Replies

Why should a women who was raped be a zealot in falsely convicting a defendant in a nonrape? Does this somehow, in her mind, create justice for her own rape?

This is exactly the same as the race baiting groups wanting a conviction based on history. Does falsely convicting innocent white men somehow correct the injustice of the past?

Both completely lose credibility, and reveal their true agenda - revenge, when they want to talk about anything other than the facts of this specific case.

Anybody else see the Abrams show yesterday about the woman who was raped 20 years ago at UVA?

By the way. If there has been a silver lining in this case (albeit a very small one) it has been the emergence of Dan Abrams as a real go-to-guy in the matter of legal commentary. He has been the only reason I watch MSNBC. He is well-informed and tenacious in his questioning of guests. At the end of the show he answers viewer emails. Exchanges such as these are not uncommon:

Email: "Your attitude towards the victim nauseates me. What would you say if the victim were a white female?"

Abrams: "Oh, I would say drop the charges. I‘m not going to let the race baiters turn this into a race case."

Email: "Why not keep your nose out of the Duke case?"

Abrams: "Because I‘m the only one who is talking straight about the case."