Posted on 10/18/2006 2:45:47 PM PDT by zaxxon
The charges against the Duke lacrosse players should be dropped immediately, and the people demanding the dismissal the loudest and most forcefully should be the very people who have made a living allegedly fighting against racial injustice.
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should be in Durham, N.C., today, promising civil disobedience until the charges are dropped and prosecutor Mike Nifong resigns.
Ed Bradley and "60 Minutes" should never be mistaken for Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court. Bradley is just a TV reporter and "60 Minutes" is just a TV show, but you couldn't help but be moved by the story they aired Sunday night about the Duke lacrosse rape allegations.
The three accused players gave their first interviews, and two of them claimed they had airtight, documented alibis. The accuser's one-night sidekick, Kim Roberts, seems to have settled on telling the truth rather than trying to spin the story for fame or money. She contradicted several of the statements the accuser gave to police.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
No problem if I did not live on the AL end of the "Redneck Riviera, I might never have heard of it either.
I guess it is possible Mangum bails on Nifong but as the woman who said that Nifong would have cut off one of her fingers to point at three if he had to I suspect that is not likely. Still I should have listed a general Nifong drops the charges category for any number of reasons.
I would not expect Duke Athletics official policy to be any different. If you are not a Duke student, you of course can not play for Duke.
BTW, yesterday all day on the ESPN crawl it said the new Duke lacrosse coach said Finnerty and Seligmann would be reinstated to the team if they were cleared of charges in this case. So either Duke was back tracking or someone didn't get the memo?
Of course from the statement Seligmann has made, I do not figure he is odds on to reenroll in Duke. But you never know.
Contradictory remarks by the coach and the AD.
New Orleans and Durham come to mind.
From the start this sounded like a shakedown to me, with at least one central player getting high or forgetting parts of the story. For many people, it is not easy to recall lies, especially when there are many of them, and thus inconsistencies emerge.
This just in...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rape-case-against-elite-uni-students-departs-from-script/2006/10/22/1161455611191.html
Rape case against elite uni students departs from script
Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York
October 23, 2006
WHEN a 28-year-old black woman was found semi-conscious in a car park in Durham, North Carolina, in March, the police thought they were dealing with a drunk. They took her to a substance abuse centre.
It was only after she was released and taken to a hospital that she told police she had been raped - by three men at a party held by the members of Duke University's prestigious lacrosse team. The woman, a single mother of two and a student at a local, far less glamorous university, had been hired, along with another woman, as a stripper at the party.
The story made national headlines; with its mix of race, sex, privilege, class and violence, there was something in it for every media outlet.
Even before three of the players were charged with rape, university academics, the locals, and especially the media, framed it as a morality play about race and class. But the case is crumbling and the play is not following its expected script.
All but one of the lacrosse team were wealthy white boys. After the rape allegations posters of the players went up around the university with the word "Wanted". One professor accused the team of hiding behind "silent whiteness".
But now the rape charges seem in danger of falling over for lack of evidence. With no DNA evidence, contradictory statements from the woman, a flawed identification procedure and at least one of the players appearing to have a convincing alibi, the pressure is now on the district attorney, Mike Nifong, who won an election on the back of charging the men.
The media, having rushed to judgement, have now exonerated the players and excoriated Mr Nifong. The woman, earlier called the "victim" and an "exotic dancer", is now called the "accuser" and a "stripper".
The story that Precious, the "stage" name of the woman, told was horrendous. She said she was strangled, kicked and assaulted, then gang-raped for 30 minutes in a bathroom of a house where 46 members of the team were partying. She and the other woman, Kim Roberts, had been paid $800 for a two-hour performance, but after about five minutes one of the players asked if they had a sex toy. When told no, he suggested a broom handle.
Alarmed, the women stopped the show at 12.04am, and locked themselves in the bathroom, with the players protesting they had not got their money's worth.
The women left the party at about 12.20am, but were cajoled back in. Precious claims they were forcibly separated and she was taken to the bathroom, where she was raped.
A photograph taken outside the back door at 12.30am shows her standing outside the door. (The players say they shut the door to keep her out.) Another photo shows her sprawled on the back step seven minutes later. The next shows her being assisted into a car at 12.41am.
Precious's account of the assault has varied, from the number of men involved to the length of the attack. But Mr Nifong has suggested she might have been drugged with a spiked drink, which would explain both her apparent drunkenness and her vagueness about the attack.
She said her attackers had not used condoms, but there was no DNA match with any of the 46 players (the one black team member did not have to give a sample). The only match was with her boyfriend.
The district attorney said that the medical examination showed evidence of sexual assault, but the defence says the cited swelling could have been caused by consensual sexual activity or certain acts she had performed as an exotic dancer in the days leading up to the party.
On America's 60 Minutes, the second stripper, Ms Roberts, contradicted parts of Precious's story. But Ms Roberts's version of events has also swung back and forth, and Precious has accused her of aiding the players and robbing her of cash on the night.
If the trial goes ahead, it promises to be a racially charged media spectacle. In the meantime, supporters of the players are hoping to unseat Mr Nifong as district attorney at elections next month.
Yes, it would explain her apparent drunkenness and her vagueness about the attack except that the drug test was NEGATIVE!
Yes, when I said that Liefong would have cut off Mangum's finger to get her to point at three, I was referring more to the point in time when he needed this case for election purposes. He didn't expect to have to mount a campaign in the general election, but now he has to so he must continue with the same direction he's been taking this case, and that won't change until after the general election. Mangum may already have bailed on him but, short of her going directly to the media with the announcement, we would have no way of knowing about it until it suits Liefong's agenda. He must know that if he pulls the plug on the case now on his own volition, his chances of getting elected are zero.
I sent feedback to the editor but it will probably end up where most "feedback" does...
Yeah, I saw that one, too.
The author is an idiot. WHY would they have taken her to a hospital in the first place? If she was in good enough physical health to be taken to a substance abuse center instead of a hospital, which she was, what is the author's theory as to why she was taken from the substance abuse center to the hospital if she didn't claim rape until AFTER she got to the hospital? Was she taken there for a sight-seeing tour? A band-aid, maybe? Cup of coffee? What?
Do these morons ever think about if what they write makes logical sense?
"found in a car park". Found? Just lying there? How 'bout when the police were called to get her out of someone's car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.