Readers Alert: As first published this post linked to a Google map showing both Charlie's Pub and the house where the lacrosse party was held. Truth Hurts 001 let me know the link was rotten.
I've removed it and thank Truth Hurt 001 for the heads up.
If you’ve read JinC posts here, here and here, you know many of the reasons why, notwithstanding KC Johnson’s claims to the contrary, you can be sure Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is a transparent hoax.
But some people still aren't convinced it's a hoax. So here are more reasons and reasoning which I hope will help persuade at least some of those people to decide Hopman's story was indeed a hoax.
By the evening of Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 the members of Duke’s Men’s lacrosse team were certain:
They were innocent of charges made by Crystal Mangum. No felony crimes occurred at a party many of them had attended. What's more, they'd cooperated to an extraordinary extent with police investigators.
But despite that, the DPD spokesperson was repeatedly telling media “horrific crimes” had been committed by some of them and none of them were cooperating with police.
So the players knew for certain police were lying about them and setting them up for framing and heaven knows what else.
Folks, have you ever been in a town where you knew the cops were calling you and your teammates a bunch of violent felony criminals and whipping up public outrage;
And representing you falsely as a bunch of privileged, violence-prone drunken louts;
Where the regions major newspaper had that morning front-paged a story saying you and your teammates hosted a party that ended in “sexual violence;”
Where the paper's story said the “victim” of your "sexual violence" was a frightened, young black mother gang-raped by three members of your team with the rest of you now covering up for the rapists;
And that in a town with a very large black population;
Where the news story ended with a professor at your university’s law school saying the sport you played was one of “violence;”
Where you knew that despite knowing you and your teammates had been extraordinarily cooperative with police, your university president had just issued a statement about the charges leveled against your team in which he said nothing about your cooperation;
But in which he instead made comments stoking what you knew was the fast-spreading “wall of silence” lie?
Folks, for Hopman's story to be anything other than a hoax, about half the lacrosse team that Saturday night had to decide to go to a crowded bar and start shot-slamming and shouting; acting for all the world exactly like the people wanting you framed were falsely claiming you were.
While I'm confident the lacrosse players knew the great majority of Durham people would respect their persons, they certainly also knew they were at risk of physical harm from unstable, angry individuals. It only takes one.
Charlie’s is a little more than a 1/2 mile away from the house where the party was held and from which three members of your team have fled for their personal safety.
That evening a rally called a “vigil” was held in front of the house during which the lies meant to inflame the community and which were endangering the players were repeated and endorsed.
The team’s parents, a great many of whom were then in Durham, understood the dangerous situation their sons were facing.
Wouldn’t they have kept their sons close to them? Did KC Johnson ever ask any of the parents whether what Hopman wrote could, as he says, “have been correct?”
To further illustrate how beyond belief Hopman’s story is, let’s imagine that somehow about half the lacrosse team did show up at Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006 and began, as Hopman described it in the Mar. 28 Chronicle:
. . .order[ing] round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful(sic) drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."If anything like that had actually happened, don’t you find it incredible that in this world of cells and blackberrys no one seems to have either: 1) called any of the lacrosse parents to let them know what jeopardy their sons were in; or 2) called 911 to complain about the players?
How easy it would have been for Durham Police to respond to a “noise” or “public drunkenness” complaint and enter the bar.
The police could have asked each of “the 20 or so” lacrosse players to show proof of age.
Even if – again we’re only imagining the players were in Charlie’s to show how beyond belief Hopman’s hoax is - even if the police found all the players of age and none drunk, the police being called to Charlie’s and the public drinking and shot slamming of about half the lacrosse team which outraged the other patrons in the bar would have been a front page story.
Where were Charlie’s staff and management during what Hopman says happened?
Hopman makes no mention of staff trying to quiet the players.
Or reminding them of the grave jeopardy at which they were placing themselves.
Or encouraging them to head home and out of the hostile atmosphere described in Hopman’s hoax story.
Hopman makes no mention of staff and management trying to reassure the other patrons that they’re doing something about the players.
In North Carolina, a tavern owner and staff can be held civilly libel for what later happens if they serve patrons who are obviously drunk.
Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is as obvious a hoax as Crystal Mangum’s bathroom story,