Replies

Yup....seems like Ol' Susan was in lockstep with the 'victim's' point of view back in April.

Seems now, Susan has investigated, found some serious problems with the DA and his office and remembers what she wrote / said back in April. Lawyers, if they are really good, are masters at CYA>

Good post. Had Estrich not written that earlier column, we would not be seeing this from her now - she is trying to regain some credibility. Here are some pearls of wisdom from that column:

To be sure, no one has explained why a woman would leave her cell phone, makeup case and money in the bathroom, but those are just details. According to the defense, she was drunk, and polishing her nails. Polishing her nails? There must be a better explanation, but that’s what a real trial is for.

What this kind of “trashing the victim” does is to reinforce the worst of the history of rape law, which is a history of both racism and sexism, in which the most serious offense was the rape of a white woman by a black man, and the least serious the rape of a black woman by anyone.

Do women lie about rape? Occasionally, but no study has ever found that women lie about rape any more often than men lie about other crimes. Why would they, given the stigma that is still attached to victims, and the humiliation involved in pursuing a complaint?

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.