Duke: The Lies Continue
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
DIGG THIS
In the wake
of Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong’s dropping of
rape charges against Collin Finnerty, David Evans, and Reade Seligmann
– and keeping the kidnapping and sexual assault charges alive –
I believe I need to make some statements about the case where it
presently stands, and what to expect in the future.
First, and
most important, Nifong dropped the charges not because he had "new
evidence," but because the defense found out he had been illegally
hiding "old evidence." Nifong had the same information
in April that the defense finally received in December, and when
it was made public, then the rogue prosecutor immediately claimed
that the "victim" now could not remember some of the details
of the "rape." Thus, he said he believed he no longer
could "prove" rape, so he dropped those charges.
Second, his
holding onto the kidnapping and sexual assault charges are also
part of the Big Lie he has chosen to promote. Despite the claims
by his supporters, like Irvin Joyner, the law professor at North
Carolina Central University, that these charges do not require DNA
and other such aspects of evidence, the same barriers remain.
First, he has
to be able to place Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans all in the bathroom
alone with her at the same time. The evidence clearly does not point
to that. Second, as for sexual assault, DNA still will play a role,
as not one spec of DNA from the young men was ever found on her,
despite the extensive "crime scene" investigation that
police and hospital personnel carried out.
Second, the
only person making the claim is the accuser herself, Crystal Gail
Mangum. She has told a number of very different stories that have
changed with each set of questions from investigators who surely
from the start knew better than to believe her. This woman is not
exactly a credible accuser, having lied to police about her sexual
habits prior to the fateful party.
Unfortunately,
not everyone is willing to admit the obvious. Take Sports Illustrated
writer Lester
Munson, who in the wake of the latest news wrote:
They (the
defendants) still face some serious charges. There is little doubt
that something unsavory happened at the party on March 13. After
the dismissal of the rape charges, it will be easier for the accused
players to attempt to settle everything with a guilty plea on
lesser charges.
Here is a writer
who still wants to believe that these "privileged, white"
athletes at least attacked the woman even though the other
evidence that has come about since last spring makes such an event
so unlikely as to be impossible. He does not seem to understand
that there is no basis for charges, other than Nifong’s desire
to win an election and for the local black community of Durham,
as well as a sizeable chunk of the Duke faculty to be able to exercise
their prejudices.
However, when
one examines the performances of members of the so-called mainstream
media (or MSM) such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek,
Sports Illustrated, and the broadcast outlets, one finds that
these were the organizations that from the start were the engines
publicizing the false charges – and desperately trying to give them
credibility. Even now, we see someone from the MSM trying to salvage
something out of it.
I predict that
this sorry case never will make it to trial, no matter what Munson
and his other MSM colleagues believe. Nifong is not going to risk
having his entire case rest upon a single witness who has lied from
the first moment, and who never had real credibility. He will find
a way to drop the other charges – and it will not occur because
the players plead to misdemeanors.
The unfortunate
thing is that people are going to have the impression that Nifong
is a rogue prosecutor whose actions are unlike those of other prosecutors.
I disagree, and disagree heartily. Nifong is a product of the mentality
that governs the prosecutorial process in the United States today:
Just win, and win at all costs.
Nifong
may have some explaining to do, but I can guarantee you that he
is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. One might hope that Americans
will become more skeptical of prosecutors because of this case,
but I, for one, continue to say that I am from Missouri.
William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
William
Anderson Archives
|