*** Scroll down to read the jaw-dropping update and more!***
Before I get to the substance of this post, I have to say this: I’m so glad FOX News redesigned the web site. It’s less “heavy,” less busy, and much easier on the eyes. The previous design was hideous, which is why I rarely linked to the site.
Author Wendy McElroy asks whether the accused Duke lacrosse players’ due process rights are being violated.
Of course they are.
I smelled a rat the first time I heard about the so-called rape. Twenty-four posts later, I can’t believe people still think three white Duke lacrosse players gang-raped a black stripper in a small bathroom during a party, despite overwhelming evidence that she made up the whole thing. Now that her gang-rape fantasies are ruining innocent lives, it’s time she sought professional help.
McElroy states the obvious: the presumption of guilt has been reversed in this case. Durham Country DA Mike Nifong made it clear from the beginning that he thought the stripper-accuser was gang-raped in that house by lacrosse players. He race-pandered and campaigned when he should have been doing his job and keeping in mind certain legal ethics. Nifong’s only redeeming quality is that he isn’t as clueless as he looks. He knows he should have kept his mouth shut.
Read the entire article to find out what McElroy has to say about due process. I want to focus on evidence of Reade Seligmann’s innocence. When he (pictured) and Collin Finnerty were arrested, Nifong made clear that he thought they were guilty. McElroy points out problems with this whole mess, particularly where Seligmann is concerned:
He is scheduled to be tried on three felony charges despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence: exculpatory DNA tests, a corroborated alibi, a string of contradictory statements by his accuser and an irredeemably tainted I.D.
Exculpatory DNA tests
The only DNA match in this case is the one between the stripper-accuser and a black “boyfriend.” There is no match between the woman or any of the three white men indicted on rape charges. Zero.
A corroborated alibi
Seligmann contends that evidence discovered so far doesn’t show that a crime even occurred that night, let alone placing him at the scene of said crime. The discovery does show, however, that the stripper-accuser’s stories were conflicted, including the claim that no rape had occurred that night. See Motion For Bill Of Particulars (PDF), filed June 26, 2006.
Even if the woman was raped in that house on that night, Seligmann was not even there when it was occurring. According to an eyewitness (cab driver), ATM receipts, and a record that shows his ID card was used to access his dorm, Seligmann was not in the house during the time of the so-called rape. (Source) But he’s still facing trial.
A string of contradictory statements
The stripper-accuser has told so many lies, it astounds me that anyone took her seriously in the first place. Here are just a few of her lies.
An irredeemably tainted I.D.
The photo identification process was questionable, to put it mildly. The line-up was comprised of 46 of the 47 lacrosse players (the lone black guy wasn’t a suspect) and no “fillers” (such as cops posing as criminals). Nifong was convinced the woman was raped by white lacrosse players; all she had to do was point to three. (Source)
In his excellent “Witness for the Prosecution?”, journalist Stuart Taylor writes about all of these topics.
Durham County DA Mike Nifong is fool who counted on racial resentment and class envy to keep his job. He’s no better than the prosecutor who railroaded the Scottsboro Boys for the same reasons. If I ever get the chance to talk to him face to face, I’ll tell him exactly that.
Update (8:25 a.m.): Commenter Ray Phelps pointed me to Nifong’s VoteBook page. Get this: His favorite book is To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel set in the 1930s about a black man falsely accused and convicted of raping a white woman despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence. Author Harper Lee obviously was influenced by the 1931 Scottsboro case.
Nifong writes this about his judgment: “Both personally and professionally, I have always been a person on whom the community could rely to make the right decisions for this office and for this community: decisions that further the cause of justice.” Emphasis added.
Nifong ought to be ashamed of himself on so many levels.
Update II: About the irony of Nifong’s fondness for To Kill A Mockingbird, KC Johnson says:
It would seem, unlike most who read the Harper Lee novel, Nifong saw little of himself in Atticus Finch, the defense attorney who holds sacred the law and legal procedures. Instead, the Durham D.A. seems to have been attracted to Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor who played to the basest prejudices of his community and who sought not justice but a conviction at all costs.
Johnson also parses an article written by a black feminist named Karla Holloway.
There was a legal symposium at Syracuse University yesterday — organized by the Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media — about the Duke case. Several panelists discussed the case. You’ll need to register to read the article (maybe), but here’s an excerpt from the university’s newspaper:
After each panelist gave an opening address, [Mark] Obbie, director of the Carnegie Legal Reporting program at Newhouse, serving as moderator, asked the panel questions. Audience members were able to ask questions at the end of the panel discussion.
Tom Maroney, professor of law, cited the exact word of the law whenever the subject of legality came up. He said that a prosecutor is not allowed to make decisions based on his or her own political ambitions. Since the prosecutor was campaigning at the time of the allegations, this was clearly an important note.
Most prosecuted cases involve a black attacker or a white victim, according to figures provided by professor Linda Alcoff. She said a case with white attackers and a black victim is rare.
I’m trying to obtain a transcript of the discussion.
Speaking of college newspapers, there’s a new blog called Campus Newspaper Confab.
