One might think that such a quick and definitive statement indicates that the NYPD have direct evidence that someone else is the culprit. Otherwise, why would they so quickly dismiss her as a person of interest?

And if they definitely know that Madonna wasn’t involved, why is it taking a week to reveal who was involved?

I can’t find anything about it.

See, I don’t buy that. I see burning crosses as a sign of white on black hatred, but I’ve never thought of nooses that way. I talked to a few of my buddies and my parents about this (and yes, I’m going anecdotal here), after the debating on the topic I’ve been doing with chapoutier, and only my mother associated the noose with white-on-black hatred. All the rest thought of it solely as a death threat.

There may be some in our society who see it as a racist symbol, but there must be a significant percentage who don’t. Therefore there must also be a significant chance that the perp didn’t intend it as a racist message, and backs up my earlier assertion that it was premature for the victim to assume that it was intended as such.

Racist crimes against blacks and Jews continue at Columbia. For example, we have this case of a hang-noose found hung on the door of a black professor’s office (via Michelle Malkin):…

But police also ruled out any possibility that Constantine had hung the rope herself, saying “our victim is a victim.”
From an AP report.

I’ve been thinking more about this NYPD statement from Friday. I’m not an expert on official police statements, but one would think that if detectives are certain in ruling out an accuser of any involvement, then they must have the goods on someone else in order to reach that conclusion.

The only other individuals reported to be at the scene of the crime (before the authorities arrived) are Prof. Marie Miville, and Derald Wing Sue, Madonna Constantine’s research partner.

If the NYPD have relieved Madonna Constantine of any involvement, then I assume that they have also relieved Miville, Wing Sue (or ANY other teacher, assistant or student who Constantine fraternized with) of any guilt.

I say this because, if Constantine is now out of the loop, the NYPD must also be saying that she in no way conspired with anyone else to leave the noose on her door.

I would also assume that investigating Constantine’s network of friends and colleagues would take longer than 2-3 days for the NYPD to reach their conclusion on her non-involvement. Therefore, I’m beginning to believe that direct evidence shows someone who Constantine couldn’t have conspired with. Is this the videotape?

But who cares, right JWS?

Right.

On October 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am, James Felix said:
I wouldn’t presume to speak for all Conservatives, but I have two reactions myself. One is to be glad that the cops are that much closer to catching someone. The other would be mild frustration that perhaps they’d be at this point a couple of days ago if Columbia had simply cooperated from the start.

Given the history of high-profile manufactured “hate crimes” and Columbia’s initial refusal to cooperate, can you honestly fault someone for thinking it possible that this incident was not what it appeared to be?

You’re a stand up guy for answering Mr. Felx, wish I could say the same for most of the posters in this thread. I can understand being slow to speak and swift to hear. Everything must be with a grain of salt. But once those hesitations are proven false, then it time to get serious to finding answers. That is why I’m so upset that this story only appeared on this blog after Columbia was slow to turn over the video. That became more of a story than the noose itself.

MM says she’s been following this with great interest. I would love to see some official outrage and condemnation of the noose itself from MM and then focus on the effort to catch the perpetratior. But it would be possible that she assumes her audience is more interested in bashing all of the “leftists” and “hippies” that have supposedly taken over college campuses.

I would hope that it is an incorrect assumption. There needs to be outrage (no matter what your race) that nooses are still being used in our society, period. That’s not be sactimonious.

On October 13th, 2007 at 9:43 am, JWS said:
See, we’re not saying the hanging of the noose was ok, we’re just saying that Whites are fed up with decades of black behavior. You blacks all understand, right?

JWS, I can only call things the way I see and can speak only for myself. Frankly, I would love to think that a mentality of racial dominence doesn’t exist in some people and that a noose can become a thing of the past only read about in history books. But these rash of incidents, including in the most honorable of establishments (I have nothing but respect for the USCG), shows that clearly someone thinks that nooses are a) a joke or b) wants to send a message. It’s the same thing with the Jena 6 reaction to the nooses.

Just as some white people might hate being accused of racism at every turn, and would wish that black people would just let racial issues go and move on… there are also black people who REALLY DO just want to let racial issues go. But then they open their newspaper and read about nooses being left on professors doors, or a ship crewman, or on a civil rights attorney’s door.

Then they can’t let go. They won’t let it go. That could be their child. Their neighbor. Their churchgoer.

I don’t know if this professor’s parents are living. But can you imagine if you are the parent of that professor who grew up when there were separate drinking fountains? Then a noose appears on YOUR CHILD’s door at one of the most prestigious universities in the country?!?!?!

Many black people then get frustrated with people who see all of these incidents and still have the nerve to pretend that race doesn’t play a role anymore in our society.

Then they get accused in blogs and talk radio shows of being “race hustlers” and “race baiters.”

But who cares, right JWS?

Spare me the lectures about “lynchings in the south”. I know all about ‘em. Still doesn’t alter the fact that the noose has been used more against whites than blacks.

Your assertion is no doubt correct, but the raw number of victims is irrelevant, it’s the symbolism that matters.

Here’s a stark example for you: the Roman empire crucified hundreds of thousands of people during its dominance. But when you see someone with a Crucifix on their necklace it’s a pretty safe assumption that they’re honoring only one such person. It’s also safe to assume which person that is.

It likewise doesn’t matter how many people of what races have been hanged. As a means of communication the noose is understood in our society to be a symbol of white-on-black hatred.

Alrighty Mr. 509th Bob, what is your reaction and other “conservatives” to the fact that this person (as the police has stated according to the AP) is not just a person crying “wolf?”

I saw that NYPD quote too, but the NY Daily News had already established this yesterday:

Constantine was not at work Tuesday morning when the noose was spotted by Prof. Marie Miville.

I wouldn’t presume to speak for all Conservatives, but I have two reactions myself. One is to be glad that the cops are that much closer to catching someone. The other would be mild frustration that perhaps they’d be at this point a couple of days ago if Columbia had simply cooperated from the start.

Given the history of high-profile manufactured “hate crimes” and Columbia’s initial refusal to cooperate, can you honestly fault someone for thinking it possible that this incident was not what it appeared to be?

It was not petty larceny. The guy stole the Koran and put it in a toilet as a clear message of hate toward a particular group. The student admitted as such. Hmmm…sounds somewhat analogous.

Last time I looked expressing hate wasn’t against the law. Indeed, the Left in this country does so professionally, routinely burning American & Israeli flags, hanging Bush in effigy and carrying signs proclaiming all manner of hateful nonsense.

In fact, I could stand on a street corner and shout “I hate Muslims” until my voice gave out without breaking a single law.

The only crime committed at Pace was that the student flushed a book that didn’t belong to him, hence my characterizing it as petty larceny.

In contrast, here at Columbia what we have (assuming it’s not a hoax) is someone directing what could reasonably be perceived as an actual threat at an individual person.

You can “hmmm” all you want, these are two completely different cases. One is not even “somewhat” analogous to the other.