Posted on 12/23/2006 4:51:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Granted, the coverage of the Duke rape matter on this morning's "Today" was heavily skeptical of the prosecutor's case. And yes, host Alison Stewart did preface her remark by suggesting that she "play devil's advocate here." Even so, it's hard to see any journalistic justification for a scurrilous suggestion Stewart made. Speaking with NBC legal analyst Susan Filan, Stewart said:
"Why would she change her story at this point? She told doctors, nurses and police that she had been raped. Yet now she says she doesn't remember. Could someone have gotten to this woman?"
View video of Stewart's suggestion here.Filan didn't think so: "She's changed her story since the get-go. She's changed her story many, many, many times. We've never gotten a consistent version of 'the truth' from her, so it's not unexpected that it continues to change."
Filan had earlier opined that "It is time to drop the charges now."
This case is all about false charges. Why would Stewart add to the sorry mess by floating a totally unsubstantiated suggestion of suborning of perjury?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
Duke-rape-case, suborning-perjury ping to Today show list.
Tawana Brawley
Yeah... I bet she's been 'gotten' a lot.
I think it appropriate here to quote an old tagline of mine: Every day gives me a new reason to increase my hatred of the MSM
The realization that a big payday was not at the end of the tunnel, but more likely a jail cell.
In fairness to NBC, both legal analyst Filan, and Dan Abrams [head of MSNBC who had covered the case heavily when he had his own show] both were extremely critical of Nifong and the case in their remarks. Stewart's comment was the only pro-prosecution aspect of the segment. I can see the place for devil's advocacy, but not when it involves making another slanderous accusation.
The Rape Nazis so wanted it to be true; that rich white boys raped a poor black girl.
The (quite) active DukeLax thread here -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1757369/posts?page=1225
Throwing a bone to the conspiracy theorist thinkers. Another take could be...could she have been working for a rival team battling for the top spot against the Duke team?
Perhaps she is working for Nifong to give him and the accuser an out. Maybe a fake-but-accurate threatening email will appear.
I guess we all could give our unsubstantiated, irrational opinion on the story
Thanks for posting and remaining ever-vigilant. And I hope you get a volume discount on the Maalox you undoubtedly need for watching this stuff...
Thanks Pharmboy. My agent is in serious negotiations with Prilosec for an endorsement deal ;-)
Gives me a pretty good clue as to why the Chief of Police took off. He wouldn't take part in Nifong's little scheme.
"The Rape Nazis so wanted it to be true; that rich white boys raped a poor black girl."
The "Race-Nazis" wanted it to be true pretty bad as well. I expect a number of them still believe she was raped.
The lab identified DNA from at least 7 men present on vaginal swabs.None were a match to the Duke players.What a whore she is,her parents must be very proud of her.
Just another reason the Feds need to take a darn good look at this case.
After watching this last night I realized that everybiody has a lawyer but her. Gloria Alred commented but did not volunteer. No money, I suppose.
It was a nothingburger case to begin with, most probably a paranoic outburst by this woman, who harbored some irrational fear she wasn't going to get paid, or paid enough, so she pulled out the race card, claiming the white-breads raped her.
Before the days of DNA testing, this might have worked. But technology has gone on far beyond merely accepting the word of the woman.
It played well in the community. Nifong got re-elected. And for a white guy to get re-elected in a locality where the black population is so large, he had to appear to be "defending" their rights. Even the rights of the least among them.
Heroic DA fights the establishment.
Only no wrong was ever committed.
Where has this country gone so horribly awry?
Is this a trick question? Isn't the obvious answer that when one side is a single mother who is black and (duh) female and the other side is white, male, athletic, attending a private university, then for the Liberals and MSM (but I repeat myself) the burden of proof will fall on the whites?
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.