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.
I thought maybe AV had free oscillations of her vocal cords during her shows. It would be a very interesting concept indeed
:-)
I agree with you. I'll take November 15, 8 days after Election Day.
I would agree with your odds if the whole nation wasn't watching. Since there is no evidence in this case , it will be hard to successfully prosecute with the national spotlight on.
Estrich is more honest and accurate than many other 'rat pundits. I think her analysis is correct and there will be partisan - conservative vs. the left - backlash because race has already been inserted into this case by the left and by Nifong in his role as prosecutor. His meeting with Malik Shabazz cemented the high profile presence of race in this case. She is correct that going forward with a trial will escalate the tensions and sully the result of the trial. She's just clarifying what we all know, and that this is a train wreck that must be stopped before all these lives and the process are completely ruined.
Absolutely right!
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 09, 2006
New Durham PAC
In a satisfying case of life imitating art, LieStoppers has learned that a grass roots group has filed with the Durham County Board of Elections to form a Political Action Committee to campaign for Lewis Cheek.
As additional information becomes available, we will comment further.
POSTED BY LIESTOPPERS AT 9:00 AM
That was written in April. Unlike other pundits who spoke up for Mangum and/or Nifong and remained silent after the truth grew on them, Estrich has chosen to publicly correct her position. I also recall that in the interim she wrote an article suggesting that Nifong get out of the case and have a special prosecutor appointed who could dismiss the charges, giving everyone an out and giving the boys back their lives.
The significant emerging theme in that piece and now this one that going forward with a trial in which there is no evidence except exculpatory evidence is a very bad and risky policy.
I agree.
Plenty of others were taken in by him and have not come forward to publicly correct their position.
She does have a good legal mind. She assumed, and others worried, that Nifong actually had something we still didn't know about - an ace up his sleeve. People who practice within a set of procedures, when observing others practicing, assume they are practicing within procedures, so Estrich rationally concluded there must be some rhyme and reason to Nifong's actions. It is no different from one doctor not wanting to second-guess the treating physician in a serious medical case.
We're approcahing her column from the viewpoint of the closely informed. We address this case every day. I seriously doubt that Susan, or any of the pundits, address this case every day.
Would you be happier if Susan came out in favor of Mangum and Nifong?
I've always thought looking a gift horse in the mouth is foolish. It is helpful to the boys to have a publicly recognized legal authority on their side.
Yes, they are good at CYA, and it doesn't hurt if they feel the need to correct their own record from a principled standpoint. I don't know about you, but I have no idea which of those concerns motivated Susan to write the article. Perhaps both?
I almost always disagree with Susan Estrich, but within the construct of her beliefs, she does not seem to act in an unprincipled or dishonest manner. I could say the same for Joe Lieberman (except when he flip-flopped on abortion in 2000 to get on the Gore ticket), Larry Sabato, Bob Beckel and any number of other 'rat pols and pundits.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/29040.html
An interesting timeline by Robert KC Johnson.
Oh absolutely. Anything & anyone that is helpful to these boys I am thankful for them. The more vocal the better.
Tripe? Remember, NCCU students and others think two wrongs don't make a right but they make things even. They don't care if these guys are guilty or not. They got them a white boy who's willing to hang three of his own in order to get their votes, and that empowers them. They aren't going to let that opportunity go without making noise. They hope, believe and have been taught that the system should serve THEM based on THIER skin color and volume level of expressed outrage du jour. Any blow to that paradigm will come as a very hard lesson.
It should be all over the national news, but the perp is black. It's that simple. There seems to be a black-out on such news stories. The drive-by media is doing its best to change the stereotype of blacks being more heavily involved in violent crime than other races by not showing their faces or publicizing their heinous activities.
See post #26
The PBF is too low for the national news to cover that story, Jez.
I agree with you, abb. The fact that even Susan Estrich sees the fundamental unfairness of the way Nifong has handled this case is encouraging.
Nifong is losing friends fast.
That is maybe the best article outlining the evolution of this case I have seen.
BTW, on you other question, I do not know:
1. when Nifong first saw Mangum after her hoax.
2. what injuries she received in her pimp beating that sent her to UNC ER.
3. how long lasting the injuries would be in appearance.
That is maybe the best article outlining the evolution of this case I have seen.
BTW, on you other question, I do not know:
1. when Nifong first saw Mangum after her hoax.
2. what injuries she received in her pimp beating that sent her to UNC ER.
3. how long lasting the injuries would be in appearance.
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.