Update (1:44 p.m.): Durham Investigator Linwood Wilson criticized the defense for asserting that the accuser’s story was inconsistent, and he asked for proof. In response, Joseph Cheshire, Dave Evans’s attorney, sent Wilson a letter (PDF) with the proof attached.
Now that Nifong has muzzled himself, he’d be wise to muzzle his people, too. 
I don’t have time today to look for others blogging about the case, so if you are, let me know. See Robert KC Johnson’s latest post, Turning on Nifong.
Independent Conservative: “536 Pages. 5 Rapists. 4 Dancers. No Toxicology Report. No Payoff From Defense and No Plea Deal Requested.”
Commenter Beth Taylor writes:
LaShawn – You probably need to be careful! You’re going to end up getting called as an expert witness in this case for one side or the other…
“Ms. Barber, On March 26th did Attorney Nifong say that this is an act of rape made with racial epithets?â€
“No. He did not. He said that on March 27th.â€
Thanks for the Friday afternoon laugh, Beth. 
Rest easy, everybody. See you Monday.
———————————————————————————————————
Scottsboro Boys
Click over to Townhall.com and read my column, Scottsboro Revisited, which discusses a few similarities between the “Scottsboro Boys” case from 1931 and the Duke case. A wonderful site called Famous Trials was one of the sources.
Lessons from the New York Times
[Update @ 10:22 a.m.: The misspelled name has been corrected, but this section contains good advice for writers and would-be writers, including my enemies. I wouldn't wish a published typo on anyone. 
... And the term "radioed ahead" is anachronistic, but hey, whatever.]
As one whose name is often misspelled, I should know better. But, alas, things happen. For the record, the researcher’s name is Douglas O. Linder, not David, as I wrote in the column. (Sorry, Douglas!) A correction is pending. Knowing how tense I get about typos, you’d think I’d have learned to be extremely careful about proofreading. But I can be as careless as the next person. Strangely enough, though, whoever edited the piece didn’t catch that but removed several commas. If you notice places where there should be a comma, there probably was one in my version.
The reason I’m so hard on myself is that it’s good practice to be hard on myself. I anticipate bigger things in my career, and the vultures will be circling, waiting for a fall. A small typo is a small typo, but one day, if I’m not careful, I’ll commit an egregious error…perhaps even a career-ending one.
Dramatic, yes, but who wants to be like the New York Times, with its typically long Corrections page? Fortunately, Townhall is online, so corrections can be made fairly quickly, or sometime today. Blogging is different, of course. You have the tools to correct typos in seconds.
Advice: Always, without exception, proofread your work very carefully. Triple-check facts. Do this even if you’re submitting an article to a publication with the world’s best fact-checkers and copy editors. Assume that you are the final editor. Your nerves will thank you.
Hauntings
If you followed the Duke case early on, you may remember some of Mike Nifong’s pre-media moratorium statements. LBC reader Nancy Kidder fact-checked his recent e-mail (PDF) to Newsweek and compiled and sent a list of contradictory statements. First, the relevant portion of the e-mail. Nifong wrote:
All of my public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified, and were essentially restricted to 1) my belief that the victim had in fact been sexually assaulted at the 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. address, and 2) my hope that one or more of the persons who were present but not involved with that assault would cooperate with the investigation. Once specific defendants were identified, I considered myself to be ethically bound to avoid any further comments on the case or the evidence.
Nancy writes:
Both of these claims are demonstrably false. First, Nifong’s statements were in no way restricted to his belief a rape occurred and calls for witnesses to come forward. As shown below in his public statements, among other things, Nifong emphasized the racial component of the case, accused Duke students of hiding behind their “daddies,†suggested the players were guilty because they obtained counsel, characterized the findings of the medical report, and demonstrated how he believed the alleged victim was choked. Second, Nifong’s statement that “all of my public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified†is clearly incorrect. Nifong made at least 20 statements after the April 4 identification. Even if you accept a reinterpretation of his statement to mean “after the first players were indicted, rather than identified,†he still continued to make public statements, including suggestions that the Defense attorneys are lying and are afraid to face him in court. Nifong has not shown himself to be bound by ethics at all, only opportunity and convenience.
1) The following is a sampling of Nifong’s contradictory and often race-baiting pre-identification statements that were not restricted to a “belief that the victim had in fact been sexually assaulted at the 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. address” or his “hope that one or more of the persons who were present but not involved with that assault would cooperate with the investigation.” It is my hope all these statements come back to haunt him, especially the hate crime charge hints:
March 27: “In this case, where you have the act of rape – - essentially a gang rape – - is bad enough in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial with racial epithets against the victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable.” (Source)
March 29: “The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so.” (Source)
March 30: “The racial slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset involved in this particular attack. And, obviously, it made what is already an extremely reprehensible act even more reprehensible.” (Source)
March 30: “There’s been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system. There was a feeling that Duke students’ daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew the right people. It’s discouraging when people feel that way, and we try not to make that the case.” (Source)
Most egregious is the following statement (March 31). A prosecutor ready to charge people with rape, says: “If it’s not the way it’s been reported, then why are they so unwilling to tell us what, in their words, did take place that night? And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong.” (Source)
By now we know that the accuser’s medical exam showed no signs of rape (PDF defense motion), but Nifong held tight to his theory. Dismissing the idea of a hoax, he said (April 1):
“If this is all a hoax that was … designed to get the lacrosse team … what other major lacrosse program is behind that hoax? The presumed motivation would be to end the season of the Duke lacrosse team, and that’s obviously been accomplished. Seriously, when you think about it, who would be motivated to do a hoax like that? What possible reason would somebody have to do that?” (Source)
He’s been trying cases and dealing with self-serving defendants and witnesses for how long? And how does he presume a hoaxer would want to end the lacrosse team’s season? What sort of motive is that? How about a CYA, don’t-send-me-back-to-jail motive? Is such a concept foreign to a man who tries to put people in jail for a living? Anyway, let’s continue:
2) Regarding Nifong’s statement that all of his “public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified,” I think he mis-wrote (if that’s a word). Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were identified as the rapists on April 4, and Nifong made public statements after that, as noted in stories dated April 10, April 11, April 12, and April 13.
A statement Nifong made at a candidate’s forum no doubt attended by black potential voters (April 13): “The reason that I took this case is because this case says something about Durham that I’m not going to let be said. I’m not going to allow Durham’s view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham.”
Here’s another revealing quote from April 18: “It had been my hope to charge all three of the assailants at the same time, but the evidence available to me at this moment does not permit that. Investigation into the identity of the third assailant will continue in the hope that he can also be identified with certainty.”
What’s revealing? The evidence available to Nifong at the time was the accuser’s uncertain identification of the third rapist. At this point, we don’t know if she first identified a player other than the indicted three. But based on her weak and contradictory recollections, Dave Evans was indicted.
Conclusion
Some may wonder why I’m blogging and writing so often about this case. I think the whole thing is shameful, and the accuser should bear the consequences of this false and racially motivated rape accusation. Not only does it hurt the cause of women who are actual rape victims, but it set in motion a cascade of racially tense arguments and pseudo-feminist “discussions,” giving credence to conspiracy theories, victim-wallowing, and men like Jesse Jackson and the “New Black Panthers,” for crying out loud. I don’t want the woman only to be embarrassed; I want her learn and to never, ever do such a thing again (as she also did in 1996).
She needs psychological help in dealing with gang-rape fantasies, and more than anything else, she needs a Savior.
And a new line of work.
Related posts:
- Duke Rape Case: $2 million Hush Money Offer?
- Talk Left writes: “Fox News is reporting Nifong said no toxicology tests were conducted. So why did Nifong put out the date rape drug theory?”
Related stories:
- Friend and fellow conservative Joseph C. Phillips: Cosmic Justice in Durham
- Sports Illustrated: The Damage Done
- Lawyer says investigator ignored evidence
—————————————————————————————————————————
Message to commenters: The Duke case discussion is veering off into bawdiness. Ideally, commenters focus on the facts at hand and civilly discuss differences of opinion. I don’t like negative remarks about people’s physical appearance, and I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any value in talking about the stripping and “escort” professions in general. As long as commenters aren’t calling me or each other names, I usually stay out of it. But now I must ask commenters to refrain from general discussions about stripping and what turns on drunk college men.
Some commenters are lawyers; many others are not. But try to discuss the legal and social aspects of the case without being gratuitous.
