tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post5772379478140861064..comments2023-12-18T00:23:37.110-05:00Comments on LieStoppers: Setrakian Stands By Claim, Accuser Not CooperatingMarco2006http://www.blogger.com/profile/01235104902243866449noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-75640066360188577342007-03-23T01:49:00.000-04:002007-03-23T01:49:00.000-04:00"Whatever the outcome, Fairstein worries about the..."Whatever the outcome, Fairstein worries about the impact of the Duke lacrosse case on rape prosecutions around the country. Her concern is that the high-profile investigation will inhibit aggressive prosecution of sexual assault cases."<BR/><BR/>Already a factor? Fox has a video clip with Judge Napolitano discussing a rape case in which the victim was murdered by the man she accused of raping her. Apparantly, the judge and police did not take her seriously and just when one is about to think "What!?!" they mention that she waited nine months to accuse. Not only did the judge on the case and the police not believe the woman, I couldn't help but think perhaps this was a revenge accusation and the man knew he would end up in prison just on her word. So he decides to make sure she is not enjoying freedom while he rots in prison. It is no longer easy to be quick with the outrage response.....could this heinous crime have been the desperate act of a man without the resources to battle a false accusation? A man with nothing to lose? <BR/>Fairstein is right to be concerned. False accusers are hurting real rape victims...robbing them of credibility. It is not required that everyone be believed in order for some to be believed. Victim advocates and other enablers who stretched the bounds of credulity trying to support the fantasies of Crystal have no one but themselves to blame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-76376478195773067722007-03-22T18:32:00.000-04:002007-03-22T18:32:00.000-04:00Sorry I missed Farstein's comments. I've been a f...Sorry I missed Farstein's comments. I've been a fan of her fiction for some time now and found her writing to be level headed. I have no reason to think her legal work to be any different. And I did enjoy the comment about Alex, Mike and Mercer!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11249772585661487531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-49709535761205890272007-03-22T12:09:00.001-04:002007-03-22T12:09:00.001-04:00It is obvious that Mangum is now stonewalling beca...It is obvious that Mangum is now stonewalling because she is finally facing some legitimate questioning by the SPs. The SPs have no choice as their actions are being viewed under a microscope given what has happened in this case. <BR/><BR/>Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, and others who were in on the hoax had mollycoddled her for 9 months. None of them should continue to be employed in Law Enforcement. Even a dim bulb like Mangum could detect a shift in the wind once the SPs took over. She finally started observing the first law of holes -- when you're in one, quit digging.<BR/><BR/>And isn't Fairstein a breath of fresh air. Why didn't the media use her as a legal expert instead of "legal expert" hacks like Murphy, Goslee, and Munson? Oh, I just remembered ... her views don't mesh with the media's. No flames would have been fanned; no hoax would have been furthered; no meta-narrative would have been advanced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-39529799918221651332007-03-22T12:09:00.000-04:002007-03-22T12:09:00.000-04:00It is obvious that Mangum is now stonewalling beca...It is obvious that Mangum is now stonewalling because she is finally facing some legitimate questioning by the SPs. The SPs have no choice as their actions are being viewed under a microscope given what has happened in this case. <BR/><BR/>Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, and others who were in on the hoax had mollycoddled her for 9 months. None of them should continue to be employed in Law Enforcement. Even a dim bulb like Mangum could detect a shift in the wind once the SPs took over. She finally started observing the first law of holes -- when you're in one, quit digging.<BR/><BR/>And isn't Fairstein a breath of fresh air. Why didn't the media use her as a legal expert instead of "legal expert" hacks like Murphy, Goslee, and Munson? Oh, I just remembered ... her views don't mesh with the media's. No flames would have been fanned; no hoax would have been furthered; no meta-narrative would have been advanced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-82982345337142776222007-03-22T11:28:00.000-04:002007-03-22T11:28:00.000-04:00I think part of the reason for the follow-up artic...I think part of the reason for the follow-up article is the fact that many bloggers (like myself) contacted ABC News and voiced their outrage. <BR/><BR/>I emailed them and they replied saying they were considering the points I made about the one-sidedness of the article. I sent a copy of my correspondence with ABC News to Liestoppers.<BR/><BR/>I have never written to a news organization in the past, but the piece was so over the top in making excuses for the changing testimony of the accuser in this case that I couldn't bite my tongue.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see they brought some objectivity back to their reporting. <BR/><BR/>Mike LeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-66593769253450073022007-03-22T10:42:00.000-04:002007-03-22T10:42:00.000-04:00Setrakian never really backed off the assertions i...Setrakian never really backed off the assertions in her first article that Mangum was not cooperating with the SP's. After Cooper came out with his denial, it was added into the article, but the rest of the article went unchanged. I suspected at the time (and still do) that the SP's interviews with Mangum have occurred with Mangum's attorney present, and Cooper's denial of the ABC non-cooperation story was designed to make sure that Mangum's attorney did not cancel the remaining interview(s) the SP's had scheduled with Mangum.<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone is surprised that Mangum has been unable to give "complete" answers. How exactly would one give detailed answers about an event that never actually occurred, especially when there is a mountain of physical evidence and credible witness testimony that proves it didn't occur?<BR/><BR/>Kudos to Linda Fairstein for pointing out the obvious: that Nifong is a fool who took Mangum's story and ran with it, not because it had any credibility, but because it suited his own agenda -- which had absolutely nothing to do with promoting justice. I guess that's the difference between a lawyer trained at the University of Virginia law school (Fairstein) and one from UNC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-41889675469249445752007-03-22T09:10:00.000-04:002007-03-22T09:10:00.000-04:00"Fairstein also criticized Nifong for his apparent...<I>"Fairstein also criticized Nifong for his apparent unwillingness to meet with defense attorneys early on in the case. Lawyers for Seligmann said that Nifong refused their offers to discuss evidence of an alibi — materials including ATM photos, phone records and testimonial evidence.<BR/><BR/>"You don't turn anybody away who's offering you information," Fairstein stressed.</I><BR/><BR/>Compare Fairstein's remarks to those of Lester Munson of <I>Sports Illustrated</I>, who immediately accused Reade of "obstruction of justice." While I am glad to see ABC News at least attempting to have some objectivity and skepticism, at the same time, do not forget that it was ABC that breathlessly "broke the story" of the supposed "DNA match" with David Evans and the fake fingernails.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, ABC was so anxious to seek verification for the charges that it trumpeted "evidence" that any decent statistician would have said means absolutely nothing, given the facts of the case and the facts of how the "match" took place. <BR/><BR/>(There also was a "match" with 14 other people, too, since the nails were in a trash can. This DNA-transfer is not even close to being a match, yet ABC tried to tell us it was.)<BR/><BR/>Yes, I finally am glad to see the news organizations get on board, but I always will remember that they were the biggest enablers of Nifong in those early days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-25679698034724830252007-03-22T09:03:00.000-04:002007-03-22T09:03:00.000-04:00At last, a reporter who looks at the facts!!!!!!!At last, a reporter who looks at the facts!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-5789145440636946372007-03-22T08:56:00.000-04:002007-03-22T08:56:00.000-04:00is this article paving the way for a press confere...is this article paving the way for a press conference on the steps of the AG's office late Friday afternoon ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-31982862889967423392007-03-22T07:27:00.000-04:002007-03-22T07:27:00.000-04:00Any ideas on why the about face from Setrakian?The...Any ideas on why the about face from Setrakian?<BR/><BR/>The first article should never have had published the last three pages (as outlined already by LieStoppers). <BR/><BR/>The second article is the message that Nancy Grace, et al, should have been making all along (but they don't).<BR/><BR/>Huzzah for Fairstein! A reasonable voice comes through at last.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31806061.post-3508542565847452162007-03-22T07:23:00.000-04:002007-03-22T07:23:00.000-04:00Alex, Mike and Mercer would have certainly handled...Alex, Mike and Mercer would have certainly handled this differently!<BR/><BR/>JenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com