Duke Rape Injustices

Here's a neat list of the bald contradictions between what the DA Nifong proclaimed to the public and the evidence that he had in-hand, and which he sheilded from both the judge from whom he obtained the search and DNA warrents, and from the grand juries from which he obtained his indictments. If we permit this DA to railroad some innocent rich white assholes, on what basis will we protect others? How does this case affect authentic cries of rape and racism?


Paul Hue said...


This article covers the same ground, and includes comments from the black Duke law professor who has come to side with the white lacrosse assholes.

Paul Hue said...


The first half of this Amsterdam News commentary is sensible and accurate, but the second have constitutes special pleading based on incorrect evidence and poor logic, presumably utilized on behalf of the accuser simply because she's black. Meanwhile, the public opponents of the accuser -- including all the honkey cable news commentators -- initally championed her accusation and the DA, and excoriated the lacrosse assholes. Only after facts emerged did these people reverse their opinions.

Paul Hue said...


Commentary from a black conservative.

Paul Hue said...


Fox News' Bill O'Reilly started out championing the Duke assuser, and urging maximum prosecutions for the rapists and anybody at the party who has not assisted the police. Emerging facts changed his mind.

Nadir said...

These students have the money to hire great lawyers who will certainly point these things out in court. The fact that the media is tainting the jury pool by publishing all of the contradictions almost guarantees that the dudes will get off -- whether they are innocent or guilty or know of someone else who is guilty.

Paul Hue said...

If these guys weren't innocent, and if the DA had not so blatantly railroaded them, their attornies would not be able to taint the jury pool as they have. Surely you realize that the DA tainted the media -- and thus jury pool -- initially against these assholes. Every pro-lacrosse media personality (Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Scarborro, Hannity) started out in full support of the accuser, and calling for the harshest possible justice against these guys. The DA successfully used these people using what eventually became clear as the accuser's lies, and now is looking like lies by the DA.

If these guys get rescued only by their money, and without the interest and support of people like you, then people like you will have much less effective voices when such an injustice gets perpetrated against either those with no money, or those with much more money than all these assholes combined (Mike Tyson, Kobe, OJ, Jayson Williams).

Nadir said...

"If these guys get rescued only by their money, and without the interest and support of people like you, then people like you will have much less effective voices when such an injustice gets perpetrated against either those with no money, or those with much more money than all these assholes combined (Mike Tyson, Kobe, OJ, Jayson Williams)."

Horse-hockey. Money is what rescued OJ and Kobe, and it will rescue these guys, with our without my emotional support.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: Are you drunk? I didn't say that "your emotional support" would rescue rich defendandants. I said that if you don't form on opinion on this matter, and express it, that your opinion will have less weight in the future when something like this happens to somebody who lacks money, and who only has the collective voices of people like you. Your lack of interest in this affair, and refusal to form an opinion, simply because these guys are rich and white, diminishes your rhetorical ability to chastise, for example, rich white people for not caring when some poor black guys get railroaded in a similar fashion. It will also logically prevent you from demanding that Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, etc. take the same stand for poor blacks as they have for these rich white guys. If you can sleep through this, on what grounds would you chastise them for sleeping through some black guys getting falsely accused by a white hoe?

Those commentators, by the way, have enormous credability in this matter, since they all initially took the poor black girl's side.

Here we have former Nifong supporters -- including the woman who chaired his recent campaign -- jumping ship.


Also, on cable news shows, the commentators who had been standing by Nifong and the accuser even after the first few waves changed the minds of most commentators, they are now changing their minds as well. This week on former prosecuter Greta Van Sustran's show, she explained why she changed her mind. It was on her show that Nifong got his first national audience, with an interview that caused all the other cable news guys to roundly condemn the lacrosse players. Greta stuck by Nifong much longer than most of the cable commentators. Geoffry Feiger, by the way, wants Nifong arrested and disbarred.

Paul Hue said...


Nadir: Here's a commentator (don't you fancy yourself one of those?) who had previously railed against a different North Carolina DA who had "lied to a judge and attornies in order to send an innocent man to death row." This writer doesn't elaborate, apparently assuming that his readers already understand that case, so we don't know if that wrongly convicted man meets your racial and economic requirements for "caring". But let's assume he does.

This commentator is now lending his weight to the attacks on Nifong's effort to railroad some rich white guys. He's using this to leverage support for reforming the legal system to make it harder for DAs to railroad innocent people into prison. Don't you support such measures? Would now be an ideal time to push for such measures? Considering that you believe that white racism is rampant, that white folks generally don't care about blacks, and that wealthy people generally don't care about "the poor", with these rich white boys getting railroaded by a DA using tricks normally employed (at least in your view) only on poor blacks, isn't this just about the best conceivable time to press forward, using the Duke case, to enact laws that make false accusations and unethical DAs less likely to prevail?

Nadir said...

If the evidence is as bad as everyone is saying, then the DA spoke too soon. This seemed to be the case anyway, but he was running for re-election, so it isn't surprising that Nifong took the political route.

Is he guilty of misconduct? I don't think so. Incompetence, maybe.

Paul Hue said...

Something very fascinating happened on last night's cable news casts: Whereas for the previous few months at least two hosts (Nancy Grace and Allan Colmes) took the Nifong-stripper side, and all the other hosts had at least one regular guest who did as well, last night Allan Colmes and Nancy Grace's fill-in, and *every* previous pro-Nifong-stripper guest on *every* show -- including that lady lawyer who represented Scott Peterson's mistress as well as Kobe Bryant's accuser -- concluded that the DA should never have brought charges. This represents a 100% reversal for all original supporters of the accusations.

And remember, all the conservative anti-stripper hosts started with fierce pro-stripper views.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the Nadirs of the world to make a headway in reforming our legal system to make a strike against false accusations and biased prosecuters.

Increasing numbers of the cable commentators see that Nifong has violated both criminal laws and ethical requirements for Bar membership. Did Nifong withhold pertinant exculpatory evidence in obtaining warrents and grand jury indictments? Did he make statements in warrents, and to the public, that baldly contradicted by some of this un-revealed evidence? Did he make comments to the public that would incite public anger against the accused? Positive answers to any of these questions can lead to disbarment, and some to criminal charges.