Posted on 11/14/2006 2:34:54 PM PST by AUJenn
["I hope the boys if they did it - I hope they get punished. And if they didn't I hope she gets some help," she said]
How about an alternate ending to that sentence that reads ...and if they didn't I hope those boys receive just compensation for the hell they've been put through and she and that prosecutor get punished.
What a cold bitch.
"What a cold bitch."
exactly! Poor Precious either is a victim or in need of our pity, forget the 3 guys who's lives she has destroyed.
I'm beginning to think Mangum is a huffer.
Agree 100%.
That's certainly the case in NC, given that state's criminal procedures, but it is not the case in the majority of states by far. Although rogue DAs occur anywhere, most often they don't get this far with a case in this kind of shape.
The problem is that most people are too busy watching Oprah and American Idol to bother with boring matters of life and death, their pocketbooks, extreme moral and educational decay and other related banalities.
There are, but they won't act. For example, I understand the state bar has shelved the grievances until the end of the case, which is just further incentive to Liefong to not end the case.
I spent 32 years in LE and have never seen anything remotely like it.
There won't be any violence against Liefong. The kind of people who want to see these boys swing are the kinds who would do violence. The ones who see this for what this is are law-abiding, upstanding Americans who don't take the law into their own hands and attack public officials with violence.
The "average citizen" you mentioned has too much to lose by bringing physical violence to the scene. And, because of Steve Monks and what's-his-name Cheeks, the "average citizen" lost out to the animals who want this to proceed to a lynching of whitey out of a misbegotten need for revenge.
The FBI should already be involved. They aren't. The reason for that is that the victims are white. They only show up when the perceived victim is a minority. Hillary made sure of that, and the Bush administration never lifted a finger to rid the Justice Dept. of the far-left activists that Hillary put in when they took over in '93.
What's your point?
And the accuser? What about her? And what about Nifong?
Mangum's not a slut. She's a whore. She gets paid for selling her ugly body. That's the difference.
Wow. Brings tears.
What a moron. How could Haynes possibly think this was helpful to Mangum?
And I just lover her prescription: If the boys did it, they should be punished. But if Mangum made it up, she should get help. Nope, no punishment for Mangum for putting people through such a mind-bogglingly horrific ordeal.
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Nifong's arrogance
Where does Amanda J. Smith [Herald-Sun, Nov. 1] practice law? Where does she get her information by making statements like this?: "They were notorious for their drinking, their sexual excess, their arrogance. They were literally a public nuisance -- the source of many neighborhood complaints."
"When District Attorney Mike Nifong indicted them, it would have been quite accurate to say 'they asked for it.' "
Where is her evidence of the notorious drinking, sexual excess, their arrogance and the fact that "they asked for it?" And how many years have "they been asking for it?"
I know arrogance when I see it, and from what I have seen these defendants were polite and basically gentleman. The only arrogant one so far has been Nifong.
Notorious drinkers? How many parties did Smith attend with these gentlemen? My guess is none. What exactly were they asking for? Someone to accuse them of rape? I don't think so.
If anyone is guilty of anything it is Nifong, who called these young men "hooligans." I can only assume that Nifong has a grudge against the Irish. Smith is misdirected in her comments about these young men.
BILL DOHERTY
Westmont, N.J.
November 15, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,229480,00.html
Nifong Re-Elected, Will Duke Rape Case Proceed?
Tuesday , November 14, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Legal experts increasingly agree; the prosecution of the three affluent white students at Duke University accused of raping a working-class and local black woman is not supported by evidence or law.
Instead, it is driven by the political ambitions of the local District Attorney in Durham, North Carolina who has exploited racial tensions.
Last week, the D.A. in question Mike Nifong won the election that has been so intimately linked to the ‘rape’ case. He still faces two basic alternatives: dismiss the case or go to trial. What will happen now that he has won a full term?
Based on recent headlines that have battered Nifong’s case, people might assume ‘dismissal.’ The headlines include:
"Durham DA Says He Still Hasn't Interviewed Alleged Rape Victim."
Despite his many pre-indictment statements of "I believe the victim," as of late October, Nifong had not interviewed her on the details.
"Second Exotic Dancer…Says Alleged Victim Was 'Fine'."
Nifong’s only witness and the backbone of his prosecution has changed her story…again. Kim Roberts now claims the accuser was not raped.
"Accuser in Duke lacrosse case wanted money, man says."
A security manager at the strip club where the accuser worked says that, after the alleged incident, she bragged about getting money from "the white boys."
These are sensational headlines but they are unlikely to influence Nifong’s decision.
Why?
Because they don’t change anything fundamental about the case. The absence of an interview with the accuser is just one more in a series of prosecutorial missteps or misconduct by Nifong. Kim Roberts has always been an unreliable witness whose testimony may shift tomorrow. The co-worker’s 11th hour testimony may not be true and ‘proves’ nothing.
The fundamentals of the case have remained the same for months.
They include exculpatory DNA tests, a solid alibi for one defendant, a string of contradictions from the accuser, an irredeemably tainted police ID and a witness who benefits the defense.
And, yet, there are at least five reasons why a trial may well proceed whether or not the accused are clearly innocent.
The first reason: Nifong owes his slim election victory to a base of black voters who clamor for a trial.
In the predominantly black Precinct 42, for example, all but 18 votes went to Nifong. Both the extremely powerful Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People and the People's Alliance endorsed Nifong's candidacy; both want a trial.
Durham’s population is approximately 44 percent black and turn out in black districts was high. Nevertheless, Nifong received only 49 percent of the popular vote. Write-in Republican candidate Steve Monks received 12 percent. County Commissioner Lewis Cheek garnered 39 percent despite a pledge not to accept the job if Monks also ran. Thus, Nifong did not swing a majority vote even though one of his opponents was not on the ballot and the second one ‘refused to serve’.
Nifong’s overall support in Durham is weak. His political strength is specifically tied to a promise to prosecute.
The second reason: Local politicians seem utterly uninterested in pressing for dismissal. Governor Mike Easley, who appointed Nifong, is a Democrat and relies on the same voter bloc; Easley will be up for election in a few years.
Durham Mayor Bill Bell has commented, "By and large, people want it [the Duke rape case] to be decided in court." Local authorities lack the political will to call for dismissal. Indeed, they are likely to press in the other direction.
The third reason: A theme is emerging from the local news accounts I’m reading. It is well captured in a commentary by Ruth Sheehan, a staff writer for the local News and Observer.
Sheehan writes, "Nifong has become a symbol of Durham to the nation. And in Durham, as in most dysfunctional families, it may be OK to holler and throw lamps at one another within the family, but let an outsider criticize and, honey, watch out."
Perversely, national outrage over Duke may have hardened local determination to not be intimidated by outsiders.
The fourth reason: There has been wide-spread speculation that Nifong intends to dismiss the case only after it drops off the public radar. This is unlikely to happen if only because of outraged bloggers who will persist. Nifong is far less likely to back down if a spotlight still shines on him.
The fifth reason: Nifong has one chance to win at trial. In June, North Carolina Central law professor Irving Joyner told Sports Illustrated "[Nifong] still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham."
The key words are "in Durham." If jury selection there reflects the same base that elected Nifong, then it is possible for the young men to be convicted on one of more of three pending felony charges. ‘Duke’ is a textbook case of why a change of venue can be essential to justice.
As it stands, a trial is scheduled in Durham for Spring of 2007.
I can only hope that this article is soon rendered irrelevant by a judge who gives Nifong the face-saving ‘out’ of granting a motion to dismiss perhaps one based on the flawed photo ID.
Otherwise, the treatment of these young men will continue to cross the line separating prosecution from persecution.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Respond to the Writer
Thinking of Nifong makes me think of Jimmie Jones pre-Guyana, when he was a very useful Democrat tool in San Francisco.
Is Yolanda taking some heat for ratting?!?
According to TL Greta's guest, Yolanda?, didn't appear. Yolanda may want to seriously look to get the hell out of Dodge, (Durham).
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.