This case just keeps getting stranger and stranger:
The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke’s lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14.
Authorities in nearby Creedmoor said Thursday that none of the men named in the decade-old report was ever charged but they didn’t have details why.
A phone number for the accuser has been disconnected and her family declined to comment to The Associated Press. But relatives told Essence magazine in an online story this week that the woman declined to pursue the case out of fear for her safety.
Real? Not real? On one hand, the accused are innocent till proven guilty. On the other hand, rape trials generally turn nasty, which can lead to women not coming forward to make the Complaint. If someone has made a huge mistake, it is Durham DA Mike Nifong, who should have kept his mouth shut from the get go.
In other news, I have heard, but cannot find written confirmation, that the accuser has not decided to testify or not. From what all the legal analysts are saying, if she doesn’t, the case will be dismissed.
Also, more idiots marching:
The national chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense says his group intends to march at Duke University on Monday to “deal directly” with lacrosse players about charges of rape of an escort service dancer at a team party.
I wasn’t aware that they were sworn officers of the law, subplanting the City of Durham, Durham County Sheriff’s Dept, NC State police, etc. But, as the article points out:
“They are a racist and anti-Semitic group,” said Myrna Shinbaum, a spokesperson for the New York-based league. “These guys come armed. They carry shotguns to demonstrations. The authorities down there should know this.”
Asked whether his followers will be armed when they come to Duke, Shabazz chuckled and said, “I don’t know if I can comment on that.”
Duke authorities would be well advised to turn the Panthers down, being that Duke is a private institution on private property. Either that, or have a bunch of armed police on hand.
Shinbaum has already convicted the players, and, is spouting plenty of racist invective over this case, as the Panthers are often caught doing. We will see if Nifong meets with them, which would be totally innapropriate.
Rape trials are always nasty to the guys accused. Innocent or not, they may never get their lives back. Women who make false accusations of rape should serve the same time as their victims would, had they found guilty of the false accusation.
The stripper has serious character flaws judging by her criminal pass:
• Stripper made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
• Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
• Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002
• 1st round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team.
• 2nd round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team
• DNA proves stripper had sex with boyfriend/pimp which accounts for the “rape kit†evidence of recent sexual activity.
• Innocent boy who picked up finger nail and threw it in the trash left his DNA on the fake press-on nail and will be charged for rape.
The stripper’s account of the night has serious integrity issues:
1) First she claimed 20 boys raped her, then she narrowed it down to 3 in a bathroom
a. The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
b. Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys.
c. She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies.
d. The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed†to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
e. She took drugs before coming to the house, something illegal.
The stripper obviously lied, and she’s putting these innocent boys and families through hell. She deserves to be in prison for the rest of her pathetic life. She is worthless as a person and human being. Her one lie destroyed innocent boys. I hope her and Nifong’s aura catches up to them and they both get what they deserve. I hope everyone wishing this rape claim to be true, in spite of all the evidence that it never occurred, gets what’s coming to them.
I got into this huge argument with feminist about the rape, and it’s amazing how these feminist are determined to insist this rape really happened.
I believe the stripper lied.
Noname I think it’s pretty safe to say that the stripper wasn’t raped.
Chuckles Maybe Nifong should lead a massive search throughout the east coast of every fake-mustache store if anyone had a customer wearing a Duke Lacrosse uniform.
Ismone The “rape kit” showed evidence of a recent sexual activity. She had sex with her boyfriend before or after the party, which would explain the “evidence”.
Ismone In defense of noname, no one wishes anyone to be raped, but if she lied, she deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law on 46 counts for each lacrosse player she lied about.
Ismone “No contrary evidence is presented†This whole case if full of contrary evidence. Why you ignore it is another issue. I suspect the stripper could come right out and say that she made the whole thing up, and you’d stillinsist that she was raped. People like you don’t care about evidence.
A grand jury conviction is not hard to get, all you need is to say I need an indictment.
It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, seat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen… especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?
Ismone You really should think before ranting about things you know nothing about. It makes you look like an idiot.
I’m tired of hearing about “white male privilege. It’s female privilege that allows these boys’ lives to be destroyed with only the word of a drunken stripper with a long criminal history and a pattern of making false accusations.
“I was raped” is just as good proof as “I was robbed.” Again Isome, you expose yourself to be an idiot. You can accuse anybody with what ever you want. It doesn’t mean it’s true. One woman claimed that she felt sexually harassed because a man wore a fanny pack to work. The police refused to charge the man, so she proceeded to sue her workplace in civil court… it was thrown out. Saying “someone robbed meâ€, like any claim, must be proven in court. Just because someone accuses a crime occurred, doesn’t mean it happened – Deal with it Ismone! Just like in the Duke Rape Scandal. She obviously lied.
These boys are innocent! The drunken black stripper with the long criminal record and history of making false accusations…lied.
• Stripper made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
• Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
• Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002
• 1st round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team.
• 2nd round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team
• DNA proves stripper had sex with boyfriend/pimp which accounts for the “rape kit†evidence of recent sexual activity.
• Innocent boy who picked up finger nail and threw it in the trash left his DNA on the fake press-on nail and will be charged for rape.
The stripper’s account of the night has serious integrity issues:
First she claimed 20 boys raped her, then she narrowed it down to 3 in a bathroom
a. The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
b. Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys.
c. She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies.
d. The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed†to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
e. She took drugs before coming to the house, something illegal.
The stripper obviously lied, and she’s putting these innocent boys and families through hell. She deserves to be in prison for the rest of her pathetic life. She is worthless as a person and human being. Her one lie destroyed innocent boys. I hope her and Nifong’s aura catches up to them and they both get what they deserve. I hope everyone wishing this rape claim to be true, in spite of all the evidence that it never occurred, gets what’s coming to them.
Mac Dive’s weak argument DNA proves a crime couldn’t have occurred the was the lying stripper claimed.
Fact DNA wasn’t found under the fingernail, it was found on the top surface of the nail.
Mac Dive’s weak argument • A forensic examination of the victim found evidence consistent with rape.
Fact All the rape kit showed is that the stripper had recent evidence f sexual 1ntercourse, it can’t tell when or if it was consensual, but now we know through conclusive DNA evidence that she had sex with her boyfriend.
Mac Dive’s weak argument • Motive, means and opportunity for the accused to have raped the alleged victim exist.
Fact This is true only if the stripper was in three places at once, at the house with the first guy, at the bank machine with the second guy, and in the dorm room with the third guy.
Mac Dive’s weak argument • Photo identification of the suspects without prompting.
Fact The photo line up was of only the lacrosse team to guarantee only lacrosse team members were chosen. It seams DA Nifong didn’t believe she would pick only lacrosse players either, so he fixed it so she did.
Mac Dive’s weak argument • Linking to DNA from a suspect previously identified with 90 percent accuracy.
Fact She was 90% sure except for the mustache, the third guy never had a mustache, so it makes it 0% sure.
• A pubic hair was found on the alleged victim that may be found to be consistent with the pubic hair of one of the suspects.
Fact The hair in question is not linked to the lacrosse boys, it could be from her boyfriend or previous clients.
Mac Dive’s weak argument If evidence of either high alcohol content or the date rape drug has been found in toxicology exams that too will favor the prosecution.
Fact The stripper is a drug abuser and alcoholic. How would a drunk stripper having multiple sex that night remember who she consented to sex and if sex ever happen? No date rape drugs were found in the innocent boy’s possession. This lie was made up by desperate feminists and lame women who hope the black stripper was raped. The Stripper has a long history of drug abuse, she probably took the illegal drugs herself.
Mac Dive’s weak argument (Kim Roberts says the lacrosse players plied the alleged victim with drink.)
Fact Kim Roberts initially said that a rape never happened. After getting arrested and threatened with jail, she copped a deal with the prosecution to not have her probation revoked, and said a rape did occur, then she contacted a Public Relations firm telling them :â€I don’t want to let this opportunity pass me by†“How can I spin this to my advantageâ€. The she stated in the press, “Why shouldn’t I profit from this scandal? I have a child at home.†Ms. Roberts, like many who claim this rape occurred, is not a reliable source.
Mac Dive’s weak argument Instead of being misled by babbling about the dancers painting their nails in the bathroom, keep your eye on the actual evidence. That is what will matter in the end.
Fact This is the only thing I agree with Ms. Mac Dive. Practice what you preach. Stop babbling and look at the evidence…
Roderick
1) They boys didn’t get upset until the strippers ripped them off. The strippers were hired to perform 2 hours for $800.00, but less than five minutes into the routine, the boys were bored and the strippers tried to leave without returning the money.
2) The boys didn’t lie about who was at the party, the boys cooperated completely without legal counsel until their parents found out about the unprofessional behavior of the DA Mike Nifong.
Diane s. What’s the “s†stand for?
1) Get your facts straight, they were involved in a heated argument that turned ugly, what racial slurs did these two strippers call the boys? The 2nd stripper lied, she said she was just driving by and slurs were told, she didn’t say she started the argument by ripping these boys off.
2) Since when do strippers go “escorted†to private shows? They knew what they were doing, their old strippers and their act was too boring to keep the attention of boys use to seeing attractive girls.
3) Women charge as little as $50.00 to do private shows. Many of these women have drug issues, so they’d do practically anything for very little. These type of women take advantage of college boys.
4) Diane… what century are you living in. Rape is never acceptable.. people are upset because this black stripper with a long criminal record and history of lying in a pattern of making false accusations.. lied.
sara
“And I’m fucking tired of women being raped and people making excuses for it.†No one is making up excuses, the rape never occurred. She lied.
“It’s people like YOU, cowardly anonymous (why always anonymous?)â€,
I completely agree, the stripper, Crystal Gail Mangum, shouldn’t be anonymous, her picture and name should be right out there with the accused. This will prevent women from making false claims of rape, and real victims of rape won’t have to be afraid.
“The “female priviledge”… What an ignorant fuck. Congratulations, anon, you have completely and totally pissed me off this morning.â€
It’s your privilege as a woman to be pissed of about “female privilege†but at least learn how to spell the word. Women have more privilege in education, why don’t you get one?
Jacqui “I hope this woman gets a fair shake of the tree but so far, everything is going against her.â€
I hope she gets a fair shake too. I hope she ends up in jail for a long long time for making this false accusation of rape. She shouldn’t have lied. “Female privilege†will only take you so far before it catches up with common sense and justice.
If this woman was telling the truth, I would be 100% behind her, but she’s obviously lied. Only a total bone head wouldn’t be able to see that!
http://my.opera.com/Betty%20Friedan/blog/show.dml/259264
District Attorney Mike Nifong is a disgrace to his job: Abuse of power and corruption surrounds Durham’s new DA.
1) A responsible DA would have stated at the beginning that “there is an investigation, and we don’t have enough to make a statement right now. I’m responsible not only to the accuser, but to the accused. Please wait and let our investigators do their jobsâ€, but Mr. Mike “all-of-these-privileged-white-boys-are-rapists†Nifong at the beginning of the investigation he will prove the entire lacrosse team is guilty for aiding and abetting a gang rape inside a small enclosed bathroom. Nifong stirred up racial woes and put the lives of Duke and Durham at risk for gang threats and the racist groups like NAACP and the New Black Panthers. Nifong encouraged sexists groups to paste these boys pictures with hate slogans all over their school. Daily hate protests by women’s groups claiming these boys are rapists.
2) DA Mike Nifong cares nothing of guilt, innocence, or destroying innocent boys’ lives.
a. The first batch of DNA came back with conclusive for no match to any of the lacrosse boys.
b. The crime scene was completely void of any DNA evidence of any gang rape.
c. The boy’s that Nifong charged has an air-tight alibi and wasn’t at the party at the time the stripper claimed a rape occurred, and he refused to see this evidence before destroying his life.
d. The second batch of DNA came back with no conclusive match to any of the lacrosse boys.
e. DNA couldn’t rule out partial material found on top of a fake finger nail, inside a waste basket full of DNA material from the boys who lived in that house.
f. The third boy indicted went down to the police department for questioning without counsel, helped with the investigation by identifying all the other boys at the party, offered to take a lie detector test, willingly volunteered a DNA sample, and past a lie detector given by a top senior experienced FBI agent. The stripper said is 90% sure if he had his mustache, but he has never had a mustache, which makes it 0% sure. DA Mike Nifong refused to see this evidence and instead decided to destroy another innocent boy’s life.
g. The stripper’s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA. It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen… especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?
3) Investigator Mark Furman reviewed the lie detector test completed by the FBI on the 3rd boy unfairly indicted for a rape that never occurred. Mr. Furman stated that the boy not only passed the lie detector test, he passed with flying colors, but even without the test, this boy’s resume of helping the police with the investigation is impeccable.
4) DA Mike Nifong stated that all of these boys are hiding the truth and covering up for one anther. Nifong claims the boys are “stone wallingâ€, but when the accusation was made, the police questioned the three boys who lived in the house for over six hours, not one asked for a lawyer. When the entire team was told they had to submit DNA samples, they didn’t call their parents or fight the warrant. The boys cooperated completely. These aren’t the actions of guilty boys. Only when their parents witnessed the circus-like atmosphere created by District Attorney Mike Nifong, the boys were advised to remain quiet.
5) DA Mike Nifong gave the second stripper a deal to change her story to support the false accusation of rape, and he wouldn’t revoke her probation from a previous conviction of embezzling $25,000 from her empolyer.
6) A Taxi driver had a fair, two years ago, who left stolen items in his cab. Mike Nifong had him arrested for larceny last week.
Mike Nifong got re elected by pandering to black voters more interested in convicting white boys than guilt or innocence.
Evidence in the records released by the DA:
When investigators questioned the stripper after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn’t match any of the Duke players, the stripper admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke.
When questioned, the “drivers†said they would drop her off at several places, including hotel rooms.
Take a look at the ACCUSER and her CRIMINAL HISTORY!
http://capitalregionpeople.blogspot.com/2006/05/duke-lacrosse-team-rape-accuser-photo.html
Just the facts and only the facts
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.
Just when you think this case couldn’t get any weaker, more information comes to light showing the complete incompetence of district attorney Mike Nifong.
The only thing left to make this case even weaker would be the accuser herself finally coming forward to admit that she lied about the whole thing, which would make it even harder for district attorney to win the case, but Mike Nifong would probably ignore that piece of evidence as well in his quest to maliciously prosecute these young men.
The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!
Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement.
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.
Sports Illustrated agrees with Newsweek that the stripper lied.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/22/duke0626/index.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/
It’s not fair that women can make and accusation that cause so much pain and destruction. Feminist have changed public policy to the point that denies the fair treatment of the accused in the courtroom.
Today’s rape shield laws make it almost impossible to defend unless you’re super rich, that’s why the FBI discovered that over 33% of convicted rapist were wrongly accused and imprisoned, some innocent men spent over a decade in prison for rapes they didn’t commit, before being exonerated by DNA without even an apology.