I will never, EVER apologize for defending a rape victim

[FredScuttle]

It will be a cold day in hell before I take back one word of what I said this past spring. Sorry.

[kiahzero]

1. What if the person wasn't a victim at all?

What if the person accused people who were innocent?

[FredScuttle]

2. Has there been a trial yet that I'm unaware of?

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

7. That's what we're asking. n/t

[kiahzero]

11. Do you think all accusations merit a trial? (n/t)

[FredScuttle]

13. do you think only certain people are entitled to justice? n/t

[kiahzero]

16. I think it should take more than a bare accusation to get to trial.

You, apparently, disagree.

[FredScuttle]

21. I agree

which is why this is going to trial.

Or do you feel this poor woman somehow engineered a false rape case all on her own?

[kiahzero]

22. I think there was severe prosecutorial misconduct.

This is a perfect example why officers of the court should not be elected officials.

[pnwmom]

32. Of course she didn't engineer a false rape case "all on her own."

Prosecutor Nifong gave her enormous help.

All she did was blurt out a "yes" to a question of whether she had been raped (which wasn't a strange question, given her odd behavior and lack of clothing). It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, since it got her sprung from the drunk tank (a serious problem, since she was on probation for a felony) and sent to a hospital instead.

From there, a false rape case was quickly developed by Prosecutor Nifong, in the middle of a tight re-election campaign. Though his more well known opponent had three times as much money to spend on her campaign, he won the battle for media time with the 50 self-serving interviews he gave to the press.

[RB TexLa]

5. remember as NancyGrace said on SNL tonight

they are raped all over again in the process even if they weren't raped the first time.

[alittlelark]

6. In those 1-3% of cases, I guess I would apologise

The other 95+% - no apologies.

[kiahzero]

14. It appears that the Duke Lacrosse case is one of those cases. (n/t)

[alittlelark]

18. I know little to nothing about it......

It sounds too OJ - Aruba - Shiavo for me to waste brain cells on it.


If it happened in my neighborhood perhaps I would be interested.....

[pnwmom]

33. The reason you should waste your brain cells on it (you're not

Barbara Bush, are you?) is that if Prosecutor Nifong's tactics are at all typical of prosecutors out there, then we all have a great deal to fear, both for ourselves and our families.

[kiahzero]

34. Fortunately, they don't seem to be that typical

It is a very good example of why electing officials of the court is, in two words, "fucking retarded."

[last1standing]

3. Glad to hear it.

Of course knowing what the Hell you're talking about would be even better, but I can't argue with your statement. :)

[FredScuttle]

8. Duke lacrosse case

n/t

[last1standing]

15. Ahhh! A textbook case on why not to try alleged criminals in the press.

None of us knows what happened that night yet so many of us have made up our minds, without evidence or testimony.

[pnwmom]

24. This is a textbook case on why some cases SHOULD be tried in the press.

This prosecutor is out of control, and his misconduct has been egregious. The press and the blogs may be what stands between these students and 25 years in prison.

These students shouldn't have to be put through the enormous costs and the agony of a trial. There is already a mountain of evidence, and it is undisputed, and it favors the defense.

For example, it is undisputed that no condoms were used, despite the earlier suggestions of Prosecutor Nifong.
It is undisputed that the DNA evidence proved that all of the 46 lacrosse team members were EXCLUDED as matches to the DNA found in the accuser's body and underwear.
It is undisputed that Nifong was aware of this evidence, but did not give it to the defense.
It is undisputed that Nifong knew the accuser lied about not having intercourse in the week before the "rape," (that her body contained the DNA of several unidentified men) but withheld this information from the defense.
It is undisputed that no date rape drug was found in the woman's system.
It is undisputed that the accuser gave several different accounts of the "rape."
It is undisputed that the accuser and the other dancer gave radically different accounts of the evening.
It is undisputed that the other dancer said the charges were a "crock."
It is undisputed that the police department, under the direction of Nifong, failed to follow the photo line-up procedure required by North Carolina law.
It is undisputed that the two police investigators who attended the same interview with the accuser had entirely different accounts of her testimony.
It is undisputed that Nifong refused to consider alibi evidence -- including bank camera photos -- of at least one defendant before deciding to press charges.
It is undisputed that Nifong, who is supposed to be overseeing this case directly, STILL has not directly interviewed the accuser.

It's time for Americans to wonder how many more Nifong's infect our "justice" system.

[kiahzero]

26. But she made the accusation, isn't that enough for you?

:sarcasm:

[last1standing]

31. Delete

Wrong spot.

[FredScuttle]

28. It is undisputed

that some will regurgitate assertations from the defense as gospel.

[pnwmom]

35. No. Some of us will read the primary documents, which the prosecutor

provided to the defense, and is available online. Some of us will just parrot the Democratic prosecutor's line of bull.

[last1standing]

30. ummm.....ok.

If the prosecutor is so biased and/or inept then the courts should sort it out. That's what they're there for. But if you feel better qualified to try the case than experienced judges with over 200 years of laws and precedent to guide them I'm certainly not going to stop you from your mission. Sit back with a cold beer or a hot cup of tea (your choice) and rant at the TV all day long. Let me know how that turns out for you, ok?

Oh! And don't worry about little things like privacy for either party or pesky little incidents like the media trial of Richard Jewell. I mean prejudging people never hurts them, right?

[pnwmom]

39. The prosecutor used the excuse of privacy to try to convince

the judge not to hand over to the defense all the DNA results that proved that NONE of the 46 lacrosse players matched the DNA evidence in the accuser's body.

Do you honestly believe that it would have been a violation of the players' privacy to give them evidence that would help EXONERATE them?

Despite what you think, every case is not supposed to be brought to trial. Cases like this involve a huge expense and agony for the defendants, and are only supposed to be brought when there is a good chance that the prosecutor will win based on solid evidence.

In this case, the prosecutor can only win by cheating, withholding evidence, failing to follow standard procedure, and deliberately polluting the jury pool.

[last1standing]

43. Then, for the second time, the courts should sort it out.

Despite what YOU think, this is the perfect example of the kind of case that should be brought to trial. If you're right, and this is a rogue prosecutor, it will be proved in the courts. If you're wrong, and the prosecutor is doing his job correctly, that will come out. A media lynching will just destroy the lives of both the dancer and the college students.

Have we as a nation learned nothing from past trials by media? No one wins, not the plaintiff, not the defendant, and certainly not the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Ummmm, Ok. Yayyyyy For You!

:toast:

(No idea of the context or why you failed to provide any)

[FredScuttle]

9. Duke lacrosse case

n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. That Doesn't Mean Anything To Anybody.

What is helpful if you are to post a thread in reference to it with some passionate enigmatic declaration, is if you can also include the context as to why you just felt the need to post it. Some sort of background. Some sort of link. Some sort of anything detailing to someone coming into this thread what on earth you're talking about and why.

Great. You really want to keep defending the alleged rape victim of the Duke lacrosse case. Like I said, yay for you. But did something happen that drove you to the need to declare it? Was there something I missed where it was declared you shouldn't support the alleged victim? Where's the background to this thread? That's what I'm referencing when I said I have no idea what you're talking about. I knew you were talking about the Duke case, just no idea why you felt the need to blurt out the declaration that you had, out of nowhere.

[FredScuttle]

20. Didn't feel like posting in 15 separate threads

Less enigmatic for you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Why Would It Be? You Still Didn't Provide Anything.

Would it have killed you to have provided at least some context as to why you felt the need for this declaration, or to have included a link to one of these threads that set you off?

Sheesh. Like pulling friggin teeth just to get the most basic information.

[FredScuttle]

25. Yet you keep digging

Here's a newsflash - my post was not directed at you. Any interest in this thread is purely your own.

[kiahzero]

27. Who was it directed at? (n/t)

[FredScuttle]

29. They know who they are

and any attempt on my part to name them is a violation of the rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Here's A Newsflash Back: If Your Thread Was For One Or Two Posters, You Should've Posted It Either

in the thread you were having the debate in to begin with, or via PM. Absent of that, then you should provide the information necessary to warrant this thread even slightly meaningful, since by just the simple act of posting it publicly as its own thread in GD you in essence are ABSOLUTELY directing it at me, or anyone else reading this thread for that matter.

[FredScuttle]

40. I should "provide the info necessary to warrant this thread meaningful"?

According to whom? You? You'll excuse me if your rendering this thread meaningless is, well, meaningless to me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Ummm, Yes. You Should. Makes Pretty Logical Sense Don't It? I Mean, It's Not Too Much To Ask,

correct? :shrug:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. What In The Friggin World Are You Talking About? Holy Delusional Batman.

I've never even held a gun, let alone bought one. I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about or why you felt the need to spew your hilariously inaccurate personal attack on me for no reason. Do you get off on just attacking posters randomly for no reason whatsoever?

Wow, what a character.

[JetCityLiberal]

44. Right back at ya

guess you should control your account better...

WHY DO YOU SHOUT YOUR SCREEN NAME?

hmmmm.....

[Bluebear]

10. Yes, I will never forget the exact words you used. Last spring yet.

(?)

[aikoaiko]

12. Don't worry I dont remember a word you said this past spring.

so no apologies are necessary.

[Montauk6]

19. To quote from my avatar... What's Going On?

[JetCityLiberal]

37. Strongly Agree

the right wing are easily exposed by google....

Thank you FredScuttle. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Broken_Hero]

46. Locking

"Let's not continue a prior flamefest, no matter how long ago it occurred."

petersond
DU Moderator