Posted on 08/09/2006 9:18:34 AM PDT by flixxx
There is a scandal now brewing in the Duke lacrosse case. I'm not even sure whether to call it a rape case anymore. You're about to see why.
Consistent with the procedure in North Carolina and elsewhere, the prosecution has to turn over its evidence to the defense to prepare for trial. There's still more to come, but the bulk of what has been turned over is troubling enough. It suggests a failure to follow standard procedure that is rather mind-boggling.
Consider: The District Attorney went to the grand jury for an indictment before he even performed DNA tests (it turns out there was no match). One of the investigators was still collecting prices for DNA tests while the DA was giving interviews. He announced to the press that he was certain that a rape had taken place before excluding the possibility that the woman's physical symptoms were the result of sex with another man (turns out she'd had sex with her boyfriend within the preceding 24 hours). They were still investigating the woman's whereabouts during the 24 hours leading up to the party, and they had already been to the grand jury. The prosecutor relied on a photographic identification procedure that reportedly violated the standards of his own department. If the discovery is any indication, his case is sitting on quicksand.
None of this means the woman is lying. But at the very least, standard procedure should have been to await the results of tests, and then, given the results, the inconsistencies in the woman's statements, the fact that at least one of the boys seems to have an airtight alibi, investigate further before indicting anyone.
Instead, the train had already left the station.
It doesn't matter anymore why the DA was so determined to indict. His critics will say it was just because he was thinking about his political career. His supporters will say he really believed her, and that a District Attorney has every right to be responsive to the community that elects him. My guess is he really did believe her, but it certainly didn't hurt that he needed to. And one thing is clear: He's not going to change his mind now.
That means this case is going to trial, unless a judge steps in to stop it, which is something that rarely happens.
And of this you can be sure: No good will come of it. Trials do not tend to be healing experiences. Sides dig in. Things get more contentious, not less. Tempers are bound to flare. Reliving the evening in living color is not likely to be pretty. Hearing the racial epithets again, rereading the e-mails, all of that will not improve race relations, even if it has nothing to do with whether a rape happened or not.
Even before that, there will be the questions of who serves on the jury and what counts as a jury of their peers. Shall we start counting how many minorities there are, how many "Duke" people, how many of "us" and how many of "them"?
If she takes the stand, she'll be slaughtered on cross.
If she doesn't, the prosecution doesn't have a chance.
No one will be convinced that the case was handled fairly.
If even one of the boys is convicted, there will be outrage in the Duke community.
If they're all acquitted, there will be outrage in the black community that three white boys got away with rape.
Conservatives will be outraged that three boys' lives were ruined because an ambitious prosecutor believed a lying "slut" (as in the nuts and sluts defense), which will be played to a fare-thee-well.
Victims rights advocates like me will be depressed because we will worry, rightly, about all the messages being sent to legitimate victims.
And what would have happened if the District Attorney had waited to go to the grand jury, followed the identification procedure, let the test results come in, found out about the boyfriend and investigated enough to learn that one of the suspects had an airtight alibi? He might have decided not to file charges at all, or not to file them against these three young men.
There are reasons you follow procedures. In general, they are there to spare outrage.
"Collin Finnerty was not included in the photo arrays of March 16 and March 21."
Sounds like Nifong indicted Finnerty solely on the powerpoint lineup. Nifong must be loony....
You're right.
Another case of a ex-NBA player alleging raping an 8 year old.
Where's the Media? Nothing on any of the shows. Nada - zip.
If anyone didn't see this yet: http://www.wral.com/apsportsnews/9658026/detail.html
The non-coverage on this and Frenso tell me that Nancy Grace, Wendy, Susan, O'Reilly, etc. only care so much. If they were motivated by sincere interest in protecting kids/women they would've covered these stories to the same extent. However, to my knowledge, they didn't cover these cases at all.
-
If anyone happens to go by there again, why not knock on the door and ask if you could use the bathroom?
you so funny!
Again, you can find the story if you look for it, but it's not on TV. It's not on cable.
It's not on ESPN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, editorial pages, feminists, black leaders, City leaders, College administrators, neighbors, District Attorneys, CNN, etc.
Quote is from the link in the post I was replying to.
I still think indicting Collin on Crytal's tear filled performance at that "lineup" is absolutely horrible.
We know she went to UNC as a private matter too. She was not sent there as a follow up from Duke.
What am I talking about anyway? That stupid "lineup" is all Nifong has on Reade as well.
It is Neff answering questions about his recent article.
Q: Were pictures of Dave Evans and/or Collin Finnerty included in either of the two photo arrays on March 16 and March 21 that together included 36 out of the 46 lax players?
Mark Carlozzi of California
A: The accuser viewed a picture of Dave Evans on March 21. She did not recognize him.
Collin Finnerty was not included in the photo arrays of March 16 and March 21.
"He called it trauma. He talked about vaginal trauma on national TV prior to that date. I already provided a link where in March he went on Abrams and claimed she had vaginal trauma. You tell me how he knew."
Maybe someone said she looked like she'd been hit with a bush ax?
For reference, Abrams March 28th:
*****
NIFONG: I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir.
ABRAMS: And why are you so convinced of that?
NIFONG: The circumstances of the case are not suggestive of the alternate explanation that has been suggested by some of the members of the situation. There is evidence of trauma in the victim’s vaginal area that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital.
*****
Wonder what "alternate explanation" Nifong meant?
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.