Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong, under fire from the North Carolina State Bar for his handling of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case last year, appeared in court today to defend his own conduct on grounds it was a prosecutor’s duty to pursue a case if he believed a crime had occurred.
“It is not unethical to pursue what some may see as an unwinnable case,” said Nifong’s lawyer, David Freedman, as his client sat at a table before a three-person panel of the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission.
Nifong is fighting to keep his law license. The allegations him include making pretrial inflammatory statements, withholding evidence helpful to the defense and lying about it to a judge.
If it can be proven that Nifong withheld evidence and lied to the judge, he should be disbarred and, ideally, put behind bars.
The Post article makes it sound as if the state bar’s attorney, Katherine Jean, is really emphasizing the “she changed her story” angle:
At that time he learned that the accuser had already twice recanted to police and had given conflicting accounts of the number of men involved in the alleged assault, ranging from three to five to 20, Jean said.
The “she said she was raped by 20 men” claim is complete bullshit, and Jean shouldn’t be using it. The only evidence Mary Doe ever claimed that “20 men” raped her claim was a thirdhand report from a police officer who never actually spoke to her; no police officer, or other witness, has said they heard her make this claim.
Looking at this from a broader perspective, the expectation that a rape victim’s story will never change is an instance of “The Platonic Rape Victim Fallacy” – the belief that there is a single, correct fashion in which all True Rape Victims behave. If a rape victim acts in any other way — for example, in in the earliest hours after the alleged rape she fails to produce a simple, coherent, well-organized narrative when talking to police — then according to the Plationic Rape Victim Fallacy, she wasn’t raped at all.
Whether or not the Duke Lacrosse Players committed rape that night (I now believe they did not, although of course I could be mistaken), thinking that an inconsistent narrative shows no rape took place is wrong.
I’m also bothered that (again, according to the Post article, which may not be giving complete info) Jean is not attacking Nifong over the bad photo ID procedures used, an example of genuine misconduct.
(Curtsy to a comment left by Sailorman).
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: With trepidation, I’m not limiting the comments here to feminists. However, obnoxious drive-by comments will not be tolerated. If you have something intelligent to say, and you can say it without being belligerent, then go ahead; otherwise, please go away.
The lineup procedures are not part of the ethics complaint against Nifong, and I don’t know why not. Maybe because technically that was a matter of poor police procedure rather than direct misconduct by Nifong? I’m just guessing; I’m not a criminal lawyer and don’t know all the ins and outs of prosecutorial ethics. Maybe Jake Squid or some other lawyer reading here could comment if they know more.
I’m not a criminal lawyer, but from my friends who are/were, I suspect that Tom’s guess is close to the truth re the lineup. Also, prosecutors can make mistakes and aren’t often liable for them. It’s the public defamation and statements that have gotten Nifong on the hot seat.
Where’d you get the name Platonic?
Anyway: This is a true problem. But as a way of some explanation: it’s not that “according to the fallacy she wasn’t raped at all.” rather it’s that “according to our experience with victims of crime IN GENERAL, she is exhibiting characteristics that usually make us believe them less.” It’s not exactly a fallacy… it’s more that it’s one of those “rape problems” that run in criminal law.
For example, rape victims tend to be less coherent, and may change their stories. But incoherent victims in general can cause problems for prosecutors and police, and incoherent victims in general are harder to understand. Similarly, victims in general who change their statements make people very, very, suspicious. How do we fit in rape victims? How do we deal with the apparent exceptions? I don’t know. IT IS A PROBLEM, no doubt about it, and we’re not dealing with it as well as we should be. But it’s not exactly a fallacy so much as a failure to apply a good exception policy.
Where’d you get the name Platonic?
Plato?
(Specifically, the concept of Platonic Ideal Forms.)
There are three independent issues here:
If the prosecutor used illegal tactics to pursue a conviction, then he deserves some sort of sanction, potentially including disbarment, if his actions meet the standard of proof for the particular venue where a charge would be brought. If he showed poor judgment or was fooled but acted in good faith, then he does not.
If a woman fakes a charge of rape, then she deserves some sort of sanction, potentially including criminal and civil charges if her actions meet the standard of proof for the particular venue where a charge would be brought. That said, I absolutely agree that her behaving differently from other women who have been raped or behaving similarly to other women who have not been raped does not provide any evidence regarding what happened to her.
If the students committed rape, (which I agree seems less plausible than I thought when the story first broke) they deserve some sort of sanction, including imprisonment and civil penalties, if the evidence meets the standard of proof for the particular venues where a charge would be brought.
Whether the woman faked charges or not, has no bearing on the prosecutor’s culpability, if he acted in good faith. Similarly, even if the students did nothing wrong, if Nifong acted properly based on what he knew, he should not be held accountable. Each actor needs to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
Dear person who obviously ignored Amp’s warning about drive-bys and whose comment I have therefore deleted, and along with said person anyone else who thinks they will be cute by shouting the victim’s name to high heaven,
Knock it off, sil vous plait. The psuedonym Mary Doe conveys the information that needs to be conveyed.
Sailorman:
Similarly, victims in general who change their statements make people very, very, suspicious. How do we fit in rape victims?
Moderate:
…, I absolutely agree that her behaving differently from other women who have been raped or behaving similarly to other women who have not been raped does not provide any evidence regarding what happened to her.
The word “evidence” here is something we have to be careful with. If a rape complainant (the assumption that Mary Doe was a rape victim has led to a lot of trouble here) changes their story, is that in fact admissible in court as an argument in favor of the defense? Is it, in fact, legally evidence? It seems consistent with the trauma of rape that an actual rape victim might be incoherent and might change their story. But what’s the legal status of such a thing?
And I am so glad that this trial is coming so soon. I very much want to see the various issues and facts surrounding how the police and prosecution acted and pursued this case and the testimony and physical evidence that was gathered finally come out in court. It’s time we stopped hearing spin and started hearing facts.
Ron F said, “I very much want to see the various issues and facts surrounding how the police and prosecution acted and pursued this case and the testimony and physical evidence that was gathered finally come out in court. It’s time we stopped hearing spin and started hearing facts.”
I agree with you there. Many people, even reasonable people have bought the defense arguments hook, line, and sinker, and I just don’t believe for one minute that these women danced for a few minutes, went and hid in a closet, and left. There is too much evidence to the contrary. I do think a reasonable person could believe there was no rape, but I don’t think a reasonable person could think that no shady business went down.
As far as this relates to Nifong, I think he was being reasonable to think something happened, but many of the decisions that the police and his office made subsequently were poor decisions–talking to the media, although I think the hooligan comment wasn’t as bad as the defense for the players would have you think. The biggest problem to me seems to be the delayed and selective release of information.
I also think the judge should have issued a gag order much sooner because as soon as Nifong shut up; the defense engaged in their own shenanigans, making up all sorts of unreasonable things and engaging in selective release of information to prejudice the jury pool.
This is an interesting document, some parts chilling, which outlines the information gathering and the photo ID procedures of this case.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2007/05/11/1407531/DurhamPDLAXReport.swf
What did you think was chilling? I’m curious.
I read the whole thing. This is the first time I’ve actually seen the police and prosecutor respond to many of the defense allegations.
What I found interesting was the part where they said, they used the pictures of the lacrosse players to get her to identify who was at the party, not who assaulted her, but apparently she identified 3 attackers. This was after two (or three?) line up where she didn’t identify an attacker.
What I also found interesting was how hard it was for them (in their view) to get the exculpatory evidence and interviews with potential witnesses. As soon as the attorney general stepped in, the defense apparently handed it right over.
Page 4, last paragraph.
Page 9, 2nd paragraph.
Page 11, all the bulleted items.
Rachael, What I’d read was that the prosecutor wasn’t interested in viewing the exculpatory evidence. That appears to be contrary to the report filed by the Durham Police Dept about the case. I honestly have no idea. Both the defense and the police department have ample motive to spin what happened. (I assume Q was being sarcastic)
The bar association seems to thin there’s reason to charge Nifong. Withholding the results of the DNA test because the evidence didn’t support his case is an example where we have sworn testimony to go on and not just a media report. The lineup was also flawed from everything I’ve read, including the file Q posted. But again I could be wrong.
Part of me wishes that this would just go away. The AG’s statement seems to have exonerated the defendants. (I know there are a lot of people that feel his report is flawed, or that he over stated things, or that something bad happened in the house that night and the accused must have done ”something”. But I don’t think some of them will ever be convinced.) But I think the defendants are cleared. I think that there was no rape. (strongly based on the AG’s report I’ll change my mind if new evidence comes to light.) I think that continuing to shine the spotlight on this case will only discourage rape victims from coming forward. Especially if Nifong tries to use Mary Doe as a scapegoat by claiming she deceived him. Even if that doesn’t happen she could be compelled to testify for a lot of reason. I don’t think this is good for rape victims in general.
Another part of me wants to know what Nifong did or did not do. If he used his power as DA to try and frame the defendants for political reasons I want him to go to Prison. I want all of the other people he prosecuted to have their cases reviewed to make sure they have fair trails and are actually guilty. I want him to be held up as an example of what happens when official’s abuse their power. It’s not lost on me that a poor black man is much more likely to be abused by the legal system and a victim of a rogue prosecutor than rich white kids.
page 4 last paragraph is about the lack of exchange of evidence between the defense and the prosecution–I was struck by that too.
page 9 the inability to pin down who exactly was at the party and the misleading names given
page 11 they could get people to talk with the police
Yeah, I noticed all of those things. They were trying to make Nifong’s job as hard as possible. The very cynical part of my thinks this was a ploy by the defense attorneys to keep the case going a) so they could get more money b) because it actually benefitted their clients to be uncooperative.
Joe said, “I know there are a lot of people that feel his report is flawed, or that he over stated things, or that something bad happened in the house that night and the accused must have done ”something”. ”
I actually have a little sympathy for the three men accused because I don’t necessarily think that they broke the law. But I am in the “something happened that night” group. I think there was probably some sort of altercation between the dancers and some of the men at the party. People seem to forget the frantic 911 call from Pittman, the accusers belongings and fingernails being left at the house, the email about raping strippers, the undisputed allegation that one of the players threatened the women with a broomstick, and the neighbor’s statements about commotion and racial slurs. In their haste to make these guys look like choir boys, people (including the AP reporter Aaron Beard, who was terribly biased in his reporting.) are glossing over the details that the defense team hasn’t even disputed.
None of this means there was a rape; I’m not so sure about whether or not there was a rape myself, but let’s not act like the team is full of righteous heros because they are not. In fact, as a collective, the team seems like they don’t respect women or the law.
I’m not saying joe is doing this, but many people in the media are (as are the numerous trolls, who would never in a million years, defend a black man in a similar situation). That’s what’s frustrating. You know if people are happy the three indicted players didn’t go to trial fine, but let’s not act like we dealing with little “boys” who are angels.
Ah, I read those things as: it was obvious that the boys at the party were being duplicitous on many levels, the boys were in possession of pictures and video of the party and would not hand these over despite requests to do so, and that despite an obviously shakey identification process, the id held sway over other evidence. Oh, and that investigators seemed to stop pressuring for release of evidence or exculpatory findings once the ID was made.
Rachael, I’m sure they’re assholes. I’m sure they were very rude and disrespectful to the dancers. I’m sure the dancers were upset.
It may be my reading comprehension skills But it seems…slanted to say “okay, not a rape but something.” We can’t prove it but “something”. I guess I read ‘something’ as justifying the charges. Maybe that’s not how you mean it.
What do you think about the balance between a chilling effect on rape victims and preventing malicious prosecution (if that’s what happened.)
The duty of a prosecutor is very different than that of defense attorney.
a “wall of silence” isn’t uncommon. The police are trying to spin it so that people who don’t help them are considered to be acting inappropriately.
That’s not true. The police aren’t primarily interested in alibis. They are primarily interested in convicting people. The reason they are/were trying to “demand” alibis BEFORE they actually had much of an idea who it was is so that they could find people to convict.
That’s all well and good at first glance… until you realize that alibis, like the stories of rape victims, are often more complex than people think. “Ironclad” is rare. (If someone accused me of murdering someone in the last hour, there’s not a chance in hell I could DISprove it through an alibi. Could you?)
So say you have a real, actual alibi. It is REAL. But it’s “normal,” which is to say “reflective of reality”, which is to say “not ironclad.”
You present it on request. Then, the cops find some sort of hole in it (like most ‘normal’ alibis):
We can all imagine how well that goes. Just like actual rape victims screw up remembering their rapes, actually innocent people screw up remembering their alibis. And next thing you know, you’re in a lineup and on national TV accused of rape. Kind of puts the whole “good people come forward” thing in a different light.
That’s why people don’t volunteer alibis until they are required to give them. It makes SENSE. It is even harder when the alibi is for something that’s a small difference between “alibi” and “not alibi.” And it’s harder YET when your alibi is, itself, illegal or otherwise scummy.
E.g. It’s fairly easy for me to prove I didn’t fly to Johannesburg yesterday to try to assassinate someone.
But OTOH, say you’re a Duke lacrosse player. You’re at a party full of drunk people who don’t know each other. You’re busy downstairs trying to take advantage of 17 year old girls, or you’re busy trying to find your pot, or shooting steroids, or whatever. While you’re there, and without your knowledge, someone gets raped. What kind of alibi can you think of for that? Even though you’re not guilty of the rape, do you think you’d volunteer that to the police?
This says nothing about acting as a WITNESS. If something happened, any witnesses should have come forward. But no way in hell do I trust the police enough to spontaneously give them information. They are, literally, just looking for more rope to hang someone. So I don’t think the “wall of silence” is quite so unusual, nor entirely unjustified.
Right, Sailorman.
There’s a reason that they outright tell you: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
If they wanted some evidence that they believed the students were concealing, why on Earth didn’t they subpoena it or go in with a search warrant?
—Myca
Catch-22: absent certain exigent circumstances and other exceptions, you need to have enough evidence to get a judge to issue a warrant.
So while it is possible that a search of the entire frat house and the apartments/dorm rooms of the players, etc (if conducted soon after the accusation) would have turned up something that would convict someone… there’s no way you could get that warrant, because you wouldn’t have enough evidence for the warrant until after the search.
That’s why it’s a catch-22. If the only evidence that exists can only be found by warrant, you’re often stuck.
True, but in the case of this crime, isn’t it generally true that “I was raped/assaulted in such and such a house” more than enough to get a judge to issue a warrant to investigate the premises looking for evidence?
Q Grrl, let’s remember once again that the document you reference is not sworn testimony in court; it’s an unsworn accounting of what happened by a party that has an interest in deflecting blame/a civil lawsuit for what happened. It could all be true. Or, then again, maybe not.
If the young men in the house had pictures and videos of what went on at that party, why couldn’t, or didn’t, the police get subpoenas to seize them? Certainly a judge would issue a search warrant for that? Did they actually exist? If they did, did the police screw up?
We should only have to wait a relatively little while now for sworn testimony. I’m in neither the “Mary Doe was raped”, “Mary Doe is a lying bitch” nor “Mary Doe wasn’t raped but someone did something bad” groups until we hear the testimony and see the evidence.
Rachel S. said,
“Many people, even reasonable people have bought the defense arguments hook, line, and sinker, …”
Yup. That’s true, and they are foolish to have done so. And many other people, both reasonable and (e.g., the Group of 88) unreasonable bought the complainant’s allegations and the prosecution’s arguments hook, line and sinker. Right now it looks as though the defense had the better of the arguement, or it woudn’t be the prosecutor who is in court. But, we’ll see, and I can wait.
joe said, “We can’t prove it but “something”. I guess I read ‘something’ as justifying the charges.”
No I don’t mean that.
I’ve just been seeing people treat them like martyrs and choir boys, and it’s driving me crazy. People are saying things like “people should have stood by them because they are such great guys.”
I can see that. disdain was invented for tools like these. They don’t need to be guilty to dislike them.
Joe, point of order – I’m not familar with the use of the slang term “tools” in this context.
it’s sort of a synonym for “idiotic assholes.” At least in this context.
O.K.
I’m used to the term meaning “studious to the exclusion of regular social interaction”. Of course, these kids could be both. IIRC the Duke lacrosse team had an exemplary graduation record. Not that I know if they were graduation with honors, but apparently they pretty much all graduate, a record that you don’t see with, say, the football and basketball players. And God knows my experiences at MIT showed me that you can keep up with your studies and not be able to relate to people particularly well, especially people of the opposite sex.
Well, now; Nifong says he will resign. He doesn’t say when, and he says he’ll do so regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Whether or not Nifong should be convicted is a matter of the law, and I am content to let the judicial process proceed on that one. But given that public confidence in his integrity is quite likely quite low, it’s fine by me if he chooses to resign quite soon. As recently as the beginning of this month he had said that he wouldn’t resign. I wonder what made him change his mind?
What made him chnage his mind? The oppertunity to forestall disbarment.
Its possible for the LAX players to be martyrs (which I think they are) and not choir boys. Eventually we may know more details, but probably not the full story- I’d guess it was some dispute over the money. $800 seems like an awful lot of money for two strippers to just dance for an hour.
Maybe there was more to it and the parties got into a dispute on payment via a via services.
In a word, No.
They did get a warrant for the house.
Nifong has been found guilty of the ethical violations. No word yet on the penalty to be issued by the North Carolina Bar.
What made him chnage his mind? The oppertunity to forestall disbarment.
In other words, he left before they could kick him out.
$800 seems like an awful lot of money for two strippers to just dance for an hour
Your ignorance of the going rate for strippers at frat parties is not really a good basis to speculate on the accuser’s motivations – which, from the latest accounts, seem to have a lot more to do with her mental health than with wanting payback for getting stiffed on the bill. (You’d think that if it were money, the other woman present might have said something about that, hmmm?)
Nifong has been disbarred.
I was appalled listening to the smug comments of the judge in the Nifong case…..a secondary route of justice in NC. Please, that route only existed because the innocent
“defendents” had supportive parents willing to destroy their retirements to get their sons a fair shot. Imagine if they were poor, or on scholarship, do you think that justice, or Nifong would have prevailed?
[Disenvoweled by Amp.]
Rchl S., QGrrrl, thrs… hw cn y nt fl srr fr th ccsd? D y thnk Mr D ctd wthn hr rghts whn sh ccsd thm f rp flsl? Wh s t s hrd t s ” ws wrng. jmpd t cnclsns nd bght dstrbd yng wmn’s str hk, ln, nd snkr.” Ths str hs bn trgd frm th bgnnng. hlth dlg btwn th sxs cnnt xst s lng s ppl lk Rchl S. strt thrwng bmbs vr tm sm pr, mntll dstrbd, ntxctd wmn pns hr mth nd sys “rp.” ccstns mst b nvstgtd nd wghd mr crfll n th ftr. gr?
[Disenvoweled by Amp.]
n thng v lrnd frm ths:
Vctm blmng s n lngr cnfnd t rp vctms. pprntl, n tt fr tt tht knws n bnds, t s prfctl lgtmt n thr crcmstncs. Rchl, Q grrl, t. l.: t sms s thgh th flsl ccsd n ths r n thr cs r vctms, nd thr prsnl flngs r rrlvnt, thgh th wll lkl b flwd. B yr stndrd, vryn wh s nt snt dsrvs t b prsctd fr crms th dd nt cmmt? WTF? Hs th rght wng drftd bck rnd t m lft? rll m cntnll srprsd t th symtrcl pplctn f ths cr blf s xmplfd b th gnrlzd wll, bt ths gys rnt prfct, s th crtnl dsrvd wht th gt. Thnks fr th hdsp! Hp t dsnt ctch n n thr crcls, lk th brtn clnc bmbng flks. pps, t lt gss ldng b xmpl hs ts dwnsd whn n s tryng t chng thngs fr th bttr.
Justin, referring to other posters with contempt-filled language (i.e., “people like Rachel S.”) isn’t allowed here. Also, if you had read what Rachel actually wrote, you would have seen that she said that she does feel a little sorry for the three accused boys.
Staydaddy, I think you’re a liar, and I have very little patience for liars. You have three choices.
1) Leave here and never post again.
2) Demonstrate, with direct quotes, that Rachel or Q Grrl have advocated that anyone should receive false prosecutions for crimes they never committed.
3) Apologize for Rachel and Q Grrl for your false claim about their views.
Any of your posts that don’t contain either “2” or “3” will be deleted, either in whole or just the vowels, depending on my mood.
Amp, did you take out the vowels manually or do you have a script for that?
There is a wordpress plugin for it somewhere, but I used this instead: http://novalis.org/cgi/vowel.cgi
karen, why are you putting “defendants” in quotes? I don’t have much patience for the poor-little-angels crowd either, but it’s quite clear that whatever happened, the three students accused were not rapist, and Nifong abused his duty as a prosecutor.
Do you think that any rape victim at Duke is going to get justice now, after what Nifong did?
I seem to recall hearing somewhere, perhaps even here, that voting registration in the Durham area among college-age people (which would be Duke students, mostly) has jumped up. I can’t find that on a Google search. Has anyone heard this? Can anyone provide a reference?
I’m sure these guys weren’t choir boys, but it’s immaterial. They didn’t deserve this anymore than someone who dresses “suggestively” and gets drunk at a party deserves to get raped.
Someone mentioned why didn’t the defendants turn over all of the evidence like photos etc. The police had Dave Evans camera the whole time. They retrieved it when they executed the search warrent on 610 Buchanan. The camera had pictures of the dancers dancing with time stamps. Neither the police or prosecution ever looked at those pictures. Other, pictures from cell phones had pictures with time stamps as well that had been published in the media. Yet, Nifong tried to change the time line to earlier so that it did not support Reade Seligman’s alibi. When, you have a prosecutor that is obviously not seeking the truth then as a defense attorney you would be sceptical of turning over all of your cards.
Nifong said on the stand he didn’t bother to read his case file. He was out making all of those statements, some of which have proven to be false, without reading the evidence. He is an arrogant, stubborn, idiot. That is a bad combination for someone in that position.
The dancers only danced for 5 minutes. The players thought they had been ripped off. That is when the verbal exchange occured.
RonF, are you suggesting that anyone here has said that the boys (assuming they were innocent) derserved to be charged with a crime they didn’t commit? If so, could you quote the exact comment you’re referring to? Thanks.
RonF, nobody (I hope) is saying that the accused men deserved malicious prosecution, or vigilante harassment. All I’m saying is that there is a difference between “unfairly accused” and “how dare you pick on these poor angels”. Much of the initial public opinion against the Duke players as a whole was influenced by accounts of things that actually DID happen–the racist comments shouted at the strippers, the subsequent e-mail about a murder fantasy.
Putting aside the bitterness pervading certain posts, nobody of any race, creed, or color deserves to suffer through false allegations. Isn’t one of the biggest issues to emerge from this debacle that of Nifong who exhibited the power to convict persons without evidence and due process (his over 100 public comments prior to the gag order were illustrative of how irresponsible people in responsible positions can ignite a populace and taint otherwise rational people) and, if the defendants could not afford competent counsel (how many of us can write a check for $1 million?), down the river they would float. These men were found innocent of rape or sexual assault through an exhaustive inquiry (can you imagine if the AG’s office didn’t turn every stone before they made their findings public?), and for those who wanted a trial, after what I saw of Nifong, I can only imagine the worst for the accuser. Anyway, whether they were innocent of crass behavior, racial slurs, and underage drinking is not relevant to the core question of the case: did a rape or sexual assault occur? No. In the end, I am happy to discuss points as long as you cite sources; informed debate is good for a community.
“did a rape or sexual assault occur?”
How the hell do you know that?
Dave, the core issue is whether there was enough evidence to actually charge these men of the crime of which they were accused. The answer is clearly no, and Nifong was not only dishonest, but he violated his duty as a prosecutor. His job was to seek justice, not to win a case. Thanks to his ego and dishonesty, three men were unjustly accused and put through hell, and actual rape victims will find it that much harder to get anyone to take them seriously.
Amp:
RonF, are you suggesting that anyone here has said that the boys (assuming they were innocent) deserved to be charged with a crime they didn’t commit?
Mythago and Amp: nope. No one has made such an accusation, and I didn’t mean to imply that anyone has. When the whole thing began to unravel I did some traveling around on some more radical sites, and there seemed to be a (thankfully quite small) minority that seemed to be of the opinion that “oh, so a couple of white kids finally had to go through what poor/black kids have to go through, too bad for them. [/sarc]” But while I don’t see anyone exactly overflowing with sympathy for them, no one here has crossed that line.
I meant, perhaps imperfectly, to introduce a different idea. I have seen commentary on a few threads here on how these guys weren’t choir boys, about the behavior of the team during other parties in general, the nature of the party itself, their behavior/choice in having hired a couple of strippers, etc. I ask this: isn’t that analogous to commenting on a rape accusers’ clothing choices, their sexual history, their choice to attend a particular party or bar and use alcohol or drugs, etc.?
I think of it as more analogous to the dudes who would fall all over themselves to excuse the Rodney King beating because after all he was speeding, had a history of drug use, etc, etc, etc.
I ask this: isn’t that analogous to commenting on a rape accusers’ clothing choices, their sexual history, their choice to attend a particular party or bar and use alcohol or drugs, etc.?
No. Unless you’re saying there’s a cultural belief that young white men ask to be accused of rape and invite such accusations and probably enjoyed them.
The comments about the students’ behavior (as a whole–not these three men) is not “this is why they deserved it” but “this is why many found the accusations credible”.
And I think that that’s a reasonable thing to say.
It’s just that there did seem to be an awful lot of folks rushing to judgment in the beginning (since, as you say, the accusations did seem to be credible), and I think that when the accusations are shown to be non-credible, there’s a responsibility to say “my bad, I won’t be so quick to judge in the future.”
EDIT: I mean, in a lot of ways, it’s the flip side of the kudos you get for judging early and being right. I opposed the Iraq war as a gigantic goddamn fiasco from day 1, and I think that I (and the people who agreed with me) deserve some credit for that. If I had been wrong, and the war and occupation had been quick, efficient, effective, and painless, then yeah, it would be my responsibility to admit that.
joe, who is the author of a comment I have not let through moderation,
It’s posisble that Ampersand will come and overturn this decision, as he is the moderator of this thread. Last I recall, he said that he didn’t want Mary Doe named specifically, but he may have changed his mind since time/circumstances have advanced.
However, I will not be publishing your comment as long as you insist on including Mary Doe’s name, despite the established preferences of this blog. If you want to rewrite your comment in an appropriate fashion, you may do so. But be aware:
Thin ice. You. Are on it.
~Mandi
Huh? Must be a different joe.
[Yes, it is! –Amp.]
Mythago:
But, then, couldn’t comments on a rape complainant’s attire, etc. be taken as “this is why people find the accused credible”?
Amp (since Mandolin is following your policy); I fully agree with the practice of not using the name of a rape accuser or rape victim. However, here we have a situation where there is no allegation of rape at law; the three young men have been pronounced innocent and the prosecutor in charge of the case has been disbarred for misconduct. There are no charges at this point of rape of her against anyone. And, I’ll wager there will never be.
I personally see no pressing need to use any names in this; I have named neither the accuser nor the accused in any posting I’ve made, nor do I intend to start now. But why now should there be a general scruple against printing her name, but not those of the young men?
Regarding my own posts, why assume that I don’t have such a scruple? Although it’s possible I messed up (writing quickly, quoting carelessly), I’ve consciously avoided printing the names of the accused parties in any of my posts on “Alas.” I also argued that in cases like this, the media shouldn’t release the names of the complaintent or the accused.
As far as what other people write, for over a year now lots of drive-by comment-writers have made a point of aggressively mentioning Mary Doe’s name, and without exception they don’t make interesting arguments and don’t show any sign of having carefully read the posts they’re responding to.
I know longer really care if people mention Mary Doe’s real name, in and of itself; worrying about that now would be closing the gate after the cow’s run off. However, I’ve learned through experience that mentioning Mary Doe’s real name is a shorthand new posters use to tell me “I am a belligerent poster who will reduce the quality of conversation on ‘Alas.'” That’s why I don’t let those posters through.
In contrast, I haven’t seen the same “I’m pissed off at all you morons who disagree with me, so here I go mentioning the accused boys’ names! Nah – nah -nah – nah!” belligerent attitude from those rare folks who mention the accused boys’ names, so I don’t think the same shorthand is true in reverse.
O.K. Makes sense, Amp. I didn’t mean you in particular, which I why I said “a general scruple”.
The idea that you’ll get trashed in the media is a real and valid worry for victims of sexual assault. There might be some value in ‘punishing’ this accuser by publishing her identity. This has been done in many places. I think this value, if any, is more than made up for by the harm in discouraging real victims of rape to come forward.
I admit that this position is not universally consistent to all crimes. I don’t have a ‘rule’ that fits. I just think it makes sense given the way sexual assault cases work in the United States.
I think RonF is being a little generous. I cannot believe how any reasonable person could believe that this woman was the victim of any crime that night, much less rape. The three accused and the entire lacrosse team has been completely exonerated – I think that the whole “something happened” “shady business went down” take is an excuse not to address the issues squarely.
Additionally, as to the whole argument that they are not heros and angels, well, I don’t know any heros or angels. From all accounts, the Duke lacrosse players are no worse and no better than any other student group in any average college, or any 45 random students picked out of a hat on a college campus. The villanization that occurred when the DA started lying to the public was unreal. I remember reading Rachel S’s blog, where she pondered whether the lacrosse team was thinking about their privilege as they raped this woman. I remember reading about how all 45 players would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for failing to turn in the rapists (The presumption being that not one of the 45 would have the conscience to come forward if a crime had occurred because, after all, they are all rich white males and are deficient in human characteristics that other people have)
And the whole “murder fantasy” e-mail is such a baloney, and anyone who ever read Ellis’ American Psycho knows it.
This case exposed to many what many minorities already knew, a prosecutor can be dangerous. It also exposed the agenda of certain people who are less concerned with the facts and justice than they are with proving their theories.
“The idea that you’ll get trashed in the media is a real and valid worry for victims of sexual assault. There might be some value in ‘punishing’ this accuser by publishing her identity. This has been done in many places. I think this value, if any, is more than made up for by the harm in discouraging real victims of rape to come forward. ”
Joe, that’s not even internally consistent. Want to try restating that?
“I think RonF is being a little generous. I cannot believe how any reasonable person could believe that this woman was the victim of any crime that night, much less rape. ”
The reasons you offer for this are transparently thin, including a bizarre appeal to the authority of a novel. Try again.
Mandolin: It has been claimed that the infamous e-mail was a parody of a passage in “American Psycho” (which supposedly is on a required reading list for many classes at Duke). Having read neither the novel nor the e-mail, and being unfamiliar with reading lists at Duke, I have no idea whether this claim has any basis.
As for Joe’s statement, if you substitute “outweighed” for “made up for,” it makes sense.
Oh!
Makes sense now. Thanks, Paul! And sorry for not getting your meaning earlier, Joe.
Mandolin, I meant that
1. There’s may or MAY NOT be any value in punishing this particular accuser by publishing her identity.
2 Even if there is any value in doing so there is MORE value in keeping it quiet so that it doesn’t discourage women who were rapped from coming forward.
and now I see that paul Explained it for me. Am I the only one that used ‘Made up for” and outweighed the same way?
Ampersand:
I concur with your views about those who use her real name. On the other hand, calling her ‘Mary Doe’ seems to me to be “closing the gate” in a rather conspicuous manner. I refer to her, as I always have as “the complainant”, and to the defendents as “the defendents”, unless I want to refer to one of them specifically, in which case I do so by name. If there was more than one complainant, then I would adopt the same practice with them.
On the subject of posting her real name, my personal thoughts have been all over the map on the subject. After reading the article Q Grrl linked to, they’ve moved a bit further.
Mandolin:
Try again.
If you look back to the statement by the State’s Attorney when he dropped the rest of the charges against these young men, IIRC he not only stated that they had not committed a crime; he also stated that in his opinion no crime had occurred at all.
So at this point I’m most interested in exploring the question of heros and angels and villification and open discussions of prior behavior. When these young men were accused a lot of information about their team’s prior activities were published with an eye towards impugning their character and to support a prejudgement of their behavior in this instance. This would never have been tolerated as an effort to vilify and judge the putative victim in this case; why, then, was it acceptable to do so to the actual victims in this case? Especially since it was guilt by association – the young men themselves (again, IIRC) had no record of bad behavior or previous brushes with the law. It seems that last was equivalent to impugning the complainant because “Oh, she’s a stripper, they all lie.”
But, then, couldn’t comments on a rape complainant’s attire, etc. be taken as “this is why people find the accused credible”?
Do you mean, the way that people immediately insisted that because the accuser in the Duke case was a stripper, a single mother, had a criminal record, etc., that she was a lying whore? Your claim that ‘this would never have been tolerated’ if directed at the accuser is, bluntly, nonsense.
But no, because you’re conflating sexist expectations about rape victims “asking for it” with jumping to conclusions that if someone is accused of a crime, he or she must be guilty.
Daran,
I think you’re probably right about that. But I’ve been calling her “Mary Doe” so long its become a habit.
“1. There’s may or MAY NOT be any value in punishing this particular accuser by publishing her identity.
2 Even if there is any value in doing so there is MORE value in keeping it quiet so that it doesn’t discourage women who were rapped from coming forward.”
I see what you’re saying now, Joe. The phrasing of the “may” sentence and the “making up for” confused me; I thought you were saying the opposite of what you, in fact, were saying. Sorry, again, for the confusion.
“If you look back to the statement by the State’s Attorney when he dropped the rest of the charges against these young men, IIRC he not only stated that they had not committed a crime; he also stated that in his opinion no crime had occurred at all.”
And this is convincing to me because…?
We don’t KNOW that no crime was committed. We know 3 specific guys, in the great dominance of likelihood, were not guilty. C’est tout.
Now, that’s a different conversation from heroes/angels/whatever. Which I also think you’re missing the point on. The feminist critique, as I understand it, is not “FUCK YOU DOODZ” so much as a response to the cultural script which paints young, relatively wealthy white college athletes as “angels.” That cultural script is the other half of the cultural script that says rape victims are whores. Both bits are wrong.
Thus, the point is not that these doodz are demons from some lower circle of hell, but that they are fallible. A hole has to be created within the cultural script so that they can be seen to possibly be guilty of bad behavior.
I still think the entire furor over this case — and indeed much of politics — is basically about narratives. The people who are screaming Mary Doe’s name want to punish her, yes, but by extension, they want to punish what she symbolizes — and that is the whole whore complex they have of women. They want to punish whores. And I have no interest in letting them define whore, or letting them punish her specifically.
Personally, I have vanishingly little interest in the duke lacrosse players. I don’t know their names; I won’t seek them out. The three accused didn’t rape her. I’d say “good for them,” but really, not raping is a pretty low standard for good.
I’m sure the ordeal has been excrutiating for them. I have sympathy for that. I’d have more sympathy for that if the people who want to defend them weren’t trying to call for Mary Doe’s head. The passionate defenders of the lacrosse players are scary, scary folk. I admit I find it hard to empathize strongly with the DLPs when 75% of the time I read something ostensibly calling for kinder treatment of them, the writer goes on to talk about lying whores and bitches and rape victims who deserve it and all the shit they’d like to do to Mary Doe.
That’s not fair to the DLPs; they didn’t ask for those defenders. Intellectually, I pity innocent people who are unfairly persecuted. I think there are excellent arguments to be made that no one in this situation was treated humanely. I would support calls to treat everyone in this situation humanely. In my limited reading, it appears to be feminists like Ampersand and Rachel S. who are asking for decency to be shown to both accused and victim.
Still, the DLPs benefit from the cutlural script that writes them in as angels, and which begs for a villain, the cultural script which the DLP’s most passionate defenders cling to because it promises satisfaction for their bloodlust. That cultural script shocks and frightens me. It is that which I’ve spent the most intellectual and emotional energy considering and arguing against, because it is expressed so often here, in overt text of comments that don’t make it through moderation, and in subtext of comments that do.
I think a lot of the fury here has to do with cultural scripts. One set of cultural scripts says that ‘of course’ white privilaged athletes were guilty of ‘something’ bad. People like that are very unlikely to NOT abuse they’re relative position.
Another other set says that the stripper was likely a prostitute and drug addict and of course she lied. Probably for money.
Another set says that the players were targeted because of bias against privilaged white men.
Now that the facts of the case (as best they’re known) are public, and it appears that there was no assault (if you choose to believe the AG’s report and I do) the proponents of the later scripts are trying to use the incident as proof that their script is right. The believers of the first script are having other reactions.
My opinion is that this case was weird and doesn’t prove anything other than prosecutors have too much power. It took millions to fight this, justice shouldn’t cost so much.
Right . . . I mean, I think maybe the lesson is that we shouldn’t make judgments based mostly on a cultural script. Neither the accused nor the accuser are tools to make a political point, and those who use them in that way dehumanize them all.
—Myca
I’m not trying to be a troll here when i ask why it’s not convincing to you? If you don’t believe the AG’s report what would it take to convince you that there wasn’t an assault in the house that night?
I read it (once and quickly) and it struck me as if it were a pretty detailed investigation. The people involved in it didn’t appear to have an axe to grind. (that I could see) It also went much further than it needed to go and acknowledged the downside of doing that.
Feel free to ignore this if you don’t want to get into it. I’m asking out of curiosity about what you (mandolin) think because I like your writing. I dont’ want to debate the case in the comments.
“My opinion is that this case was weird and doesn’t prove anything other than prosecutors have too much power. It took millions to fight this, justice shouldn’t cost so much.”
I could not agree more with this statement. I wish that was the lesson everyone learned. I think the 3 men who were accused got a raw deal. They are not choir boys and by and large, the DLP are guilty of bad behavior based on stuff that was never contested by the defense, but that doesn’t mean that they deserved malicious prosecution.
It’s FORTUNATE that these young men had access to high powered, expensive lawyers. I shudder to think what would have happened if they didn’t.
I am intensely curious about what *really* happened… with the whole thing. At the party, the 2 women’s stories, Nifong’s prosecution strategies… It’s got media sensationalism written all over it, which is probably why we are STILL talking about it.
Joe, Mike Nifong was an elected official, right? And many of the Duke Lacrosse supporters say that his desire to keep his elected position lead him to be malicious (more like overzealous in my view) in prosecuting the three players.
But they very quickly forget that the attorney general is also an elected official, and at the time he stepped in to oversee the case the tide of public had turned in favor of the players. These supporters expect us to believe that the attorney general was not influenced by public opinion, but the attorney general went so far as to say that the players were innocent, when his job was to see if there was sufficient evidence to charge the players. Juries find people innocent, and sometimes judiges do, but attorneys general do not do that.
I think objectively, it is fair to say that this entire process surrounding this case (like many other cases) wasn’t just motivated by some great search for the truth, but by political manuevering.
Having followed the case very closely, I think it is fair to say that at this time we don’t know exactly what happened that night, but it likely wasn’t a “love fest.” It is also clear that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the three men charged (particularly Seligmann) were guilty of sexual assault.
I guess what makes me a tad unhappy are the constant caveats.
Say the Duke players were found guilty. Sure, some folks would have protested that they were innocent (“beyond a reasonable doubt” is not “no doubt.”) But I think most folks would have revised their opinions to think they were rapists. Certainly, the players’ statements that they were innocent would (accurately) be called lies. Certainly, any witnesses who made misstatements would (accurately) be called liars.
Now, they’ve apparently been found not guilty–to the extent anyone has reviewed the case (and mind you a LOT of people were trying to convict them) they didn’t do it.
What that means to me is pretty simple: they got screwed. The initial accusation was false. Not necessarily maliciously false, but false as in “not true.” The followup accusations were surely made under pressure, and we know what pressure does to people.. but they were false, too. As far as anyone can tell, the DLP did nothing that warranted a criminal charge.
So why not admit it? Why keep the “something might have happened…” caveat? Why is that any more well supported than the (unproven and IMO unwarranted) claim that she did it because they didn’t tip her enough, or because she hated white men, or…?
I mean hell, false accusations HAPPEN. They don’t happen very often at all, and it’s an extraordinary pity for other victims that this one was so heavily publicized. But the fact that it sucks doesn’t change what is true.
I don’t think the DLP support statements are because they’re “angels.” Rather I think it’s because they’re relatively normal people who got unusually fucked over by the system. Acknowledging that fact seems reasonable.
Joe — I agree with Rachel S. I couldn’t have said it as succinctly as she did.
Mandolin said, “I’d have more sympathy for that if the people who want to defend them weren’t trying to call for Mary Doe’s head. The passionate defenders of the lacrosse players are scary, scary folk. I admit I find it hard to empathize strongly with the DLPs when 75% of the time I read something ostensibly calling for kinder treatment of them, the writer goes on to talk about lying whores and bitches and rape victims who deserve it and all the shit they’d like to do to Mary Doe.”
Yes, yes, yes. I have a particularly hard time with the ones who have tried to post comments on my site suggesting that I should be raped or that the accuser in this case deserved to be raped. I also love the others who suggest that I should not have a job because I don’t support the LAX players, and in my own experience, the bulk of their defenders who have tried to access my site are really bad people, who say these kinds of things.
That’s not to take away from the minority of their defenders who make reasonable arguments, and if there weren’t so many idiots defending them, I could actually put up more posts about the case, but putting up anything about this case is is like going through a gauntlet of threats. In fact, some idiot just a few days ago decided to respond to this post by saying Nifong should be killed, and unfortunately, that is not surprising. (And frankly I haven’t seen many of the people like myself, who have supported the accuser, saying the players should be raped, killed, sent directly to jail with no trial, etc.)
Mandolin:
And this is convincing to me because…?
Rachel S.:
and at the time he stepped in to oversee the case the tide of public had turned in favor of the players.
I think that’s overstating the case. I think that at the time the Attorney General stepped in you had a lot of people who were unsure about what had happened, but I wouldn’t go nearly as far as to say that the tide of public opinion had turned in their favor.
These supporters expect us to believe that the attorney general was not influenced by public opinion, but the attorney general went so far as to say that the players were innocent, when his job was to see if there was sufficient evidence to charge the players. Juries find people innocent, and sometimes judiges do, but attorneys general do not do that.
Actually, no – juries do not find people “Innocent”. Juries find people “Not Guilty”, and there’s good reason for that. Juries get a case when a prosecutor finds at least some evidence that a crime was committed, and it’s up to the jury to determine whether the evidence condemns the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Since in a great many cases a crime was in fact committed, and since there is often a possibility that the accused may well have committed the crime even if there’s reasonable doubt, they don’t declare anyone innocent; they just say “Not guilty”.
Whereas prosecutors look at evidence and cases all the time and make the decision to prosecute. Sometimes they decide not to do so because they think a crime was committed but they don’t think they can get a conviction; sometimes they decide not to do so because they think the accused is innocent. Since in this case we had the extraordinary circumstance that the original prosecutor had committed fraud, it was entirely reasonable and proper for the AG to let the public know that the DLP’s fell into the latter category rather than the former. I do not at all accept the idea that these guys were exonerated and that the AG may have gamed the system in response to public pressure.
Mandolin:
a response to the cultural script which paints young, relatively wealthy white college athletes as “angels.”
What? What culture would that be? Not American culture, I’m sure. Maybe back 20 years ago, but right now young relatively wealthy white college athletes are generally painted as being sexist, abusive, snotty and ignorant, getting by on their athletic ability instead of their academic achievements and using “privilege” they’ve obtained from their status as athletes to abuse just about everything they care to.
Myca:
Nailed it in one. I think what’s frustrating the left is that this goes against the grain of their stereotypes and did not allow them to use the complainant and the accused to promote them.
Rachel S.:
For what it’s worth, while you and I have often disagreed I offer my sincere sympathy for having to deal with the assholes targeting your site. I’ve made comments about the left on this case, but there are plenty of fools on both sides and from what you’re saying the right has it’s share of people seeking to do exactly what Myca describes.
Ron F, I’ll agree with you about the not guilty point. You also forgot about the fact that we have grand juries who are checks on prosecutors. In this case, the grand jury thought there was enough evidence to indict. I also believe the judge in the case has some power to dismiss a case.
I personally don’t believe that no crime happened; perhaps no rape happened, but those were not the only charges.
I do agree that prosecutors have too much power, particularly in the area of prosecutorial discretion, but I actually don’t think this case works well for that narrative since these guys never saw a trial or a day in jail.
I was referring to ‘the cultural script that’ indicating that it is A cultural script. It is, indeed, a cultural script. That doesn’t mean there are no others.
Want to prove its absence? I await the sociology papers.
Rachel S.:
I remembered grand juries, but from what I’ve heard their check on a prosecutor is more theoretical than efficacious.
I think the issue of abuse of prosecutorial discretion works just fine in this case. I’d be devastated if my name and picture was splashed for weeks worldwide as a rapist, I was thrown out of school, I was thrown off my team (the amount of dedication and effort and emotion kids put into an athletic team is quite high), I had to face my parents and friends all that time, etc. And for the rest of their lives there will be people that still will think they did something wrong but it was covered up because they were “white relatively-wealthy athletes” or for the sake of pacifying public opinion. Yeah, they didn’t go to jail. Plenty happened that was plenty bad enough; not anything I’d want to go through, nor you either I imagine. It cost them quite a bit. There’s no reason to downplay this.
Here was a white prosecutor who was running for re-election in a majority-black district. Why the hell did he do this? Because he had to pander to the “white people cover up white-on-black crime” and “black people can’t get justice in the court system” memes to have a chance to get re-elected? Yes, he abused prosecutorial discretion. But prosecutorial discretion in and of itself is not the problem here; it’s the abuse thereof, and why it was abused. Don’t blame the gun; blame the shooter. And ask why he thought he had to shoot.
O.K., Mandolin, perhaps that’s a cultural script among feminists. I imagine you’d know better than I about that. But in my opinion it’s not particularly prevalent elsewhere.
Why ‘surely’? In his press statement AG Cooper said that the complainant really did want the case to go forward.
There are three non-exclusive possibilities I can see: 1. She was malicious. 2. She was mentally ill. 3. She was pressured.
Each of these represent the default ‘script’ of various sectors of the discoursoverse, so the “lying bitch” brigade plump for 1, while a gender-traditionalist might be inclinded to view men as bad; women as mad. ‘Pressured” is a liberal script.
Cooper appeared to regard her as mentally ill, although this was not spelled out. Perhaps he is a tradionalist, but I don’t think any of us know enough about the case to second-guess him.
I think this case is a great illustration of a bad prosecutor because it harmed affluent young white men. Poor black men (or women) don’t need any more evidence that the police have too much power.
Mandolin, thanks for explaining your position. I’m still curious what your burden of proof would be to conclude that no assault was committed. I’m asking because if the conventional wisdom were to agree with you I’m not sure what the accused (or other people in the house) could do to clear their name. Take the accuser to court for libel? Insist on going to trial and risk prison?
Rachel S. Writes:
June 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Yes, yes, yes. I have a particularly hard time with the ones who have tried to post comments on my site suggesting that I should be raped or that the accuser in this case deserved to be raped. I also love the others who suggest that I should not have a job because I don’t support the LAX players, and in my own experience, the bulk of their defenders who have tried to access my site are really bad people, who say these kinds of things.
I think this is because they think this case support their odd ‘victim’ narrative.
Rachel S. writes:
The significant thing about this case is that the entire Duke team — I believe something like 46 men in all — had their DNA compared against the half dozen or so different men’s DNA found on Mary Doe’s person and clothing and there were exactly no matches between any Duke player and Ms. Doe. Of all the DNA tested the only match was between Ms. Doe and her boyfriend. There was one piece of DNA match on household garbage, but that piece of evidence was found where there was reason to believe people’s DNA would be found.
That’s it.
Really, I’d encourage anyone who wants to point a finger at anyone who was anywhere near that party, spend some time reading as much of the evidence as they can get their hands on. This case went the way it did precisely because everyone “knows” they did something wrong. Other than being a bunch of drunken fratboys who hired a pair of strippers, they don’t seem to have done anything else wrong.
As for “she really wanted the case to go forward”, again, read all the evidence. She didn’t get paid, her cellphone was lost or stolen and they called her and the other dancer n*****s. Instead of dismissing her complaint — which they should of after K.R. said the rape charge was a “crock” and the evidence came back saying there was no rape — and certainly not vaginal, anal and oral without a condom, as she claimed — the case should have been dropped. There were scratch found during her examination, but they were not fresh. There was vaginal swelling, but not consistent with rape (she admitted to having had vaginal intercourse with more than one man recently, as well as using a vibrator vaginally for a couple she performed for).
Nifong was apparently blinded by ambition, so the “Perfect Storm” of a false rape accusation was set in motion. Ms. Doe, and the three Duke players were victims of Nifong’s ambition and lack of ethics.
As for “we don’t know exactly what happened that night”, there is a lot of photographic evidence, cell phone records, ATM records, et cetera, ad nauseum. When she was confronted — because she was confronted about the inconsistencies between the evidence and her story — she changed her story again.
(Edited to add the block quote and the last paragraph.)
Joe asks, “Take the accuser to court for libel? Insist on going to trial and risk prison?”
It sounds like the preponderance of evidence suggests that the three who were actually accused are not guilty, so I’d call that relatively clear.
Beyond that, I don’t think there’s any real need for anyone to clear hir name, at least not with me. They weren’t convincted; they’re not guilty in the eyes of the law, and probably, in personal interaction; that doesn’t mean that Mary Doe is a liar or that there were no crimes.
It’s kind of like Schroedinger’s cat, in ways that seem apparent to me but that I’m having a great deal of trouble explaining. Alas, eloquence escapes me today.
(I guess I mean that I can presume that individual men are not guilty for all practical purposes, and simultaneously presume that Mary Doe is not a liar, since the box of the truth is unlikely to be opened and reveal a dead cat or a live reenactment of the night’s events.)
Rachel wrote: “Mike Nifong was an elected official, right?”
No, when this all began, Nifong was a career bureaucrat who had been appointed to the DA position by the governor when the former DA vacated the position. For the most part, Nifong was a political neophyte and had Elizabeth Brewer hounding him in the local political arena with the same ferocity that the defense lawyers applied in the media.
Not to excuse Nifong’s actions, but for the most part, his mistakes were those of someone thrust into a position for which he was unqualified to fill. This is the reason why I think that the class, gender and other social issues raised by others are at best secondary considerations. For me, this case has in hindsight become purely political, starting with the question, “Why did the governor appoint Nifong to DA in the first place.” – me
Mandolin, I’m not sure I get what you mean in your last comment. I’m going to repeat it back in my own words. Please let me know if I’m incorrect.
1. It doesn’t matter what we think or say about this case. (I’ll agree with that)
2. We’ll never know the “truth” of what happened.
3. Since we’ll never know the truth you’re content with believing that the accuser was accurate and honest in her complaint AND that the fratholes were innocent of assaulting her. Mutually contradictory things.
If I’ve understood you correctly my question was about what you would need to constitute ‘truth’ in point number 2.
No, when this all began, Nifong was a career bureaucrat who had been appointed to the DA position by the governor when the former DA vacated the position.
So Nifong was appointed to an elected position and was facing election for the first time? As an incumbent, no less. Hah! There was fear working in this equation, too.
‘Pressured” is a liberal script.
Hm? It’s conservatives who insist that women are moral and mental children – that’s why they claim that women who have abortions (at least the ones who are sorry) aren’t murderers and wouldn’t go to jail under punitive anti-abortion laws; no, it’s evil abortion doctors who ‘pressure’ them into making the wrong choice.
recded, Nifong may or may not have been incompetent, but what he did had nothing to do with competence; it was a violation of his ethical obligations as a prosecutor. He did things a greenhorn right-out-of-law-school new DA knows are wrong; that’s why he was disbarred.
Other than being a bunch of drunken fratboys who hired a pair of strippers, they don’t seem to have done anything else wrong.
Well. There was the shouting racist epithets at the strippers as they left, and there was that little email about killing and skinning a stripper that was sent right afterward. Obviously this in no way justifies what Nifong did, or the accusations against the three men; but I’d like to think we can criticize the results without going into Poor Little Angels mode.
You also forgot about the fact that we have grand juries who are checks on prosecutors.
That’s the theory. In reality, not so much.
FuzzyCatHerder:
There was vaginal swelling, but not consistent with rape (she admitted to having had vaginal intercourse with more than one man recently, as well as using a vibrator vaginally for a couple she performed for).
Do you mean that the level of vaginal swelling she had wasn’t consistent with rape and whose presence at the level it was present could be explained by these other activities? Or was the situation that her vaginal swelling was consistent with rape but that it’s presence could be also explained by (was also consistent with) other activities that she had testified to?
Hey Joe,
For most circumstances, I suppose I’d define truth as that which can be objectively proven or reasonably assumed. I’m not a philosophy student, though, so I doubt that my definition is solid… take it as an approximation.
…I was up all night working, so I’m pretty fuzzy. I’m not sure whether or not that addresses your question.
Probably the latter. The degree of vaginal swelling is essentially linked to penetration. Beyond a certain point, a degree of swelling can probably be assumed to have been the result of such unpleasant violence that it is pretty much assumed to have been rape. (there’s always the possibility that it is not; consensually violent sex can also create swelling. However this is less likely, and assumptions have to start somewhere.)
As we all know, not all rape is violent. Therefore, a LACK of swelling does NOT mean that a rape DID NOT occur. It only means (or to be more precise, it only “implies”) that a rape which involved penetration that caused swelling did not occur.
Anyway: because THIS accuser had some vaginal swelling, one might ordinarily use that as evidence. But because she had done stuff that could have caused the swelling even absent the alleged rape, the swelling wasn’t proof of much.
(it’s actually a bit like the sex act itself: If a defendant claims there was “no sex.” then proof of penetration can prove a rape. If the defendant claims “consensual sex” then the fact of penetration becomes irrelevant (since it can support both the charge and the defense.)
Right. “Consistent with” doesn’t mean “it must have been” – from a medical standpoint, it just means that the medical evidence doesn’t contradict the claim. An injury can be “consistent with” more than one possible cause.
mandolin, sort of. I’m just trying to understand what additional information you want for a reasonable assumption. But don’t sweat it.
Mythago (quoting me)
Pressured by the police into confessing. Railroaded by the prosecution, etc. OK, so you found a conservative “pressured” script, but it’s not applicable here.
When I observe that the story fits a liberal (or conservative) script, I make no comment about whether it is accurate or fair, only that liberals (conservatives) are more likely to believe it.
As I said, read the evidence.
The exam was incompatible with the claims that she was violently raped by the three men who were accused (or by any man, for that matter).
There is other information in the evidence — such as that the bathroom where she claims she was raped was too small for what was claimed to have occured to have occured.
Remember — they weren’t no-billed or declared not guilty. They were declared innocent, and if you read the evidence available it becomes obvious really fast why that happened.
1 more deleted comment added to the tally of “scary, scary racist shit that scary, scary racists feel impelled to splatter all over the internet whenever this case is mentioned.”