Nappy-Headed Hoax

[Richpo64]

Nappy-Headed Hoax
by Ann Coulter
Posted 07/11/2007 ET
Updated 07/11/2007 ET


The New York Times alone has mentioned the Scottsboro Boys case from the 1930s nearly 20 times since 2002 (expanding the "news" part of "newspaper" just a bit), so I think I'm entitled to spend at least one more week luxuriating in the Duke lacrosse players' total vindication and the exposure of a Southern liberal prosecutor as a corrupt hack.

Twenty years ago, disbarred Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong would have been Time magazine's Man of the Year. Vanity Fair would have photographed him sitting in a Porsche under the headline: "Speaking Truth to Power."

One hundred years ago, he would have been lynching innocent black men. Southern liberals have stayed the same; only their victims have changed.

To watch the complete destruction of this foolish and evil man, Michael Nifong -- despite the mainstream media's best efforts to portray him as a modern-day Atticus Finch -- is as great a moment as the annihilation of Dan Rather. Katie Couric's self-immolation is just a bonus -- when it rains, it pours!

It is as great as Clinton's impeachment (which The New York Times is already claiming never happened in a front-page Week in Review article by Sam Tanenhaus on May 20).
 
The fact that we keep catching liberals in such blatant falsehoods shows you what they used to be able to get away with.

When the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted, Newsweek put their mug shots on its cover.

Months after the story first broke and most of the exculpatory evidence was known, an opinion piece -- I assume it was an opinion piece -- in The Washington Post began: "She was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air." No, that's not the tagline for a new reality show -- it's the first line of a legitimate story in a U.S. paper. It was downhill from there. The Duke case was "reminiscent of a black woman's vulnerability to a white man during the days of slavery, reconstruction and Jim Crow."

In fact, the case was reminiscent of the Scottsboro Boys case, but this time the falsely accused rape defendants were white. If only the press had dubbed them the "Durham Boys," that would be a great title for the Lifetime TV movie about this case that will never be made.

The accuser's history of making false accusations of gang rape, the players' alibis and the prosecutor's lies were all known to The New York Times when it reported on Aug. 25, 2006, that "while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury." By "body of evidence," the Times was apparently referring to a smattering of racial and sexual stereotypes earnestly believed in Hollywood and in newsrooms across America in defiance of the facts.

The Times article also noted, "In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense." The "stronger" evidence consisted of obvious lies told by the prosecution and lustily repeated by the Times.

Shockingly, even when the jig was up, and the attorney general of North Carolina announced that the accused were innocent, much of the mainstream media continued to withhold the accuser's name.

According to various postings on the Internet, Fox News Channel was the only national television station to show the false accuser's photo, and CNN never even revealed her name.

From my research, it appears that CBS News named Crystal Gail Mangum and showed her picture. (Of course, this being CBS, the picture may have been forged.) But the only time her name came out on CNN was by non-CNN employees during live press conferences and one time when a guest slipped it in -- you should pardon the expression -- during a discussion of Nifong's disbarment hearing, unaware of CNN's policy of protecting the names of women who make false accusations of rape.

The New York Times has yet to name the woman who falsely accused three men of committing a brutal gang rape.

The Times "public editor" described the paper's delusional coverage of the Duke case after the first several weeks as "basically fair." The Times Sports editor, Tom Jolly, said he was "very comfortable" with the coverage, saying the case had two main elements: "One was the allegation of rape; the other was the general behavior of a high-level sports team at a prestigious university." That's when you know your newspaper might have a wee hint of a liberal bias: when even the sportswriters are left-wing crackpots.

Apparently, the Times editor did not see this possibility as an "element" of the case: A liberal prosecutor incites a racial conflagration weeks before an election in a heavily black voting district by using the incredible claims of a stripper to falsely accuse three innocent white men of gang rape.

After the dust clears, perhaps we can expect a Mary Mapes-type book from Nifong explaining how the rape really did happen after all, or a book from Joe Conason on how the people who brought Nifong down were a conspiracy of "Nifong-haters."

You can't win a victory like this without some liberals being affected. Bush may be an ineffective communicator, but that doesn't mean all thought stops in the rest of the country. Well-educated liberals, who have wealth and homes and children, begin to freak out as they get to know their apparent allies. They have something to lose from allowing insane people to run the country.

Even now, in conservatism's darkest hour, we continue to see the transformation of responsible liberals. It happened with Clinton, with Gore's election tantrum, with 9/11, with the Swift Boat Veterans, with Dan Rather and now with Michael Nifong. The rolling reconfiguration of the country can't help but to proceed in a molecular way.

A few more victories like this, and someday the phrase "sensible liberal" may make sense again.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."

[Michael Tee]

<<When the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted, Newsweek put their mug shots on its cover.>>

Fuck those guys - - at least one of them deserved his mug shot on Newsweek's cover - - he was already on probation for a vicious gay-bashing attack that he'd been convicted of earlier.  Cry me a fucking river for that scumbag.  Boo-fuckin-hoo.

[Richpo64]

>>he was already on probation for a vicious gay-bashing attack that he'd been convicted of earlier.<<

I guess I missed that. Got a link?

[Amianthus]

I guess I missed that. Got a link?

I asked for that a couple of times - it was never forthcoming.

[Michael Tee]

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_duke.html

During his D.C. gay-bashing trial, Collin Finnerty's unfortunately named defense attorney, Steve McCool, claimed his client's victim -- not his client -- was the "hothead" who caused trouble on November 5, 2005.

Hoping to duplicate the Durham, Duke Rape defense strategy, Mr. McCool attempted to prove defendant Finnerty innocent by suggesting one of the victims was a liar -- and a drunk with a DUI charge from 2004.

Former Duke lacrosse captain William K. Gerrish, testified as a defense witness, saying that he and Finnerty had been drinking at a bar prior to the incident. Finnerty, 20, is not old enough to drink legally.

Gerrish testified that Finnerty was not heavily involved in the altercation. But under cross-examination, Gerrish also said he tried to calm his buddy down. "I think Collin was fired up, but I don't think he was the lead dog trying to instigate the situation," Gerrish said.

Under oath, Gerrish swore that he saw someone hit Finnerty. However, on cross-examination Gerrish admitted that he told an investigator the opposite -- that he never saw Finnerty get struck. He was also forced to acknowledge he told the investigator that Finnerty was "fired up" and wouldn't let the confrontation end.

Asked about the discrepancies by prosecutor George Verghese, Gerrish said some of his memories were fuzzy.

Officer Vincent Wright, the policeman who arrested Finnerty, wasn't at all fuzzy about what happened. Arriving just after the fight, the officer chased down Finnerty and his two pals who were running away from the crime-scene.

Nonetheless, with a straight face, Mr. McCool declared that Collin was actually the victim in the gay-bashing.

I don't know what Susannah Meadows, Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Reilly think about the lacrosse player's strategy, but McCool got a chilly reception from Judge John Bayly. Finding that the defendant's claims were not credible -- Bayly promptly convicted Collin Finnerty of misdemeanor assault.

The judge concluded that Finnerty "menaced" one victim over a 15-to-30-minute period with verbal taunts and violent threats.

[Michael Tee]

<<I asked for that [a link to the Colin Finnerty gay-bashing conviction] a couple of times - it was never forthcoming.>>

Not only do I not recall such a request previously, it was the easiest thing to turn up on Google - - I did it in less than 30 seconds.

Other articles indicate that the 47 team members had a total of 15 prior convictions amongst them.  Plus more dismissed for various reasons.

They're pieces of shit.  All of this concern about their "reputations" is highly misplaced, to say the least.

[Amianthus]

Not only do I not recall such a request previously, it was the easiest thing to turn up on Google - - I did it in less than 30 seconds.

Interestingly enough, I find no news articles on the Google News search or elsewhere for this incident.

Got any? Claims in a blog don't hold much water for me.

[Michael Tee]

I spent a few minutes looking for MSM reports and there aren't any.  The gay magazine The Advocate carried the story, as did something called "talkleft" (probably a blog) and a number of other blogs.  The ones I looked at all had the judge's name, the venue and the offence correct (some of them were obviously written in advance of the conviction) but I'm satisfied.  The Advocate isn't a blog.

Personally, seeing a story in the MSM, even the NYT, ain't what it used to be.  They carry stories that aren't true and they don't carry stories that are true.  I googled "Finnerty Duke gay-bashing Bayly (the name of the judge) and bar" and there were enough identically-detailed stories that cropped up on several sources that I believed them. The search turned up no rebuttal articles, even though the rebuttal would have used most of the same words.  A right-wing site (mich or MICH) carried the story that the judge (Bayly) "almost regretted" his decision - - whatever THAT means - - but from a source so sympathetic to these shitballs that if in fact reports of Finnerty's conviction had been false, here at least you would have seen the story rebutted.

Bottom line:  I'm satisfied.  If you're not, tough shit.  PS - see my next post - - I found a report from a local radio station in print.

[Michael Tee]

Here's Finnerty's conviction as reported by WRAL, a Durham - Fayetteville - Raleigh radio station:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1091884/


Duke Lacrosse Rape Suspect Convicted In D.C. Assault Case
Collin Finnerty

Posted: Jul 11, 2006
Updated: Jan. 7, 2007

WASHINGTON ? One of the three Duke University lacrosse players accused of raping a woman at a team party in March was convicted in an unrelated assault that occurred last year in Georgetown.

Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y. was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to six months of probation in connection with an attack on two bar patrons in the early-morning hours of Nov. 5.

The maximum jail term on the misdemeanor conviction was six months in jail. Prosecutors did not ask the judge to impose jail time.

Superior Court Judge John Bayly also ordered Finnerty to undergo drug and alcohol counseling if required by probation officers. He must also stay out of Georgetown during his probation and stay out of any establishment where alcohol is served unless accompanied by his parents.

"Collin Finnerty and his friends were looking for a fight and would not be deterred," prosecutor George Verghese said in closing arguments.

Finnerty also threw fake punches that landed within inches of Bloxsom's face and hurled various vulgar homophobic epithets, Bloxsom said.

Bayly said he believed Finnerty was guilty of "menacing" Bloxsom as part of an assault, even though it was one of his friends who admitted punching Bloxsom at the conclusion of the confrontation, giving him a bloody lip.

Finnerty's two friends admitted criminal responsibility in the case but avoided prosecution under a special program for first-time offenders.

Outside court, Finnerty's attorney, Steven McCool, said he will appeal the conviction.

"Judge Bayly found Collin Finnerty guilty of simple assault because he threw fake punches ... and because he scared one of the complaining witnesses in the case. That's it," McCool said.

He called the sentence "fair and lenient."

Finnerty declined to speak after the trial and declined to address the judge before receiving his sentence.

"My client has been very nervous throughout the proceeding. He's under a great deal of stress" in large part because of the rape charges, McCool told Bayly.

The judge said he found Bloxsom's account of the fight more credible than those offered by Finnerty's friends, who testified that the first blows in the fight were struck against Finnerty by Bloxsom's friend.

Among those who testified for Finnerty was former Duke lacrosse captain William Gerrish, who was with Finnerty that night. Gerrish said on the stand that he saw Finnerty get punched in the head, even though he had previously told police that he never saw Finnerty get hit.

Bayly said he found major inconsistencies in Gerrish's account of the fight.

Prosecutors had initially agreed to drop the assault charges against Finnerty as a first offender. They decided to go to trial after Finnerty was arrested in April in connection with allegations that he, along with two other Duke lacrosse athletes, raped an exotic dancer.

Finnerty's attorney in the rape case, Wade Smith, told WRAL Tuesday that he was not concerned about the conviction and that it probably would not have any impact on the rape case, even if it were brought up in trial.

[Amianthus]

Prosecutors had initially agreed to drop the assault charges against Finnerty as a first offender. They decided to go to trial after Finnerty was arrested in April in connection with allegations that he, along with two other Duke lacrosse athletes, raped an exotic dancer.

Sounds like they had little to go on, until he was charged with a bogus offense.

By then, he was probably too concerned with the other charge to fight this one adequately.

[Michael Tee]

<<By then, he was probably too concerned with the other charge to fight this one adequately.>>

That's what he had defence counsel for.

<<Sounds like they had little to go on, until he was charged with a bogus offense.>>

The bogus offence that resulted in a conviction against him after a defended trial?  When even a reasonable doubt would have gotten him off?  LMFAO.  The only thing bogus about the case was the evidence of the star defence witness who lied in the stand to help that little shit Finnerty but got tripped up because he'd already told a different story to the investigating officers.  Ooooh, too bad - -if only he could have kept his stories straight, Finnerty could have beaten the assault charges, and then you could have argued that he was innocent of those too.

[Amianthus]

The bogus offence that resulted in a conviction against him after a defended trial?

No, the bogus offence that was the rape charges.

Bet it was brought up in his trial as well. Probably the judge wanted to get one of those "Duke rapists" himself.

[Richpo64]

I see.

So it was a he said/he said assualt case that was going to be dropped until the he said/she lied case was taken by a scumbag democrat prosecutor who withheld evidence.

But you convicted him.

You liberals love to do that. Why is that?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ann Coulter writes another piece of shit, calls it "Nappy-headed Hoax", and somehow you think it is worthy of comment.
Why is this?

[Michael Tee]

<<Bet it [the rape charge] was brought up in his trial as well. >>

Probably not - - would have been highly prejudicial, besides being of no relevance whatsoever.  Guaranteed grounds of appeal if it had been.  What makes you think the prosecutor was that stupid?  Or the reporters who reported the case?

<<Probably the judge wanted to get one of those "Duke rapists" himself.>>

The fuck the judge cares.  There was plenty of evidence to convict the lying little piece of shit anyway.  He would have gone down even if the judge thought he was the Second Coming.  The judge couldn't find one single reasonable doubt on the subject.   And the prick never appealed, either, which means the case wasn't even close.  Except for crypto-fascist defenders of gay-bashing frat boys who love to see those scumbags' hatred and violence spilling over on those least able to defend themselves.