Nancy Grace (& lawprofs) on the Duke case

by Walter Olson on February 19, 2007

K.C. Johnson has assembled the details (Feb. 19) on the CNN/Court TV commentator’s scurrilous handling of the lacrosse rape allegations. For more on Grace, see Mar. 1, 2006, as well as Legal Blog Watch, May 4, 2005, and Suz at Large, Mar. 2, 2006 (quoting Prof. Bainbridge’s pungent assessment).

The legal professoriate does not escape unscathed from Johnson’s attention, either. He is a particular critic (e.g., Jan. 21) of the televised pronouncements on the case of New England School of Law professor Wendy Murphy. And recent assertions by South Texas College of Law professor Kathleen A. Bergin on the Feminist Law Professors blog (Jan. 29, declaring the players “far from ‘innocent'” whether or not a rape is proven in court) fail to stand up to critical scrutiny, Johnson says (Feb. 18). (More: Cernovich).

P.S. And here’s the Saturday Night Live parody. Plus: Ambrogi, Bainbridge.

{ 2 comments }

1 William Nuesslein 02.19.07 at 7:26 pm

An eye witness account is evidence. But one eye witness may say the car was red and another that the car was blue. The science of eye witnessing is very fascinating.

DNA is another matter. There have been a number of exonerations based on DNA evidence, and people do not question DNA in paternity cases.

DNA is dispositive in the Duke case, and I am amassed that professors of law do not understand that.

The accuser should be judged by the content of her character, and not be a placeholder in one’s fantasies about race relations.

2 Jake 02.19.07 at 8:30 pm

The South Texas College of Law has for many years been a preeminent law school. The strident feminist law blog that STCL apparently tolerates gives one ample reason to think the law school has become cheap, a hostage to politically correct BS.

Comments on this entry are closed.