Posted on 04/23/2006 7:43:47 PM PDT by Copernicus
Yes,my comments on the Duke Lacrosse Case!
At the exact moment it would be almost impossible to believe the Duke Lacrosse story could get any more bizarre comes one Raleigh News & Observer Columnist Ruth Sheehan in her April 13th column with a personal unsubstantiated allegation of rape against a male or males in her life TWENTY ONE years ago! ( or twenty, read carefully, it makes no sense)
In two short sentences she publicly slanders every male with whom she has associated over the past two decades as well as a goodly number of females who she apparently could not trust to share details about this traumatic criminal incident.
Here are the pertinent sentences quoted from the column: (http://www.newsobserver.com/138/story/428190.html)
"I know because I was raped 21 years ago, on my 20th birthday. Twenty years ago this week, in fact."
"I never turned the man in, never reported the rape, never even told family or friends until many years later."
Call the Cold Case Investigators, amateur or professional, this story deserves scrutiny.
Somewhere out there a rapist walks unpunished or uncharged.
As is the case with Clerical child molesters and others, he is likely to have a lengthy history of criminal activity which may or may not have ever been discovered.
It would be easy to surmise there was little physical evidence in the form of cuts or bruises on her face or arms else her close friends would have enquired after Ms. Sheehans health.
For the same reason it is equally likely there was no dramatic change in Ms. Sheehans deportment or demeanor which would also have drawn the attention of her friends. This tends to rule out a case of stranger rape.
So there remains only a timeline. On or about the middle of April 1986 (or 1985!) Ms.Sheehan was assaulted by an unknown male or males.
If a case of acquaintance rape, the pool of potential suspects would naturally begin with Ms. Sheehan's College Yearbook. Or perhaps her High School Yearbook. Or perhaps a review of her resume to determine who were her co-workers at the time. Names from those sources entered into a criminal database should quickly spit out a small pool of possible candidates.
But this is a terrible digression.
If Ms. Sheehan expects readers of the News & Observer ( a paper not known for its precise and accurate OR fair and balanced reporting) to take her claim seriously she needs to revise and extend her remarks to reassure the public her comments were not idly inserted to make a point.
Certainly the editors who allowed these comments to pass through their hands unchallenged should insist on a more complete account.
It would be a horrible thing for any man to work alongside Ms. Sheehan in the newsroom only to discover twenty years in the future she had suffered criminal assault and every former co-worker is now under a cloud of suspicion based on some undocumented public comment she made.
After all, that is why the Duke Lacrosse Case is such a compelling contemporary cautionary fable.
L
Very good!
Think this is a job for the Pajama Patrol?
Best regards,
I actually correspended with Sheehan on this and another of her columns.
I think you are missing the point with just this excerpt. I think you should post the entire column.
I think you entirely misrepresent Ms. Sheehan's article. True she did make the assertion but it is of secondary, if not marginal, importance to the main point in the article. Let's focus on the things that are more unequivocal, namely, Mr. Nifong's behavior and the facts of the case, including past patterns of behavior of both AV and those attending the event where the alleged crime took place.
Not a problem. Here is a link from the source in the post itself. Click Here
Best regards
It is of primary importance to the credibility of the News & Observer coverage of this case.
Apparently, by her own statement this writer has privately slandered at least one or more individuals for years ON THE BASIS OF NO EVIDENCE BEYOND HER ASSERTIONS.
She now publicly extends this slander to a group of individuals with the blessings of her editors and management.
That is EXACTLY what both the Brawley case and the Duke LaCrosse case are about.
And it bears scrutiny in EXACTLY the same way.
She wrote the column.
Let her answer for her assertions.
Best regards,
Is this story of any interest to you or the media bias investigators?
Best regards,
You might find this to be of some interest.
Best regards,
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.