Socialists, Deceit, and Duke
by William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
Although the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape, Non-Kidnapping, and Non-Sexual Assault Case is long past (or at least the criminal charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans are history), the case itself is not dead. That situation exists in part because the socialists — who claim to be people searching for "justice" — have determined that their beloved "narrative" overrides facts, evidence, and the plain truth, not to mention real justice itself.
To put it another way, socialists in this country have decided that politics trumps all truth and are still declaring the three young men to be rapists, the evidence be damned. To obtain a better sense of what I am saying, I will show what is being said on a socialist web site and then point out why the lies that socialists are saying are perfectly consistent with that ideology.
The site belongs to Counterpunch, which is headed by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, and proudly burnishes its socialist credentials. (Cockburn comes from a family of radicals that proudly supported Stalin in his murderous heyday.) The article, written by Mike Stark, in fine socialist form decides that evidence does not matter when the politics demand otherwise. Writes Stark:
Apparently, there's a line in North Carolina that even prosecutors are forbidden to cross — and Mike Nifong found it.
Mike Nifong was the district attorney in Durham, N.C., who was subjected to public hearings, disbarred, forced to resign and may now face criminal charges for his role in the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Nifong's public repudiation had nothing to do with concern for due process, the rights of the accused or constitutional liberties — which are routinely flouted by a whole slew of characters in North Carolina (and everywhere else in the U.S.), from street cops to corportate (sic) lobbyists to good-old boy politicians.
Nifong crossed the line when he used prosecutorial practices routinely used against ordinary working people to target the powerful and privileged. More damning still, Nifong's efforts (whatever his intentions) exposed the rot at the heart of the elite (and ostensibly liberal) Duke University.
In fact, Nifong denied due process and engaged in practices that had they been used against minority groups quickly would have drawn the ire of people like Stark. But, the fact that there was no rape does not deter Stark and the socialists of Counterpunch:
Nifong is no hero. It's clear that he botched the investigation into charges by an African American woman that she was raped by Duke lacrosse players at a team "party" in March 2006. Nifong failed to get toxicology reports, conduct a recorded interview with the victim, or even build a decent account of events of the night of the alleged rape.
But these failings haven't stopped North Carolina prosecutors in the past — and the state bar's decision to strip Nifong of his ability to practice law reeks of hypocrisy.
This was no "botched" investigation. Nifong and the police openly refused to look at any — any — exculpatory evidence and decided that the many mutually exclusive stories that Crystal Mangum, whom Stark calls "the victim," was giving at the time. A toxicology test that almost certainly would not have turned up a "date rape" drug would have worked against Nifong, so he did not order it. (Nifong did have a sample of Mangum's hair tested, but the results were negative to any "date rape" drug.)
Despite the fact that the evidence is overwhelming against what Stark so far has alleged, he is not deterred:
By contrast, Nifong did possess significant evidence to pursue the rape case. There was a traumatized victim, the testimony of an examining nurse who said a rape had taken place, physical evidence of assault and disgusting e-mails that circulated among the Duke students — like one that read, "I've decided to have some strippers over and all are welcome. I plan on killing the bitches as the [sic] walk in and proceed to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke spandex."
As the mainstream media accounts increasingly sided with the student "victims" accused of rape, these undisputed facts were forgotten.
Nevertheless, the lack of a toxicology report made it impossible to prove whether the victim was drugged at the "party" (which, besides the obvious trauma, would explain her contradictory and confused statements), and the lack of DNA evidence may simply have indicated the assailants used condoms.
There was no "exculpatory" evidence proving the innocence of the suspects. Instead, the case dissolved mostly because there was no "smoking gun."
Every statement here is a lie. (Why are we surprised when socialists lie? They have been doing it for more than a century.) There was no evidence, period. Mangum was excellent at faking pain, and she was a regular visitor to emergency rooms asking for prescription painkillers and describing horrific pain that doctors and other ER personnel immediately recognized as being false.
The "examining nurse who said a rape had taken place" did not actually do the pelvic, vaginal, and rectal exams, despite signing the medical report. The report said those regions were "normal" except for "diffuse edema" (generalized swelling) of the vagina, which is not surprising for a very active prostitute, which is Mangum's chosen profession, and also given that Mangum herself had admitted to putting on a "vibrator show" for a couple earlier that day.
Furthermore, the "disgusting emails" were parodies of a book that socialists love, American Psycho, and in a previous article, I dealt with the facts behind the email and the person who wrote it. (By the way, Stark did not mention that socialists in Durham were demanding that all of the lacrosse players be castrated.)
But the biggest whopper comes with the last two sentences: "There was no ‘exculpatory' evidence proving the innocence of the suspects. Instead, the case dissolved mostly because there was no ‘smoking gun.'"
That simply is not true, unless Stark wants to believe that Seligmann and Finnerty, both of whom were not present (and had ironclad proof of that fact) when the alleged assault took place can be in two different locations at the same time. Furthermore, in conjunction with his DNA and "condom" comments, Stark fails to tell people that Mangum specifically told police that Seligmann "ejaculated" semen into her mouth, and then she spit it out, and that her attackers did not wear condoms.
Moreover, Stark and his friends at Counterpunch expect us to believe that three strong athletes could beat and rape a woman for 30 minute, yet not leave one cell of DNA on her body. Granted, socialists are fond of wanting people to believe fantasies lie Mao ending hunger in China and the like (as Cockburn's father once wrote fantasies about Stalin), but this is too much, even for socialists.
But, there is more, much more. Stark concludes:
The campaign against Nifong, the elevation of the Duke defendants as hapless victims and the vilification of the alleged rape victim have nothing to do with justice. The state bar hearings will reassure the unbridled arrogance of the wealthy and self-absorbed frat scene in the area.
As an antiwar activist going to school near Duke during the first Gulf War, I recall that it seemed like there was a connection between the Chapel Hill frat boys who pelted peace activists with ice-cold water balloons during winter vigils and the murder of the owner and manager of the left-wing Chapel Hill bookstore, Internationalist Books (found shot, nothing stolen, no suspect arrested). The frat boys' "fun" experience attacking activists may have been the casual expression of a deeper culture of violence.
The truth of what happened the night of the Duke lacrosse team's "fun" could remain buried forever, but as Mike Nifong recently said, "I still believe something happened in that bathroom that night."
Nifong's attackers have cloaked themselves in the rights of defendants and principles of justice — but it's clear that when it comes to who they want these principles to apply to, they mean "just us."
Of course, if there were no rape and no assault and no kidnapping, just what did "happen" that night? By declaring that "something happened," Stark gives us the accusation without evidence. (Finnerty's defense team had the entire bathroom checked for even one fingerprint or one cell of evidence that Finnerty ever had been there, and found nothing.)
Stark then connects a 1991 protest — which occurred when Seligmann and Finnerty were five years old and David Evans seven years old — to the lacrosse team, as though the fact that some fraternity boys threw water balloons at demonstrators when the accused were little children as "proof" of a rape. Furthermore, is he trying to intimate that those water-throwing Duke "frat" boys committed murder — and that somehow all this "proves" that the three lacrosse players committed rape. This is a stretch, even by socialist standards.
Other socialist sites I have seen are even worse than what Counterpunch has done — if that is possible. Yet, as I pointed out earlier, socialists always have resorted to the Big Lie whenever possible. When the rape charges at Duke first surfaced, local socialists made hay, but when the charges fell apart, they retreated into the usual sets of accusations and outright lies. Why am I not surprised?
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. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com