Ok, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say something about the latest crime to become a media circus.  I’m sure by now most of you have heard about the murder of Jessie Davis, who was almost 9 months pregnant and was likely killed in front of her two year old child by the child’s father.  Since Davis and Cutts were a black/white couple and I am someone who studies black/white interracial relationships and who is in a black/white interracial relationship, I know many people are wondering what I think about this case.  I’m not here to offer any opinions on the particulars of the case¹ , but I do want to talk about the media coverage of the case.

I went around to a few blogs, and I visited AOL Blackvoices and a couple white supremacist message boards to see what they were saying, and quite frankly it was horrible.  Many people were saying that the victim deserved it; that she was “white trash;” that her child was ugly; and that she was a sleazy, homewrecking whore.  Not surprisingly, the accused murderer, who is the poster boy for anti-black stereotypes, was also being trashed as a violent womanizer who lusted after white women.  I can’t tell you how many racist and misogynistic comments I read; and not surprisingly the white supremacists were giddy over this case.² 

Terrence Says has a reasonable post, which anonymous bigots tried to take over in the comment thread, and in his post, Terrence engages with the question that many folks are thinking–is the media circus surrounding this case about race? Terrence cites a recent case of a white man who killed his white wife and three children:

Today, like Bobby Cutts, Jr. who was arrested in Ohio, Christopher Vaughn was also arrested. Christopher Vaughn was arrested two hours prior to the funeral of his family in St. Charles County, Missouri (suburban St. Louis) where the family originated; yet, so far, there has not been a mention of Vaughn’s arrest that I have been able to observe on the weekend news shows.

As sad and tragic as the Jessie Davis story is, I can’t help but wonder if this story had involved a missing pregnant black or Latina woman if it would have the same media traction.

Well several of the anonymous commenters went crazy, saying that the case received so much attention because Davis was pregnant, because Cutts was a cop, because the child was left in the house alone, and everything but race.  I certainly agree that all of those things make the story more sensational, but I really can’t fathom that it is much more sensational than the Vaugh family case mentioned above.  However, I find myself having a slight disagreement with Terrence.  I agree that white women victims get much more attention than Black, Asian, Latino, and American Indian women, and I agree that race is a big factor in the media attention the case has gotten, but I would be more specific than Terrence.

It’s about interracial sex.  Interracial crimes make big sensational news stories, but crimes that involve interracial sexuality arouse the deepest passions of American bigotry.  The OJ Simpson case, the Duke Rape, the Kobe Bryant rape case, and now this one–they all have tremendous sexual overtones.  For a long time, I was surprised at how much attention the Duke case received, because I was focused on the fact that the accuser in the case was black, but I missed the mark.  It’s more than the races of the people involved; if the crime is perceived as involving interracial sex, something snaps in people, suddenly they perk up.

The truth of the matter is that the US is a culture obsessed with interracial sex, but nobody will say this in polite company.  During the slave era and the Jim Crow era, white people spoke with repulsion and disgust at interracial sex even though many white men were routinely engaging in sexual encounters with black women. In the colorblind era, people are still obsessed with interracial sex.  However, they do not publicly say, “Wow, interracial sex is: bizarre, disgusting, exciting, adventurous, morally repugnant,” and so on.  That’s part of the reason nobody in the mainstream polite media is going to openly say–”Damn that negro had two white baby mama’s.  He must have really been packing some heat below the belt.  Why else would those white women be interested in him?” ³  Nobody is going to say, “Those white women are white trash, whores for sleeping with this black guy.  They probably only did it for his big dick.”  Nobody is going to say, “Why can’t these black men just take care of their kids and stopping hopping from bed to bed.  Only a white women with no self esteem will get with a guy like that.”  They are not saying these dispargaing comments publicly, but when they get home to their families and friends, they are saying it.  When they go on line to search for interracial porn, they are thinking it.  When they can leave anonymous comments on blogs, they are expressing it.

I think my traffic at this site is evidence for the American obsession with race and sex.  Within the last week here are a select few searches I have received:

• black men impregnating white women stories
• savages on blondes
• Biracial family pictures black and white
• BLACK ATHLETE MARRYING WHITE WOMEN
• Black men breeding white girls
• black negro slave woman naked pictures
• black women with white men in adult movies
• differences between white and black women’s breasts
• blacks in bed sexing
• george lucas in love black women
• how do you feel about interracial relationship

And this was a really slow week, I’ve gotten at least 100 searches over the past few months for “savages on blondes,” which was a popular racist pornographic website featuring black men who act like “savages” who want to have sex with white women.  I mentioned that site exactly one time on this blog, and I still get people looking for it. 

For some reason, people think interracial sex is exotic and daring, particularly when it involves Black men and white women and Asian women and white men.  Numerous people, who clearly have no random sample to draw from believe that race is correlated with penis size.  They believe race is correlated with a person’s level of sexual desire.  They believe people who engage in interracial sex are deviant, rebellious, daring, gross, odd, oversexed, and ugly. But, most of them will not admit it publicly.  Instead they go home and post horrible messages discussion boards. (Probably while masturbating to interracial porn.)  They try their best to hide their discomfort, but most interracial couples can see how the stares they get in public often belie the facade of tolerance.

When it comes to interracial sexuality, the US is still not ready to come to grips with our racism, and the discomfort with the intersection of race and sexuality fuels the public obession with many interracial crimes.

NOTE TO READERS: I know this thread is going to be an ultra-sensitive subject, and white supremacist trolls will likely be coming out of the woodwork, so I am limiting this thread to anti-racists and racial abolitionists only.  Moreover, this is not a thread to debate the merits of any of the cases mentioned in the text, so let’s focus on the larger issues.  Finally, anyone who leaves bigoted white supremacist comments will be banned immediately.

Amending The Note To Readers to include feminist posters as well.  So the thread is opened to anti-racists (or racial abolitionists) and feminists only.

1. I also want to say that my heart goes out to the family of Jessie Davis and her child.  I hope they are able to get justice in this case. (back)
2. I have a policy of not linking to organized white supremacist sites, but you can check out the big ones to see what they are saying. (back)
3. I don’t know if his wife is white or not, so I can’t comment on the third “baby mama.” (back)

From the Washington Post:

Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong, under fire from the North Carolina State Bar for his handling of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case last year, appeared in court today to defend his own conduct on grounds it was a prosecutor’s duty to pursue a case if he believed a crime had occurred.

“It is not unethical to pursue what some may see as an unwinnable case,” said Nifong’s lawyer, David Freedman, as his client sat at a table before a three-person panel of the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission.

Nifong is fighting to keep his law license. The allegations him include making pretrial inflammatory statements, withholding evidence helpful to the defense and lying about it to a judge.

If it can be proven that Nifong withheld evidence and lied to the judge, he should be disbarred and, ideally, put behind bars.

The Post article makes it sound as if the state bar’s attorney, Katherine Jean, is really emphasizing the “she changed her story” angle:

At that time he learned that the accuser had already twice recanted to police and had given conflicting accounts of the number of men involved in the alleged assault, ranging from three to five to 20, Jean said.

The “she said she was raped by 20 men” claim is complete bullshit, and Jean shouldn’t be using it. The only evidence Mary Doe ever claimed that “20 men” raped her claim was a thirdhand report from a police officer who never actually spoke to her; no police officer, or other witness, has said they heard her make this claim.

Looking at this from a broader perspective, the expectation that a rape victim’s story will never change is an instance of “The Platonic Rape Victim Fallacy” - the belief that there is a single, correct fashion in which all True Rape Victims behave. If a rape victim acts in any other way — for example, in in the earliest hours after the alleged rape she fails to produce a simple, coherent, well-organized narrative when talking to police — then according to the Plationic Rape Victim Fallacy, she wasn’t raped at all.

Whether or not the Duke Lacrosse Players committed rape that night (I now believe they did not, although of course I could be mistaken), thinking that an inconsistent narrative shows no rape took place is wrong.

I’m also bothered that (again, according to the Post article, which may not be giving complete info) Jean is not attacking Nifong over the bad photo ID procedures used, an example of genuine misconduct.

(Curtsy to a comment left by Sailorman).

A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: With trepidation, I’m not limiting the comments here to feminists. However, obnoxious drive-by comments will not be tolerated. If you have something intelligent to say, and you can say it without being belligerent, then go ahead; otherwise, please go away.

From the New York Times:

RALEIGH, N.C., April 11 — North Carolina’s attorney general declared three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper innocent of all charges on Wednesday, ending a prosecution that provoked bitter debate over race, class and the tactics of the Durham County district attorney. [...]

“We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations,” Mr. Cooper said at a news conference.

“We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred,” he added.

Mr. Cooper said he had considered but ultimately rejected the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the accuser, who continues to insist she was attacked at a team party on March 13, 2006, and asked him to go forward with the case. Mr. Cooper said his investigators had told him that the woman “may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.” He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman’s mental health history.

Mr. Cooper reserved his harshest criticism for the Durham County district attorney, Michael B. Nifong, at one point even depicting him as a “rogue prosecutor.” [...]

The North Carolina chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. released a statement saying it respected and accepted the work of the attorney general’s office. Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, who had been monitoring the case for the N.A.A.C.P., echoed that theme, saying, “Based on my personal knowledge of him and high respect of him, I accept his conclusions.”

Likewise, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, one of the largest such groups in the nation, released a statement saying it was satisfied with the attorney general’s decision to drop all charges.

A few points:

1) Race, Class and The Duke False Accusation¹

(This is rewritten from a post I wrote in February.)

It’s tempting to compare the Duke case to the Long Beach Beating case and the famous Central Park Rape case of the 1980s. In all three cases, a horrible crime was reported; in all three cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in all three cases, police and prosecutors used biased and unfair procedures to concoct a case against a group of young people.

But let’s not overlook one enormously significant difference: The Duke players were ultimately exonerated. That doesn’t make the unjust suffering the Duke players went through all right, of course. But what we’ve seen here is that the kind of railroaded conviction of poor, black suspects that happened in the Central Park rape case, and which I strongly suspect went on in Long Beach, simply doesn’t fly when the defendants are rich and white.

I’ve seen some conservatives imply that looking at these cases shows that white institutional power — and racism — are myths. But what I see is that the system pretty much works the way it’s supposed to for white defendants, or at least for white defendants with some money; for us, the system doesn’t convict without sufficient evidence. That’s simply not true for black defendants. And that’s why comparing these cases convinces me that institutional racism is still treating non-whites like crap, and still matters, and still needs to be fought.

2) I’m still not naming names.

I’ve already had demands that I blog the name and photo of the Duke accuser, as some other bloggers have done. I’m not going to do that.²

I certainly agree that a tremendous injustice was done to these three men by broadcasting their names and images all over the country. But publishing the name of their accuser will not undo that harm. As I argued a year ago, neither the names or faces of the accuser or of the accused should be made public in criminal cases.³

Obviously, some suffering is an inevitable result of being arrested. But having your names and images broadcast on network news is not inevitable; it’s a result of an irresponsible decision made by the news media. If someone is found guilty of a crime, then the harm done by deferring broadcasting their names and faces until the trial is over is minimal; but when an accused person is innocent, the harm done to them by having their names and faces made public is both avoidable and significant.

3) Why Does The “Presumption Of Innocence” Not Apply To The Accuser?

As Marcella notes, many commenters who, a year ago, were saying that it’s wrong for anyone to believe a rape accusation without a “guilty” verdict in a court of law, are now saying that the accuser made false rape allegations.

This is obviously a double-standard. If it’s wrong to conclude that someone is a rapist before he’s had a trial, then it’s also wrong to conclude that someone has made a false rape accusation before she’s had a trial.

1. Whether or not the Duke accuser was attacked, it’s clear that the three particular men put on trial were falsely accused. (back)
2. Nor have I ever blogged the names or images of the three accused players, that I can recall. (back)
3. I can imagine particular circumstances in which there’s a genuine public interest in knowing the name of the accused before the trial is over — for instance, if the accused criminal is a politician. But that’s not the case in the overwhelming majority of cases. (back)

When I posted last week about the beating of Billy Ray Johnson, Drydock (in comments) asked why the left wasn’t talking about the Long Beach assault.

“What’s the Long Beach assault?,” I wondered. (I wouldn’t have had to wonder if I had read Rachel’s post back in January). A short google later, I knew that on Halloween of 2006, a mob of black youths¹ beat the crap out of three young white women. One of the young women received severe injuries to her skull and eye, and all three are suffering severe trauma to this day, both physical and mental. Witnesses claim that at least one anti-white remark was shouted out, although it’s not known who shouted it (there were apparently over 30 people present). In addition, the attack caused considerable trauma to the community, making everyone (but probably white people in particular) feel less safe and less inclined to trust. In light of all that, I think whoever inflicted the beatings deserves severe punishment.

Ten black youths — one male, nine female, ranging in age from 12 to 18 (I think) — were arrested, and all but one (a twelve-year-old girl) were found guilty in juvenile court of committing assault and a hate crime.

The judge sentenced the kids to probation, house arrest, and community service. This light sentence, given the severity of the crime, has caused consternation on right-wing blogs. Rick Moore thinks its because black defendants are given light sentences, and this sort of thing could never have happened were the races reversed.

Hecubus has a similar analysis,² and writes:

Do you know why the judge gave such lenient sentences to the offenders? If you do, explain it to me because I still do not understand.

Only the judge knows for certain, but here’s my guess: The judge wanted to give the defendants very little motivation to appeal their verdicts. That way, he’s less likely to have his ruling overturned, which is a real possibility because the evidence against most of the convicted kids is very weak.

I won’t go over every reason this case is weak — Earl Hutchinson’s post does that well. But for me, one factor is paramount: The ID procedure used by police was completely illegitimate. From the LA Times:

For the field identifications, the three victims and an 18-year-old woman, Kiana Alford, who said she had witnessed the attack, were driven separately to the parking lot where the minors were detained.

Alford would testify later that officers told her, ‘We caught the people who did this,’ and that she felt it was her responsibility to identify them.

So the police didn’t include any non-suspects in their lineup, and told the witnesses before they made their IDs that the people they were IDing were the guilty parties. It’s impossible to imagine a less legitimate ID, or a clearer case for “reasonable doubt.” And that’s just the start of the weaknesses in this case — again, see Earl Hutchinson’s post for more.³

Personally, I think it’s likely that some of the convicted defendants are guilty, and others are innocent. But I could be wrong. But what I believe is beside the point; the point is, no one should be convicted in a courtroom without sufficient evidence.

* * *

So how does this compare to the Billy Ray Johnson case? Drydock implied that it’s very much like the beating of Billy Ray Johnson, but with the races reversed. But I don’t see it.

It’s true that both cases involved a despicable and probably race-motivated beating. And both involved slap-on-the-wrist punishments that are inappropriate given the seriousness of the crimes. But that’s where the similarities end.

In Billy Ray Johnson’s case, the local community (or at least, the local white community) seemingly wants the case to quietly go away, and the crime isn’t seen as very serious. In Long Beach, there is tremendous pressure from an enraged community to see people convicted and punished for the crime.

In Billy Ray Johnson’s case, there is no doubt about who did it. In Long Beach, there’s a great deal of doubt — and despite an enormous lack of compelling evidence, a conviction was pushed through the court system.

In Billy Ray Johnson’s case, members of the local white community (including a former mayor and a jury foreman) have been blaming the victim for the crime against him, and claiming that he wasn’t significantly harmed. I haven’t seen anyone, white or black, make those claims about the Long Beach case; the controversy isn’t over whether the crime was bad, but over whether the convicted youths were railroaded without sufficient evidence.

* * *

I think a more legitimate comparison could be made between the Long Beach case and the famous Central Park Rape case of the 1980s, in which — responding to a community’s desperation and anger after a white woman was attacked in a park — a group of black youths were convicted of rape, despite a lack of legitimate evidence against them. In both cases, a genuinely horrible crime happened; in both cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in both cases, police used lousy procedures to concoct a case against a group of poor black youths who didn’t have the resources (economic or cultural) to effectively defend themselves.

A comparison could also be made between both those cases and the Duke rape case, of course. In all three cases, the police used biased and unfair procedures in their investigation; and in all three cases, there was enormous public pressure for arrests and convictions.

But let’s not overlook one enormously significant difference: None of the accused Duke men have been found guilty in a courtroom. And — unless a genuinely damning case is put against them in a court of law (which seems unlikely) — none of them will be found guilty. The kind of railroaded conviction that happened in the Central Park rape case, and which I strongly suspect went on in Long Beach, simply doesn’t fly when the defendants are white and rich.

If the accused men in the Duke case are innocent, of course, then they’ve suffered unjustly,⁴ and I don’t pretend that’s all right. But I’m also not going to go along with the pretense that being unjustly accused and found guilty isn’t much worse than being unjustly accused and acquitted.

Conservatives imply that looking at these cases shows that white institutional power — and racism — are myths. But what I see is that the system pretty much works the way it’s supposed to for white defendants, or at least for white defendants with some money; for us, the system doesn’t convict without sufficient evidence. That’s simply not true for black defendants. And that’s why comparing these cases convinces me that institutional racism is still treating non-whites like crap, and still matters, and still needs to be fought.

(Hat tip to Happening-Here).

1. ”Youths” is a word that sounds weird and police-y to me. But I can’t think of another word that covers people ranging from age 12 to age 18; 12 is too young to be called a teenager or a young woman, and 18 is too old to be called a kid. (back)
2. By the way, the theory that the justice system systematically gives lighter sentences to black defendants — which is what I think Hecubus and Rick are implying — is exactly the opposite of what the statistics show. (back)
3. There is one solid piece of evidence — a phone belonging to one of the victims was found in a car that some defendants were in. But even if you think that’s enough for a conviction, it should only apply against whichever defendant had the phone, and isn’t evidence against the defendants who were never even in the car the phone was found in.

   It’s also been reported, via an anonymous leak, that a victim’s blood is on another defendant’s pant cuff. If that’s true, that’s pretty damning. But since the judge refused to accept this evidence — which was introduced by the prosecution two weeks after the trial began — it can’t legally be held against any of the defendants. (back)

4. I don’t know what happened at Duke, or if the accused men are guilty. But from what I know, barring some amazing new evidence, there’s not enough evidence against them to justify a conviction.

   Nor do I deny that the Duke Lacrosse team seems to have a lot of racist misogynistic scumbags. But being wrongly accused of rape is not a legitimate punishment for being a racist misogynistic scumbag. (back)

Whenever a case like the one at Duke comes up, too many people will say that if the case falls apart this alleged victim has harmed future — real — rape victims.

That’s a false charge.

The false-accusation theorists are the ones who harm present and future real rape victims. They never wait for pesky evidence that proves their theory before launching personal attacks against alleged victims. They sit like vultures waiting for the next case where they can get their claws into an alleged victim.

They also shift personal responsibility from themselves to the alleged victims they attack for the fallout of their attacks on all rape victims. If their attacks are proven to be against real rape victims they play the innocent victim and at best offer a putrid, oops. More often they fly silently away until their next target comes into sight.

Women they can label as sluts are a favorite target of these vultures. Often it seems like it only takes being an alleged rape victim for some vultures to label an alleged victim a slut when the alleged rapist isn’t someone totally repulsive.

If any charges are dropped they swoop in triumphant while making enough of a ruckus to attract other vultures. The kill is all that matters since they don’t need legal proof that the alleged victim is a liar who committed a crime by reporting rape.

The interesting contradiction about these vultures is that many of them will also feast on select alleged rapists. Any disreputable alleged rapist with male alleged victims is a prime target. That target becomes tastier if he is a minority and any of his victims are not.

Alleged rapists who are classified as illegal aliens are also favorite prey of these vultures.

Vultures accuse those who assume all alleged victims to be credible — until proven not credible — of being vultures out to destroy innocent men. That is a false accusation and a projection of their own habits onto those who oppose them.

That vultures say they oppose false or unfounded accusations at the same time they make them is the ultimate vulture irony.

Legal proof is only needed when the accusation is against someone they identify with. Which raises the question of why so many vultures identify with alleged rapists.

If you don’t want to prevent rape victims from getting justice, don’t be a vulture.

(Crossposted at my blog, Abyss2hope)

This post is a feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly only thread.

If you aren’t sure what that means, please read this before commenting.

I just saw this on Yahoo. The lesser charges remain, but the rape charges are dropped. I’d like to take some time to give a longer response to this whole scenario, and I will do so when I get a little more time. Unfortunately, I cannot leave comments open for discussion because too many white supremacist and misogynist comments are left on this subject, but for now check out the link above.

Reasonable doubt rears its head. From an article in The New Yorker:

It was also learned that the photo identification of the three players Nifong indicted was the result of a procedure so problematic that it may prove not to have been worth the effort. After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers. That process (which Osborn described as “a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers”) seems to have been a violation of the Durham Police Department’s own rules.

I don’t know what happened at the party. But I know the photo IDs are essential to the DA’s case against the three accused Lacrosse players. And this was clearly a bad ID. There are standard procedures for running IDs, designed to protect innocent people from being railroaded; these procedures were ignored, and the ID has no reliability. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how anyone - including those who are sure Mary Doe was raped - could be certain beyond reasonable doubt that these three men raped her.

I’ve said a few times in the past that although I think Mary Doe was raped at that party, I also recognize that I could be mistaken about that. And I continue to believe that many of the arguments supporting the “Mary Doe is a liar” case - that her initial statements to police were jumbled and incoherent, that she’s a stripper, and that she also reported being gang-raped many years ago, for three examples - are not only garbage, but are based in dangerous, harmful myths about rape. All of these complaints are variations of The Myth Of The Platonic Rape Victim - the idea we should imagine a perfect rape victim, and then ask if the complainant’s behavior and statements match what our imaginary perfect rape victim would have done and said. The Platonic Rape Victim’s statements are never incoherent, contradictory or inaccurate; the Platonic Rape Victim is not raped twice in one lifetime; the Platonic Rape Victim is certainly not a stripper!

On the other hand, some of the new evidence - in particular, the recent public statements of the other stripper, essentially accusing Mary Doe of making the whole thing up - seems to be to provide much more substantial reason for doubt.

I stand by most of my past posts on this subject. But I no longer believe Mary Doe was raped that night. (Nor do I believe she wasn’t raped. I’m now an agnostic on this question.)

There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?” I don’t know the answer to the first question. But - especially in light of the bad ID - I think the answer to the second question is “no.”

Over at Rachel’s Tavern I am answering some of the emails I have gotten in my new monthly mailbag post. In this post here at Alas, I am going to post my response to the most common questions I have been getting, which are of course about the Duke Rape case.

I have gotten numerous emails on this subject, so I figure I should give a general statement on the case. Mostly people have been asking why I haven’t been posting and if my lack of posts indicates that I now believe that these “boys” are innocent. There are a few reasons I haven’t been posting. First, the information on the case has been slow to trickle out, so I have decided only to update when there are big developments in the case. Second, the vast majority of the recent stories on the case have involved leaks from the defense, which I don’t consider newsworthy. They have routinely leaked information to try to spin the case in their favor, which is of course the job of the defense attorneys, but they simultaneously refuse to release the actual documents for the media to review. In fact, there was a really good story in the NY Times today with the following quote:

“I have no doubt that Mike believes her,” said H. Wood Vann, a lawyer in Durham who once represented the woman in a joy-riding case and has also done general legal work for her parents. Mr. Vann said that he wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt but that few other people in town do, and he added that many wonder why Mr. Nifong persists.

“At some point in time he’s going to have to get to a tipping point,” Mr. Vann said. “His case is going to hell in public opinion. He’s suffering death by a thousand cuts.”

Mr. Nifong’s silence makes it impossible to evaluate the case as a whole. Certainly some evidence has not been revealed … the next hearing is set for June 22 … and the defense has released evidence selectively, presumably showing only those parts that strengthen its public position.

I generally agree with that quote. The Prosecutor is losing in the court of public opinion, and that is because the only chatter we hear is from defense attorneys, who would have people believe that there is no grounds whatsoever for this case. If the case was as groundless as they claim, then the grand jury and/or the judge would have intervened. You’ll have to pardon me if I am a little skeptical of defense attorneys claims, especially since we are hearing them with no rebuttal. That also leads to the third reason I have not been putting up as many posts on the case.

I am relatively certain that the defense attorneys are reading these blogs trying to figure out what will stick with people, and I didn’t want my blog to be used as a means for them to test the jury pool. In fact, I suspect that one of the emails I received was from someone close to the defense in this case (I could be wrong, but that is my guess.) The defense in this case is a vast well oiled machine. In fact, one of the best articles on this matter came out in the Washington Post. The articles is called “Lacrosse Players Case a Trial for Parents,” and it shows you how powerful the families in this case are.

Now I’d be liar if I didn’t say I think the defense team is winning the court of public opinion, but I also know that the DA has been firm in maintaining his support for the victim and this case will be tried in a court of law, not the court of public opinion (which is the other reason my posts have been a little sparse lately). The defense team seems to be taking the condemning the condemners strategy in what appears to be an attempt to keep this case from going to trial. I assume they are thinking that if they taunt the victim and the prosecutor enough the charges will be dropped.

So there you have it those are my current thoughts on the case…..if you want to read an extended version of the mailbag, you can come over to Rachel’s Tavern.

At Feministing: More. Duke. Crap. Samhita opposes the decision by the women’s Duke lacrosse team to wear bracelets that say innocent in a game against Northwestern.

The team members could have avoided having their decision attacked if they’d chosen a different slogan such as Justice for All. Isn’t that what we are all supposed to want? It doesn’t bash anybody and doesn’t label any innocent person as a liar.

In the comments Hujo wrote: Stop scapegoating on the patriarch trip and just take control of your own life!

Keeping control of our own lives is what those opposed to rape and gender violence are working towards. But following Hujo’s order would make rape victims feel they are the only one’s responsible for their rape.

Been there, done that. Eventually realized that it was my rapist who refused to take personal responsibility and who used me as a scapegoat for his actions.

Ain’t it funny how those who insist the loudest that others must take personal responsibility are usually trying to dodge responsibility for their actions or their words or their failure to act?

The same people who keep saying “real” rape is horrific seem puzzled that anyone would be angry toward those who rape and those who say the rights of accused rapists should trump the rights of alleged rape victims. They refuse to understand why any sensible person would be angry when alleged rape victims are vilified while alleged rapists are placed on a pedestal?

As for why shows of solidarity in support of accused rapists is problematic, see my earlier post:
Peer pressure led rape victim to drop charges, Tecumseh police say

The intent may be to see that there is justice for all, but the reality is that these shows of solidarity perpetuate environments that are hostile to rape victims and which lead to victims refusing to cooperate with law enforcement. Then if those rape victims are raped again, they are called proven liars by the same type of people who treated them horribly the first time.

Also posted on my blog, abyss2hope.blogspot.com

Today’s big news among the she’s-a-liar crowd is the revelation that Mary Doe, who says she was raped by three men at a Duke lacrosse team party, had sex with her boyfriend - as the DNA evidence proves.

Call me a weirdo, but I don’t think that proof Mary Doe has had sex with her boyfriend changes anything. Nor does this prove she wasn’t raped at the party, by people other than her boyfriend. (Not living like a virgin doesn’t magically make someone rape-proof.)

But isn’t it impossible for her boyfriend to have left traces of DNA if later rapists did not? Not as far as I know. Maybe her boyfriend left much more evidence behind (not all men produce the same quantities). Maybe the rapists wore condoms. The truth is, we don’t know. I have my opinion, and other folks have theirs; but to think anything’s been proved at this point, before both sides bring in experts who are subjected to cross-examination, is foolhardy.

***PLEASE NOTE***
The comments on this post are open to feminist and pro-feminist posters only. If you’re not a feminist and want to leave a comment, you may do so at the identical post on Creative Destruction.

ESPN

Aaron Graves, Duke’s associate vice president for campus safety and security, said the campus officer did nothing wrong as he “documented what took place” in the hours after the rape was reported, including “what he felt or perceived he heard” from Durham police.

I have to wonder if any of these people ever played Telephone. For those not familiar with this game, the first person whispers something in the next person’s ear and then that person whispers what they heard to the next person and so on until the last person tells everyone the message.

For those who haven’t played this game, the message quickly gets jumbled.

From what I’ve read from the Bowen-Chambers report about the flow of information from the investigators who interviewed the alleged victim to the Duke leadership, we have an institutionalized version of Telephone. Yet many continue to take these intermediary messages, which may or may not be within 6 degrees of separation of their original source, as if they came directly from the alleged victim herself.

Here are details about the victim that have been verified and which came from an official primary source (vs. coming from defense team or those involved in possible criminal activity):

• Alleged victim unconscious in car at grocery store
• Alleged victim in emotional distress at hospital (from Duke report linked above)
• Rape exam found results consistent with sexual assault (from a variety of sources)
• Alleged victim had a highly emotional reaction to seeing pictures of a limited number of lacrosse team members before saying what caused that reaction
• DNA evidence recovered from at least one fingernail at least partially matches one lacrosse player

But some people refuse to give this primary information any weight and continue to insist that this alleged victim must be considered the true perpetrator in this case because one man filed a report based on unverified secondhand information.

Go figure.

Note: Also posted on my blog, | Posted by Abyss2hope in Duke Rape Case | 8 Comments »