I Was Ambushed by Paula Zahn (read how they did it re: Duke case)

[donsu]

http://www.counterpunch.com/dines01202007.html


I Was Ambushed by Paula Zahn
How CNN Set Me Up in the Duke Rape Case

By GAIL DINES


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of dozen times, and shame on me -- but also shame on what passes for journalism on television.

This truism comes to mind after my appearance on “Paula Zahn Now” on CNN this week to discuss the Duke rape case. I’m not naïve about these kinds of shows but over the past 20 years I’ve gone on a number of them to discuss my work as a sociologist on issues of racism and sexism in the media. Like many progressives, I do that with eyes wide open, knowing the limits but realizing it’s one of the few shots we have at a mass audience.

But this time I foolishly had high hopes after a producer from Zahn’s show actually conducted a thoughtful screening interview, unlike any I have had in the past. Most producers typically are uninterested in my views and tend to ask banal questions in these pre-interviews over the phone. They usually don’t care about my arguments, but simply want to check that I have a big mouth (which, I admit, I do) and will not freeze in fear when the cameras roll. When they recognize that I am not someone who is likely to cower in the face of adversarial arguments, that’s enough for them.

But this CNN producer kept grilling me with questions that suggested that they were interested in doing a show that looked at the historical and contemporary issues of violence against black women in this society. Four phone calls later, I agreed to fly to Durham to do the show.

I was told I would be in at least two segments, possibly three. That promise was crucial; there’s no sense flying halfway across the country to say a couple of sentences between the ads. So I dug in to prepare, reading and consulting colleagues about the way the media has framed the story. What an utter waste of time and energy.

-snip-

you will have to read the rest yourselves to see how it was done but here is one sentence from the snip:

"This is truly an example of how mass media construct reality."

--------------------

[Totallybushed]

1. OK, I'm going to

jump in here.

This person is wrong. the case isn't about race and/or gender. It is about 1)did a crime(rape) occur, 2) did the accused do it?

<i>My anger at the way the media humanized these men as victims and dehumanized the woman as the perpetrator of a lie clearly stood out from the rest of the show.</I> If the men are in fact innocent, then clearly the woman should be attacked, and imprisoned after a fair trial, for filing a false police report. Making false accusations against your fellow human beings is about as vile an act as you can commit. It deserves punishment.
jump in here.

Enough evidence to convince police, a DA, a grand jury? Well, it is pretty well known that a grand jury will indict anything. After all, the defense isn't allowed to present evidence. The DA was obviously appealing to racist sentiment in the black community of Durham. There are always police that will follow a DA's lead.

Here's the thing. Our judicial system, our courts, are supposed to be separated from the political processes. Therefore, race & gender do not enter at all into the process as it is supposed to be conducted.

Unfortunately it has. Because of this, the evidence, if there actually is any, that a rape occurred and that these men committed it, is tainted beyond redemption. The lineup was rigged, the stripper's credibility is shot because of her repeatedly changing stories, there is no physical evidence. Charges should never have been brought. The prosecutor is supposed to weed out such flimsy cases without wasting taxpayer dollars on them.

Just because somebody says something happened, that doesn't mean they get to have a day in court. There needs to be some evidence to proceed.

[mzteris]

2. this illustrates, for me, the problem I'm having with most posters....

"The so-called “facts” of the case have mainly been planted by the defense as a way to spin the case. The prosecution can’t reveal all their evidence by law, but we do know, as law professor Wendy Murphy has pointed out, enough evidence was presented that “police, forensic experts, prosecutors, and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought.” The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night, yet every man who has emailed me is convinced that all the facts are out there and only a feminist fool would believe otherwise."


It's turned into a she said/he(they) said - and obviously "they" are more credible than she because - well - she's black, female, and a stripper, has a record, did drugs, had babies out of wed-lock, "claimed" to have been raped before, etc...

It's a well-accepted meme that she "changed her story all the time" - but that is not really true.

It's well-accepted that since "rape charges" were dropped, there is no case. But they've taken no steps to find out what "dropping the rape charge" actually MEANS in this particular case. Which is - that in NC you have to prove penetration by a penis to be rape. She can't definitively say it was a penis as she didn't SEE IT - she thinks it was but can't say it was without doubt. (which - if she's such a LIAR - then why doesn't she just go ahead and lie about that? :shrug:)


I honest to god don't know which party to believe. I could just as easily make a case 'against' her as 'for' her. I don't know what happened. No one on this board does (unless they were actually in attendance.) To base your decision on what you hear in the media is completely bogus, imho - especially as what is dominating is the paid PR spin. Now which party do you think has the better PR agent, eh?

[TheWraith]

3. You're mistaken.

For starters, the facts of the case are facts. Period, no subjectivity allowed, and most of them come from the prosecutor's preferred labs. No DNA, no hair, no skin, no blood, no semen from any of the players, anywhere. Period. Second, the prosecution can and has revealed great amounts of information which favors their case--the DA gave over fifty interviews before he finally shut up--and did their utmost to create the impression of overwhelming guilt, even when it was proved conclusively by independent evidence that at least one of the accused could not have even been present at the house at the time of the alleged crime.

Out of curiousity, who is more credible: twenty odd members of a group, all who swear that nothing happened, plus the other stripper who was there who agrees with them? Or one accuser who was picked up drunk and in violation of her parole later that night, who was asked leading questions about whether she'd been raped by a nurse at a drunk tank? More specifically, an accuser who has changed her story multiple times--which is true, whether you want to acknowledge it or not--and is no longer willing to testify that she was raped? Particularly when all available forensic evidence supports the idea that nothing happened?

"Which is - that in NC you have to prove penetration by a penis to be rape. She can't definitively say it was a penis as she didn't SEE IT - she thinks it was but can't say it was without doubt."

Let's see--she used to claim that she had been gang raped by three men for a half an hour, including that they forced her to perform oral sex. Yet suddenly she can't be sure that there were any penises involved?

"(which - if she's such a LIAR - then why doesn't she just go ahead and lie about that? )"

Perhaps because she realized that lying under oath would get her in much more trouble than saying she wasn't sure and trying to let the whole thing die a quiet death.

"I honest to god don't know which party to believe."

I find that hard to believe, as you're spinning hard in favor of someone who has pretty clearly lost their credibility.

"To base your decision on what you hear in the media is completely bogus, imho - especially as what is dominating is the paid PR spin. Now which party do you think has the better PR agent, eh?"

You do know that just because someone attends Duke doesn't mean they're rich, right? Duke will take a student of any financial background, period. As a matter of fact, lacrosse is generally considered to be the best sport to play if you need to go to college on a sports scholarship. So characterizing this as evil rich white men versus the poor, disenfranchised black girl is pretty disingenuous. You know less about the financial background of the players than you claim others know about the evidence.

[mzteris]

4. roflmao

at everything, and I do mean just about every single word, you have uttered. I'd rebut it point by point, but what's the - er - point?

You haven't the first clue. And wouldn't want to even begin to listen. You've obviously made up your mind and absolutely nothing other than "tape at 11:00" will change your mind.

You should ask yourself why you're so anxious to believe as you do.

Anyone and I mean anyone who looks at this entirely objectively can see that what you've written is falacious.

We don't know.

Maybe she was raped. Maybe she wasn't.

I'm inclined to let a jury decide.

[dsc]

5. Then why did the DA and the lab conspire to keep exculpatory

evidence out of the court? Why was the line up done the way it was, in direct violation of Durham police proceedure? These are valid question.

[mzteris]

6. the lineup was clearly a screwup

the "exculpatory evidence" that wasn't? No conspiracy. It was in the papers turned over, they just didn't address it in "the report". Now the lab guy is all panicky (or gotten to) and trying to make it sound like *he's* not to blame.

eh.

I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a trial.

[dsc]

8. Sorry but that isn't good enough

DA's are supposed to follow the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, not just barely technically follow it. This is the kind of thing sleezy corporate lawyers do, not DA's.

[pnwmom]

13. Nifong told the police to conduct the lineup as they did. It wasn't a screw-up.

And Meehan admitted that it wasn't an accident that the exculpatory results were left out of the report -- but a deliberate decision that he and Nifong made. In all other cases, he testified, he had always put full DNA results into a report, and not just into the appendices.

Imagine you had a lab test for thyroid function, and the doctor sent you a report of your lab test. The report said your thryroid results were normal, but failed to mention that the results also showed that you had indications of cancer. And that you found out later, and complained, and the doctor said -- hey, it was in the appendix.

Would that answer satisfy you?

Anything as important as exculpatory evidence belongs in the report, front and center -- not hidden away in hundreds of pages of data.

[marions ghost]

7. ditto

I totally agree that the post by the Wraith is full of the most biased BS I have ever read about this case. Not even worth wrangling about.

Let the jury decide.

[spoony]

10. What is there to take to a jury? n/t

[pnwmom]

15. Let the jury decide -- based on what?

There is no DNA evidence linking the accuser to any of the accused, but there is DNA evidence linking to other unidentified males (if she's not lying, why aren't the police out there looking for the real rapists?)

The accuser's own statements are replete with contradictions. And they contradict those of the other dancer that was there that night. And the accuser admitted to consuming several beers in combination with a muscle relaxant that night -- which certainly wouldn't add to the credibility of her testimony.

And the accuser failed to identify the defendants in two separate lineups. It was only the third time around, when she was told she was seeing only pictures of lacrosse team members, that she finally picked four attackers. (For some reason, Nifong chose three out of four to pick on -- even though Seligmann 's attorney had already offered to provide him with hard alibi evidence.)

Just what makes this case worth the enormous cost and effort of a trial?

[marions ghost]

21. whew

you guys never quit.

let the jury decide.

[pnwmom]

22. Why should a jury decide? MOST accusations never make it to a jury.

Given the enormous costs and stress and time involved in a trial, prosecutors are supposed to be selective about the cases they prosecute. Based simply on the contradictions in the accuser's own statements, plus the lack of DNA evidence, this is one of the ones that never should have made it to a grand jury, much less an actual trial.

The fact that this case is still ongoing tells a very sorry story about how our justice system could be manipulated by a demagogic prosecutor with his own political agenda.

I'm not going to quit until I see justice done. The system, as it is practiced in Durham, N.C., has failed. When the system is rigged, as it was in this case -- with a rigged photo lineup and withheld exculpatory evidence -- the only solution is to expose the case to public scrutiny.

[marions ghost]

26. now that the case has

been over-exposed re. public scrutiny, let's just let the system work and go to trial.

SOME people are VERY afraid of letting this case go to trial...hmmmm. Makes ya wonder.... :eyes:

[pnwmom]

27. I'm not afraid. I think it's an injustice that these families are still

having to undergo the strain of a trial and the threat of decades of FALSE imprisonment hanging over the student's heads. This would not be the first time N.C. prosecutors would have "misbehaved," would it? I guess the students are lucky they don't have possible death sentences to deal with -- as other unlucky defendants have.

Why should I have any confidence in the Durham (or North Carolina, for that matter) justice system? Joyner of the NAACP has already said publicly that a guilty verdict is more likely in Durham.

And now it turns out that Mary Winstead is a crony of Nifong, who worked with him for several years. Great.

[marions ghost]

29. Since you live in Washington

how can you comment with any confidence about the NC judicial system? You seem to have a very antiquated, condescending view of NC in general.

Let the case be tried and let's look at the facts that may be brought out then, instead of trying to subvert the process. There is no reason to suspect that the defendants will have a greater chance of 'false imprisonment' than anywhere else in the country. The defendants must simply defend themselves. They have all the advantages in a case like this. If they are not guilty, they will undoubtedly be able to prove that.

[pnwmom]

40. I can say with confidence

that what I have seen does not leave me with confidence that justice will occur -- although I feel somewhat better now that Nifong is out (time will tell). On the other hand, these families have already had to pay hundreds of thousands in legal bills to defend a baseless case. Is that justice? Does the fact that the families have enough money to pay for a good defense make it okay? What if one of these lacrosse students had been a scholarship student? Would he be in jail now?

You think I am too far away to see N.C. clearly. I think you may be too close to the situation to see it with perspective.

We have known since last spring that Nifong directed the police to use an identification procedure that failed to use fillers and follow N.C.'s own law. In other words, he rigged the lineup to yield the result that he wanted -- three identified attackers.

And we have known since last spring that Nifong hurriedly proceeded to the indictment stage -- though there was absolutely no need for hurry -- without considering alibi evidence, interviewing the accuser himself, and with no DNA from any of the students found on the woman or her clothes. (Why was he in such a hurry? What could it be, except the election campaign?)

And we have known since last spring that Nifong was in absolutely no hurry to actually try the case -- that it turns out in N.C. there really is no right to a speedy trial -- and so these students have had to lose almost a year of their life already, with no clear end in sight.

Before this case began, my impression of that area of N.C. was quite positive, due to the "research triangle." I even encouraged my daughter to look at universities in the area. Yes, my view of the Durham area has definitely suffered due to this case. But I would call it "seriously disappointed" rather than "condescending." I know bad things can happen anywhere; I would be fighting that much harder if this case were happening in my area.

What can you mean by saying the defendants "have all the advantages in a case like this." The full force of the State of North Carolina has been brought to bear against the students. The State has the advantage, which is why there are clear laws that are supposed to be followed to check the State's power.

[TheWraith]

33. Kindly point out what in my message is factually wrong.

Assuming that you actually have proof of what you say, and aren't just blowing smoke.

[pnwmom]

41. deleted post n/t

[pnwmom]

42. You're right. S/he's just blowing smoke.

[pnwmom]

11. Have you read the accuser's statements? Both from last spring

and from December? How do you reconcile them?

Have you read Kim Robert's statement? And the driver's, Mr. Johnson? How do you reconcile them with those of the accuser?

Have you read the transcript of the photo lineup conducted with the accused? Are you comfortable with the conduct of the lineup? Are you comfortable with the fact that her descriptions of the three attackers don't sound anything like the three men she actually chose?

Have you read Dr. Meehan's testimony in Court?

I cannot understand how someone could have read these documents and not see a hole of reasonable doubt big enough to drive a 747 through.

[pnwmom]

9. She's uninformed. You don't have to be.

According to your post:

"The so-called “facts” of the case have mainly been planted by the defense as a way to spin the case. The prosecution can’t reveal all their evidence by law, but we do know, as law professor Wendy Murphy has pointed out, enough evidence was presented that “police, forensic experts, prosecutors, and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought.” The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night, yet every man who has emailed me is convinced that all the facts are out there and only a feminist fool would believe otherwise."

"It's turned into a she said/he(they) said - and obviously "they" are more credible than she because - well - she's black, female, and a stripper, has a record, did drugs, had babies out of wed-lock, "claimed" to have been raped before, etc..."

--Wrong. The prosecution by law was REQUIRED to reveal all its evidence to the defense. The defense has made the entire case file available to more than one representative of the major media. In addition, the motions and other documents filed in Court by the defense contain attachments that are primary pieces of evidence in the case -- witness statements, police investigator statements, and the like. For example, the police transcript of the photo line-up procedure is fully available online. In addition, transcripts of what has happened in Court are available online. For example, Dr. Brian Meehan's testimony about suppressing exculpatory DNA evidence -- available online.

And it's also wrong that “police, forensic experts, prosecutors, and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought.” The police did not decide to bring charges, the DA did. And the forensic experts did not agree that charges should be brought. They just provided the evidence or, in the case of Dr. Meehan, agreed to withhold it. Unfortunately, there is no record of the information that Nifong provided to the Grand Jury, but it was clearly incomplete.

"It's a well-accepted meme that she "changed her story all the time" - but that is not really true."

--Wrong. It's entirely true. You can read her various versions of her story. They're all online. The first versions contradict each other, contradict the police officer who took notes at the time, contradict Kim Roberts' story -- and now contradict flatly her December story. But you'd actually have to read them to know this, and you obviously haven't.

"It's well-accepted that since "rape charges" were dropped, there is no case. But they've taken no steps to find out what "dropping the rape charge" actually MEANS in this particular case. Which is - that in NC you have to prove penetration by a penis to be rape. She can't definitively say it was a penis as she didn't SEE IT - she thinks it was but can't say it was without doubt. (which - if she's such a LIAR - then why doesn't she just go ahead and lie about that? )"

--If she's such a LIAR, why didn't she continue to say she had been raped? Because she made the December statement days after Dr. Brian Meehan announced in court that he had found no students DNA anywhere on her body, but that he had found the DNA of several other men. My bet is that she changed her story in an effort to explain the lack of DNA. What she doesn't understand is that -- with the highly sensitive test that was used -- there's no way that any attack could have occurred, as she described, without leaving at least a particle of some students DNA.

"I honest to god don't know which party to believe. I could just as easily make a case 'against' her as 'for' her. I don't know what happened. No one on this board does (unless they were actually in attendance.) To base your decision on what you hear in the media is completely bogus, imho - especially as what is dominating is the paid PR spin. Now which party do you think has the better PR agent, eh?

--It is not a question of whom to BELIEVE. It is a question of exercising your own good judgment. It is a question of taking the time to read the primary documents of the case and thinking them through. Anyone who actually does that will see that this case should never have been brought to a grand jury for indictment. When Nifong did that, the accuser had already failed to identify her attackers in two separate lineups. She only identified the three AFTER he had them show her a lineup including ONLY lacrosse students -- and told her so!
And when Nifong went to the grand jury, he already had DNA results from TWO separate labs that failed to find any students' DNA on her body (and he even had the DNA results from the second lab that showed other men's DNA -- which proved either (1) that she was lying when she said she had no sex with anyone in the week before or (2) that the other DNA must have belonged to the REAL attackers -- but for some reason Nifong didn't want to look for them.
And when Nifong went to the grand jury, he already knew that Seligmann had hard alibi evidence -- and that he, Nifong, had refused to look at it.
But Nifong, for his own reasons, took a case to a grand jury, with a photo lineup that fails to follow standard procedures, and with DNA evidence that was exculpatory. We'll never know on what basis the grand jury indicted, since the proceedings weren't recorded. But, as they say, some grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. This must have been one of those.

[B2G]

12. Great post

Thanks.

[mzteris]

14. My own good judgement is

just as damn good as anyone elses.

I HAVE read all of the documentation. And I happen to be of a different opinion from you about most of what has been "claimed".

Can you accept THAT?

Please stop hounding me about this.

I have my opinions - that I nor any one KNOWS and that yes there IS enough to warrant a trial and NO it's not a clear cut case of "she's a liar" = which is obviously different from the mind you have completely made up without benefit of cross examination.

You choose to believe what you want to believe.

I choose to let the legal system do it's job.

[pnwmom]

16. If you've read all that, how can you say that there's little documentation?

What do you think reasonable doubt is, anyway?

[mzteris]

17. where did I say that?

I didn't.

Please just stop.

We don't see this the same way.

How could we? I lived in Durham for a good long time. I actually KNOW some of the parties that have been mentioned in all of this. (But no, I'm not claimingn I have talked to any of them about this, I haven't.)

I also know the "types" - both from the Duke side and from the NCCU side. From the female side and from the male side. From law enforcement to the lawyers involved to the University profs, students, admin. Media and GP.

I don't know the woman nor the men accused nor Nifong personally.

That's all I'm saying about it.

You can believe the PR spin all you want. I don't. Strip it down to what is actually truly factual. Not what someone said. Not what some 15 minutes of famer may have 'claimed.' Facts. Cold hard facts. You said you were a paralegal. I'd hope you'd know the difference. I also worked in an attorney's office at one time in my life (defense) and I know exactly how the PR game is played. Especially when there's money, media, and bias to back it up.

I'm not saying that they're 'definitely guilty' just that you can pretty much take ANYTHING you've heard spewed by the defense attorney's and the corporate MSM with a grain of salt.

[pnwmom]

20. This is what I was referring to, in your earlier post:

"The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night."

And what I'm saying is that we have access to a great deal of the evidence of that night, including the accuser's own statements, as well as the DNA results. Plus we have access to the transcript of the photo lineup.

I'm not going to take it on faith that Nifong had to have some good reason to bring charges, even though all the available evidence points to reasonable doubt. Based on the undisputed facts about his behavior -- his ordering a non-standard lineup, his refusal to consider alibi evidence, and his agreeing with Meehan to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the report -- he doesn't deserve anyone's confidence.

I'm confused by what you mean about only looking at "the facts." You can't eliminate what anyone SAID from "the facts". An important part of the facts of any case is witness testimony. If you eliminate witness testimony, then you have to eliminate the accuser's testimony. Then where is the case? No testimony, no DNA, no reliable I.D. . . . nothing.

As far as your knowing "the types" -- that's the scariest thing about what you're saying. These are four individuals, who all deserve to be treated as individuals, not as types. Knowing that the accused are lacrosse players at Duke doesn't tell us anything about their guilt, just as knowing that she is an "exotic dancer" doesn't tell us anything about her credibility. What Nifong did that was so egregious was to play on people's beliefs about "types" -- to count on the fact that enough Durham residents (especially Democrats) resented Duke students and would automatically rush to support a female black accuser. This is exactly what a demogogue does, and maybe, being in Durham, you're too close to the situation to see it.

[mzteris]

25. You don't have all the information

You have bits and pieces. And more than likely distorted at that.

If you want to take as gospel what some guy said on the six o'clock news - fine. I don't think that statement will necessarily hold up in a court of law.

After reading all the same evidence, I still say there is REASONABLE suspicion of guilt. Enough for a trial.


As far as my talking about knowing the "types" - my point was that I have reasons to Like and reasons to Dislike BOTH "types". In other words, I have "competing biases" that tend to wash each other out.

As far as saying I actually know some of the people mentioned in various positions of this saga - well, let's just say - if you know them - you're more likely to have an idea as to whether they're "lying", "spinning", or being completely forthright. Maybe that's the difference. :shrug:

You don't have a crystal ball. You don't KNOW. And it really ticks me off that people can make a "life and death" decision based the frigging NEWS.

[TheWraith]

34. You're not listening to her at all.

"You have bits and pieces. And more than likely distorted at that."

You haven't listened to a word pnwmom said, have you? Have you, or have you not, read the statements given by the accuser? By the DNA lab doctor? By Nifong himself? You're acting like these things don't exist.

[mzteris]

36. Yes, I've read them. n/t

[pnwmom]

43. I'm not making judgments based on the "news."

I'm basing them on my reading of documents filed with the court, including the accuser's own testimony, and transcripts of court proceedings.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. After denying over and over that you didn't have an opinion on the subject

You've finally decided that you do have an opinion? And don't try to deny the fact that you tried to maintain a position of no position - I have the threads bookmarked.

I'd say the case is pretty clear that she's a LIAR - whether intentionally or not.

"I choose to let the legal system do it's job."

You call what Nifong was doing in this case "his job"? It seems, like Nifong, that you've crucified these boys before they've even been in front of a jury (which will never happen).

[mzteris]

24. blah blah blah

My opinion has not changed.

I don't know the truth. And neither do YOU.

You "think you know". But you do not. All you know is what the media and the defense attorney's have told you. That's it.

Not enough to make an informed judgement with.

You do NOT have the whole story. What you have has been spun and distorted six ways from Sunday.

My opinion has not changed.

Could it have happened. Yes.

Did it happen. I don't know.

I'm inclined to let the legal system work.

Did Nifong screw up?

Apparently. On purpose? I don't think so. But he could have been. I dunno.

Is she the world's best witness? Obviously not. But some of that may be due to the alleged conditions. If you don't know whath rape victims go through, I suggest you not judge her behaviour.

Are those men innocent of rape? Maybe. Are they guilty of very poor judgement? Obviously yes.

And this bit that Seligman has an "iron-clad" alibi doesn't wash. We don't have a definitive timeline. You have conflicting stories from everybody and his brother. There is no "legal timeline" definitively established.

My opinion has not changed.

Could it have happened. Yes.

Did it happen. I don't know.

I'm inclined to let the legal system work.

What absolutely ticks me off is that people like you guys make these PRONOUNCEMENTS of GUILT or INNOCENCE based on complete and total misrepresentations and incomplete information!!! THAT, is what I'm arguing about - in case you haven't noticed. Not whether they or she is guilty or innocent. I'm ticked that people can make an absolute decision based on their on preconceptions and not much else.

Get it now?

[TheWraith]

32. And your opinion is still wrong.

"You "think you know". But you do not. All you know is what the media and the defense attorney's have told you. That's it."

You still seem to be under the misapprehension that the defense attorneys are the only ones allowed to talk. Nifong was out whipping up a holy-rolling furor, proclaiming proof of guilt, every day for weeks before he finally started behaving in a slightly more appropriate manner. He was the one who tried to make this a conviction in the court of public opinion, and now that his entire narrative is being undercut, it's supposedly because of the defense attorneys spinning the evidence that came out of Nifong's own labs?

"I'm inclined to let the legal system work."

It would seem that you aren't, since you've already come to the conclusion that everything the defense lawyers say is false, even when it's the evidence provided by the prosecutor.

"Did Nifong screw up?
Apparently. On purpose? I don't think so. But he could have been. I dunno."

Yes, he pretty clearly did do it on purpose, since he specifically ordered the violation of several investigation proceedures, in terms of how the lineups were handled, reporting of evidence, and in not interviewing the alleged victim before filing charges.

"Is she the world's best witness? Obviously not. But some of that may be due to the alleged conditions. If you don't know whath rape victims go through, I suggest you not judge her behaviour."

Excuse me, but claiming victim status when one has no evidence to support it does not entitle one to a free pass. She's entitled to have her case investigated, not for it to be assumed as true. There are plenty of rape victims who don't repeatedly alter their story, and don't have to be presented with a turkey-shoot lineup of "suspects."

"Are those men innocent of rape? Maybe. Are they guilty of very poor judgement? Obviously yes."

How so, exactly? By way of underage drinking and wanting to look at naked women? Does that justify the living hell that they've been put through, the harassment, people camping out on their lawn and calling them rapists, being thrown out of school, and forever having this hanging over their heads even if they're completely exhonerated?

"And this bit that Seligman has an "iron-clad" alibi doesn't wash. We don't have a definitive timeline. You have conflicting stories from everybody and his brother. There is no "legal timeline" definitively established."

It's been proven that he was at the house for only the first few minutes of the strippers' presence. There's time-stamped video and credit card receipts recorded miles away at the same time that the woman claims he was raping her. That's about as close to iron-clad evidence as you can get.

[mzteris]

35. I didn't say

that everything the defense attorney's said was FALSE - I said it was suspect.

Just as everything that has been said is suspect.

I believe her no more, nor no less, than anyone else.

I do not have an opinion as to whether the charges are true or not.

No one else should have made up their mind, either, IMHO. You don't have enough information - valid information to do that.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzteris]

38. Was I lying when I said I didn't have an opinion before

or am I lying now when I say I still don't have an opinion?

hmmmmmmm.......... So have you stopped beating your wife?

Can you not read plain English? I really don't know how much clearer to make it.

I do not know if they are guilty of rape, and other sexual assault, or not. I do not know if she just made it all up because she's a lying beeatch or a druggie slut whore who was trying to stay out of jail and now wants $$ from those rich Duke boys.

I do NOT have enough information to MAKE that decision. And neither do you, nor anyone else on this board.

You are, of course, entitled to your "opinion" no matter how ill-informed it may be. :P

If you like going through life making up your mind about important matters based on what you see on the 6:00 news, have at it.

FYI - calling another poster a liar is kinda a no-no around DU-parts. It may be ok where you're from, bubba, but it's considered really bad form here.

edit typo.

[pnwmom]

44. My opinions now aren't based on preconceptions in the case.

Before this case, my general impression of the "research triangle" area of N.C. was positive, as I mentioned before. Academically, I knew both Duke and U.N.C. were very strong. I had no familiarity with Durham, however, or the local culture.

But my first reaction to this case was that I swallowed everything Nifong had to say, hook, line, and sinker. It fit into my own negative preconceptions about partying jocks -- just as it did (and continues to do) for so many D.U.ers.

But then I heard Nifong say that the DNA tests would uncover the attackers. Only they didn't. Then I heard him say that the DNA didn't matter -- although of course, it had to. Then I learned that he had used a non-standard lineup. Then I read the witnesses own contradictory statements. Then I read the other dancer's statement that the rape claim was "a crock." And on and on and on. And now we learn from Dr. Meehan that he and Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the lab report. And the accuser decides she isn't sure there was an actual rape, after all.

Eventually, so many cracks have developed in the case that it just split apart for me -- like a broken egg. And nothing North Carolina does will EVER put it back together again.

[bananarepublican]

47. Thanks for your well thought out comments.

I admit to watching O'Reilly (for amusement purposes only). This evening he started his show by sending 'a reporter' to the homes of Duke staff and Nifong on some kind of mea culpa search.

The gist of 'phone sex guy's' (i.e. O'Reilly's) piece was that it is and always was a forgone conclusion that the Duke 'boys' had nothing to answer for. Your observations serve to drive a stake through the heart of O'Reilly's 'opinion'.

P.S. I recall that one of the 'boys' sent a repugnant e-mail to one of the other party goers saying something like... "... next time we'll do" this and that (sorry, can't remember the details). This recollection is very consistent with your belief that there could very well be a case to answer.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson = Puke!

That is all!

[aikoaiko]

23. From her account she wasn't ambushed at all.

She just didn't get the air time or message out that she wanteed.

As far as, "This is truly an example of how mass media construct reality", it astounds me that someone who spends so much time trying to construct a new reality regarding pornography would be surprised that the media would use her words to "construct reality".

[donsu]

28. all of you but one changed the subject of the thread

how Zahn/cnn ambushed Dines

[marions ghost]

30. I don't think anyone would be surprised

by the ambushing of Dines after what we have seen from the media in the last few years. To illustrate
the point of undue media influence--this thread certainly has brought out those who would try this case in the media rather than in court.

[mzteris]

39. isn't it amazing

that the same people who villify the MSM for everything political, lap up what they say about this case and take it for gospel?

:sigh:

[pnwmom]

46. The MSM has been very slow to cover this case fairly, IMO.

The New York Times as recently as August wrote a piece that was strongly biased in favor of the prosecution. It wasn't until the 60 minutes show with Ed Bradley that a national piece was done that really exposed the rot at the core of this case.

[pnwmom]

45. This case has brought out the difference between

those who believe one obligation of citizenship is exercising responsible oversight over our courts and those who think that -- even in the face of clearcut evidence of prosecutorial misconduct -- we should just close our mouths, cover our ears, and "trust the system" to produce a just result.

People in the latter group probably make Bush and Gonzales very happy. They are counting on us to be trusting. And, as a country, we've sure been good at complying.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. I noticed that too.

Do you know if the video segment is online?