Monday, December 04, 2006

Mike Nifong's detractors in the Hoax want him punished for forcefully pursuing transparently false charges

Three weeks after the election and nearly four months after it was mentioned here, the mainstream media has finally gotten around to confirming that multiple bar complaints have been filed against Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. In a Sunday front page article and accompanying sidebar, the News and Observer reports that at least seventeen grievances have been filed against DA Nifong with the North Carolina State Bar. While the State Bar keeps complaints confidential, the N&O cleverly obtained confirmation of the grievances by discovering that many of the complaints had been copied to the Governor and Attorney General.

“Public record requests to the governor and attorney general uncovered at least 17 complaints concerning Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to the N.C. State Bar, which licenses and regulates lawyers. The complaints accuse Nifong of saying too much to the news media and of mishandling the investigation.”

Assuming that not all who have filed complaints copied the Governor or the Attorney General, it appears likely that the total number of grievances lodged against Nifong exceeds the seventeen that the N&O has documented.

Curiously, the N&O notes that many of the complaints came from within Durham and from observers without connections to the defendants yet chooses to present excerpts only from letters written by associates of the Finnertys.

“N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper and Gov. Mike Easley received scores of letters requesting that they take over the case, something North Carolina law does not allow. These letters ranged from well-researched, artfully composed missives to profane rants from phony e-mail addresses. They came from family friends and business colleagues of the accused. Some were from outside observers. Many were sent from out of state, and a good number came from Durham.”

"I would think of this as misconduct by a DA and that for some reason, maybe political, he has painted a fabricated picture," wrote Edwin G. Beusse, a New York developer who works with Finnerty's father, in a letter Aug. 9. "Isn't there a check or balance for situations like this that are so far out there, that they're obviously false?"

"Molly M. Maguire of Darien, Conn., wrote June 13, "It is frightening to think of any American being victimized by our own legal system and devastating to know that three promising lives are held hostage to a not-so-hidden political agenda." Maguire is a friend of the Finnerty family."
In addition to the bar complaints and pleas made to the Governor and Attorney General, the N&O reports that federal intervention has also been requested. And a lawyer for one of the indicted players has urged members of Congress to have the U.S. Department of Justice open a civil rights investigation.

“The request for a federal investigation came from Michael Cornacchia of New York, one of Finnerty's attorneys. He wrote to the U.S. attorney general, the FBI director, the congressional delegations of North Carolina and Long Island and others, saying Nifong had violated the civil rights of the three players. The case merits an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote Cornacchia, a former prosecutor who recently served as chief investigative counsel for the probe of the United Nation's oil-for-food program.”

In anouncing his appointment to the position of Chief Investigative Counsel, the Independent Inquiry Commission described Mr. Cornacchia’s qualifications as follows:

“Prior to his appointment, Michael Cornacchia served as Senior Litigation Counsel for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York as well as a deputy chief in its Criminal Division. While in these positions Mr. Cornacchia directed major investigations into corporate and securities fraud, and public corruption.”

While it remains unknown what effect the pleas for a federal investigation of Nifong’s actions will have, the significance of the request being made by an attorney with ties to the defendants is noteworthy.

“The request for federal intervention is aggressive and rare, said Richard Myers, a UNC-Chapel Hill law professor and former federal prosecutor. "It's a fairly strong indication the defense has nothing to hide if they want more eyes on the ground," Myers said. "How effective it's going to be, who knows? You cast a wide net and hope someone gets interested."

The N&O article concludes with the suggestion that the State Bar’s failure to act on the complaints immediately could lead to doubts about the organization’s ability to protect the public.
“The State Bar's charter is not to punish lawyers but to protect the public. The bar has intervened on an emergency basis in some situations, said general counsel Katherine Jean. For example, the State Bar can freeze a lawyer's trust account if it thinks the lawyer has been stealing money. And the bar can suspend the license of a lawyer in prison."

“Mary Ann Tally, a defense lawyer who has followed the State Bar's misconduct cases, said that if a complaint against Nifong is later pursued by the grievance committee, there could be questions about why there was not immediate action."

"If they are complaints that have to do with what is going on right now and will continue to go on until this case is resolved, I guess the question I have is why isn't the bar doing anything about it right now?" Tally said. "It seems to me there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the bar and a lot of public expectation on, 'Can you do the right thing, and can you do it in a timely fashion?' "
Considering that some of these complaints have been pending for several months now, without any sign that the right thing has been done, it would appear that Ms. Tally’s final question has already been answered.


Anonymous said...

this is just another attempt to get nifong and stop the case. the defense is afraid to go to court.

bill anderson said...

The poster is correct, and given the proclivities of the potential jury pool in Durham, I would be afraid, too. The reason I say that is that the people of Durham, like the poster above, already have declared that they are not interested in anything but a conviction.

For example, as one looks at the "timeline" of the rape, it is easy to see that even if a rape did occur -- which it did not -- Reade Seligmann could not have committed it. Yet, I would bet that if the poster above were on a jury, he or she simply would ignore everything and vote guilty.

This is a frame-up, but it could work in trial because Durham jurors, I believe, are so prejudiced that they would simply go with the prosecution no matter what it says.

So, yes, this person is correct. Of course, that is why the attorneys in the Scottsboro Boys case did not want it to go to trial, for they knew that the jurors there would not be interested in the truth, just interested in being able to act out their racial and political hatreds. Indeed, the poster has spoken the truth, but also has exposed himself or herself as a racist.

Anonymous said...

I agree, the 6:15 poster is an idiot and a racist, but I really hope and pray that if this goes to trial that there are some sensible people left in Durham ( and I know there are ) and that some of those people will also be on the jury, so the best the above hater/poster could hope for is a deadlocked jury.

Anonymous said...

I'm not willing to condemn the entire population of Durham as racist fools eager to convict three demonstrably innocent young men. Remember, Nifong did not even manage to win a majority of the (heavily Democratic) vote in the general election. Every town has its share of racists and fools, but I believe that the majority of Durhamites, including the AA's, are fair-minded people who want to do the right thing. As far as being "afraid" of a trial, any competent defense attorney in this country should be (and most are) fearful of subjecting their clients to a trial. Trials are risky things, and as the Innocence Project cases have so frequently and painfully shown, even demonstrably innocent people are sometimes wrongfully convicted in our country.

bill anderson said...

I wish I had your optimism, but I also know the power of intimidation. Almost surely, the jury will be comprised of blacks and white liberal/leftists. It would be a long trial, with jurors under pressure from the judge to have a unanimous verdict.

Thus, there could be a compromise verdict in which the jurors convict the Duke 3 of "something." That happens more than you would think.

It is my reading that Durham is hopelessly racist and that a trial will be a travesty. Places like Durham are places where police and prosecutors operate on brute force alone. Truth does not matter with the people of Durham.

Yes, there are some people there who care about the truth, but I doubt that Nifong and the judge would allow them to be on the jury. Read the comments of local blacks, and read the comments of members of the Duke faculty. That tells you everything you need to know about the place.

Nifong simply wants to "win," and he does not care how he does it. If this case really were about evidence, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill Anderson.
I have very bad feelings about a trial.
Compromise verdicts are very common. The Jurors may feel they have to give the alleged victim and the AA community something.
Rich white kids from New York are not going to get much sympathy, whatever the evidence proves.

Anonymous said...

There is always a first for everything. This case sets a precedent. This is a war against evil and corruption. Those who are in power to end this terrorism will have to step up to the plate eventually. The NC Bar will have to answer for their blindness to Nifongs misconduct. A corrupt DA will not go unpunished. To many people have been harmed by his behavior.

TombZ said...


Is a jury trial required?

Or is the option of a judge-only trial available to the defense?

Anonymous said...

Let's see what the judge does on December 15th. I believe the press is on for him to finally make a judgement on the motions and move to dismiss.

bill anderson said...

I don't know about North Carolina law. In the federal system, one can opt for a bench trial. Unfortunately, a friend of mine did just that and was found guilty.

However, that might be an option, although a judge seeking re-election in a politically-charged case like this might say guilty, and then let it be overturned above him. The local populace is happy with the judge, and the judge gets to tell himself that he did the right thing....

It is hard to tell. Justice tells us he should throw out the charges, but politics often trumps justice. That is why I have no faith in the courts or the NC Bar association. The politicization of ordinary life has been the most extraordinary development in our modern society, and we see where it leads us.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Durham Lawyer said...

In North Carolina you can NOT have a bench trial in Superior Court.

As to those who say the Defendants are just afraid to have a trial, no one in his or her right mind would want to have a trial. Some translations of the Lord's Prayer even say, "Save us from the time of trial, and deliver us from evil." Would you want to have a quadruple bypass operation if your heart condition could be completley resolved by medication? I certainly wouldn't.

Durham Lawyer

Durham Lawyer said...

Re my last post, you cannot have a CRIMINAL bench trial in Superior Court.

Durham Lawyer

Anonymous said...

If 6:15 poster her/himself was facing trial, I wonder how eager he/she would be.

Anonymous said...

i am fearful about a trial also. I have always felt the jury in the OJ case thought "finding him guilty will noat bring her back and they know where we live" As was commented to me after the OJ verdict " at least the city is not burning down."

duke09parent said...

Durham lawyer, is it that both the state and defendant have the right to a jury trial and the state almost never waives? That't the way it is in Virginia. Criminal bench trials are possible here, but If the defendant has a good reason not to want one it usually means the state wants one.

I think the earlier a trial date set the better. In the final weeks of pretrial preparation, the accuser will crumble and withdraw. She'll make some statement about how the stress is too much for her family and she just wants the whole thing behind her and how the defendants know what really happened (the only completely true thing she will ever say, since they know nothing happened). Then Nifong can bray on about how he was ready and willing to go forward but for the withdrawal of his witness.

Anonymous said...

The fact that so many of these letters came from family and friends of the lacrosse players tells me that many if not most of the comments posted on this and other websites following this case very likely also come from family and friends of the lacrosse players, which means that they do not exactly constitute unbiased commentary or the majority view of all Duke alumni, as the people running the websites would like you to believe.

Anonymous said...

12:48: where's your proof? i don't think it's a coincidence that both anderson and johnson have nothing to do with duke

hate it when posters write from their butts

Durham Lawyer said...

Duke09parent: the North Carolina Constitution, Art I, Sect. 24 states, in part: "No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court." (The second half of the Section 24 deals with creating inferior (district) courts for having bench trials in misdemeanor cases, as long as a person convicted in District Court can appeal a conviction to Superior Court for a jury trial. Many cases have interpreted that to mean that the only way to waive a jury trial for a felony is to plead guilty.

I hope you are right about the accuser caving as trial approaches, but if I were the denfendants, I would not be counting on that. I think the judge needs to make some rulings, and if the case is still alive after those rulings, he needs to set the soonest possible trial date.

duke09parent said...


What an absurd statement.

I have no connection with the lacrosse team and neither does my son. (Well, he met the top freshman recruit when helping the frosh move in last fall.) Yet I have been posting often on Prof. Johnson's blog, FODU and (less often) here.

In all of my encounters with Duke people -- parents, alums and students I have detected NO belief that the defendants did what they've been charged with. The most significant split of opinion in those groups is on the university administration's, including Brodhead's, handling of the matter and when (if ever) Brodhead should have shown more support for the players and their families.

I'm frankly surprised there were only 17 letters to the NC bar, given the number of bloggers hostile to Nifong. It could be the only ones who count are from family members or representatives of the players or other NC lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Is the judge ruling on the motion to throw out the IDs at the Dec. 15 hearing.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Duke09parent. Your experience is the same as mine--I have not met any Duke parents (or even parents unrelated to Duke) who believe this happened. and I also agree--the only debate is about how well the admin handled this, with, IMO, most of the bloggers disapproving of Brodhead, but more of the non-blogging Duke parents supportive (to some extent) of his actions.

GPrestonian said...


I'm glad you 'corrected' the sub-heading of the article. The ethics complaints aren't being filed because he is "forcefully pursuing charges" as the original article's subtitle would lead a casual observer to believe.

It's the dishonest, unethical, and illegal way he's 'forcefully pursuing charges' that keeps the ethics complaints rolling in.

Well done! ;>P

Victim in Massachusetts said...

I also have no connection to Duke or the three lacrosse players. I have filed no less than five complaints on Nifong myself.

Three on the state level, and two on the federal level.

So not all of us out here have any relationship to these wrongfully accused young men.

Anonymous said...

12:48... what are you talking about? I am another person who has absolutely NO connection with Duke or the LAX players. I am a mother of two sons, and it scares me to see these boys railroaded. And as an American the whole idea of how "innocent until proven guilty" has somehow been turned into "guilty because of the word of one very sick and confused person" really turns my stomach! So, you do not have to be personally involved to be outraged.

Anonymous said...

You people are totally out of your minds! You want Mike Nifong off the case because he is seeking justice for a black rape victim. Listen for once in your lives....everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. The rich and powerful with all their money and resources will not get special treatment. A crime was committed against the victim and justice will be served. If they are innocent... the jury will see it. If they are guilty then payday is coming.

Anonymous said...

Here is a video that was found on the web it is only six minutes long and is worth the watch.

jenna from delaware said...

To 3:44,
I may have missed th boat... what proof has been shown that a rape occurred, other than Precious saying so? I missed postings and articles where forensic evidence is against the Duke Three.
I am being reasonable asking for your in put, please be reasonable to and support your claim with facts, not fiction.

Anonymous said...

correction to the link it is

TombZ said...

3:44 -
There is no evidence of any crime committed by the 3 Duke students. Everything on the record so far shows that this is a fanciful fabrication by the Accuser.

If you have anything at all, let's see it. Otherwise we will (OK, we already do) consider you to be a shill for Nifong and Brodhead or a racist bigot who wants punishment to balance some sort of scale in your mind for grievances you have for imagined offences (by other than the Duke 3) you are unhappy about.

Is your interest in this case ego-driven, like the 88 haters, or financial, such as a plaintiff's attorney seeking a bribe - oops, I mean a settlement?

FWIW, I know no one involved in the case.

Anonymous said...

3:44 - where is the evidence that shows the players are guilty? I can't even find probable cause in this mess. Please let me in on whatever you're relying on to pronounce them guilty.

P.S. I have no connection to anyone involved in this case.

WJD said...

Here is the correct link to the video mentioned above

WJD said...

Bill, Durham is not racist in the normal sense of the word, it is more like Durham residents against Duke students. The police and politicians there feed off of that. If Duke were gone tommorrow, then you would see the real racism in Durham. Duke students are mostly from out of town, even out of state, as the 3 defendants. So now it is North Carolina vs the Duke three. The next Duke students arrested for a major crime will probably get the same unfair and unjust treatment.

Anonymous said...

3:44... just so we can understand your mindset.. how did you feel about the OJ verdict?

Anonymous said...

3:44 I guess I can just go down to my local police station and say you just raped me, no evidence, just say so and the police can arrest you and the DA can take you to trial. No physical evidence nothing. Just my word. Just take a look at how many people are getting out of jail on false rape charges, because there was no DNA. Maybe we shoul accuse you of rape and lock you up.

WJD said...

to 3:44 poster. How many people would be in jail if all we needed to do was say that a crime was perpertrated on you and with that alone you can arrest someone. I get mad at my neighbor, so I tell the police he burglarized my home. No forced entry, no other evidence, just my word and my neighbor who I'm mad at gets arrested. Wow with people like you out there, thinking like that, is a bad thought. Maybe you live in Durham and can be a jury and find these guys guilty.

duke09parent said...


You said, "He [Nifong]is seeking justice for a black rape victim."

By that it is apparent that you have concluded the accuser was raped.

Many of us have concluded otherwise based not upon what defense lawyers ("high paid" or otherwise) have said, but by reports from multiple news sources, including ones which jumped to the same early conclusion you have, about critical elements of evidence on the question: DNA results, ATM photos, conflicting statements of the accuser, statements of Ms. Roberts, statements of the cab driver, and the statements of the accuser in connection with the photo arrays. The evidence in possession of the prosecution was required under NC law to be released so we are on solid ground to believe Mr. Nifong is holding nothing back.

We don't want different procedures to be followed for these defendants than should be followed for any defendant of any color. We want what constitutional due process and prosecutorial ethics requires for all defendants. If racist prosecutors have violated those requirements for black defendants, that is no moral reason to violate them for these three.

Do you think it is moral to violate railroad them because the Scottsboro Boys and others were railroaded in the past? You are safe behind your anonymity, so you can be honest.

bill anderson said...

The poster declares that if the Duke 3 are innocent, then "the jury will see it." Somehow, if your comments are typical from what I see in the black community in Durham, that a jury will see it. Despite literally NO medical evidence, and despite the circumstances of the accusation, and despite the numerous, mutually-exclusive stories told by the accuser, you still contend that there MUST have been a rape.

Well, I suspect that if you were on a jury, you would ignore the evidence and vote guilty. Thus, I would say that the other people in Durham would do the same.

No, Nifong is not "seeking justice for a black rape victim." He is seeking to throw innocent people into prison. I guess that is just peachy with Durham.

Please give one shred of evidence -- one -- that this woman was raped.

Anonymous said...

Through all of these posts, whenever someone who proclaims the LAX players as guilty is asked to provide just ONE piece of evidence to support their belief you never get a response from them.... They post, but NEVER address any other posters questions..... Why is this??? Is it because there is NO evidence?! If there is.... let's hear it!!!!!

Anonymous said...

To 8:07-
Good Question! I've been asking the same question with no response.
I am going to Durham this week and I'll be wearing my "Duke Innocent" apparel proudly!

Anonymous said...

If so many of the people posting comments on this site have no connection to Duke, why would the trustees of Duke pay any attention to their opinions in deciding what is the best course of action for the university?

Anonymous said...

I can stop my child from going to Duke,and any other university in N.C. unless, Duke wants to pay for her education, books,lab fees ect... in full.

People will keep there child out of Durham and for alumni not to send them any money.That is why they should listen.

Anonymous said...

Don't attack Duke University....was it the University that raped a woman? These lacrosse players are the ones and only ones to blame. Stop taking up for these criminals. Look at their past actions and behavior! It was a train wreck waiting to happen. They are NOT above the law. All the letters and whining from people like Michael Gaynor, William Anderson and etc will not make this case disappear. The victim's story have a RIGHT to be heard in a court of law. I'm sick of you taking the side of the duke 3 without hearing the whole story of what happened that night. Guess what?? The duke 3 can tell lies just like anyone else!! They lied about who the party was for, what their names were, how many were attending the party. Don't you find some of these things suspicious on their part? Or.... is it just the accuser that you're suspicious of???

I'm beginning to wonder if you people really want to hear the truth of what happened!!!

Anonymous said...

11:04- Still you offer no evidence. Please show me where in the Constitution that the victim has a right to have her story told in court.

duke09parent said...

To the "you people" poster (3:44 and 11:04):

You didn't answer my question to you at 5:25 so I'll ask you again. Do you think it is moral to railroad white defendants because the Scottsboro Boys and other black people were railroaded in the past?

The accuser has the right to have her case heard in a court of law by filing a civil lawsuit against the people she thinks hurt her. She does NOT have the right to engage the full power of the state to threaten jailing and to derail educations by making allegations which have no support beyond her word.

I also pointed out in my 5:25 post to you that there are elements of evidence which point to innocence of these charges which do NOT depend on the word of the defendants. No one like you who believe a rape occurred has pointed to any evidence other than the accuser's word. Go ahead, enlighten us with evidence of the whole story of what happened that night.

GPrestonian said...

12:48 Anon:

Per the article:

Curiously, the N&O notes that many of the complaints came from within Durham and from observers without connections to the defendants yet chooses to present excerpts only from letters written by associates of the Finnertys.

I guess you missed that part.

Your conclusion has to be the mother of all non-sequitors.

Anonymous said...

Fellow posters, you are being baited.

Anonymous said...

According to our great constitution: The victim is entitled to equal protection under the law not to be raped. Got that? I want to make sure that I'm clear on that!

The victim has identified her attackers and picked them out 1-2-3. The medical staff said she had injuries consistent with being raped. Don't give me that vibrator did it crap. No woman is going to use a vibrator and inflick pain on herself. No woman is going to injure her own vagina. Do I make myself clear? Dave Evans DNA was found on/under her fingernail. They had motive to rape and beat her because they were angry about the money. This case is going to trial and that's the way it is. In your twisted and narrow minded white boys should be charged for raping a black woman. If they are innocent...a jury will clear them. If they are guilty...they will pay the price. Got that??

Anonymous said...

Please, 1:11 a.m.--you have no evidence that any crime occurred other than underage drinking. Read the SANE nurse's report, read Jarriel Johnson's statement given to the police (with regard to the use of the vibrator) and note that David Evan's DNA was consistent with that on top of the fingernail, not a match (it simply did not rule him out)--and where is the plethoa of DNA that would be left behind by the false accuser and the players if such a lengthy attack happened the way she claimed. The hospital found no injuries consistent with her allegations of being beaten, and she told different stories at the various locations (the drunk tank, Duke Hospital and UNC Hospital) as to what actually happened. They found no injuries other than diffuse edema of the vagina.

These defendents were picked from a demonstrably flawed lineup proceedure, and they were denied their right to a probable cause hearing because Nifong knew he would not get indictments if he went that route. Instead he went to the Grand Jury without any exculpatory evidence presented--they never refuse to indict, and certainly did not have to hear from anyone other than the police.

This was a railroad job by a disgusting and evil DA to pursue his own election agenda and his need for the spotlight.

bill anderson said...

The poster has once again given us "facts" that simply do not exist:

1. The woman ADMITTED to police to using a vibrator that afternoon to "perform" for a couple. Furthermore, the swelling was "consistent" with using a vibrator. Had the men raped her in the way that she has claimed, I can assure you that the injuries sustained would have been much worse than what the SANE nurse described.

2. She did NOT identify her "attackers 1-2-3." There were a number of sessions, and it is quite obvious that police ultimately gave her the green light to pick anyone. By the way, the one person she picked as being "100% sure" of being at the party was Brian Ross, who was not there at all.

3. The DNA of Dave Evans was a "partial match," but the partial DNA of others not accused also was found. The nails were in a trash can mixed with everything else that a number of people had touched while being in the house.

The hospital personnel swabbed every inch of that woman, and yet found nothing to match DNA with anyone at the party. Given the description of the "attack," it is highly unlikely that there would have been absolutely no trace at all of DNA of one of the three young men.

If people are going to insist that somehow these guys all of a sudden committed a 30-minute rape (as Nifong insisted, until shown the evidence that Reade Seligmann was not there, and then he changed his story to fit the timeline), but by virtue of what they learned while watching CSI on TV, they did it purely antiseptically, then why did they not dispose of the fingernails altogether? If these rapists were successful at not leaving any traces on the woman, then why would they deliberately ignore the fingernails? Sounds to me like this poster has a great imagination.

The reason is that no rape occurred, and the poster knows it. This poster, by the way, is almost surely a feminist student at Duke, or perhaps even a faculty member. The person is white and is involved in "rape crisis" activities in which it is said that all men are rapists all the time.

Also understand that this person is ignorant of the facts of the case, but yet insists that her made-up version is correct. (By the way, even Nifong does not claim the direct DNA evidence that she insists is true.) This person's view of the law is that one is guilty if accused.

We need to understand that "feminist law" when applied to the criminal law is a devastating thing. Across the country, people have been wrongfully arrested and imprisoned on the basis of lies and false accusations. The Little Rascals case and the other witch hunts of the past 20 years also are the product of feminist law, to which this poster subscribes.

Think of a country in which mere accusation ALWAYS results in people going to prison, with us dispensing of trials. That is what this poster wants for this country.

bill anderson said...

I need to add something to my last post. The feminist groups across the country, if one goes by their websites, have made this case front-and-center, and the reasons are chilling:

1. This is a case in which all of the evidence points toward the defense. The only "evidence" of rape comes from a number of contradictory statements from the accuser;

2. The physical evidence is non-existent. The feminist Duke poster claims that the woman did not use a vibrator (from the accuser's own admission), but then tries to tell us that everything else -- including ALL of the mutually-exclusive statements -- is true;

3. If the prosecution can get a rape conviction against people when the exculpatory evidence is overwhelming, the door will be open for charges and false convictions elsewhere.

This last point is important. Feminists HATE the Innocent Project because a number of men are exonerated by DNA evidence AFTER they already were convicted via "eyewitness" testimony. Many leftist feminists (like the above poster) want a legal situation in which the accuser ALWAYS is believed, not matter how wild or improbable the statements.

What these feminists want is a situation in which any woman can accuse any man at any time of rape, and he automatically is convicted and imprisoned. Don't think that I am exaggerating.

That is why I take the above poster very seriously. The world she wants for all of us basically is the world of the Soviet Union in the 1930s in the era of the Stalinist Show Trials. The difference is that instead of people being falsely accused of being "Trotskyites," they are accused of being "rapists."

The feminists at Duke have followed this case closely because they really want a conviction that everyone knows would be wrongful. I am not joking here. They believe that if they can "win" here, then it will be open season on everyone else.

Feminist "theory" operates on the basis that all relationships are based on power. Thus, in order for a human being to have significance, a person MUST have power over others. Being able to have people falsely convicted of rape through the railroading process would be one manifestation of this power. Frightening, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

"The reason is that no rape occurred, and the poster knows it. This poster, by the way, is almost surely a feminist student at Duke, or perhaps even a faculty member. The person is white and is involved in "rape crisis" activities in which it is said that all men are rapists all the time.".... PLEASE... this poster is neither a feminist nor a faculty member but simply a racist idiot!

Anonymous said...

1:11 does not pocess sufficient knowledge of the facts of this case to be posting here. Refrain from responding to him/her

AMac said...

Bill Anderson wrote at 7:29am --

> The feminist groups across the country, if one goes by their websites, have made this case front-and-center...

I am unaware of these groups; this would add another twist to the broader social context of the hoax. Can you copy hyperlinks to representative feminist-group websites that mention the case in the manner that you portray?

GPrestonian said...

1:11 am Anon

As others may have pointed out, the SANE nurse's report did not say that the AV's 'injuries' were 'consistent w/ rape' - that mischaracterization was made by LE / DA office before the SANE report was released in discovery.

Also, the SANE report did not say that the AV had an 'injury' to her vagina - the nurse noted the presence of 'diffuse edema', which is simply mild swelling of the vaginal walls. Many things - the admitted recent use of the vibrator, recent consensual sex [did we ever really find out what she & her driver that night (Brian Taylor, a regular customer of hers at the local house de nudidity :) did for 2.5 hours before the party], etc.

'Diffuse edema' most assuredly is not an indication of rape.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 1:11-
Post your name and address. Perhaps someone can accuse you of rape. (Or maybe Precious will or added entertainment). Good luck!
Under Nifongs's rules evidence is not needed to get an indictment- it's the accuser's word against yours!

Anonymous said...


You sound like a total fool! such pitiful whiners!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you don't like playing by Nifong's rules!

duke09parent said...

The troll here, what I call the "you people" poster, probably is Y. Carrington of the blog "", based on similarities of writing styles and viewpoints. I tried surfing to find "feminist" webstites ranting on the case, after Prof. Anderson's post on feminists above. I found a couple which gave up on the Duke case under the weight of evidence. But I did find Carrington's, which contained the following comment of hers on 10/24/06:

"As for the accuser, I choose to believer her. I mean that. Women who say they are raped need to be believed, period. No conditions placed or questions asked."

Ms. Carrington says she's from Raleigh, a writer and an activist. On the rare times a poster disagrees and asks a challenging question, she reacts angrily and threatens to remove the person's posts. She NEVER answers the questions posed. Just like she does on this blog and whereever else she surfaces.

My own view of "true" feminists is that they are or would be appalled at fabricated accusations because of the damage it does to reporting real rapes.

Anonymous said...

I think it is time that society holds zealots, from the squad car to the bench, accountable for their actions. When there is an obvious disregard for truth in the pursuit of justice, I think all those involved in the conspiracy should be held accountable. I have been a victim of a liar cop and a "prosecutor " judge on at least one occasion and it makes you looses respect for and belief in the system. Furthermore it is also time that accusers who knowingly make false accusations are made to stand trial and are made to reimburse the taxpayer, as well as the defendant. Maybe if there are some consequences to consider, we will have a more honest system.

Chicago, Il