherwise disciplined by Duke for his misconduct. But
each and every one of the 46 white men who played on the
2006 Duke men`s lacrosse team still can and should sue
him.

(Considering the frequency

with which black college athletes
are charged with
violent crimes,

including rape
, and the relative infrequency of such
charges against

white athletes,
Baker`s talk of "white athletes`
violent racism"
is downright surreal.)

And now,

K.C. Johnson
reports that the mother of one of the
unindicted lacrosse players wrote to Baker
[send him

mail
] just
before New Year`s, "asking for your help."

"Over the past eight months, much of the evidence
has revealed that the three falsely indicted young men
have been the victims of rogue DA Nifong…. Whatever you
believed in March, I am sure you must be questioning the
actions of DA Nifong….

"Our paths may have been different, but I am sure
all of us seek the truth and justice…."

Baker wrote back,

 "LIES! You are just a provacateur [sic] on a
happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy
bunch of white males! You know you are in search of
sympaathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay
man [sic] in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived
like `a bunch of farm animals` near campus.

"I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of
an email rots in …. umhappy [sic] new year to you …
and forgive me if your really are, quite sadly, mother
of a `farm animal.`"
[Ellipses were inserted by
Johnson.]

The mother had mistakenly
thought that Baker had a shred of human decency, and had
been concerned with discovering the truth and achieving
justice. She didn`t realize that for a conscienceless
academic sociopath like Baker, as Tom Hayden argued at
Yale in 1970,

"The facts are irrelevant."

And yet, Houston Baker`s
mixture of hysteria, semi-literacy, pedantry and
despicably racist misconduct is all too typical of the
politically correct race/gender/class thugs who have
taken over university English and social science
departments across the country, and who were the
raison d`être
for the founding of hate and
propaganda departments such as African-American,
Women`s,

Gay
(or is it "Queer"?),
Chicano and

Middle Eastern studies
in the first place.


The Duke 88

On April 6, a

full-page advertisement
appeared in Duke`s student
newspaper, The Chronicle,

signed by 88 people
, almost all of them tenured,
tenure-track, or visiting professors, and supported by
three academic departments and 13 programs, strongly
implying not only that then-unnamed and unindicted white
lacrosse players had committed a brutal, racially
motivated rape of a black woman, but that such was the
character of the entire lacrosse team, and indeed, of
most white men on Duke`s campus.

"We are listening to our
students. We`re also listening to the Durham community,
to Duke staff, and to each other. Regardless of the
results of the police investigation, what is apparent
everyday
[sic] now is the anger and fear of many
students who know themselves to be objects of racism and
sexism, who see illuminated in this moment`s
extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday

[sic]….

These students are
shouting and whispering about what happened to this
young woman and to themselves."

The advertisement followed
with eleven anonymous quotes supporting the notion that
the Duke campus was a cauldron of hatred against blacks
and women, quotes which turned out to be from eight
black female undergraduates, two recently graduated
black females, and one black female Ph.D. student. The
professors were listening, if at all, to cadres of black
activists who, with their professors, comprised a racist
echo chamber.

". . . We want the
absence of terror. But we don`t really know what that
means . . . We can`t think. That`s why we`re so silent …
Terror robs you of language and you need language for
the healing to begin."

"You go to a party, you
get grabbed, you get propositioned, and then you start
to question yourself."

The undergraduates were
students of black African American Studies professor,

Wahneema Lubiano
, [send
her


mail
] who had
written the text that accompanied the quotations, and
who placed the ad. Lubiano`s text thanked the campus
feminists who, beginning in March had constantly
demonstrated, calling on the entire lacrosse team to
"confess,"
putting up

posters on campus
with the pictures of 43 out of the
46 white lacrosse players saying "wanted" and
calling them "rapists,"

carrying around banners
saying to "castrate"
the lacrosse team, and chanting, "they must be
rapists!"

The quoted black students
were lying, and projecting their own racism onto white
men, who were not running around the Duke campus
molesting black women. If the black coeds were being
molested, it was by black men. (As to the feminist
implication that being propositioned, harassed, and
raped are morally equivalent, what is a sane person to
say?)

The signatories of the
advertisement were playing out a

dog-eared script
that one sees every time a new race
hoax is perpetrated. The hoaxer`s supporters immediately
evoke a world of silent victims parallel to that of the
accuser. And they do constitute a parallel—parallel
fictions! The activists seem to have an intuitive feel
for when someone has perpetrated a hoax, and always
spontaneously run to support her.

Last spring, some Duke
professors who taught classes that included members of
the men`s lacrosse team, went out of their way in class
to

incite hatred
against the men players, and to
otherwise discriminate against them. Kim Curtis, a
visiting professor of political science, went so far as
to single out the two unindicted men`s lacrosse players
in her class, and flunk them alone.

One of the players she
flunked, senior Kyle Dowd, 22, would not have graduated,
had Duke administrators not fudged things by
retroactively granting him three additional transfer
credits from his previous school. Four months later,
Duke also changed Dowd`s grade in Curtis` class to a
"D,"
claiming the "F" had been due to a
"calculation error."

On January 5, Dowd
announced that he is suing Kim Curtis,
[send her

mail
]
charging her with engaging in "outrageous and
unethical conduct"
"asking for the grade to be
changed to a `P` for passing, and want $60,000 in
damages."

Dowd`s lawyer, Joseph
Zeszotarski Jr., said "Kyle Dowd and his family feel
very strongly that he was given a grade not based upon
his performance, but rather upon the political agenda of
the professor."
[Ex-Duke
lacrosse player sues school
| Graduate claims he got
an `F` because he was on team; accuser gives birth,

AP, Jan 5, 2007]

In what K.C. Johnson
called a first in American law, when the Duke Three`s
attorneys requested a change of venue, they specifically
cited the poisoning of the jury pool undertaken by the
defendants` own professors.

Nine months later, not
only has none of the

"Duke 88"
renounced the document, but at
least two signatories have sought to

revise history
, in order to cast themselves and the
rest of the "88" as hero/victims. They are

Cathy Davidson
, a vice provost for interdisciplinary
studies who has an endowed (e.g., superstar)
professorship in English, and is interim director of an
institute named after distinguished race
hoaxer-historian,

John Hope Franklin
, and

Karla Holloway
, the Dean of the Humanities and
Social Sciences and former director of African and
African American Studies,

who
also has a superstar professorship. (Are there
any tenured sexists or racists at Duke who do not have
superstar professorships?)


Four Against 100

The only people at Duke
who, to my knowledge, have publicly shown any respect
for the defendants` due process rights are

Kerstin Kimel
, the women`s lacrosse team coach,
Steven Baldwin, a chemistry professor,

Michael Gustafson
, an engineering professor, and
James Coleman, an African-American law professor who
chaired one of five internal Duke investigations of the
lacrosse team following March 14.

Coleman has repeatedly,

forcefully argued
since June that Nifong should step
aside on behalf of an independent prosecutor. James
Coleman is the biggest hero in the Duke Rape Hoax,
because he came out early and often on the side of the
law. [Vdare.com note:
It must take special courage for an African-American
living in Durham to defend the accused white men. Dr.
Thomas Sowell has also


written repeatedly
about the injustice being done
here—his indifference "what everybody thinks" is


well-known.
]

In June,

Coleman
said of Nifong,

 "Either
he knew
what the facts were and misstated them, or
he was making them up. Whether he acted knowing they
were false, or if he was reckless, it doesn`t matter in
the long run. This is the kind of stuff that causes the
public to lose confidence in the justice system,"

and



"You`ve got a prosecutor playing to race
. It`s
disgusting. If he`s willing to
[make race an issue]
to go after what he thinks are three white kids with
influence, what will he do going against some poor black
kid in a case where people are saying, `You`ve got to
convict somebody?` To me, a prosecutor who`s willing to
cut corners in any case is a prosecutor who`s subverting
justice.`"

And on October 24, the
school`s student newspaper, The Chronicle,
published a column in support of the Duke Three by

Steven Baldwin
(who had months earlier written a
letter to The Chronicle, defending the players`
legal rights.)

“The
faculty who publicly savaged the character and
reputations of specific men`s lacrosse players last
spring should be ashamed of themselves.

“They should be tarred
and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed
from the academy. Their comments were despicable. I
suspect they were also slanderous, but we`ll hear more
about that later.”

Now that the rape charges
have been dropped, the N.C. State Bar had indicted DA
Nifong, and President Brodhead has made supporting the
Duke Three a safe enterprise,

a number of other Duke professors
(see also

here
) have suddenly discovered their courage.


Black Moral Collapse

Durham`s black community,
local NAACP, and the NCCU faculty, have remained united
behind Mangum since the beginning, no matter how
discredited her charges have been. Blacks in Durham and
elsewhere have suggested, and one black student at
Mangum`s school, NCCU,

Chan Hall
, [send him

mail
] has

said outright
that it would be a good thing for
innocent white men to be prosecuted, as a matter of
historical revenge, "whether it happened or not. It
would be justice for things that happened in the past."

Although, or perhaps
because, Nifong had been thoroughly discredited by

the November election
, Durham`s black community

voted overwhelmingly
for him, and decided the race
in his favor.


The Media

Rather than seeking to
free the wrongly jailed, and see to it that the guilty
do not escape punishment, the journalism profession is
today dominated by leftwing political operatives who
proudly

seek to free guilty blacks
and punish innocent
whites. Hence their promotion of hoaxes such as the

racial profiling myth.
For those operatives, as for
their comrades in academia, the facts are irrelevant.

Countless alleged
journalists, white and black alike, at white-owned and
black-owned media outlets, have sought to aid and abet
the railroading of the Duke Three by variously
suppressing negative facts about the accuser, evidence
exculpating the defendants, and the reality of race and
rape, both at Duke and nationally.

Some scribes have gone so
far as to "report" non-existent "facts,"
such as a non-existent conspiracy of white Duke men`s
lacrosse players (the New York Times` Selena
Roberts

called this
a "code of silence"), and a
non-existent national problem, whereby white men
constantly sexually molest young black women (AP`s

Erin Texeira
, using 2002 talking points from black
supremacists who were angry that newly crowned
Oscar-winner Halle Berry had been making movies in which
she

slept with
or

performed strip teases
for white men). Other
offenders include the Raleigh News & Observer`s

Ruth Sheehan
, the New York Times`

Duff Wilson and Jonathan D. Glater
, The Christian
Science Monitor`s


Patrik Jonsson
, the Wilmington Journal`s Cash
Michaels,

Jesse Jackson Sr.
, and Sports Illustrated`s
aforementioned Lester Munson.

On April 22, Pulitzer
Prize-winning, black Miami Herald-based
syndicated columnist

Leonard Pitts Jr.
argued,

"imagine the response if
the woman were white and reported being raped by three
black members of the basketball team. You`d have to call
out the National Guard."

Not hard. Less than two
months before the Duke case, a coed attending the
University of Richmond in Virginia,

really was gang-raped by student athletes.
However,
as Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Mark
Holmberg pointed out on May 14, contra Pitts, since the
victim was white, and the suspects four black students
(including a former star quarterback from the school
football team) from nearby black Virginia Union
University (VUU), the national media ignored the case. [What
propels rape stories to wide attention
?, May 14,
2006]

No VUU professors called
for railroading their own students, and no coaches were
forced to resign. Even Richmond`s local media initially

refused to report the respective races
of the
alleged victim and the alleged rapists.


In November
, two of the four defendants in the
January 21 rape were convicted of rape and given token
sentences, a third was convicted of assault and will do
at most four months in jail, and the fourth was
acquitted.

The AP has

a history of perpetrating hoaxes
, and is
institutionally committed to misrepresenting the reality
of interracial rape. Thus, as I showed on

December 28
, in its stories on the Baytown rapist, a
young black man who targets young white men in that
Texas city for rape, AP suppressed the race of the
victims, and "reported" that they had nothing in
common.

At Duke University in
recent years, the white coeds cannot walk safely across
their own campus at night without escorts, but that is
not due to the predations of white lacrosse players. As
Autonomist editor

Rocco DiPippo
showed last spring, in recent years,
black Durhamites, including students at

NCCU
, have made a sport of targeting white Duke
coeds for rape.

Thus has the rage of
Durham`s black community against the white lacrosse
players been misplaced, to say the least. If anyone
should be in a state of rage, it is Durham`s whites,
particularly its white women.

That feminists at Duke
rose up in support of the hoaxer, and against the white
lacrosse players, was an expression of the morally
depraved deal white feminists have made for themselves.
Although they are scared to death of black men—and with
good reason—and have relatively little to fear from
white men, white feminists have politically prostituted
themselves, in exchange for power. Thus do they
reflexively condemn innocent

"privileged white males"
while refraining from
any criticism of black male rapists.

And yet feminists` black
allies do not return the favor, by showing a like
protectiveness towards white women.

Once the Duke case caught
fire, VDARE.COM`s

Steve Sailer
found three cases in a single week last
April, in which minority college athletes were charged
with violent crimes, including rape, all of which were
ignored by the national media. And those cases were in
addition to the black-on-white gang-rape of the Richmond
University coed.

No mainstream reporter
would mention the extraordinary character of the crime
being alleged.

Kathleen Parker
was the only mainstream columnist
who did—and

feminists excoriated her
for her columns exposing
the Durham travesty.

As the U.S. Department of
Justice`s National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) has
shown, between 2001 and 2003, there were, on average,
15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites
averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year (a
black-white ratio of 17.1:1). As Parker noted, the
proportion of single-attacker

white-on-black rape
is so rare as to be
statistically non-existent (less than one-half of one
percent).

Since there are
five-and-one-half times as many whites as blacks in
America, that means that blacks rape whites over ninety
times as frequently as whites rape blacks. Except that
the black-white interracial gap is actually much higher.
The "white" figure (900) is inflated by Hispanic
offenders being counted as white. And no reliable
statistics for interracial prison rape were included in
the NCVS. Thus, the real black-white ratio is likely
200:1 or higher.

But the Duke case was an
allegation of white-on-black gang rape. As

Roy Sievers
at American Renaissance showed on
April 24, quoting the state-of-the-art AR study,

The Color of Crime
, that crime hasn`t been committed
in years:

“In
fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against
whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not
pick up a single `white`
[including
Hispanic]-on-black gang rape.”

Sievers: "There are
undoubtedly more black-on-white hate crime hoaxes than
white-on-black gang rapes."

* * *

The Duke Rape Hoax has
historic ties to the two most notorious previous racial
rape hoaxes in American history, the story of Scottsboro
Boys, and the Tawana Brawley case.

It is the culmination of
some twenty years of

race hoaxes.

In 1931, in what would
come to be known as the

"Scottsboro Boys"
case, two white prostitutes
named Victoria Price and Ruby Bates falsely accused nine
black boys and young men of gang-raping them on a train.
The Scottsboro Boys—Haywood Patterson, Clarence Norris,
the brothers Andy and Roy Wright, Willie Roberson,
Charles Weems, Ozie Powell, Olen Montgomery and Eugene
Williams—were railroaded by a racist white Alabama jury,
and sentenced to die. It was not until 1950, after years
of trials and retrials, unjust prison sentences, and in
one case, a daring jail break, that all of the
Scottsboro Boys had regained their freedom. But their
lives had been destroyed.

In the Tawana Brawley
case, the racial roles were reversed and the

falsely accused
were

white police officers.

On May 4, black Kansas
City Star sportswriter

Jason Whitlock
observed that the Duke case  "seems
like an

updated re-enactment
of `To Kill a Mockingbird.`"

And when young white men
are imprisoned in today`s black supremacist-dominated
prisons, it is often tantamount to a

death sentence
from gang rape and resultant AIDS,
sandwiched around a life of

sexual slavery
. And that`s without being convicted
of gang-raping a black woman.

***

The most dramatic early
campus race hoax was set in motion on March 22, 1987. As

Thomas Short reported
in the August 1988
Commentary
, [A
"New Racism" on Campus?
] in three separate
attacks, a mob of seven young black men students and
non-students beat up a total of five white Columbia
University men students.

Following a by now

dog-eared script,
a group called Concerned Black
Students at Columbia (CBSC), represented by

"activist attorney"
C. Vernon Mason, (later
disbarred
as a result of his participation in the
Tawana Brawley hoax) claimed that "a mob of white
students had kicked and stomped a single black student
and then went on a rampage shouting, `We`re going to
kill you fucking niggers!`"

Although 22 witnesses had
already contradicted the black attackers` claims, the
latter were never arrested, and indeed, demanded that
their white victims be arrested.

When CBSC held

mini-riots,
in which as many as 50 supporters, black
and white alike, were arrested, protesting "against
racial violence"
and against the failure of the

NYPD
to follow their demand that police arrest the
white victims, Columbia responded by promising more
affirmative action in

admissions
and faculty hiring.

The Columbia race hoax
received months-long saturation coverage by the national
media; once the hoax was exposed, the national media
went silent.

As Thomas Short recounted,
the combination of media support for the Columbia
hoaxers, and the lack of legal consequences for their
crimes, encouraged black students at six other East
Coast university campuses, including Duke, to take over
campus buildings in spring 1987. In each case, the black
students decried "resurgent [white] racism"
on campus, which in virtually all of the cases was
non-existent, and demanded and got concessions from the
institution in question in the form of expanded
affirmative action for black student applicants and
professors.

There was a campus racism
problem, alright, but it was that of resurgent black
racism.

In late 1987, C. Vernon
Mason, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and attorney Alton Maddox,
promoted the

Tawana Brawley Hoax,
in which a then-15-year-old,
black chronic runaway, from a family of convicted
criminals, claimed to have been kidnapped by "white
cops"
and held in the woods for four days, during
which time she was gang-raped. A

witness had reported seeing Brawley climb into the
garbage bag
in which she was found, and the rape
nurse who examined Brawley had reported that the girl
had not been raped by anyone.

By the summer of 1988,
months after it had become obvious, even to civilians
unaware of the media-suppressed rape kit and witness
report that Brawley and her "advisors" had pulled
off a hoax, a white socialist New York political
operative told me, "You can`t expect blacks to
participate as equals in public discourse."
Of
course, the operative wouldn`t dare say such a thing
publicly.

Given the New York and
national media support for every on and off-campus

black race hoax
to come down the pike since 1987,
hoaxes that were often promoted by the same discredited,
racist frauds (C. Vernon Mason, Al Sharpton, Jesse
Jackson, et al.), I have concluded that already in 1987,
the media were actively trolling for race hoaxes to
promote. The quaint Republican term,

"liberal media bias"
does not begin to capture
such criminal connivance.

Campus race hoaxes are

typically promoted
by black and

feminist
faculty,

administrators
and staffers. Many of the hoax
supporters are not only morally unfit, but
intellectually unqualified for their jobs; they were

hired through affirmative action
(aka "diversity"),
and have imposed on their respective campuses

multiculturalism
, an ideology directing racial and
sexual hatred at white, heterosexual men, which was
invented, as Arch Puddington observed circa 1990 in
Commentary
, in order to rationalize affirmative
action.

Since

campus minorities
lead lives of privilege, it
becomes necessary to constantly perpetrate and support
race hoaxes, in order to provide "evidence" for
the pervasive white racism that campus minorities
constantly complain about. Affirmative action,
multiculturalism, and race hoaxes thus comprise a
mutually dependent, mutually reinforcing triad.

Race hoaxes flourish
because the people promoting them are

never punished for their misdeeds,
and move on from
one hoax to the next. Thus, it is not enough to scramble
around, disproving each hoax as it comes—race hustlers
can invent hoaxes too rapidly for anyone to ever catch
up with them. What is required is to take the
offensive—demanding firings, vigorous criminal
prosecutions, initiating multimillion-dollar civil
suits, and thereby breaking up universities` racist,
sexist power structure. Lawsuits are the only thing that
universities like Duke understand.

Duke President Richard
Brodhead sought to cover for his malfeasance by calling,
on

December 22
, for Nifong to step down as prosecutor,
and on

January 3
, inviting Seligmann and Finnerty to return
to Duke, but he was simply engaging in damage control,
in order try and stanch

losses in student applications
and early acceptances
that had arisen from his previous malfeasance, turn
around a public relations nightmare, and seek to head
off the inevitable lawsuits against him and Duke
University. As of this writing, neither Seligmann nor
Finnerty had responded to Brodhead`s offer.

In addition to suing Duke
University, the victims will need to sue Brodhead
personally, and every professor and staffer who signed
among the Duke 88, every professor who incited hatred
against and/or discriminated against any members of the
lacrosse team, and every Duke staffer and administrator
who aided and abetted the campaign against the lacrosse
players, for failing to respect the players` rights. And
attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents Dave Evans, has
assured the public that the players will be suing
everyone in sight.

And if an independent,
impartial, criminal investigation bears out the already
published (and in one case testified to) charges of
misconduct on the part of DA Mike Nifong, in addition to
being disbarred and removed from office, Nifong must be
referred for criminal prosecution variously in the state
and federal courts under any or all of the following
charges: Witness tampering,

witness intimidation
, conspiracy to

withhold evidence
, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
and conspiracy to violate the due process rights and
civil rights of Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans.

And since in this case,
the City of Durham led the charge, the victims must sue
it, too.

Durham Police Chief Steve
Chalmers, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, and Investigator Benjamin
Himan must also be investigated (Chalmers for
negligence), and if the results warrant it, removed from
office or fired and/or criminally prosecuted.

The lawsuits ought to go
as long way towards convincing Duke University and the
City of Durham to do some house cleaning.

And Crystal Gail Magnum
must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Only if hoaxers learn that there will be consequences to
their actions, will the hoax industry go out of
business.

Meanwhile, Crystal Gail
Mangum gave birth to a daughter on January 3. I`m not a
religious man, but I`ll be praying for that child.

The Duke Three`s next
court date is February 5, when defense counsel will
again press a motion to dismiss all charges, which
presiding Judge Osmond Smith may grant. Alternatively,
Judge Smith may remove Nifong from the case due to the
conflict of interest caused by the D.A.`s pending ethics
trial, in which case a second prosecutor would likely
drop all charges. If any good is to come of this
travesty, the men`s lacrosse team players of March
13—indicted and unindicted alike—must make the dismissal
of the charges just the beginning of their own scorched
earth campaign for justice.


Postscript:
On
January 12,

news reports
showed that during her December 21
interview with DA Nifong`s chief investigator,

Linwood Wilson
, accuser Crystal Gail Mangum again
changed her story, saying that she was indeed raped by
two white lacrosse players, but claiming that Reade
Seligmann was not one of the rapists. Mangum also
changed the time of the alleged attack, saying that it
occurred before midnight, and before she had
begun dancing. So she now expects jurors to believe that
after the rape, she still went on with the show.

Note, however, that we are
talking about the same December 21 interview in which
she allegedly had changed her official story, and said
she had not been raped. As one of the defense attorneys,
Joe Cheshire,

told the Durham Herald-Sun
back in June,
"She`s made so many different statements that anything
she says is exculpatory, simply because it`s
inconsistent with everything else she said."


Nicholas Stix [email

him] lives in New York City, which he
views from the perspective of its public
transport system, experienced in his
career as an educator. His weekly column
appears at


Men`s News Daily

and many other Web sites. He has also
written for Middle American News, the
New York

Daily News,
New York Post, Newsday,
Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty
and the
Weekly Standard. He
maintains two blogs:

A
Different Drummer
 and

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
.