Creative Destruction

April 22, 2006

Some more Duke rape case links

Filed under: Current Events,Feminist Issues — Ampersand @ 12:35 pm

My thoughts on this case haven’t changed much. I still believe that Mary Doe was raped, still admit I can’t know for sure. Contrary to what many critics have claimed, I don’t call for anyone to be convicted without a trial. (I haven’t seen a single feminist blogger disagree with the previous sentence, yet we are constantly accused of wanting a conviction without a trial. Strawfeminists, anyone?)

As always, check out Justice 4 Two Sisters, a blog dedicated solely to this case. Many of the following links are via J4TS.

Wahneema Lubiano: Perfect Victims and Perfect Villains

I’m suggesting that some of the discussion, the rhetoric, being circulated in the aftermath of the incident and coming either from those defending the alleged offenders or those defending the alleged victim, is rhetoric driven, haunted, by a fight over whether or not we have offenders who can be seen as “perfect” in their villainy and a victim whose victimage can be seen as necessarily complete and thus “perfect.”

Mark Anthony Neal: (White) Male Privilege, Black Respectability, and Black Women’s Bodies

Ruth Sheehan: If Lying, Take Her To Task

Justice 4 Two Sisters: Tawana Brawley Revisited

Sports Illustrated: The Six Most Important Factors For A Rape Conviction
The author seems less interested in actual guilt or innocence than he is in what elements lead to a “guilty” verdict. But it’s certainly an educational read.

Abyss2Hope: How Solid Are the Reported Alibis?

The Happy Feminist: The Security Guard’s Report May Collaborate Mary Doe’s Story
This is particularly notable because Happy Feminist is a former prosecutor. The discussion in comments has some interesting bits, as well.

Pandagon: The More Helpless the Victim, the More Defensible The Violence

If I Ran The Zoo: The Duke Car Theft Case
This is pretty similar to an earlier post of mine (“Rape is not the only crime that pits one person’s word against another’s”), but she uses a better example and also criticizes some of the feminist-bashing that’s going on.

Thoughts From Too Far North: Life Is Not Like CSI

Pinko Feminist Hellcat: Race, Entitlement, and Rape

Of course, there have also been a number of excellent posts by the kick-ass guest posters on “Alas”; please visit Alas’ archive of posts about the Duke rape case to read those posts.

Advertisements

21 Comments »

  1. All this jazz about how whites are entitled and are to blame and are privileged…
    Give it a rest jews, the race which has perpetuated the iraq war, the real sons and daughters of “privilege”.
    Is this system a “Patriarchy” or a “Jewyarchy”?

    Comment by Justice for Palestine — April 22, 2006 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

  2. Wow! You’ve certainly convinced me with your crushing and inexorable logic, JforP. The “Jewyarchy” – heh! You’ve nailed those wily Jews this time.

    Amp, enough with perpetuating the Iraq war!

    Comment by bobhayes — April 22, 2006 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  3. Check the surnames of the “Whiteness Studies” professors and proponents. It may be “hate” to say so, but it is obviously a swindle.

    Comment by Justice for Palestine — April 23, 2006 @ 8:52 pm | Reply

  4. Uh huh. Damn those Jews, so clever as to be able to take over the world, and yet simultaneously so stupid that none of them have the wit to change their name to “Jones”.

    How can we fight such genius-tard perfidy?

    Comment by Robert — April 23, 2006 @ 11:25 pm | Reply

  5. What’s the standard here? Does a feminist need to say explicitly “I want men to be convicted of rape without a trial” or are we allowed to make reasonable inferences from what they do say?

    Nobody will be investigating the three rapists and their families and backgrounds. No sword remains over their heads, because their inconsistent stories were less inconsistent than the woman’s, in the mind of the last interpreter (the judge). — Kevin Hayden (From his blog).

    Must we take this as a simple, neutral statement of fact, or are we allowed to infer that Mr. Hayden considers this to be an undesirable state of affairs.

    Bear in mind that, whatever you may think of the trial of the alledged victim in this case, there isn’t so much as a shred of evidence in the public domain against the men unequivocally characterised by Mr. Hayden as “rapists”.

    It’s that last point which is, I think, a legitimate beef against both feminists and antifeminists in general. Feminists presume men guilty based upon nothing more than an accusation. Antifeminists presume the women guilty of making false accusation. It is, of course, rank hypocrisy on both sides to condemn the other side while engaging in the mirror-image practice. But there is a lesser hypocrisy that comes from condemning the other side, while saying little or nothing about the practice on your side.

    Comment by Daran — April 24, 2006 @ 2:23 am | Reply

  6. What’s the standard here? Does a feminist need to say explicitly “I want men to be convicted of rape without a trial” or are we allowed to make reasonable inferences from what they do say?

    But I don’t agree that your inferences are reasonable.

    The statement from Kevin you quoted indicates that Kevin believes that, in this case, an injustice has been done. It cannot reasonably be inferred from this that Kevin opposes the “beyond a reasonable doubt” system as a whole. Reading the whole post, it’s clear that Kevin does believe in BARD, and his primary criticism of the judge in this case is that he doesn’t believe the judge correctly applied the BARD standard.

    Furthermore, in comments to that post, Kevin wrote: “So when I call the men ‘rapists’ I freely admit that I’m voicing an opinion, not relating a proven fact.

    But my forum here is a blog, not a courtroom.”

    So I think Kevin’s view is actually a lot more nuanced than your analysis admits, Daran. The distinction Kevin makes – between his own opinion and proven facts – is not unreasonable.

    If there’s a feminist out there who is saying both “I know for a fact that the two accused Duke players are guilty” and “it’s totally unfair of antifeminists to assume this woman is a false accuser before she’s had a trial,” then I agree that’s hypocritical. However, even if such a feminist exists and you can provide a link, I doubt that represents the norm.

    Finally, for reasons that are private, I’m not comfortable using Kevin as the example in this discussion. If you’d like to continue the discussion, okay, but please do me a favor and switch to a different example.

    Comment by Ampersand — April 25, 2006 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  7. Ampersand (reordered for reply):

    Finally, for reasons that are private, I’m not comfortable using Kevin as the example in this discussion. If you’d like to continue the discussion, okay, but please do me a favor and switch to a different example.

    Ha, so you would respond to my remarks, but deny me the chance to reply. 🙂

    I decline to switch to a different example, since the point was that you “ha[d]n’t seen a single feminist blogger

    If there’s a feminist out there who is saying both “I know for a fact that the two accused Duke players are guilty” and “it’s totally unfair of antifeminists to assume this woman is a false accuser before she’s had a trial,” then I agree that’s hypocritical. However, even if such a feminist exists and you can provide a link, I doubt that represents the norm.

    There are feminists out there who are calling these and other men “rapists” and saying “it’s totally unfair of antifeminists to assume this woman is a false accuser”. While I do not claim that all or even a majority of feminists do this, it’s common enough to be regarded as normal for feminism. Do you really need me to cite?

    Comment by Daran — April 26, 2006 @ 9:22 pm | Reply

  8. Blind to evidence

    On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team’s captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.

    The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I’ll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It’s true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It’s also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead — seemingly undeterred.

    But Nifong’s judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” shouldn’t be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor’s evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It’s not the grand jury’s fault; it’s just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.

    At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I’ll explain in this column, the Evans indictment – like the two that preceded it – does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury – accuser identification and new DNA evidence – is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.

    The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants’ Innocence

    All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence – Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.

    In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.

    Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I’m not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I’m talking about weighty evidence – receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA – that directly supports the defendants’ claims of innocence.

    A plethora of proof supporting a defendant’s claim of innocence – not just the government’s failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.

    The Problems with the Accuser’s “Identification” of Evans

    In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann – who has strong evidence supporting an alibi – and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.

    Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn’t identify him with certainty (only with “90 percent certainty,” in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me – and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
    The accuser’s lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players – meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.

    Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans’s photo “looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache.” According to Evans’s defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.

    For all these reasons, the accuser’s identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.

    The Problems with the New DNA Evidence

    Besides the accuser’s testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.

    Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
    Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser’s discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.

    To begin, it’s awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim’s struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up — realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him — surely he wouldn’t just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.

    Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail — not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.

    But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn’t remotely close to the kind of “match” you may be familiar with from CSI – the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, “match” here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is “consistent” with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
    Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.

    Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.

    As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
    While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser’s own boyfriend.
    In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser’s own story, and it’s as fully consistent with Evans’s innocence as it is with his guilt.

    The D.A.’s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence

    Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no – with an attitude that boils down to, “Talk to the hand.”

    That’s unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging – or at least being entertained by – the defense’s evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense’s case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense “surprises.”

    For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that’s embarrassing – but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren’t convinced to drop the case, they’ve gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.

    Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn’t a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors’ case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely – if ever – admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test – while risky, and far from perfect – is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.

    As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor’s refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant’s answers – and the lie detector’s response to them – may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.

    Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant’s testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)

    I can’t help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves – surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused’s innocence?

    If There’s A Card Up the D.A.’s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon

    Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney’s pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.

    The discovery statutes in North Carolina – as in most states – do not allow prosecutors to play “hide the ball.” This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.

    He ought to opt to reveal it right now – to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it’s wrong to just let the case go to trial and “see what the jury says.” These three young men’s live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.

    D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming – especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 7, 2006 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  9. A Special Prosecutor In The Duke Rape Case?
    Susan Estrich wants DA Mike Nifong to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Ms. Estrich believes that Mike Nifong, is outmatched for Bob Bennett hired by the Duke team parents, and wants NC’s attorney general to hire Bennett’s equal to represent the state?
    Why not hire Bennett’s equal to represent the state? Bringing in the top guns for a complicated case would be one thing, but bringing in the high-priced talent in order to attempt the transformation of a pig’s ear into a silk purse would be a waste of the taxpayer’s money.
    Nifong claimed that a date rape drug was used but a discovery motion filed by the defense learned that there wasn’t any toxicology done. The question of a “line-up” that guaranteed a Duke lacrosse team member would be chosen. The absolute refusal of Nifong looking at exculpatory evidence of any kind, and he continues to ignore evidence that the crime never occurred.

    There is no way three drunken men, inside an enclosed bathroom with a woman violently clawing and fighting would leave absolutely no DNA behind at the alleged crime scene. Where’s her tears, sweat, saliva, and other bodily fluids? If condoms were used, were are the condoms, wrappers, boxes or evidence of lubricant on or in the alleged victim? The scene described by the alleged victim is one of violence and chaos, yet even in the most calm and best of situation, anyone who has ever had sex with a condom knows that there is no way to remove a condom without touching DNA evidence from either yourself or partner.

    Ms. Estrich states: “The price to date has been paid by the accuser, who has been called every name in the book”.

    Really? Some think that the defendants have paid a higher price. These boys had their names, photos, addresses, personal information attached to “gang rape” in the national media and internet, they had “wanted posters” posted all over their school and community, daily protests by many sexist and racist political groups identifying these boys and calling them gang rapists, Meanwhile, no mainstream media outlet that has published the accuser’s name, let alone called her a liar.

    Ms. Estrich’s second point, “that the treatment of the accuser may chill other women from coming forward”

    This depends on whether you think public opinion has turned because of brilliant defense maneuvering, or because of an embarrassingly weak case where evidence points to the accuser making false claim, and a DA who has a political agenda.

    Ms. Estrich: “Let Nifong pick the prosecutor; if his handpicked choice believes there is no case, …then so be it.”
    My guess is that Nifong will have no interest in appointing a special prosecutor prior to his election in November – in terms of Nifong’s job preservation, which seems to be his motivation here. Having a special prosecutor dismiss this over the summer will be even more politically embarrassing than having Nifong take responsibility for his own behavior.
    Frankly, as best I extrapolate Ms. Estrich’s view, if the Duke Stripper replaces Tawana Brawley as the shorthand for false accuser, that will chill real rape victims who will fear that they will not be taken seriously. The only non-chilling outcome would be prosecutions and convictions, and that is not going to happen based on the evidence we’ve seen.

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 7, 2006 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  10. …it’s just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.

    The irony…

    Comment by Daran — June 7, 2006 @ 11:19 pm | Reply

  11. That’s why we need to focus on the facts and not what feminist groups wish that happened. The simple fact is that the Duke lacrosse stripper lied, and fals claims of rape isn’t as uncommon as people like to think.

    • According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States are later deemed ‘unfounded,’ meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime.
    • Howard County Police classified one out of every four rape allegations as unfounded in 1990-91.
    • The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers says around 600 teachers a year are falsely accused – a trebling since the 1989 Children’s Act.
    • Citing a recent USA Today article, discussing the miracle of DNA and FBI studies of sexual assault suspects, DNA testing exonerated about 30% to 35% of the more than 4,000 sexual assault suspects on whom the FBI had conducted DNA testing over the past three years.
    • Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40% of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994).
    • 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over 25% of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test or after they had failed it, that no rape occurred.
    • 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.
    • Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about 50% simply did not happen.”
    • Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver’s ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly 50% of all reported rape claims are false.

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 8, 2006 @ 6:48 am | Reply

  12. Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations “omitted” notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting “crazy” and that her colleague’s accusation was a “crock,” a defense attorney said Thursday. In court documents filed Thursday, attorney Kirk Osborn said that Durham, North Carolina, police “intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted” information from a probable cause affidavit — information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players. The district attorney’s office did not return a call seeking comment.

    http://lawdogbehindthebadge.blogspot.com/2006/06/latest-on-duke-rape-case.html

    http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-how-da-and-some-police.html

    http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-duke-rape-case-second-dancer.html

    Another police note obtained by the defense says the alleged victim acknowledged having two beers before arriving at the party and that she and Pittman both had a rum and coke after their arrival.

    The accuser also told police that she used a vibrating sex toy during a dance in a hotel room for a male and female, but she told police that she had not had sex in the week before the party, the note says.

    However, a male friend of the accuser said that he had sex with her that week and that he drove her to three other sexual encounters, according to the friend’s statement.

    Osborn also claims in the court documents that the nurse who examined the alleged victim was in training and not yet certified.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 9, 2006 @ 11:06 pm | Reply

  13. An opinion and site I found interesting

    The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.

    http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 11, 2006 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  14. It’s amazing how people can hold on to their beliefs that a rape occurred inspite of overwhelming evidence that suggests that the stripper lied.

    The Duke rape case unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 11, 2006 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  15. The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!

    Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, you find a sub-basement.

    If Mike Nifong doesn’t get disbarred after this, then there is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys.

    AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

    3 (b) The probable cause affidavit implies there is no question that [deleted] was sexually assaulted on March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan by three men. But three days before Investigator Himan signed his affidavit, March 20, 2006, at 10:10am., Investigator Himan interviewed Kim Pittman, the only eyewitness to the events of March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan. Before Ms. Pittman was granted extremely favorable bond consideration by District Attorney Nifon personally on april 17, 2006, she told investigator Himan [ deleted ] allegation that she was sexually assaulted was a “crock.” Instead Investigator Himan alleged that [ deleted ] “reported that she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute period.”

    3 (e), (8) She told Investigator Himan first that she had consumed a 24 ounce bottle of beer and thereafter that she had consumed two twenty-two ounce Ice House beers. Finally, She told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole all her “money and everything.”

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 11, 2006 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  16. Ever since every sexist and racist group descended onto Duke to publicly condemn these boys, I went into over drive trying to make people consider that these boys wouldn’t have submitted to DNA testing if they were guilty, but since the 1st DNA evidence came back, I became more persistent and met equally persistent feminist (i.e. feministing, Rachael’s Tavern, Alas a blog, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Justice4Sisters, Hazel8500 etc…) who adamantly insist these boys are guilty for no other reason than because a “woman” (i.e. the stripper) claims it so.

    I’ve noticed since then that most of feminist blogs have fallen silent as new evidence suggests that the stripper’s claim to be false.

    However, just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement where in the corner Mike Nifong is hunched over clutching this dead case like “Gulum” (movie: Lord of the Rings) clutches the “ring of power”.

    A great place to view that unbiased facts is:

    http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501
    http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-newsweek-abandons.html
    http://commonsensewonder.com/?p=738

    I love this quote:

    “If Mike Nifong doesn’t get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong’s case – stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Nifong can turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse.”

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 13, 2006 @ 2:01 pm | Reply

  17. Funny story

    I was discussing the Duke Rape claim on this feminist blog site, and this woman was claiming it’s all about women enduring the pains of oppression like she having to shave her pubes before putting on her bikini to ride her bike at the beach, the resulting stubble irritates her skin which is all a part of being forced to live in a patriarchal society of rape and female oppression.

    I told “Ms Kate” if you don’t want to shave your thick pubes, then don’t! It’s as simple as that! Just comb a part in it to not confuse any birds trying to fly in! Sheesh! You’re claiming an oppressive patriarchal society oppreses you to shave your pubes? You’re oppressing yourself!

    Comment by Betty Friedan — June 19, 2006 @ 1:32 pm | Reply

  18. Well as Nifong put it for the Duke players “If they weren’t guilty why do they need a lawyer- as ole Mike scours the yellow pages for a lawyer to defend him on ethics fraud charges. Wow what an idiot!

    Comment by veritas — December 30, 2006 @ 2:09 pm | Reply

  19. […] the Duke case. The sentiments that surrounds the case, particularly those from the ‘guilty because they are rich, white males’ camp. carries too much animosity and projected anger to have a rational […]

    Pingback by Duking It Out « Toy Soldiers — January 7, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  20. […] April 26: There are feminists out there who are calling these and other men “rapists” and saying “it’s totally unfair of antifeminists to assume this woman is a false accuser”. While I do not claim that all or even a majority of feminists do this, it’s common enough to be regarded as normal for feminism. Do you really need me to cite? […]

    Pingback by Feminist Critics — April 16, 2007 @ 8:19 pm | Reply

  21. Most of these statements are too too funny to read now in 2011. Dropped like a hot potato from most of the “progressive” blogosphere, wasn’t it?

    Comment by MJ — June 7, 2011 @ 3:01 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: