While black opinion seems to be nearly as high in support of the accuser as it was prior to any facts emerging other than the accusation and the first 911 call, the opinion of whites changed with the emergence of facts, from lots of support for the accuser and none for the accused, to lots of support for the accused, but a significant fraction still supporting the accuser. Here's a pretty typical op-ed in support of the accuser, written by a white liberal Fox News commentator and "rape victim advocate". Like the accuser's other supporters, this writer believed the accusation 100% as soon as it materialized, and all subsequent facts serve only to provide an excercise in contriving an explanation that fits the original, pre-data conclusion.
The title of her article, "Why would the accuser lie", assumes that rape accusations are never false. The writer does not include statistics or famous examples of fake accusations, and she considers in every accusation only the impact on the authentic accuser, but never the occassional false accused. For example, for the same reasons that courts and news organs protect the names of rape accusers, why not afford the same to the un-convicted rape accused?
Why would the accuser lie? What a stupid question. Why has she -- and all of us, including the lacrosse players -- made previous bad choices? Why did she cheat on her first husband, producing a child by another man? Why did she steal that car from her lapdance customer? Why did she respond to an intervening cop by fleeing? Why did she respond to the rude comment by violating the law and slapping the guy who made the comments? Why not, given her previous choices and soberiety status, cry fake-rape when informed by a cop that she was under arrest and would spend 24 hours in a jail cell? Why did Stripper 2 steal $25K from her employer? Why did Stripper 2 violate her probation? Why would the lacrosse players jeopordize their status by violating various rules (and previous warnings), such as underage drinking and loud partying? Why did the gay-bashing kid violate his probation by under-age drinking?
Besides not asking these questions, this writer imagines only one sort of answer to other questions, answers that indicate a rape.
Why did the guys lie to the strippers about their names and which team they played for? The writer imagines only that they they would do this in plotting a rape, and covering it up. And that is a logical explanation. But are there other reasons do behave this way? Even if they intended not to rape a stripper, and even if they didn't rape the accuser, did they have reasons to shield their identities? Yes: they were violating a law (underage drinking, and providing alcohol to minors) and school and team rules, after having been placed on observation. Also, just as the strippers are ashamed to be strippers, the guys are ashamed to hire strippers.
Why would they express worry about the threat by Stripper 2 to call the cops? Why would they respond to this assertion by fleeing? Again, rape provides an answer. But so does the forgoing explaination: protecting themselves from arrest, expulsion, and team suspension for the non-rape crimes they had committed.
Why would the accuser leave behind her makeup case (containing her ID), cell phone, cash, shoe, and fake nails? Rape, of course would explain why she would flee without her personal property. But so would insobriety, combined with the refusal of the guys to let this woman -- who had slapped one of them, and refused to refund them in a financial dispute -- back into their home.
Here's another question the writer didn't ask: If they guys were trying to hide a rape, why didn't they discard any of the accuser's personal effects dispite having at least 2 full days to do so prior to cops searching their house, and dispite their having taken the time to hide all evidence of drinking?
People like this writer, who care passionately about rape victims, or about racism, harm their cause by blindly supporting all rape and racism allegations.
2006-04-24
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This article asks some critical questions of the accuser, such as: What legal jeopordy did she face when -- prior to telling anybody that she'd been raped -- informed by the arriving officer that she was under arrest for public intoxification? Making that allegation apparently had the effect of transforming her situation from that of accused lawbreaker under arrest to a presumed victim being helped by the former arresting officer.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/214/4615/2006-04-24.asp?wid=214&nid=4615
The above article asserts that NC law prohibits prosecuters from making public statements that increase public sentiment against an accused person. Now this:
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/431568.html
Has Nifong breeched official ethical rules? Did some of the defense evidence presented to reporters first get rejected by Nifong?
==== From this article:
Some also said photos, ATM receipts and other evidence they claim exonerates the two team members arrested Tuesday were given to the media only after Nifong refused to look at them.
In its ethical rules, the N.C. State Bar orders lawyers to refrain from statements outside the courtroom that they know might have "a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" legal proceedings. But once one side talks to the press, ethics rules say the other side can make statements "a reasonable lawyer" would believe are required to protect a client from bad publicity.
"If the district attorney didn't put us in this position to have to answer these questions, I would not be discussing this case in public," said Joseph B. Cheshire.
Lawyers representing some players have also complained that Nifong has refused to discuss the case with them or examine evidence they say helps their clients.
The above article asserts that NC law prohibits prosecuters from making public statements that increase public sentiment against an accused person. Now this:
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/431568.html
Has Nifong breeched official ethical rules? Did some of the defense evidence presented to reporters first get rejected by Nifong?
==== From this article:
Some also said photos, ATM receipts and other evidence they claim exonerates the two team members arrested Tuesday were given to the media only after Nifong refused to look at them.
In its ethical rules, the N.C. State Bar orders lawyers to refrain from statements outside the courtroom that they know might have "a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" legal proceedings. But once one side talks to the press, ethics rules say the other side can make statements "a reasonable lawyer" would believe are required to protect a client from bad publicity.
"If the district attorney didn't put us in this position to have to answer these questions, I would not be discussing this case in public," said Joseph B. Cheshire.
Lawyers representing some players have also complained that Nifong has refused to discuss the case with them or examine evidence they say helps their clients.
Shouldn't a "rape victim advocate" be especially mad by fake rape allegations, and especially aprehensive about accepting one?
Finally somebody besides me calling for applying the same shroud to rape accusees as we do to rape accusers. Heck, why not adopt England's example, and protect the names of all accused, non-convicted people?
Why did the players lie about their identities to the strippers? Why did they flee when Stripper 2 informed them she was going to call the police? Why did they hide all evidence of drinking -- within a few minutes? Was it fear of a rape charge? Or fear that previous petty charges (public intoxication, public urinating) would get re-instated in the face of new petty trouble:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12467091/
Post a Comment