Is the Duke rape story unraveling?
Tom Bevan:
There's probably no better way to get a feel for what's been happening in the Duke University lacrosse team rape story than to read a series of revised news alerts on the case issued by the Durham Police's Crimestoppers unit.
An initial release sent out April 3 which offered cash rewards for tips about the case read: "The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."
Yesterday at 11:16am, according to the Raleigh News & Observer, Crimestoppers issued a revised version of the same news release which dropped the entire second sentence about a "horrific crime" and also added a qualifier to the first: "The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed." [emphasis added]
A mere eighteen minutes later a third revision was issued, changing the word "victim" to "complainant."
The evolving facts in the case seem to not only warrant those revisions but also to suggest that the case may be in the process of unraveling.
Two days ago defense attorneys for the Duke lacrosse players said they have time-stamped pictures which apparently call into question aspects of the alleged victim's account of the incident. Yesterday it was reported that there was not a single positive match from the DNA tests conducted on all 46 of the team's white players. Defense lawyers assert that no assault and no sex, coerced or otherwise, took place the night of March 14.
District Attorney Mike Nifong, however, continues to insist he believes the alleged victim was sexually assaulted and claims she was able to identify one of her attackers last week (defense attorneys scoff at the legitimacy of an ID two weeks after the alleged incident). At the start of this case Nifong, who is in the middle of a heated reelection campaign set for the beginning of May, displayed an attraction to television cameras that would make Chuck Schumer blush, doing more than 50 media interviews where he discussed the allegations.
Yesterday, Nifong imprudently (if not inexplicably) took part in a panel discussion on violence against women held at North Carolina Central University - the school where the alleged victim is from - fielding questions about the case from African-Americans who angrily suggested that if the racial components of the case were flipped (i.e. a white woman accusing 46 black players of rape) the whole team would have been arrested on the spot.
Today comes word that uber-lawyer Bob Bennett - who famously defended President Clinton against charges of sexual harassment by Paula Jones - has been hired by the families of the players to help manage the distorted media image that has developed around this case.
Bennett's message to reporters was, "Let's calm down. Let's let justice work itself, in an individualized process, and not have guilt by association." If you want to try and parse legalese, Bennett's statement could imply that perhaps one or two members of the team might be guilty of some crime (though we can't be sure exactly what) against the woman in question, but that the vast majority of the players are guilty of nothing more than being present at a college party where there was beer and strippers.
We'll know more in the coming days, of course, but at this point the case is looking more and more questionable. That doesn't reflect well on the District Attorney, the Duke University administration, or the national media which, quite characteristically, were quick to report sensational allegations of rape but have been slow to give the same sort of intense coverage to the various pieces of seemingly exculpatory information that have come to light in the following days.
And, of course, no racial drama would be complete without at least one of the nation's top hustlers on the scene - in this case Jesse Jackson who said yesterday that "there's such a history of white men and black women and rape and assault it [the Duke case] conjures up many ancient feelings and fears." That's only true if there's someone there to do the "conjuring," and Jackson is always more than happy to oblige.
This case is about whether or not violence was done to a woman. It doesn't matter whether she was black, brown, yellow or white. If a woman was violated against her will, the perpetrators of the crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If it turns out, however, that violence wasn't done to this woman and the whole thing is a hoax, there are going to be an awful lot of Duke lacrosse players looking for a place where they can go to get their reputations back. But as history has too often shown, no such place exists.
Racism 101 at Duke
DNA Evidence Creates Doubt Duke Students Raped Stripper, But DA to Go Forward with Case
Duke prosecutor should keep his mouth shut
Politics Playing Role In Duke Case?
The Hazards of Duke: Predatory Feminism
posted by Adam Lawson @ 10:07 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I wish the media would quit referring to this lady as a dancer. The botton line she is nothing but a stripper and what kind of lady would go into a house with all of these players there. She thought it was going to be a bachelor's party and then when she arrives that is not what the party turns out to be. She should have turned around and left immediately. I am a mother and I have two daughters, one in her second year of college and the
other graduated from college two years ago. Neither girls went to Duke University. My daughters have more common sense than this 27 year old stripper, mother of two. The DA Mike Nifong should be ashame of himself using his position to get elected in the election in May. These young men who were arrested have their pictures on TV and the newspapers. I think this is totally wrong and this is not fair to their families. I thought in this country you are "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" and the DA needs to keep his big mouth shut. If, I were the parents of these boys, when this mess is over, I would be suing the City of Durham, North Carolina.
Stripper claims: She struggled so hard fighting off these three white men that five of her press on nails fell off.
Facts: nails were recovered and no DNA were found under the nails; no scratches were found anywhere on any of the boys. No scratch marks were found anywhere on any of the boys’ bodies.
Stripper claims: three men raped her on the bathroom rug,
Fact:
• No vaginal or seminal fluid, no skin, blood, or hair were found anywhere in the bathroom, bath towels, bath rug, door handle, bathroom floor, basin, water faucet handle, etc.
• A man cannot take off a condom and not get DNA from himself or the female on his hands and not transfer it to everything he touches?
• Accuser claims she was vaginally penetrated; accuser claims she was panicked and thought she was going to die; Where is her vaginal fluid, urine, or blood anywhere in the bathroom? Does her body defy basic physiology capable of keeping any ejaculate from spilling out?
• Accuser claims she was anally penetrated; Where’s her fecal material or scat smears in the bathroom? Does the accuser have inhuman anal sphinter control that prevented any of the ejaculate from dripping out?
• Accuser claims she was orally sodomized; where is DNA from her saliva and tears? Did she lick up every drop and swallowed any evidence?
DNA evidence not connecting the boys to the "criminal stripper" is significant enough, but absolutely no DNA at all is significant in suggesting the rape never occurred at all!
Stripper claim bruises were result of an attack from three boys:
Fact: Time-stamped photos prove stripper arrived bruised and cut while drunk.
Pictures show the stripper performed without the finger nails, and her knees were bruised before she arived.
Nifong stated that a condom was used, if this is true than where is the spermicidal lubricant evidence? Where are the condoms? Where are the condom wrappers? Where is the empty condom box?
If no DNA material were present on the stripper, than why were DNA samples taken? The District Attorney vigorously claimed that these DNA evidence will clear the innocent.
The second stripper stated that she didn’t notice any rape, and when they got back in the car the “accuser” didn’t mention anything about being rape.
Apparently the “second stripper charged with embezzling $25,000” changed her story to conspire with the “lying stripper under-probation-for-larceny-and-trying-to-kill-a-police-officer-with-a-stolen-car” as part of a deal with Nifong to get released from jail, also contacted a public relations firm to “not let this opportunity pas her by and to spin it to my advantage”.
This in the wake of pictures surfacing showing that the “lying stripper” had those fake finger nails missing before the time she lied that a rape occurred.
With the taste of his own foot still lingering in his mouth, District Attorney Mike Nifong has another piece of evidence blow up in his face, I wonder how's his ulcer is doing?
So would it be his own aura or is it the universe's way of getting back at Nifong for destroying these young boys lives?
It would be funny if Nifong's ulcer leads to a colonoscopy, or would it be “ironic” or “poetic justice” that he screws 47 boys over a false rape claim and have to take a 36 inch colonoscopy tube up his @ss for his part in the fiasco he created.
Lets not forget that not only that there lacks any DNA evidence of the boys, but there’s an absolute absence of DNA from her who claims she was raped vaginally, anally, and orally… why wasn’t any of HER vaginal, urine, blood, sweat, fecal, saliva, or tears not found anywhere in the bathroom? Nifong claims that condoms could have been used, then where are the condoms? The condom wrappers, the condom box, the spermicidal evidence from the rape kit?
Some feminist claim the boys were drunk and where so overwhelmed with excitement that they couldn’t ejaculate- not even one, obviously these women have never had sex with a 19 year old male or any male.
Finally, don’t forget the three boys who lived in the house agreed to be questioned by the police for over six hours, and volunteered to a lie detector test. When the boys were told to surrender DNA samples, none called their parents r tried to block the order, they complied because they new the “stripper” was lying. These are not the actions of guilty boys, but Nifong claimed that they were all covering up for each other and will charge each of them with aiding and abetting because the only information they had is that no rape occurred.
These boys were and continue to be put through hell by these criminal strippers and an unscrupulous DA. Hopefully these three will be held accountable for the racial riots pending the acquittal of these innocent boys.
Below is the text of the e-mail sent by Kim Roberts to 5W Public Relations in New York. Roberts, an exotic dancer, accompanied the woman accusing members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of raping her the night of March 13.
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:21 PM
To: Ronn Torossian
Subject: duke lacrosse scandal
Hi!
My name is Kim and I am involved in the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me. I'm so confused as to who to talk to for relevant advice and I hope that you can return my e-mail. If you cannot help, do you know of any names and numbers I can call?
Thanks for your time,
Kim Roberts
Stripper, Model, Escort, Witness
Rape shields were created in the 1970s to protect the alleged “victim” from having her reputation ruined by baseless assumptions, unfair judgments, public humiliation, and character assassinations, but any of this could describe what’s happening to every member of the lacrosse team.
Irresponsible “special interest groups” have held protests everyday holding the name and pictures of anyone on the lacrosse team, to having their pictures and hate slogans pasted all over school. The actions of these groups against these men are nothing short of harassment and unfair character assassination.
Media hungry District Attorney Mike Nifong stated he is positive a rape has occurred, but he isn’t sure if it’s by the members of the lacrosse team, yet he obtained an order to get DNA samples from only the members of the team, then he stated on a national news program that the lacrosse team has a “rowdy” reputation on campus – obviously playing up to sexist stereotyping of jocks to further play his case for the media. As Nifong continues to publicly massacre the characters out his case for public consumption, he claims that the team is “stonewalling the investigation” because they claim not to have any knowledge of what transpired, but is Nifong now believing the men to be telling the truth as he recently changed his tune stating that even if the DNA evidence clears these boys that he’ll have other evidence.
Opportunistic political groups have descended on Duke’s campus using unscrupulous methods to get media attention at the expense of innocent young men who happen to be on the lacrosse team. Young men who were too recently, only boys not yet ready to handle this ugly side of the world. In today’s climate, we need the rape shield laws extended to protect all the innocent, including those who just happen to get in the way of media hungry district attorneys and opportunistic political groups.
District Attorney Mike Nifong’s should be held accountable for the irresponsible actions he’s taken in this rape investigation.
The boys are being tried in the national media before there is any charge are made. Nifong stated that someone else could have assaulted the 27 year old stripper, yet he publicly damned the men’s lacrosse team and only the men’s lacrosse team as gang rapist, and still not knowing whether or not the “alleged victim” was telling the truth, or if the three men sought are on the team, Nifong claims the team is stonewalling to protect its own.
In response, daily protest are held with hate comments made directly to the lacrosse teammates, pictures of the teammates with rape slogans are plastered all over Duke’s campus, and now gang members are driving by the east campus threatening students.
Nifong’s circus-like antics to perform for the national media has put the whole campus in danger.
Nifong proclaimed in the national media that the DNA sweep of 46 boys would find the guilty and clear the innocent. DNA tests prove that the boys of the lacrosse team were telling the truth, but Nifong wants to go ahead with the case only weeks before his election against a woman and a black man. There should be laws in place to prevent unscrupulous politician like District Attorney Mike Nifong from bulldozing over 47 innocent boys just to bask in the international media spot-light.
Lawyers are waiting in the shadows for lucrative civil suit
A man stands in the shadows of the Duke Lacrosse 'rape' case…watching and waiting. While the three wealthy, white male students remains in criminal court, he is not likely to step forward.
Even at this early stage, the stripper’s mother is "very much interested" in "getting Willie E. Gary is a litigator renowned for winning huge settlements.
The stripper’s parents met with Gary in April. The meeting was facilitated by civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Gary acts as a family adviser, and the parents are laying groundwork to make a civil bid. Public opinion can be a large bargaining chip in obtaining a lucrative settlement. Earlier, the parents spoke freely; now they’re being more media savvy.
Essence Magazine featured three articles by Kristal Brent Zook. Each is sympathetic to the accuser. (1st) "Family Defends Daughter's Painful Past", (2nd) "Nowhere to Turn," depicts the accuser as living in terror. (3rd) is basically an announcement of Willie Gary's appearance in the case; it concludes by stating that the parents "worry that their daughter may…need additional legal guidance."
Civil law deals in torts or harms inflicted by one person upon another; its purposes are compensation for actual or perceived damages.
A "guilty" verdict in criminal court can be used to establish liability in a civil one but if the verdict is "not guilty" or the charges are dropped, a civil case can proceed independently.
Kobe Bryant settled out-of-court settlement. Such settlements are not necessarily admissions of guilt. After months of media blitz, Bryant may have been embarrassed to settle, so civil suits could be lucrative even if the “accuser’s” claim is completely fabricated. The Duke students will face the same choice?
Civil suits can be lucrative, and they’re easier to win; standards of evidence and other legal protections enjoyed by a defendant are significantly lowered in civil court.
Clearly, her parents wish to explore a civil proceeding. Gary is conspicuously available.
Civil suits can be lucrative, and they’re easier to win; standards of evidence and other legal protections enjoyed by a defendant are significantly lowered in civil court
So now we know what the "victim" is really after. Sadly, I am not surprised by this. Hopefully, Nifong will come to his senses and dump this case in the garbage where it belongs.
Blind to evidence
On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team's captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.
The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I'll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It's true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It's also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead -- seemingly undeterred.
But Nifong's judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" shouldn't be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor's evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It's not the grand jury's fault; it's just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I'll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.
The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants' Innocence
All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.
In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I'm not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I'm talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants' claims of innocence.
A plethora of proof supporting a defendant's claim of innocence - not just the government's failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.
The Problems with the Accuser's "Identification" of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.
Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn't identify him with certainty (only with "90 percent certainty," in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
The accuser's lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans's photo "looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache." According to Evans's defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.
For all these reasons, the accuser's identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.
The Problems with the New DNA Evidence
Besides the accuser's testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.
Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser's discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it's awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim's struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up -- realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him -- surely he wouldn't just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail -- not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.
But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn't remotely close to the kind of "match" you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, "match" here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.
Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.
As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser's own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser's own story, and it's as fully consistent with Evans's innocence as it is with his guilt.
The D.A.'s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, "Talk to the hand."
That's unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense's evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense's case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense "surprises."
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that's embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren't convinced to drop the case, they've gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn't a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors' case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor's refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant's answers - and the lie detector's response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant's testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?
If There's A Card Up the D.A.'s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney's pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play "hide the ball." This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says." These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.
I am a lawyer in a rural county in a rural state, and although most of my work these days is taken up practicing civil law, for the first 5 - 7 years I did a lot of criminal defense work.
Anyway, as a result of the demographics of my practice area, I have had the opportunity to defend clients charged with rather heinous and violent criminal acts, including rape, murder, etc.
Two observations:
1. whether this woman was raped or not, these young men are going to found not guilty if they go to trial — barring some unforeseen discovery by the police, the facts for the PA flat-out stink and most competent criminal defense attorneys will run him out of the courtroom on these — drunk, verge of being passed-out stripper with criminal record for car theft and tried to run over police officer who is smiling in photos taken as she is leaving the place — if the accusations are true, it’s tragic, but as a lawyer you work for the guy paying the bill, so she will be destroyed when she testifies. I had a similar case once where the alleged victim admitted during cross-examination at the preliminary hearing that prior to the "rape," by a college athlete — football player at a party, that she had stopped to pick up a six-pack to drink on the way to the party, she had drunk six -eight 16 ounce plastic cups half full of wine and had smoked a joint with one other person. She was a recent graduate (graduated two months after the alleged incident and had to fly in from Texas to testify) in Nursing and after leaving the "rape scene" in the early morning hours, instead of driving to the emergency room at the local hospital one mile from her former college dorm room, she drove for 3 hours to a hospital near her parent’s house. There was testimony from other partygoers — acquaintences of hers and who did not know my client — that she "fell asleep" for a little while after she smoked the pot. This poor girl even brought a squeeze ball to use while testifying to relieve stress (her psychologist had receommended it). Unfortunately for this young woman, the facts left me, as the young man’s lawyer, but to dig and berate, and ridicule and demean everything she had done and flat-out state that everything was inconsistent with her allegations — by the time we got to trial, she backed out on the first day and told the PA she would never testify about the rape again. My guy walked. He always told me he was innocent. You never really know, though.
2. I suppose the PA is running with this b/c he is facing an election in 2008, and this is a great time to start appealing to his voter base. The Duke students don’t vote there.
Written By: Kevin Duffy
Comparing LAX case to that of Scottsboro Nine
I am a college instructor who teaches criminal justice and a criminal defense attorney. In my entire career I have never seen such a bizarre and unfair case as the one against three Duke lacrosse players.
I teach a class about a similar case in American history, the Scottsboro Nine. In March 1931, a group of nine black teen-agers was charged with rape on incredibly flimsy evidence in Scottsboro, Ala. The nine were originally charged with the rape of two white women. Even after one woman testified that she lied about the rape, the nine teens continued to face rape charges and the threat of death by execution.
In the Scottsboro case, the two women were part-time prostitutes, but that didn't matter, nor did it matter that at least one of the boys was known to be physically unable to have sex, and two of the boys were only 13. Like Durham, the real issue was race.
In Scottsboro, nine young men were wrongly charged and condemned because they were black, and today the Duke lacrosse players have, in my opinion, been wrongly charged and condemned because they are white and the alleged victim is black.
The one constant with respect to the two cases is racism. I often ask my students if it possible for blacks to discriminate against whites in the same type of mindless ignorance as the KKK or the way the mob went after the Scottsboro Nine. The answer I receive is yes, and my students point to Durham as proof.
JOSEPH R. GUTHEINZ JR
A Special Prosecutor In The Duke Rape Case?
Susan Estrich wants DA Mike Nifong to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Ms. Estrich believes that Mike Nifong, is outmatched for Bob Bennett hired by the Duke team parents, and wants NC’s attorney general to hire Bennett's equal to represent the state?
Why not hire Bennett's equal to represent the state? Bringing in the top guns for a complicated case would be one thing, but bringing in the high-priced talent in order to attempt the transformation of a pig's ear into a silk purse would be a waste of the taxpayer's money.
Nifong claimed that a date rape drug was used but a discovery motion filed by the defense learned that there wasn’t any toxicology done. The question of a “line-up” that guaranteed a Duke lacrosse team member would be chosen. The absolute refusal of Nifong looking at exculpatory evidence of any kind, and he continues to ignore evidence that the crime never occurred.
There is no way three drunken men, inside an enclosed bathroom with a woman violently clawing and fighting would leave absolutely no DNA behind at the alleged crime scene. Where’s her tears, sweat, saliva, and other bodily fluids? If condoms were used, were are the condoms, wrappers, boxes or evidence of lubricant on or in the alleged victim? The scene described by the alleged victim is one of violence and chaos, yet even in the most calm and best of situation, anyone who has ever had sex with a condom knows that there is no way to remove a condom without touching DNA evidence from either yourself or partner.
Ms. Estrich states: "The price to date has been paid by the accuser, who has been called every name in the book".
Really? Some think that the defendants have paid a higher price. These boys had their names, photos, addresses, personal information attached to “gang rape” in the national media and internet, they had “wanted posters” posted all over their school and community, daily protests by many sexist and racist political groups identifying these boys and calling them gang rapists, Meanwhile, no mainstream media outlet that has published the accuser's name, let alone called her a liar.
Ms. Estrich’s second point, “that the treatment of the accuser may chill other women from coming forward”
This depends on whether you think public opinion has turned because of brilliant defense maneuvering, or because of an embarrassingly weak case where evidence points to the accuser making false claim, and a DA who has a political agenda.
Ms. Estrich: “Let Nifong pick the prosecutor; if his handpicked choice believes there is no case, …then so be it.”
My guess is that Nifong will have no interest in appointing a special prosecutor prior to his election in November - in terms of Nifong's job preservation, which seems to be his motivation here. Having a special prosecutor dismiss this over the summer will be even more politically embarrassing than having Nifong take responsibility for his own behavior.
Frankly, as best I extrapolate Ms. Estrich's view, if the Duke Stripper replaces Tawana Brawley as the shorthand for false accuser, that will chill real rape victims who will fear that they will not be taken seriously. The only non-chilling outcome would be prosecutions and convictions, and that is not going to happen based on the evidence we've seen.
The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.
The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!
Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, you find a sub-basement.
If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys.
AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
3 (b) The probable cause affidavit implies there is no question that [deleted] was sexually assaulted on March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan by three men. But three days before Investigator Himan signed his affidavit, March 20, 2006, at 10:10am., Investigator Himan interviewed Kim Pittman, the only eyewitness to the events of March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan. Before Ms. Pittman was granted extremely favorable bond consideration by District Attorney Nifon personally on april 17, 2006, she told investigator Himan [ deleted ] allegation that she was sexually assaulted was a “crock.” Instead Investigator Himan alleged that [ deleted ] “reported that she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute period.”
3 (e), (8) She told Investigator Himan first that she had consumed a 24 ounce bottle of beer and thereafter that she had consumed two twenty-two ounce Ice House beers. Finally, She told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole all her “money and everything.”
Ever since every sexist and racist group descended onto Duke to publicly condemn these boys, I went into over drive trying to make people consider that these boys wouldn't have submitted to DNA testing if they were guilty, but since the 1st DNA evidence came back, I became more persistent and met equally persistent feminist (i.e. feministing, Rachael’s Tavern, Alas a blog, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Justice4Sisters, Hazel8500 etc...) who adamantly insist these boys are guilty for no other reason than because a "woman" (i.e. the stripper) claims it so.
I've noticed since then that most of feminist blogs have fallen silent as new evidence suggests that the stripper's claim to be false.
However, just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement where in the corner Mike Nifong is hunched over clutching this dead case like “Gulum” (movie: Lord of the Rings) clutches the “ring of power”.
A great place to view that unbiased facts is:
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-newsweek-abandons.html
http://commonsensewonder.com/?p=738
I love this quote:
“If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong's case - stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Nifong can turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.”
Post a Comment
<< Home