Advice for Prof. Crowley

Concerning Duke University Professor Thomas Crowley’s Durham Herald Sun op-ed, “Don't be too quick to toss lacrosse case,” I said yesterday that Crowley had apparently fooled himself into believing he had “no preconditioned preference” on the critical issue of the players’ guilt or innocence. I then asked where Duke was finding professors like Crowley and others we’ve been hearing from since last March.

Today I want to comment on another part of his op-ed.

Crowley says :

”[Nifong’s] statements to the media at the beginning of the case are open to interpretation about motives. I think many people might have felt totally off guard and swept away by the tidal wave of media attention that so quickly came down after the event was publicized. I am hesitant to be totally critical of Nifong's response because I could not say for sure if I too might have been swept away by all that was happening.”

If before he sent those sentences off to the Herald Sun Crowley had asked my advice, I’d have told him something like the following:

“Thomas, I don’t think Nifong’s statements "at the beginning" are hard to interpret.

Between March 27 and 29 Nifong said such things as:

"I would like to think that somebody [not involved in the attack] has the human decency to call up and say, 'What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?' "

and

"And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong."

and

"My guess is that some of this stonewall of silence that we have seen may tend to crumble once charges begin to come out."

It's perfectly clear he was working to cast the players as villains.

And now that we know about the cooperation the captains gave police on March 16, the 46 players cooperation in the DNA testing and their attorneys trying to make contact with Nifong to discuss the case, it’s also clear Nifong’s “wall of silence” statements were lies.

You’re opening yourself up to criticism with your Nifong was “swept away by a tidal wave of media attention” claim. He’s a veteran attorney. He knows he shouldn’t ridicule people for retaining defense counsels. Average citizens know it. And then he goes on with that business of “why one needs an attorney.”

Who is going to believe Nifong got so swept away that he forgot the kinds of thing UNC Law School Professor Ken Broun was saying at the time:

"Their attorneys advise them not to talk to police even if they're totally innocent, because of the possibility that things that you might say even if you're totally innocent in the case might be viewed differently by the person hearing them than you meant them.” …

And I wouldn't draw any reflection on guilt or innocence based upon the failure to talk, particularly after a lawyer gets involved. That's pretty standard operating procedure?"

My advice is rework the part you just showed me. Or maybe throw it out altogether.

And if you have time, drop by Professor Johnson’s office and see what he has to say. Also, go over to the Liestoppers department building and talk to some of the people there.