http://www.thebreeze.org/2006/10-30/op1.html
Opinion
House Editorial: Taking advantage of the accused
Duke rape prosecutor cannot put victim’s ‘well-being’ over the pursuit of justice
Posted on October 30, 2006
Nearly eight months have passed since three members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team were charged with the rape of a stripper hired to perform at their March 13 party. All three of the players charged (Dave Evans, 23, Reade Seligmann, 20, and Colin Finnerty, 20) have proclaimed their innocence to the rape accusations.
If only North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong knew what exactly those accusations are.
According to an Associated Press story Friday, Nifong said during a court hearing that he hadn’t as of yet discussed the details of the night in question with the accuser. And it seems that rule No. 1 of prosecuting would be to understand what you are prosecuting.
Nifong said he hadn’t asked for the story due to the mental state of the accuser. He says the only conversations taking place with her are to check on her well-being.
That’s nice. But there is more than just her well-being at risk here. Though theoretically innocent until proven guilty, three men have been left in legal limbo, with disrupted lives and ruined reputations, in favor of the alleged victim’s emotions. Yes, rape is terrible, but truth should be main focus of the entire investigation — a truth that remains unobtainable without both sides of the story.
No timetable can be set for the human psyche, but rape is as a severe an accusation as it is crime. The district attorney needs to pick it up if he wants to continue with the investigation.
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=061030
Duke Case: Profs. Coleman and Johnson, Yes: Prof. Joyner, No
Liefong's claim that he didn't interview Mangum because of her emotional state is a crock. First, it assumes a rape occurred or else she wouldn't be in an emotional state, but the purpose of such an interview would be to make a ground-floor determination as to the credibility of the accusation - did a crime (rape) occur? Did something else occur that made her angry enough to bring the claims? Does she have another motive for making the claim? If the accuser is believeable, and is a credible person, are her claims consistent with the evidence gathered thus far? All of this and more goes into the determination as to whether or not a crime occurred, and LIEFONG NEVER DID THIS. And I think we know why.