I didn't even get past "in the court of public opinion..."

Here is what I want to scream:

In the court of PUBLIC opinion no one is entitled to anything. I can say anything I want about anybody. I don't have to PROVE jack. And you can agree or disagree OR OBJECT without having to prove anything. No one has to weigh any evidence and no one risks arrest or the loss of property because someone said something! Courtesy of the 1st amendment.

It is in a court of LAW that a defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And I’ll even happily defend the Duke rapists right’s to that presumption in a court of law. But please stop asking me to curtail my discussion of the case to what is allowed in a court of law! When I become an actual judge in real life, I’ll let you know!

End rant.

I really hate arguing with stupid people who do not understand basic things that they should. I even refused to do it for a long, long while. For several years I had a running list of subjects I would no longer talk about with stupid people: the organizing principle of feminism, abortion rights support, the strategic defense initiative and its costs, the future financial outlook for social security and its impact on the deficit, the cost of the federal debt, the scientific validity of evolution, etc., etc.

But then I discovered blogging.

{{{very cheesy grin showing much teeth}}}

I didn't even get past "in the court of public opinion..."

Here is what I want to scream:

In the court of PUBLIC opinion no one is entitled to anything. I can say anything I want about anybody. I don't have to PROVE jack. And you can agree or disagree OR OBJECT without having to prove anything. No one has to weigh any evidence and no one risks arrest or the loss of property because someone said something! Courtesy of the 1st amendment.

It is in a court of LAW that a defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And I’ll even happily defend the Duke rapists right’s to that presumption in a court of law. But please stop asking me to curtail my discussion of the case to what is allowed in a court of law! When I become an actual judge in real life, I’ll let you know!

End rant.

I really hate arguing with stupid people who do not understand basic things that they should. I even refused to do it for a long, long while. For several years I had a running list of subjects I would no longer talk about with stupid people: the organizing principle of feminism, abortion rights support, the strategic defense initiative and its costs, the future financial outlook for social security and its impact on the deficit, the cost of the federal debt, the scientific validity of evolution, etc., etc.

But then I discovered blogging.

{{{very cheesy grin showing much teeth}}}

oops. Sorry about that double post. My computer was acting weird.

Thanks Samhita, for acknowledging the piece. I was beginning to think you all would pretend it hadn’t happened.

The 60 Minutes piece DID NOT prove the player’s innocence. What it did was to publicize (finally) some of the many problems with the case those of us who have been following closely have known about for quite some time, including:

1. The AV’s changing stories
2. The AV’s inability to ID the any players in the first photo lineup followed by unsure ID’s of 4 players followed by a near definite of one, but only if he had a mustache (which he never had)
3. The second stripper’s story not matching any of the AV’s stories
4. The second stripper saying outright that the accusation is a “crock�
5. The AV’s descriptions not matching the indicted players
6. Player alibi(s). There is about a 2 minute window in which Seligman had time to beat and orally rape the AV (ejaculating in her mouth but somehow leaving no DNA anywhere). Unfortunately, this window does not line up with when the alleged rape had to occur.
7. The lack of any DNA evidence substantiating the AV’s story
8. The lack of any other physical evidence substantiating the AV’s story
9. The AV’s stripping just two weeks after the alleged incident despite the fact that she claimed serious injury
10. Nifong’s decision not to look at alibi evidence
11. DPD’s violating Durham lineup procedures multiple times (not using fillers, informing the AV that their were no fillers, ect.)
12. Nifong’s many assertions of guilt to the media despite lack of evidence
13. Nifong’s dismissing the lack of DNA evidence saying condoms could have been used despite the fact that the AV said no condoms were used and at least one man ejaculated inside of her
14. Nifong’s grandstanding in front of the press early on
15. Durham police records not matching
16. Nifong’s repeated reference to a “blue wall of silence� despite the fact that Duke players had indeed talked to police and it was, in fact, he who refused further conversations when they wanted to present evidence of alibis

I could go on, but it would probably be easier to watch the story, and then root around the internet a bit. http://www.wral.com/dukelacrosse/index.html has links to almost all relevant police and court documents on the case. Read through these and one cannot possibly avoid finding problems with this case.

Obviously, the 60 minutes piece was one sided. The problem is, how could it not be when the AV and Nifong refused to speak? How could it not be when it focused on evidence (there is none) and procedure (Nifong violated it many times)?

I just don’t understand how a case can go to trial with so many procedural violations, no physical evidence of rape, and witnesses contradicting the alleged rape story(s).

Jane - You are absolutely correct. You CAN say whatever you want. The question is, SHOULD you? Personally, I do not think it is ethically permissible to call someone a rapist when there is no evidence to back up the claim. That is just my opinion, though.

That said: The Salon piece was pretty fair. Thanks for posting it.

Also, don't forget that the court doesn't just pull jury members out of its ass. They are exposed to the representation of the case by the media before the trial, and if this representation is one-sided so is their presumption of what happened.

"I can say anything I want about anybody. I don't have to PROVE jack."

That's what the MRA's who claim that the accuser is lying say, too.

Kim (the second stripper) is an MRA? I had no idea. ;)

Umm, I think ya’ll are missing my point.

Accusing someone of rape, in an ARTICLE, without the facts to back up one’s argument is, I’ll agree, at the least, sloppy thinking.

The proper response to sloppy thinking and speech is carefully documented and analytical speech, not the censorship of the former. Speech is VERY censored (objected to, declared inadmissible, etc.) in a court of LAW, as it should be, in order to protect the endangered rights of liberty of a person who is accused of a crime. I am simply saying that there is not, and should not be, any such standard in the court of public opinion because no one’s rights are in jeopardy. And in our democratic republic we have decided that the freedom of expression, most especially political speech, is a paramount right.

I am not interested in reading sloppily analysis of the news. Therefore while I would defend the rights of MRA’s is it? (Those are the men’s right groups right? I get the nutcases mixed up so easily.) to say whatever they want, and I might even argue that they SHOULD say what they really feel and think, no matter how vile, so that we can know who the idiots are, their stupidity is easily revealed, and therefore dismissed, by better reporting and writing elsewhere. I, or any reader with the sense god gave a goose, can easily dismiss their opinions and arguments because most MRA’s (probably all but I’m trying to be fair) refuse to follow the basic rules of logic. All readers have the freedom to decide what is believable or of quality or inferior for themselves via the first amendment.

NONAME --I would challenge you to quote to us something where major left-leaning, progressive, feminist bloggers have been “ethically� wrong. What little stuff I have read (posts in Feministing, Femineste, Alas, a blog, Bitch, Ph.D,etc.) has been very responsible. I’m not referring to what guests have put in comments but original posts and replies by the main writers of these blogs have been careful most of the time to say “alleged� and men who are “accused of� rape or clearly marked as SPECULATION.

The implication of your statement that these boys are “entitled� to a “presumption of innocence� in our little discussions here implies that I am not entitled to speculate on their guilt or to ASSUME their guilt in my DISSCUSION. I am stating to you that not only do I have the right to such speech without submitting PROOF, but it is a good thing, in the court of public opinion, not one of law, to consider arguments from many sides, even the poorly thought-out or unsupported, and that discussion should not be stifled by a much more strict standard, such as one finds in a court of law.

MAGPIE--As for tainting the jury pool, I hope to god that you are not suggesting that the only expression about a case that should be allowed is that which is unbiased, shows both sides and is fair? Especially using the argument that it “might� taint the jury pool? Isn’t that the very definition of censorship? For who, pray tell, would you select to make such judgments of what is allowed to be published and what is not?

BTW..there is some (not “no� as you say) evidence that the Duke boys are rapists. Is the evidence credible? I don’t know. Is the evidence refutable? Again, I don’t know. Will it stand up to an adequate defense (and their defense will be so far above adequate as to tease Zeus on Olympus)? We’ll see, and I’ll admit it may not. And I’ll ask you to please remember that should it not, all that will PROVE is that they are not guilty. Their acquittal will not PROVE their innocence. We say verdicts, in a court of law, that way for a reason. But SHOULD I discuss what’s there? Especially given the oppressive, sexist nature of our country? HELL, YES!!

That’s what Samhita challenged us to do. Discuss, argue, debate what one side is saying. She did not tell me that she would not allow me to speak unless I presume that the boys are innocent and prove every allegation I make. I was stopped in my tracks by the stupidity of a journalist arguing that someone is entitled to a presumption of innocence in a DISCUSSION. I assume Samhita would prefer that we argue well and present evidence to back up our arguments against the article, and I agree and will should I have the time, but she did not limit us to that standard.

I still happen to think they are guilty. Although I’ll admit to becoming more and more skeptical of the accuser, I’ll stick with my gut and stay on her side. The boys from Duke appear to be winning the argument in the court of public opinion. The evidence they present in public, though not yet submitted to a court of law, I’ll admit is compelling. But I also know that they have a star public relations team the likes of which O.J. might envy. She doesn’t. I also know how unskeptical the media is of facts presented by a man against a woman. I also know from my experiences in life that often things are not what they appear to be on the surface especially when they are being presented by rich, privileged, white folks who are also athletes against poor, struggling folks of color who are only women.

My gut tells me that there's something to these accusations, but where there's no physical evidence of rape and the existing evidence has problems, a conviction is unlikely. The best we can hope for is that one of the assailants gets a guilty conscience and flips.

Peace,

TH

It infuriates me that irrelevant information is being considered relevant. The fact that she worked after the possible rape means it wasn't rape??? So, what, something doesn't count as rape unless it renders you *unable to carve out a meager living for yourself*?? Surely that can't be our definition of rape. Or, what, you have to enjoy erotic dancing in order to do it well? Talk about disgusting male arrogance. Just because female dancers are great actresses, does not make their customers at all desirable.

There are just so many things wrong with the approach by the media. It evidences such a fundamental misunderstanding of rape. The bottom line is, if she didn't want it, and it happened, it was rape. If men have a problem with that, then the correct question to ask is, "what is preventing me from understanding her?"

"It infuriates me that irrelevant information is being considered relevant. The fact that she worked after the possible rape means it wasn't rape???"

Actually that's not what 60 Minutes was saying in that part of the broadcast. They were saying that in the police report she indicated she suffered serious back injuries (if memory serves), but that appeared not to be the case since she worked the next day. That doesn't mean that the information is irrelevant or that it's being used to say she definitely wasn't raped. It does indicate that the alleged victim's story is inconsistent. I'd consider that quite relevant.

"I would challenge you to quote to us something where major left-leaning, progressive, feminist bloggers have been “ethically� wrong."

From Samhita's last post on this case:

"The women's lacrosse team of Duke is planning on wearing bracelets saying, "innocent" in their game against Northwestern.

The university has no objection to this, but you know damn well if they were wearing armbands reading, "Kill those Nazi rapists," they would."

Equating "innocent" with "Kill those Nazi rapists" is ethically right?

If they had worn armbands saying "guilty", would it have been ethically right to equate that with "the nigger slut is lying" (as I have seen too often on the net)?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2640839

"Duke Lacrosse D.A. hasn't discussed case with accuser"

Mike Nifong, D.A. and lead investigator of the case has NOT TALKED TO THE ACCUSER YET ABOUT THE CASE! Let that sink in for a moment.

If you would like to know the signifigance of the video, read this:

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/503820.html

From the article:

"The video segment, about a minute long, shows the woman, introduced as Precious, as she approached a floor-to-ceiling pole on a stage, dressed in a thong and skimpy top. She grasped the pole and lowered herself into a squatting position, so that her buttocks almost touched the floor. With her hands on the floor, she stretched out her right leg vertically, as though she was kicking to the ceiling while squatting, and waved her leg several times to either side of the pole.

The accuser's appearance was part of a longer recording documenting an event at the club that began March 25 and continued past midnight.

Thomas said that an acquaintance of his filmed the evening and that the dancer seemed fine throughout the night.

'She was regular. She danced like she always danced, good old Precious.' He said he has known her since the beginning of the year.

On March 28, she returned to UNC Hospitals complaining of pain in her neck, back and knees, according to documents in the investigative file. The doctor noted that she was in no obvious distress and did not renew the prescription for narcotics.

She returned to UNC Hospitals on April 3, again complaining of neck pain of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. 'The patient is a well-appearing African-American female in no apparent distress,' the doctor wrote."

More from the article:

"The woman was seen in the Duke Hospital emergency room the morning of March 14. She said she was gang raped but not hit or struck. She reported that she was in excruciating pain, rating it a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Nurses and doctors, however, found no obvious discomfort and no associated symptoms of pain, such as grimacing, sweating, or changes in vital signs or posture.

The next evening, March 15, a friend drove the woman to UNC Hospitals where she told doctors that she had been gang raped and knocked to the floor several times, at one point hitting her head on a sink. She said the men assaulted her with hands and fists. She said that she was very drunk that evening and that her neck was very painful when she sobered up, and her legs were wobbly. She reported neck pain of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10.

One physician wrote, 'Due to the patient's long psychological history, she is at very high risk of narcotic abuse, and at clinic, we have recommended not to prescribe the patient any narcotics.'"

Kim Roberts gave another interview:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2614634&page=1

Of particular interest:

Roberts said she told the woman, "Get out of my car. Get out of my car."

"I … push on her leg. I kind of push on her arm," Roberts said. "And clear as a bell, it's the only thing I heard clear as a bell out of her was, she said — she pretty much had her head down, but she said plain as day — 'Go ahead, put marks on me. That's what I want. Go ahead.'"

Roberts said the comments "chilled me to the bone, and I decided right then and there to go to the authorities."