Last Exit for Mike Nifong

Jeff Taylor | January 12, 2007

Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong is running out of time to pull the plug on the Duke lacrosse case. The latest changes in the accuser's story -- teased forth by a Nifong investigator on Dec. 21, just days after new DNA evidence rocked his case -- strongly indicate the entire March attack was a fiction.

As ever, K.C. Johnson at the Durham-in-Wonderland blog has slopped through the latest twist in this vile story, which now features a magic towel and a rapist who only watches.

The New York Times seems to be treading water on the new story, which is something of an improvement considering the paper was Nifong's biggest defender for the past nine months. 

Comments

|1.12.07 @ 9:17AM|#

Not the MSM, who failed miserably, but KC Johnson, together with others such as Liestoppers have done most of the work to prevent yet another conviction of innocents on sex charges.One of his recent posts contains a link explaining what did happen when no national attention was mobilised. This passage is absolutely chilling:

"What did it matter, either, that special judicial hearings about the Amiraults' prosecution had concluded that it was a travesty, that a tough panel of former prosecutors, the Governor's Board of Pardons, had virtually declared Gerald Amirault innocent and voted for commutation of his sentence--or that he was finally granted parole nearly three years ago, after nearly 18 years' imprisonment? He was almost immediately classified by Massachusetts's Sex Offenders Registry Board as a Level 3 offender. The kind, that is, deemed the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend. This bizarre classification, the board made clear, had to do with the number of counts of sex abuse charged to him--and the fact, too, that he continued to deny guilt. He now has to wear a large tracking device around his ankle, and obey a curfew confining him to the house from 11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day. He has, not surprisingly, been unable to find a job. He is sustained, as ever, by the unstinting devotion of his family, and he grieves now mainly for the loss of the chance he had dreamed of in prison--of earning a salary and finally lightening the burden his wife had carried, uncomplaining and alone, during his years in prison. (He has recently been advised of pending legislation that will require him to pay $10 a day for the global positioning tag on his leg, that tracks him.)"

This is reminiscent of Nazi justice: Convict in a kangaroo court on trumped-up charges - and then send the bill for the punishment to the family.
This in the US of A in the 21st century? Incredible? Unfortunately not.

B|1.12.07 @ 9:17AM|#

It's unfortunate that this single case of an overzealous prosecutor is the only one that recieves national attention. Is it sexy? I can't figure it out but I'd like to hear more about people like Tim Naveau and the lunacy of what amounts to a prosecutors choice.

|1.12.07 @ 9:18AM|#

"The New York Times seems to be treading water on the new story, which is something of an improvement considering the paper was Nifong's biggest defender for the past nine months."

Big surprise there... Like the Times wouldn't reflexively defend a black female in a case vs. 3 southern white boys.

creech|1.12.07 @ 9:26AM|#

Re Amirault: is there no libertarian (or justice seeking) business owner in Massachusetts that will give this man a job?
For shame.

|1.12.07 @ 9:35AM|#

creech,

You're assuming that everyone knows all the details behind his case. The MSM had no inclination to tell people about this; they had bigger fish to fry, like what Nicole Richie ate last week and where she purged said food.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 9:50AM|#

It's amazing that the paper continue to name the falsely accused and protect the woman committing fraud.

|1.12.07 @ 10:17AM|#

A few months ago, I questioned the New York Times' accuracy about another matter by stating;

"I sure as hell ain't gonna take the NYTimes' word for it."

To which commentor "Lamar" sarcastically replied back,

"Yeah, Ima gonna get me uh knife 'n' sit onna couch an' yell up a sandstorm at thems libral newspapers on the TV set."

Lamar, are you going to stick up for the New York Times again in this situation? If so, I'll respond now exactly as I did then:


Lamar, it must have been my use of the word "ain't" that threw your delicate sensibilities into a tizzy. Please forgive me, for I have used a word recognized by Lamar to be unfit for online conversational purposes. You see, Lamar is probably a lawyer. He will tell you himself if you just give him time. You have to understand that Lamar is at a disadvantage. You see, online we can't tell he is a lawyer by the car he drives, the way he parts his hair on the side, and the ever so hip pinstripe suit that is all the rage in his men's magazines he keeps on his nightstand. Here, online, Lamar has to prove he is witty, intelligent, and "snarky," rather than letting us all know by looking at him. Our loss, really.

As the mighty lawyer, Lamar probably regards language as civilization's foremost safeguard. I have broken that trust with the use of that southern colloquialism, "ain't." It shall not be done again.

By the way Lamar, how do you feel about coming to conclusions without having most of the facts, which was, by the way, the crux of my post. You seem just intelligent enough to make me curious.


By the way, Lamar, in case you haven't noticed, I'm calling your punk ass out......again.

|1.12.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Andy; Aren't all the accused from North? Town Gown maybe playing a part. Drop the charges!

JT Barrie|1.12.07 @ 10:23AM|#

I find it hard to sympathize with students who hire strippers and have sex with them. Admittedly, some of the accused did not attend and were mentioned - but quickly deleted. I suspect it was a case of consensual sex that escalated into a gang bang. IF that happened and drug use [alcohol most likely] was involved then the confusing story is explainable. IF the service hired had a strict policy against sexual misconduct with customers and paid better than average then a concocted rape case - even if dismissed - would be necessary to preserve an income. It's possible that the rape charges are a subterfuge for other misconduct. I seriously doubt that any of the players involved in the sexual conduct even remember the details.

We can only speculate on what really happened but I seriously doubt that it started out as a violent rape - although it could easily have degenerated to that. It all revolves around desperate attempts to avoid taking responsibility for sexual activity. Blaming drugs or screaming "rape" seem to be obvious scapegoats to avoid responsibility for irresponsible behavior. And yes, authority figures seem to encourage this with the dangerous drugs mythology to promote bigger government involvement in personal lives.

|1.12.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote a great piece in the WSJ this week talking about this case. Basically, we live in a PC world were certain accuser's identities take precidence over the facts. Nifong had the perfect PC set up, a poor black woman accusing a bunch of rich white men. What he did in this case is no different than what prosecutors all over the country have been doing in cases like Amirault. If it is a PC accuser, like a black woman or a child with a teddy bear, facts be damned, the jury must do something and make a statement. It is absolutely horrible. What is horrible is not so much Nifong, he is just a sniveling rodent looking to appease the mob and save his job, but the fact that there are God knows how many DAs out there just like him that we never hear about.

|1.12.07 @ 10:34AM|#

"I find it hard to sympathize with students who hire strippers and have sex with them."


That is not what happened. No one ever had sex with the accuser. The DNA samples indicated she had sex with five men, none of whome were at the party. Further, hiring a striper is legal. You may not like it, but I don't think it is fair to say that anyone who does is legitimately at risk of being falsly accused of rape. This is supposed to be why we have police departments and DAs. They are there not just to prosecute but to investigate and figure out the facts. Instead what we got was this kind of thinking; well they were drunk and they hired a stripper, they must be guilty of something.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 10:42AM|#

I find it hard to sympathize with students who hire strippers and have sex with them.

Soooo, ahhhh, follow the case pretty closely do ya?

|1.12.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Prosecutorial misconduct in this case is so egregious that I expect Nifong to get some sort of discipline from the NC bar--perhaps even a suspension. He certainly deserves no less. Unfortunately, state's attorneys have become so political that this sort of overreaching is common, if not always to such an obvious degree. No person should be charged, let alone convicted, if the state has more than a little reason to believe that he may not be guilty of the crime. In any case, the duty to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence has been violated. . .again.

|1.12.07 @ 10:49AM|#

I find it hard to sympathize with students who hire strippers and have sex with them.

Well then, you should be thankful that no one is asking you to sympathize with anyone.

Sam franklin|1.12.07 @ 10:52AM|#

To me, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that early on they made public an email one of the suspects had written.

The email was in the nature of a violent fantasy, but not particularly germane to the case.

I hope there is a big lawsuit over just that. I want to see the authorities pay out a lot in this case. I want them to be financially hurt.

|1.12.07 @ 11:00AM|#

The email was in the nature of a violent fantasy, but not particularly germane to the case.

I think it was just a quote from American Psycho, right? I could be thinking of something else though.

|1.12.07 @ 11:02AM|#

"To me, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that early on they made public an email one of the suspects had written."

Who did that Sam? Duke? The DA? The ISP? Unforunteately that is all too typical.

To me one of the more disturbing aspects, but not surprising is the behavior of the Duke administration and faculty. I understand suspending the students, the liability associated with having someone accused of rape on campus really put them in a bind. But, they should have stood up for the presumption of innocence and at least told Nifong to stop presuming their guilt. They are going to pay a huge price for their behavior. What parent of a top student will now want to pay $30K + per year to send their kid to Duke where they can live in a redneck banana republic of a town where if they are ever accused of a crime they can't count on the University to do anything but egg on the mob? Their early aps this year are down 20%. They are going to loose a lot of top students over this, the quality of the admits is going to go down and their rankings with it. Duke will be paying for this fiasco for years to come.

pigwiggle|1.12.07 @ 11:10AM|#

When this case hit the news some broads over at femenisting were calling for a vigilante style (in their own words) "terrorist attack" on the lacrosse team. I thought they were guilty too, but that's some crazy shit there.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 11:12AM|#

It is the american Psycho one. i think the writer of the email said he was merely writing in the style of American Psycho.

They kicked me off a progressive board this summer for complaining about the case in general and the disclosure of the email, particularly.

I had been friends in real life with the admin of that board. My banning ended the friendship (mutually).

|1.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#

"They kicked me off a progressive board this summer for complaining about the case in general and the disclosure of the email, particularly."

That is really scary Sam. It scares the hell out of me that there are people out there that closed minded and totalitarian. None of those people on that board, have the slighest clue about the facts and don't care about them. In their world, the facts don't matter, making a statement does. Terrifying.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Most people go to the Internet, it seems, to get their dose of The Daily Me. They want to talk to people who think like them and do not challenge their deeply held notions. It doesn't matter if we are talking Cop talk, Babble.ca, Inactivist.org, you name it. It takes a special board to allow people to speak truths that the regular posters or intended audience find inconvenient.

Disclaimer: Daily Me is a turn of phrase somebody else made up, as is the phrase inconvenient truths.

|1.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote a great piece in the WSJ this week talking about this case. Basically, we live in a PC world were certain accuser's identities take precidence over the facts. Nifong had the perfect PC set up, a poor black woman accusing a bunch of rich white men. What he did in this case is no different than what prosecutors all over the country have been doing in cases like Amirault. If it is a PC accuser, like a black woman or a child with a teddy bear, facts be damned, the jury must do something and make a statement. It is absolutely horrible. What is horrible is not so much Nifong, he is just a sniveling rodent looking to appease the mob and save his job, but the fact that there are God knows how many DAs out there just like him that we never hear about.

This is insane - the justice system tramples all over the poor and black but yet the one time that a couple of rich white boys get (possibly) shafted is when outrage erupts.

The Duke case, assuming it turns out to be total BS, is the exception that proves the rule.

|1.12.07 @ 11:27AM|#

To me, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that early on they made public an email one of the suspects had written.

The email was in the nature of a violent fantasy, but not particularly germane to the case.


You have an odd sense of disburbance, Sam.

The email was related to the case, as the author refered to the events that happened that night. He didn't get into specifics, but it was obvious that something happened that night that he felt ruined the good time.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 11:35AM|#

The email was related to the case, as the author refered to the events that happened that night. He didn't get into specifics, but it was obvious that something happened that night that he felt ruined the good time.

I am not complaining that they confiscated the email. Law enforcement was correct to confiscate the email.

If I were sitting on the jury in this case, I would want to know about that email.

Still, what I said above stands.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 11:47AM|#

from wikipedia:

McFadyen e-mail

A couple of hours after the alleged incident, Ryan McFadyen, a member of the team, sent an email to other players saying that he planned to "have some strippers over" and made references to "killing the bitches," then cutting off their skin while ejaculating "in [his] Duke-issue spandex."

The e-mail was provided to Durham police by a confidential source who received the correspondence from the player's Duke e-mail account at 1:58 AM on March 14, 2006. The players' defense attorney has called this a "vile" e-mail. The players suggest that the e-mail was conceived as humorous irony. Administrators say the email was an imitation of a character in the Bret Easton Ellis novel American Psycho. McFadyen was not indicted of any crime, but was suspended from the university due to safety concerns.[26] However, on June 29, 2006, the university reinstated him.[27]

pigwiggle|1.12.07 @ 11:53AM|#

This is insane - the justice system tramples all over the poor and black but yet the one time that a couple of rich white boys get (possibly) shafted is when outrage erupts.

We've got plenty of outrage to go around, buck.

|1.12.07 @ 11:53AM|#

There have been roughly a dozen falsely accused, falsely convicted people set from from death row - DEATH ROW - in the past decade.

Why is it that this one, less serious case of false accusation has gotten so much more press?

pigwiggle|1.12.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Why is it that this one, less serious case of false accusation has gotten so much more press?

I think it's probably a continuation of the press it got when we all thought a bunch of drunk white jocks raped a black stripper. You think?

|1.12.07 @ 12:04PM|#

I've read the book and seen the film version of American Psycho several times and it's kind of hard from the email to see exactly what the reference is.

Not that I think the guy was serious but people pretty quickly bought the whole American Psycho excuse without questioning it.

|1.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Yes, pigwiggle, it probably is all politics, people gleeful at the prospect of a threefer - sticking it to the trio of black political activists, university administrators, and large media outlets.

The Nancy Gracification of public discourse. Look at me, isn't it wonderful how I have the nerve to appear to television and denounce behavior everyone finds appalling?

|1.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#

I am not complaining that they confiscated the email. Law enforcement was correct to confiscate the email.

If I were sitting on the jury in this case, I would want to know about that email.

Still, what I said above stands.

So...what's the complaint, then? Duke has a right to make public emails that are stored on their system, don't they?

|1.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#

To be fair, people who've gotten out of prison usually do so on exculpatory evidence found after conviction (or only is identifiable as exculpatory evidence later on--like with DNA). In this instance, the prosecution appears to not only lack the evidence to establish a prima facie case, it looks like it's ignoring evidence that indicates the innocence of the accused. Not good.

It offends me mightily that we convict innocent people, but it offends me even more when we do so with the knowledge that the evidence needed to convict simply wasn't there. I've heard about a number of cases where people in prison are almost certainly innocent, but the system resists giving them a chance to establish that fact. Even more not good.

|1.12.07 @ 12:11PM|#

Pro Lib,

I'm not comparing Nifong's prosecutorial practices vs. those of the DAs who scored thost overturned convictions.

I'm comparing the OJ-ish media shitshorm that this case produced with the much more modest coverage that much more important cases get.

|1.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#

So...what's the complaint, then? Duke has a right to make public emails that are stored on their system, don't they?

Highly doubtful. Also, given the notions of academic freedom the furor resulting from the release of private emails from faculty, like, say, those 88 idiots, would be quite fun to watch. And I say this as an academic.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Duke has a right to make public emails that are stored on their system, don't they?

1. No. No more than Duke is allowed to open people's snail mail.

2. Duke didn't make it public anyway. Rather the Durham pd decided to make the email public in its own discretion.

VM|1.12.07 @ 12:25PM|#

"I'm comparing the OJ-ish media shitshorm that this case produced with the much more modest coverage that much more important cases get."

I think this is a good point and merits thought and discussion. One aspect of the OJ case of course was that he's famous, and it was built up as the "black vs white" battle of the century, at least on CNN International.

This case has other "schadenfreude-like" elements. It is the "rich, snobby college kids" against a stripper. There's enough emotional angles here to fill up an entire 3D version of Candyland meets Chutes and Ladders!

Duke is perceived to be an elite, expensive institution. It's also perceived as being a bastion of liberal PC thought. Right there, you have a conservative emotional reaction (think: how often people rag on "academia" here in the name of conservative agendae)

Then you have the stripper element. Again, you'll get a conservative response.

Probably add the black and white.

Then you have the liberal side: the sexploitation components. The race components. All that.

Then you get the antiOJ: instead of an overzealous police force trying to go after a black suspect, we have an overzealous DA going after white suspects. All the while, both sides are screaming, "if this had happened [with suspects' and victims' races switched], this would be solved right away! THE SYSTEM IS RACIST!!!!!!!!"

Finally, college athletics. Duke. Coach K. The contrast between Coach K's media image and this. (Not to mention the privileged athletes on one side, the poor art student angle on the other).

It's a virtual smorgasbord of Schadenfreude sandwiches!

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 12:30PM|#

I'm comparing the OJ-ish media shitshorm that this case produced with the much more modest coverage that much more important cases get.

what cases are you talking about, joe?

I think this case is getting better attention because the accused can afford decent lawyers. I don't think it has to do with racism or sexism, except in the sense that reverse racism and sexism caused many to buy into the liar's story more than they otherwise would have.

On another thread recently, I suggested that criminal defendants should receive as much from the state to defend against a given set of felony charges as the state spends prosecuting those felony charges. If my proposal were made law, then all the beyond-ridiculous cases would get coverage for being beyond ridiculous, regardless of race or gender.

|1.12.07 @ 12:31PM|#

It's ironic, VM, that once upon a time, the conservative response was to chastise Jesse Jackson (for example) for trying to turn this from a criminal investigation into a politicized media circus.

VM|1.12.07 @ 12:35PM|#

Kinda interesting, isn't it...

Forgot that part of the equation. Good catch, btw.

|1.12.07 @ 12:38PM|#

Sam Franklin,

"what cases are you talking about, joe?"

Google "Innocence Project"

VM|1.12.07 @ 12:42PM|#

And The West Memphis Three

Barry Scheck rocks! (btw)

|1.12.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Heck, compare the media saturation surrounding this case to the SWAT murder in Atlanta.

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Google "Innocence Project"

I read a couple of the cases there, hopefully representative ones. One reason those cases don't get publicity is that they don't seem to involve a malicious "victim" purposely telling lies.

If the Duke boys had somehow been charged based on sloppy lab work and/or a witness who made a good faith mistake, then the Duke case would not be an oj style storm.

the idea here is that she is making it up and then hiding behind some overly favorable rape shield laws. That is far more disturbing, at least when taken as an isolated case, then any of the ones I read at Project Innocence.

Disclaimer: I used to slightly support the death penalty. Now I am slightly against it. Project Innocence was instrumental in changing my mind on that important issue.

|1.12.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Heck, compare the media saturation surrounding this case to the SWAT murder in Atlanta.

[black helicopters]

Not that anybody might want a media distraction..

[/black helicopters]

VM|1.12.07 @ 12:53PM|#

huh?

(plus, who's afraid of black helicopters? I hide under my Noam Chomsky blow up doll for protection)

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Why is it that this one, less serious case of false accusation has gotten so much more press?

Unbelievably obvious malicious prosecution.

|1.12.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Sam Franklin,

During the 1970s, some FBI agents in Boston deliberately implicated some innocent men in a murder that was carried out by James Bulger and Steven Flemmi, two informants.

Those men were sent to prison for murder. One of them died in jail. The facts have only recently come to light, and the surviving two are suing the FBI.

Tell me, had you ever even heard of this case before right now?

Somehow, I don't think the pure innocence of the accusers is the relevant variable.

|1.12.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Sam,

You should also keep in mind, when reading the I.P.'s information, that for the most part, the DAs responsible for the convictions (or their successors) are also the ones authorized to order additional testing, or to decide whether to contest an inmate's request for a new trial.

They can't exactly come out with guns a-blazing at the prosecution.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 1:10PM|#

During the 1970s, some FBI agents in Boston deliberately implicated some innocent men in a murder that was carried out by James Bulger and Steven Flemmi, two informants.


Ohhhh, I dunno, maybe the 1970's were prior to the 24/7 digital media overload?

|1.12.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Somehow, I don't think the pure innocence of the accusers is the relevant variable.

As far as I can tell, the relevant variable is the rise of 24/7 media and the blogosphere.

|1.12.07 @ 1:18PM|#

No. No more than Duke is allowed to open people's snail mail.

Actually, employers have the right to look at any and all email on their systems. Don't know why a university, which does act in loco parentis, wouldn't have the same right.

|1.12.07 @ 1:20PM|#

If Martha Stewart got 5 months for fibbing on the phone, then immediately calling back and recanting, what should be justice for this accuser who has given the defense a moving target as she's changed her sworn testimony on nine different occasions?

Hopefull she and Nifong will serve their time in the same cell. He's already a bastard, and apparently she's used to being around them.....

Sam Franklin|1.12.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Tell me, had you ever even heard of this case before right now?

No. I never had.

I will have to take more seriously what you said about the bias.

I still don't know if I see the overall media bias the same as you do. I spent a few months not paying attention to the Duke case and believing that a rape had probably been committed. i couldn't tell you what headlines I saw exactly on the GOOGLE news, but whatever it was shaded me into the they-probably-did-it camp.

Then (May '06 maybe) I got interested in the case. My next stop, for better or worse, was feminist-oriented message boards. My tentative belief in the guilt of the accused strengthened.

then in June '06 I started discussing the case on a progressive message board. that is when I heard about the leaked email, which the progressive posters were putting forward as evidence of guilt. At that point (June? July?) I went to the wikipedia to get the straight scoop. I was surprised at how clear it was that the case was a crock from the wikipedia entry.

So I went back to the progressive message board and said not only should the email not have been leaked, but also that I thought the "victim" was making it up. banning ensued.

My point is that my media experience of this case seems to be the polar opposite of yours for whatever reason. the case reached me in such a way that I tentatively believed the accuser (who happened to be African American, who happened to be a woman) for much longer than I ever should have.

|1.12.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Joe,

The innocence project is biggest bunch of liars on the face of the earth. They take cases that were thrown out on technical grounds and list them as "innocent people being on death row". That is just bullshit. They throw that out there confuse the issue of legal innocence versus factual innocence. There hasn't been one case of person executed in this country where that has later been proven to be factually innocent. Yes, the only innocent person I know on death row is Corey Maye. I will be first in line to do something about that case. But, there are damn few others and certainly not a dozen. My favorite innocence project cause was Ronald Coleman. Those fuckers spent a decade torturing the victims in that case talking about Ronald Coleman was an innocent man killed by the state of Virginia. Well, they finally succeeded in getting a DNA test a couple of years ago and guess what; Coleman was guilty as hell. You can believe the crap that organization puts out all you want, but take it somewhere where someone will believe you.

This case was a travesty of justice. People need to be looking for other travesties like the Corey Maye case. Rather than do that, people seem to want to use the Duke athletes as some kind of human sacrifice to make up for the other injustices. Every time someone gets on here and says "but what about all the poor black people who are wrongfully convicted?", I want to ask them, so does wrongfully convicting these guys help those people and if it doesn't what the hell do those cases have to do with this one? Nothing is the answer.

VM|1.12.07 @ 1:28PM|#

"Unbelievably obvious malicious prosecution."

Hi TPG!

That's your reason. Others have followed it for other reasons. It'd be interesting to see how the breakdown on opinion on this case relates the the OJ verdict.

There are so many socially-charged issues here, many of which are stages on which to rage the conservative/liberal style battles.

|1.12.07 @ 1:36PM|#

TPG,

"Ohhhh, I dunno, maybe the 1970's were prior to the 24/7 digital media overload?"

But the proof of their innocence, and their lawsuit, is from the late-1990s. You didn't even know that. THAT'S how much national press it's getting.

"There hasn't been one case of person executed in this country where that has later been proven to be factually innocent." The Innocence Project concentrates on saving the living. Wouldn't you?

"I want to ask them, so does wrongfully convicting these guys help those people and if it doesn't what the hell do those cases have to do with this one?"

Really? You don't want to ask, "Who are you talking about?" You don't want to say, "Nobody should be convicted wrongly?"

No, you hear about wrongly convicted black people, and you blow it off. Because of politics.

Digusting, and also wholly predictable.

|1.12.07 @ 1:39PM|#

"No, you hear about wrongly convicted black people, and you blow it off. Because of politics."

When I have ever blown off wronglly convicted black people? My point is those cases don't make thise case any less agregous. To say otherwise is to look at these defendents not as individuals but human sacrifices for other injustices, which is what you and people like you who seem to be so angry about this case getting publicity seem to want.

|1.12.07 @ 1:41PM|#

"That's your reason. Others have followed it for other reasons. It'd be interesting to see how the breakdown on opinion on this case relates the the OJ verdict."

I don't know anyone black or white who thinks these guys are guilty anymore. The only thing I see is people like Joe who seem to think that they should have been railroaded to make up for other injustices.

|1.12.07 @ 1:49PM|#

"you and people like you who seem to be so angry about this case"

Angry? I've barely been following it. It's the politically-charged anger that I'm complaining about.

"The only thing I see is people like Joe who seem to think that they should have been railroaded to make up for other injustices."

Care to show me where I've ventured an opinion about that?

Hmm?

But you're demonstrated by point perfectly - you can't even look at this case without political blinders. I'm a liberal; ergo, in your mind, I support "railroading" somebody. I MUST support that, because...well, because you've decided this is a front in a culture war.

And that's why people like you are eager to spend months frothing at the mouth on internet boards about this case, while getting slightly annoyed when someone wants to bother you about other cases of false justice.

Like I said, the Nancy Gracification of justice.

|1.12.07 @ 1:49PM|#

"Because of politics."

What politics? What does some redneck Democratic DA in North Carolina have to do with politics. These guys were railroaded and it wrong. Why does it bother you so much to admit that? Why does their always have to be a "but"? Why can't you just say the truth? Is is that hard for you to just admit that a black mob and a corrupt DA tried to railroad a couple of white students? What about those facts make them so disturbing for you?

|1.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#

Now you're just being obtuse.

"What politics?" How is anyone supposed to take you seriously after a comment like that?

|1.12.07 @ 1:52PM|#

"Care to show me where I've ventured an opinion about that?"

Because you can never admit the facts. You can never talk about this case without a "But" and without accusing the people who are angry about this case of being hypocrites. Further, if you are so concerned about injustice, how come you haven't followed this case? Are injustice commited against whites just of less importance to you? You seem to be concerned about all of the other cases of injustice, why not this one?

|1.12.07 @ 1:53PM|#

"What politics?" How is anyone supposed to take you seriously after a comment like that?"

I am not being obtuse.I dont' know what the hell you are talking about. This case has nothing to do with either political party. Nothing to do with any national issue I can think of. A bunch of college kids got screwed over by the locals. Please explain the greater political implications of this case because I dont' see them.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 2:06PM|#

That's your reason. Others have followed it for other reasons. It'd

No, that's the reason for the giant backlash from "whitey", as Joe asked.

VM|1.12.07 @ 2:09PM|#

So what you're saying is that I had another bout of premature articulation. Sigh. It is ever thus :)

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 2:16PM|#

But the proof of their innocence, and their lawsuit, is from the late-1990s. You didn't even know that. THAT'S how much national press it's getting.

Yeahhhhhhhh, lots of retrials from the 90's get mass media frenzy.

I mean really, most of these outlets don't even care about breaking news anymore. All they care about is 30 year old cases brought up 15 years ago.

I have to scour the AP wire to find any breaking news. Forget these news outlets, freaking living in the past.

|1.12.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Prosecutorial misconduct in this case is so egregious that I expect Nifong to get some sort of discipline from the NC bar

He's already in trouble:

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/20061229_nifong.pdf

|1.12.07 @ 2:24PM|#

"I mean really, most of these outlets don't even care about breaking news anymore. All they care about is 30 year old cases brought up 15 years ago."

All they care about is blood and gore local stories. I am sorry for Lacy Peterson's family, but that should have never been news outside of the Bay Area. That is why I quit watching cable news. It is either a screamfest between two peopel from each end of the political spectrum or a collection of local but sexy news stories like the Peterson murder. In other words, a complete waste of air time.

|1.12.07 @ 3:17PM|#

TPG,

Stop squirming. Do you think this is the only case of a false accusation going on right now?

|1.12.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Apparently a Duke English professor is resigning after having difficulty understanding the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty."

|1.12.07 @ 3:33PM|#

"Stop squirming. Do you think this is the only case of a false accusation going on right now?"

Of course not. Point them out and I will be glad to get angry about them for you, but their existance won't make me less angry about this case.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.12.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Stop squirming. Do you think this is the only case of a false accusation going on right now?

It's the only case of malicious prosecution that is in the headlines.

You're quite dense.

|1.12.07 @ 3:58PM|#

"Point them out and I will be glad to get angry about them for you"

"It's the only case of malicious prosecution that is in the headlines."

Thank you, both of you, for making my point. You agree that there are plenty of other cases out there, but that you aren't hearing about them in the media.

Now, onto step two: why has this particular one become a cause celebre, and we haven't even heard of any other cases? The "24 hour media" theory doesn't work, because there are other cases going on at the same time.

|1.12.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Now, onto step two: why has this particular one become a cause celebre, and we haven't even heard of any other cases?

The original accusation was hyped to Hell and back, for reasons including that the prosecutor did his best to hype it. While the media was still paying attention, the absurdities of the accusation came out. When the prosecution didn't drop charges, the story gained the continuing life it has.

If the accusation hadn't been hyped, we wouldn't have heard of it. If the case hadn't fallen apart until after the media latched on to another "national" story, the resolution would have been buried in the back pages of newspapers and on Court TV. If the prosecutor had dropped charges, it would be all over and we'd be hearing about some white college girl who vanished while on Christmas vacation.

|1.12.07 @ 4:35PM|#

"Now, onto step two: why has this particular one become a cause celebre, and we haven't even heard of any other cases? The "24 hour media" theory doesn't work, because there are other cases going on at the same time."

Because the media latched onto it when it started. Why was this rape case on the front pages of the NYT when there are rape cases every day across the country? Why? Because it was a black accuser and white defendents. In the begining, the story was a great way for the media to tell this story about evil white kids victimizing a poor black woman. Also it was at a very high profile school. That is what put it on the front page to begin with. Only after the facts became so agregous did people start getting angry. Had this case involved black students and a white accuser at a lower profile school, we would have never heard about it when it first started, certainly not in the national news.

|1.12.07 @ 5:02PM|#

Now, onto step two: why has this particular one become a cause celebre, and we haven't even heard of any other cases? The "24 hour media" theory doesn't work, because there are othercases going on at the same time.

For all the obvious reasons, of course, as outlined above by VM.

I wouldn't get too worked up about the injustice of the media coverage, though. The prominence of this case could do more to spur legislation reigning in prosecutorial misconduct than a more balanced media treatment of injustice ever could, precisely because it plays on the sympathies of those who thought they were immune, namely the wealthy, white innocent. Changing laws is easier than changing the media culture (and the human nature it feeds on) anyways.

I also want to add that the innocence project is a most worthwhile endeavor, and their victories have not all been mere procedural violations, e.g. this, this, this, this, and this, among others.

|1.12.07 @ 6:21PM|#

Eric the .5b,

All of those things are true, and no doubt played on a role. OTOH, you've surely noticed that the story has received the most determind coverage from people with a certain axe to grind.

"Why was this rape case on the front pages of the NYT when there are rape cases every day across the country? Why? Because it was a black accuser and white defendents."

Actually, John, that's an everyday occurance, too. I think the involvement of college sports played a big role. A black stripper making accusations about a party thrown by the guys at the loading dock probably wouldn't have hit the papers, either.

toto, that's very insightful.

|1.12.07 @ 7:37PM|#

All of those things are true, and no doubt played on a role. OTOH, you've surely noticed that the story has received the most determind coverage from people with a certain axe to grind.

I couldn't say as I haven't been following the following of the story, but what precisely do you think that axe is, joe? You seem to be implying that this is some right-wing cause, but point to the NYT's coverage, among other things, as evidence.

Guy Montag|1.13.07 @ 8:51AM|#

Not directly related, well not related at all but something interesting.

Has anybody tried pound door (#3667) on Verizon mobile service? It takes you to a menu with information on warrents or something. Of course, I have Cingular (soon to change back to AT&T) with no pound door service.

|1.13.07 @ 2:40PM|#

the only innocent person I know on death row is Corey Maye.

And just how many of cases of the 3,366 prisoners on death row do you possess deep knowledge of John? Half a dozen at best?

Michael ejercito|1.13.07 @ 8:43PM|#

Can someone explain to me why anyone who cries rape should be believed without corroborating evidence?

Guy Montag|1.14.07 @ 2:34AM|#

Can someone explain to me why anyone who cries rape should be believed without corroborating evidence?

The closest thing to that I have heard is an "excuse", not an explaination. It sort of goes like "rape is so shameful that no woman would accuse unless it really happened and women are vulnerable so they must be protected".

No, that is not valid, but it is the closest thing to a 'justification' I have heard.

|1.14.07 @ 6:14PM|#

Why is it that this one, less serious case of false accusation has gotten so much more press?

I haven't finished the thread, so apologies if this has been said before, but this is exactly the type of case that libertarians want. You know as well as I, joe, that it is a fact in this country that change doesn't come unless people can identify with a victim of a bad policy. In fact, you've been on this board long enough to realize that while probably thousands of poor black nobodies were dislocated due to eminent domain, it was Ms. Kelo who provided the proper face to try to ensure that people like those before her would be free of the injustice of indiscriminate eminent domain policies.

Likewise, from a libertarian standpoint, I think all of us realize that for every 3 Duke lacrosse players there are hundreds if not thousands of poor black (and white) men who have been railroaded by the system and are serving prison time for crimes they did not commit. If this case can be the watershed to open the public's eyes to the harms of overzealous prosecution, I say milk it for all it's worth.