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.
But that is not the facts of this case.
There were no other girls at the party.
All (or most) of the men at the party were Lacrosse players – they all knew each other.
The warrant (In response to another poster) did allow the police to take any cameras, photos, and computers from the site. The defense released some of these photos.
Lets see if I can recall the basic timeline.
The first 911 call in this case was from a woman who claimed that she and a friend was walking, no driving by the house and some men hollered rascist comments at them.
This call was later identified as having been made by the second stripper as they were driving away from the house. No claim of a rape or any other type of assault was made.
The police responded to the house within ~2 minutes – there was a substation just down the road. When they arrived at the house, the house was dark and quiet.
Keg parties don’t end that fast. A few stalwarts always hang around, drain the kegs, and talk til morning comes. So this fact is suspicious on the mens part – not necessarily because they committed a crime, but certainly because they did not want to get in trouble with the police. They were on a team with championship potential for Lacrosse. The party, the strippers and the rascist allegation (if they overheard it) may have been sufficient to get them benched. It is probable that some of the men were still in the house {particluarly the three that lived there} and turned the lights out and kept quiet.
The second 911 call was made about a half hour later. It was made from a mall about 1/2 a mile away and again it was made by the second stripper. Again, no claim of rape was made or of any assault. Instead, the complaint was that there was this other person (the stripper that later makes the rape claim) in her car and they would not get out.
The police respond to this call. this time the police meet up with the two strippers. I believe that I recall reading that the initial responding police officer reported that the stripper (the one who said she was raped and assaulted) was passed out or nearly passed out drunk.
I don’t know of any report as to when she first made the allegation that she was raped. Perhaps it was here when the officers asked her to get out of the vehicle. We do know that a short time later (about three hours was it?) she was down at the medical center having a rape exam done and that the police were back at the house. This time the door was answered and they talked to several of the young men. I forget, but I think they voluntarily went down to police headquarters at that time for initial questioning.
A warrant was obtained, I believe it was the next morning, and the house was searched. They obtained a number of items from the bathroom. Things such as several broken fake fingernails, the complaintants phone, purse and money. {See the warrant at the smoking gun site for an accurate listing}. These are personal items that are not likely to be left behind by any woman except for fear or extreme drunkeness.
Given the nature of the two 911 calls, we can probably rule out that they were left behind due to fear. So the complaining stripper was probably extremely drunk.
We do know that the Lacrose players were extremely mad at the strippers. This is because shortly after they returned to their dorm room they were sending emails. One of them made the outrageous comments about holding another party, then skinning the strippers, etc. This email helped escalate the situation when it was made public.
We also know that four of the men at the party felt that they had sufficient communication and/or interactions with the stripper that they needed personal attorneys. The rest of the young men felt comfortable going with a group attorney.
The stripper failed to identify the men who most feared being named as being her attackers. She named only one of them and two from the group with the community lawyer. That was then end of the case in my view.
Later, it came out through the hard work of a single attorney that they found the DNA of multiple other men on the stripper. This DNA did not match any of the lacrosse players. It also showed that the stipper was either extremely sexually active and not very clean. The lack of DNA evidence from the men makes it very unlikely that they raped her. The active sexual lifestyle also makes it impossible for the police to identify when any of the injuries actually occured to her.
So the police were left with:
1) A witness who was so out of it that she could not identify the alleged attackers.
2) 2 strange 911 calls, neither of which alleged an attack.
3) No credible DNA or rape evidence.
4) A witness who’s story kept changing.
5) A witness who had a prior police record, including a claim that she tried to run over a policeman.
6) A second witness, don’t know what she ever said to the police.
Nick said, “So this fact is suspicious on the mens part – not necessarily because they committed a crime, but certainly because they did not want to get in trouble with the police.”
Well, if you aint doing nothing wrong, then you shouldn’t get in trouble with the police, right?
Then, if a few hours later one of your homeboys from the party sends out an email saying how he wants to rape strippers and “cum all over them” in his Duke Lacrosse issued spandex, that really doesn’t help make your case that you and your little angels have done nothing wrong.
Nick said, “These are personal items that are not likely to be left behind by any woman except for fear or extreme drunkeness.”
Yeah, or some combination of the being out of it and afraid or forced out of the house.
Pressured by the police into confessing. Railroaded by the prosecution, etc.
Oh. You mean like Scooter Libby, Ken Lay, Oliver North….
Remember — they weren’t no-billed or declared not guilty. They were declared innocent
There is no legal process by which someone is “declared innocent”, and a jury did not reach a finding of not guilty or acquittal. The new DA has stated that in his opinion, the accused Duke players are factually innocent. He was emphasizing that it’s not just that they are presumed innocent until actually convicted of a crime.
The first 911 call in this case was from a woman who claimed that she and a friend was walking, no driving by the house and some men hollered rascist comments at them.
Someone has racist comments yelled at them and they call 911? Since when does that justify a 911 call? I’d be curious to know what the exact nature of these comment were.
After my experiences in 3 years of living in a fraternity house I can easily believe that stuff like purses, cell phones, etc., were left behind due to their owners being drunk or high or both.
Rachel S.:
Well, if you aint doing nothing wrong, then you shouldn’t get in trouble with the police, right?
Seems to me I’ve read plenty of commentary to the contrary right here on this blog.
I was just reading a great post on this subject over at Abyss2Hope (be sure to read the linked American Journal Review article, too) so Duke was on my mind. Then I saw this as I logged onto yahoo:
Nifong admits: No crime in lacrosse case
so it seemed worth updating the Alas folks.
It should be noted that Nifong said that there was no evidence that the three men who were indicted committed a crime. He didn’t say that no crime was committed. Unfortunately, we will probably never know with certainty what happened that night.
As requested:
for Q grrl:
# Q Grrl Writes: April 3rd, 2006 at 7:36 am The entire Duke lacrosse team has shat on the community for years — turn around is fair play.
# Rachel S Writes: April 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 am One of the things that I find ironic is that these people who are so quick to point out alternative theories and suggest that this never happen are prognosticating (sp) about evidence that is either wrong or simply not there.
# Antigone Writes: April 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 am I don’t doubt that the girl was raped.
# Shannon Writes: April 3rd, 2006 at 7:21 am I think the victim deserves someone to take her side for once. These guys can get a fancy lawyer, and are protected by their status. Nobody is calling them into account for their rowdyness or loud partying, and saying that is why they raped the woman, but the woman is being bashed by rape apologists right and left.
# Q Grrl Writes: April 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 am What part of the crime do you disbelieve? Barring non-consensual sex, what about the beating and strangulation? These men, specifically the lacrosse team, have proven, year after year after year, their willingness to engage in illegal and disruptive behavior, with little to no regard to the consequences. Suddenly, when the crimes escalate (or are finally reported) these men are innocent until proven guilty? Honey, they’ve been proving their guilt for years. Hell, they’ve already copped to criminal activity the night of the party, so I’m really not sure what “innocence” of theirs you’re trying to shore up.
As requested: For Rachel
“A group of young wealthy White men felt that it was ok to assault this woman, raping her and yelling racial slurs at her. ” Rachel’s blog, March 27, 2006.
“If the case was as groundless as they claim, then the grand jury and/or the judge would have intervened. ” Rachel’s Mailbag, 6/12/06
Note: Turns out it was as groundless as the defense claimed, but the grand jury and judge did not intervene, leading this reader to the conclusion that they must be guilty, at least as far as Rachel S. is concerned.
“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.” Alas a blog, this thread.
“Well, if you aint doing nothing wrong, then you shouldn’t get in trouble with the police, right?” Alas a blog, this thread.
Rachel S. sure seems unwilling in her writings to accept that the men involved may be factually innocent, and may not be the people she is otherwise protraying. To her credit, she eludes more than once to presumption of innocence, or similar caution waiting for more facts etc., in her writings of this case. However, these cautionary remiders contrast starkly with statements as I’ve outlined above, and give this reader the feeling that she posts those disclaimers as an afterthought.
In spite of Rachel’s words of caution to not wait for evidence, I have (I believe, reasonably) concluded from this and other writings in their totality, that Rachel S. is unwilling to accept that the accused men are innocent, that much of what she has relied on as evidence of a crime by these three men was the product of rumor, unfounded, fabricated by the AV and her co-worker, or attributed to other non-indicted players. Rachel’s tone seems unapologetic for jumping to the conclusion that the player’s were guilty,(here’s a title of one of her posts early on “Mar 29 2006 Updates on Duke Lacrosse Team Racist Rape”) and has in fact moved on to assumed guilt of some unnamed entirely different crime, which she props with the same sketchy evidence as before.
It does make her otherwise thoughtful writing on racism and fairness a bit difficult to swallow, and frustrates others including me who would like to think that feminists would not stoop to this behavior. Perhaps I am wrong, and would encourage Rachel or Q grrl to explain why their comments/methodology moves humanity toward equality.
Correction: Second to last paragraph in the comment about Rachel directly above should read: “In spite of Rachel’s words of caution to wait for evidence,…”
Also, I self identify as a feminist and actively participate in another blog discussing the politics and failings of title IX as it pertains to a few Olympic sports in the US, including the possibility of non-conformance with fairness in funding decisions along gender lines. (Yeah, it is a narrow thing, but it is an odd area that I know alot about). And before you decide that I’m a team sport player rushing to defend the lacrosse players: I haven’t played a team sport in 30 years, and a large amount of the negative items said as a generalization about the Duke Lacrosse team rang true based on a few personal experiences in high school and college.
So, if I come across as interested in the fairness thing making me sound like an MRA, in general, I identify with feminist thought in that I believe women are an oppressed group, and that a nebulous soci0-economic structure that we live in supports this oppression. I’m still a student of the why-that-happens and how-to-change-it part, but I do have a place in the equation, based on minor successes my voice has had already.
That said, I do believe that social movements can be hurt, even destroyed by adopting the bad habits of the oppressing group, and believe strongly that this happened in this case. Again: I was as surprised as anyone that what the defense was saying was probably true. At this point it would seem that clinging to a different notion is a very interesting point of view, one that an open minded person may be very interested in understanding or describing in a forthright manner.
Mandolin Writes:
June 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“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.
To respond, I really don’t have the patience to catalog all of the evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that this woman was not the victim of a crime and that these men were innocent. If you want to go do your homework, you will find that no reasonable person can honestly argue otherwise. Even if I were to do the work, the “something happened that night,” “shady business went down” crowd would do what they have been reduced to doing on this thread, pulling on tiny threads and using transparent rhetorical devices to try and deconstruct what they know is the truth
And your “bizarre appeal to the authority of a novel” comment is just a playing stupid tactic. Most people ages 25 to 50 have read the book, as I am sure you have and you know exactly what I am referring to. Again, I really don’t see how my explaining to people what they already know will be a useful exercise. and don’t have the patience for it.
I couldn’t agree more with Staydaddy about how some commentators on this case have lost credibility by being ridiculously narrow minded and stubborn with respect to this case.
“I really don’t have the patience to catalog all of the evidence”
I find no reason to believe your secret evidence when you refuse to share it.
I don’t have any secret evidence, I am referring to publicly available material from credible sources.
You knew that.
Then cite them, and actually assemble a case.
If you are unwilling to do so, then you need to back off your claim.
Listen, I am not going to cut and paste the attorney general’s findings and all of the facts were elicted during the Nifong hearings. Those are readily available, go take a look. More important, I am not making a claim, you are. You are claiming that a crime occurred that night when every piece of evidence from any credible source demonstrates that it did not.
If all that you can do to support your claim is bizzarly feign ignorance about the content of a novel and an e-mail that satirizes that content then you need to back off your claim.
“You are claiming that a crime occurred that night when every piece of evidence from any credible source demonstrates that it did not.”
And that’s another unsubstantiated claim, not to mention a weaselly use of the word “credible”.
I’m deleting further comments from you that show up on this thread until you start offering evidence as well as complaints.