Why should we care about this case? Why should we monitor it and form opinions about it? Because our legal system -- and any effective and fair legal system -- requires observance by citizens who are not directly participating in it. Such behavior by the citizenry constitutes a neccessary check and balance on the judiciary, a phenomenon required of a democracy. Imagine the consequences if we followed the advice of those who have called for us to ignore this case and let it proceed without our active interest and assessment.
Furthermore, this case in particular includes two important opposing claims, either of which if true we citizens must recognize and remedy: (1) That rich white guys are targetting black strippers for sexual assault; vs. (2) That women who get themselves into trouble or get angry (or both, in this case) can obtain salvation or revenge by successfully launching fake rape allegations. For those who believe that the US legal system weighs heavily against the poor and non-white, the possibility of (2) must be especially troublesome, if a poor black woman indeed has successfully launched a false rape allegation. If so, what hope can there be for black men who anger a white woman, or who who find themselves a convienent target of a white woman who gets into a legal jam?
Now we learn that the police initially doubted the Duke accuser. The case against the lacrosse players is so weak that famed defense attorney -- and celebrated non-racist honkey -- Jeff Feiger declared weeks ago that the Duke prosecuter had "no case." Last night on one of the cable news shows he re-asserted his assessment, based on the continuing stream of info, including this report that the police initially doubted her, based on a "changing story" that began with a claim that "twenty" (!) attendess at the party raped her. Feiger pointed out that the DA's actions all point to him having no case, including the withdrawl of old, "set-aside" petty crime violations against various party attendees. Said Feiger, if the DA had a case, he wouldn't take time (especially post-arrest) penalizing witnesses who provide no inculpatory evidence.
Those of you who refuse to cover or care about this case, are you sure you don't care if a DA is using his extraordinary powers -- against people with enough wealth to hire top-notch attornies! -- to extort false testimonies from witnesses in support of a false allegation prematurely publically embraced by the DA? Imagine -- as supporters of the accuser insist we do - if the racial and economic composition of the principals were reversed. Forty low-income black basketball players accused by rich white sorority girls, with the girls first filing a false 911 call; then one alleging rape only after herself getting arrested for public intoxification (a serious charge for a person who already has a DWI and a auto theft convictions); and the other first refuting the accuser, then changing her assessment after herself getting arrested and receiving favorable treatment from the DA; the DA proclaiming on a warrent that DNA test results would ID the rapists and exonerate the innocent, but then retracting his proclaimation in response to negative test results; the accuser then claiming, "oh, yeah, I forgot to mention, they used broomsticks and beer bottles" and not only can I "100% identify the rapists", but I might also have been drugged with a "date rape" substance, which is noted for erasing memory; the players hiding all evidence of their drinking (which implicated each of them in either underage drinking or supplying booze to minors) but hiding no evidence of the accuser's presense in their home; the DA ressurrecting previously set-aside petty charges against players who claimed "nothing happened", etc., etc., etc.
Do I think that in such a case in a city with a half-black population, a black mayor and police chief, black attending officers, and a black-majority city council, that all 40 basketball players would have gotten arrested immediately? Absolutely not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/04/who-robbed-crystal-gail-mangum.html
Lots of speculation about how and why the rich white boys raped the poor black girl. But many of us know that "poor black girls" are no more angelic than anybody else, even rich white boys. Here's some speculation about possible motivations and actions involving the two strippers, how and why they took the actions that they did, including perhaps a fake rape allegation. Includes the novel notion that "Stripper 2" may have stolen the accuser's money, and emphasizes the central role that money probably played in this affair.
Champions of the accuser erect and slay many straw men for her, including that "she has been reduced to the label of 'stipper'"... yet "stripper" is both absolutely germane to the case (she was working as a stripper during the incident in question, and she reported her stripper customers as having both rapped her and stolen her stripper payment), and perhaps even itself is a generous description of her occupation.
Not only did she work for an "escort service", it's named "The Bunny Hole" and her usual gig for the outfit was providing "one-on-one dates." What are the odds that a woman working for an "escort service" named "The Bunny Hole" who performs "one-on-one dating" is a prostitute? Very unlikely, I say.
Is it important to this case if she is a hooker? No. But if her champions are correct that reporters and defense attorneys are nafarious in choosing words to describe her -- as opposed to merely chosing the apt word germane to the situation -- would they not select the worst-possible justfied word, which surely isn't "stripper"? Instead, the facts indicate that the terms "stripper" and "exotic dancer" are specific to the case, whereas "mother" and "student" and "hooker" are not.
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-rape-accuser-crystal-gail-mangum.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/424128.html
In this early report, when the DA was blabbing all over the news, he poh-poh'd the possibility that the rape charge was "a hoax" based on lack of motivation by the accuser. Of course, he made this assessment prior to us (or then even him?) knowing that the accuser only made the accusation after being arrested for public intoxication, and that her accusation got her out of that legal jeapordy, which was potentially substantial, given her "priors".
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane504
This commentary is interesting. The author opposes the lacrosse supporters (incorrectly, I believe), asserting that they only support the players because their rich and white, and the accuser is black, *BUT* accuses the accuser's supporters (correctly, I believe), asserting (with evidence!) that they only support her because she's black and her alleged assailants are white.
Even more interesting is the author's evidence in support of his assertion against the laccrosse supporters: that over the years many false rape charges have been tendered, against black men and non-rich white men, without a peep from the lacrosse supporters. I find it remarkable that this author admits that black and white men all get falsely accused of rape. But the use of this point falls flat, because none of those other cases generated any national publicity, a prerequisite for today's lacrosse supporters to have piped in.
I respect this author for most of his commentary, including his open mind to the possibility that the accuser is lying.
Nadir: Do you really believe that if a woman held-down and bent over in a bathroom had something shoved into her vagina and anus, could not ascertain if the object was a body-temperature male member vs. beer bottle or broom stick?
Our friend Calvin is convinced that the guys sought black dancers, and that this implicates them in the accusation of rape. I don't see the connection. Here's the only article I can find about what "race" they requested, and it was... "one white and one hispanic".
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/438314.html
Post a Comment