DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS COMPLETELY VINDICATED
**UPDATE** - Dennis Miller delivers the line of the day. He said on O’Reilly Factor tonight: “After a year we have only found out that the [Duke rape accuser] was the Louvre of DNA.” Oh man!
Three innocent young men can finally get on with their lives after the race-baiting witchhunt led by the civil liberties-defying Republican President Democrat District Attorney ended today.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper handed these boys back their innocence.
“The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges,” Cooper said. “Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges.”
He added: “We believe these cases were a result of a tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations. Based on these significant inconsistencies of evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”
Cooper said not only are the players innocent of the charges they faced, but there is “no credible evidence that an attack occurred at that house on that night.”
The AG also handed District Attorney Nifong his head.
Cooper also blasted District Attorney Mike Nifong— who originally indicted the players for rape — for overreaching his power as a district attorney, saying the “rogue” prosecutor “pushed ahead unchecked” in this case.
“There were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado,” Cooper said. “This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor. What has been learned here is the internal checks on a criminal charge — sworn statements, criminal grounds, proper suspect photo lineups, accurate discovery — all are critically important.”
I suppose I must apologize to my liberal critics. Since September 11, we have lost some of our civil liberties. But they have been lost due to the relentless pursuit by the American Left punishing the innocent for the sake of political correctness and criminalizing politics, free speech, and American traditions and values.
Durham-in-Wonderland has much more on the Nifong Travesty.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
50 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I guess now we know who the “nappy-headed ho” really is.
Good post, Bruce. LaShawn Barber has the goods as well.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 11, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - April 11, 2007
Bruce, I hope these families band together and file a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Nifong & the County. AG Cooper’s press statements and review of the case are like a green light for a whompingly big claim… big, big, big claim.
I’m glad they’ve been vindicated… I wonder if the police will now charge the “victim” for making false statements against the men?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 11, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - April 11, 2007
M-Matt, I fervently hope so. But I think the families of the Duke players did not want to press charges against her; rather, they are going after Nifong instead.
And this being a gay conservative board, I found this posting at Lie Stoppers very fitting indeed! Enjoy!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 11, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - April 11, 2007
I knew from day one when the accuser only said it was the white members that needed to submit DNA, that something was not quite right with this case. These men have had their lives ruined. How long do you think it will be before they get apologies from the NAACP, the liberal faculty members and the press?
Comment by jon — April 11, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - April 11, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS COMPLETELY VINDICATED — April 11, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - April 11, 2007
Clearly, this case was mis-handled and people were too ready to believe the accused before the facts were in completely. The changing of her story so much and so soon after the initial report should have been a big red flag to people (personally, I was dubious of the whole thing and figured it was someone down on their luck trying in a pretty abominable way to make some money for herself). Even the “liberal media” of 60 Minutes reported on this story back in Oct and reported on a number of disturbing things in the case. Nifong was clearly an idiot in trying to cull favor and votes with the town people in his criminal actions.
Don’t, however try to put these guys up as being completely perfect though. Does innocence include an alcohol infused party with a stripper/prostitute? Were all the attendees of legal drinking age? (No) Sorry, but doing a little clean living goes a long way to getting involved in murky situations. Sadly, the situation was easily fueled by issues of race, division in social/economic class as well as the enmity towns across America feel about their local “rich” universities.
As a side note, Here’s an interesting quote from a Wikipedia entry on the situation. These guys are innocent in this case, however:
“Collin Finnerty has previously been charged with assaulting a man in Washington DC and shouting anti-gay epithets at him. It was never considered a hate crime.[41] He pleaded guilty and agreed to community service in November 2005 as part of a diversion program.[42]”
PS - Does the relentless pursuit by the Left include the FBI which is now reported to be illegally using the Patriot Act to go after American Citizens?
[GP Ed. Note - "Reported" by whom? Reuters? Daily Kos? Keith Olbermann? If these "American Citizens" are not involved in terrorism, then they have nothing to worry about.]
Comment by Kevin — April 11, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - April 11, 2007
As a finger in the eye of over zealous and out of control prosecutors…support the DUKE lacrosse team, buy a t shirt!
http://www.collegegear.com/sf/stores/1033/g-duke_lacrosse.shtml
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 11, 2007 @ 6:41 pm - April 11, 2007
6: (editorial resonse to my comment) Well, you could do that, I originally saw on televised news reports (bad, bad main stream media!) do a search on FBI, Patriot Act and overzealous, then take your pic from 62,100 finds, TYVM. The first one I found noted both conservatives and liberals who agreed that they were concerned about abuses that could happen and went on to give numbers of cases which have been investigated.
[GP Ed. Note - As I figured..... phony liberal rhetoric designed to scare Americans. No facts, all fiction.]
Comment by Kevin — April 11, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - April 11, 2007
Kevin asks: “Does innocence include an alcohol infused party with a stripper/prostitute? Were all the attendees of legal drinking age? (No)”
Hey Kevin, newsflash for you: As a freshman Wolverine, I played intramural lacrosse and soccer and we drank a ton, drank illegally, bought illegally from fellow teammates and, yeah, we had parties with strippers off-campus. Didn’t make me a rapist. Didn’t make anything worthy of Nifong’s malicious prosecution. Sorry, the men may have been excessive but all that is within realm of understandable sports-team related conduct… at least for lacrosse players.
Did the chess team do all that? Probably not. Did the Debate Club do all that? Probably not. Is it the norm for sports teams? No. But it doesn’t make them rapists –which is far, far worse.
The angle that these kids’ parents were rich so they deserved a malicious prosecution is more Left MSM nonsense… but you knew that, eh? The town-gown tension will always be with us… rich or not.
Peter: thanks for the link. Wow… did one of your Friends of Dorothy groupies provide that one for you? A little too much creative time on their collective hands… lol.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 11, 2007 @ 8:28 pm - April 11, 2007
Funny Kevin has an interesting take on rich white kids justice. Wonder if he considers Teddy and Patrick Kennedy just rich white “kids”?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 11, 2007 @ 9:34 pm - April 11, 2007
10: Getting off a crime because of power and money is nothing new in this country, and political affiliation doesn’t have much to do with it. and no, I don’t consider the idea of wriggling out of alleged murder a “kids” thing, no matter who you are.
the idea that someone is better or worse as a human being because of their political affiliation is nonsense. I notice that Newt Gingrich is getting a lot of press out of his announcement about his extramarital affair at the same time he was happy to go after Clinton for the exact same thing. puh-lease.
Comment by Kevin — April 12, 2007 @ 12:34 am - April 12, 2007
Let’s not forget Duke University who contributed to this disgrace and bastardization of justice by throwing the students under the bus. Worse than that, the 88 staff members refuse to recant their little charade.
What sort of help could any student expect from the faculty and staff now?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2007 @ 2:23 am - April 12, 2007
So. Kevin is using the Rosie O’Donnell “Google it!” defense. Let me try one: Kevin, likes, kiddie, pr0n. 102,000 hits.
Case proven.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 5:23 am - April 12, 2007
GP at #6 asks Kevin “‘Reported’ by whom? Reuters? Daily Kos? Keith Olbermann?”
Ummm, unfortunately it was Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert –you know, the partisan hacks who aren’t really Democrats shilling for the Left but are only unbiased, neutral comedians “observing” American culture from a humorous perspective.
The Left continues to get it’s talking points from the non-news sources over at Comedy Central. Hey it beats the old days: waiting for Jane Fonda or Ted Turner’s CNN to hand out talking points.
Kevin: I googled “Patriot Act” “FBI” “success” and got 709,000 hits in 9/100s of a second… your google selection got 49,800 hits in 1/10 of second.
By your own silly logic, my “success” googling beats your “overzealous” googling nearly 15 to 1 and waaaaay faster. Hmmmmm.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 8:48 am - April 12, 2007
Don’t, however try to put these guys up as being completely perfect though. Does innocence include an alcohol infused party with a stripper/prostitute?
I agree with you, Kevin. The characterization of these young men as “innocent” is laughable.
You lie with dogs …
Julie the Jarhead
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — April 12, 2007 @ 9:26 am - April 12, 2007
Being a leftist means never having to say you’re sorry no matter how many lives you ruin. Can we expect an apology from the Prosecutor who attempted to railroad these athletes for political gain? No. Can we expect the Duke faculty to apologize for their outrageous rush to judgment? No. Can we expect an apology from the mainstream media… who lynched them publicly and smeared their names for months? No.
Meanwhile, Don Imus has to apologize for using a term that the people crying for his head use among themselves every day. And he gets fired anyway.
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 11:15 am - April 12, 2007
Mea culpa, Imus has not been fired yet, although the Racial Grievance Industry is demanding.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 11:17 am - April 12, 2007
Julie, if that’s your test for illegal culpability (drinking and strippers), most 1st tier college sports teams would fail miserably… as would 45-60% of all college frats, social greeks, dorm floors at public universities, politicos just about everywhere, and more than a few redblooded men under 50.
Sorry, nothing the Duke lacrosse team did that night deserves the malicious prosecution wrought by a cunning Democrat prosecutor. Nifong is about three steps below Fitzgerald… but they’re both the same kind of “public servant”… if it serves MY interest, I’m doing it for “justice”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - April 12, 2007
Anyone notice how the usual spat of GayLeftBorg types are very, very quiet? Except for the understandable attempts over at MyDD or DailyKos or BlogActive to paint Imus as a conservative or GOPer (LOL).
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 12, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - April 12, 2007
Um.. what?????? Go to a party and get charged with rape .. should have known better..
Is that what you’re saying? What kind of person are you… nuts.
Comment by Vince P — April 12, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - April 12, 2007
On a related note, Tony Blair speaks the unspeakable.
#18: Drinking and ogling strippers is not something I approve of. (And my sister, who was a team trainer for Wolverine football could tell some hair-raising stories). But I wouldn’t make it morally equivalent to rape, as some here are attempting to do.
Comment by V the K — April 12, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - April 12, 2007
No rape happened. No sexual assault. No kidnapping. Those were the charges. Dudes are innocent, innocent, innocent on all that. Face it Julie.
Comment by comment0r — April 12, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - April 12, 2007
Leftists are unreal. Who suffered more? Ted Kennedy who swam and walked away from a drowning woman who survived for as long as 4 hours in an air bubble in an over turned car. Or three 20 year olds who were wrongly accused of rape and assult. The three Duke students waited a year for some form of justice. Teddy wore a neck brace for a week and wandered away not to miss happy hour.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 12, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - April 12, 2007
#19 Funny huh. Even Imus yesterday when Paul Begala called in to try to help him survive, admitted he had a left wing show. Begala said at one point “hey you have on left wingers and right wingers”, Imus cut him short and said name some right wingers we have on? After naming John Mc Cain, even Begala started to hum and haw and laugh. Imus is a left wing bigot. Even though the left wing media thinks that’s an impossibility.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 12, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - April 12, 2007
Let’s see, Cynthia McKinney assaults a white police officer, and is not charged. Who’s privileged?
Don Imus says “nappy headed hos” and gets fired, while rappers who make money off calling women much, much worse go on making money. Who’s privileged?
The real tragedy is that the whore who falsely accused these men of rape is not going to be charged and thrown in prison where she belongs.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 13, 2007 @ 11:03 am - April 13, 2007
What kind of person are you… nuts.
Not the first time I’ve been called that. Won’t be the last.
Julie the Jarhead
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — April 13, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - April 13, 2007
If they were being charged with having a party with alcohol and strippers then they’d be guilty.
But I watched a clip today with a fellow, the Black Panther guy talking to Malkin, I think it was, who said the same thing… the young men were annoying jerks, drinking and partying and hired a couple strippers… so they should have been charged with and convicted of rape?
Isn’t “they’re impolite young men so they deserve it” pretty much the same thing as “she’s a stripper, she deserved it?”
They’re the sort of young men that hire a stripper and she’s the sort of young woman who takes a job as a stripper. That doesn’t make them guilty of what they didn’t do and it doesn’t mean that it would have been acceptable to sexually assault her.
Comment by Synova — April 13, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - April 13, 2007
I think my comment got eaten.
Comment by Synova — April 13, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - April 13, 2007
Sorry, nothing the Duke lacrosse team did that night deserves the malicious prosecution wrought by a cunning Democrat prosecutor.
No, but some of the things they did do deserve regular prosecution by a concerned and fair prosecutor.
The fact that Nifong maliciously charged them with something they didn’t do does not mitigate that there was a problem. The fact that there was a problem does not mitigate Nifong’s malicious prosecution, race-baiting, and whatnot, nor does it justify the support of the Democrat Party and its black racist contingent in an attempt to destroy these men’s lives.
Neither side has to be perfect to admit that there was a wrong perpetrated against these men.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 13, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - April 13, 2007
I’m lost.. what crime did they do?
Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - April 13, 2007
Hired strippers?
My eaten comment basically said that their poor judgment more or less mirrors the stripper’s bad judgment. Neither makes either set of people deserving of being falsely accused or of being sexually assaulted.
“She’s a stripper” doesn’t take away her rights.
“He’s a rich-boy jerk” doesn’t take away his rights.
Comment by Synova — April 13, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - April 13, 2007
That one got eaten, too?
Am I using bad words?
Comment by Synova — April 13, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - April 13, 2007
Underage drinking is the main one of which I’m thinking. And, by inference, supplying alcohol to minors.
Ironically, what facilitates this so well is the anti-police attitude of so many academics and leftists. When Len Bias died, the investigation revealed that U of M police were literally not allowed to enter and search student housing — which kids took full advantage of, turning their dorm rooms and apartments into dope dens.
Part of what made this woman’s story even remotely plausible was the fact that there was a ton of alcohol involved. “Boys being boys” may explain why it happened, but it’s hardly an excuse for it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 13, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - April 13, 2007
I’m a city guy, so I guess underage drinking seems to me to be rather trivial compared to rape. In fact all the times I went drinking, rape was the further thing from my mind. So to say or even hint that these guys are guilty of rape even though the “victim” was a sperm bank and the AG says they’re innocent is malicious.,
Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 3:35 pm - April 13, 2007
Oh look what I found out about our virtuious victim
Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 8:21 pm - April 13, 2007
Does innocence include an alcohol infused party with a stripper/prostitute? Were all the attendees of legal drinking age? (No) Sorry, but doing a little clean living goes a long way to getting involved in murky situations.
Hiring strippers is legal, not exactly moral by some standards, but legal, and not unheard of after all many a bachelor party involves the hiring of strippers.
The drinking is a different issue, but if underage drinking equals guilt or implied guilt of rape, then almost every college student in the US is guilty of rape. I figure this line of debate would probably lead to a disucssion of why we have a 21 age limit for drinking, and whether it is neccessary.
But I don’t think underage drinking is exactly on par with rape, or even means the drinkers were somehow heinous actors.
Comment by just me — April 14, 2007 @ 8:43 am - April 14, 2007
Why all the prudish clucking re. hiring a female stripper? Is our modern, religious, unrepentant Puritanism (the original having been co-opted by feminists in order to castrate society) so pervasive that we are now telling our males that a natural prurience is akin to rape and if only figuratively (though the standard of proof need only be extremely low), a rape nonetheless because of the ‘larger truth’ of exploitation and racism? Sheesh. No wonder I’m gay.
Here’s a well-presented analysis of DA Nifong’s possible criminal liability. The point the author misses though is in the timetable defense/prosecution: the defendants were likely suffering the most repurcusions in the media, school, and elsewhere when the DA’s office was not proceeding with the prosecution, one that ultimately fell apart under the weight of nothing. Holding back exculpatory evidence worked to seal the fate of the lacrosse players in public opinion, at least enough to taint a jury pool (if one were needed under NC law) and certainly enough to put pressure on the AG’s office to facilitate a verdict the public would expect. Everyone knew at the time the ‘evidence’ was flimsy at best (even, I suspect, the race-baited protesters who wished the defendants dead). It is a legal gray area, one that is not de jure, but de facto and this is what makes Nifong so dangerous — he’s not stupid enough not to investigate and, hopefully, prosecute.
P.S. I dislike the MSM as much as anyone and especially Sixty Minutes, but kudos to them for presenting an obvious miscarriage of justice. To the faint-of-heart goes faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
Comment by HardHobbit — April 14, 2007 @ 11:06 am - April 14, 2007
#32 Synova, try CTR+C (copy) prior to clicking the ‘Say It!’ button. I’ve had a fair number of comments lost or ‘edited’ and have learned to copy, then repost if necessary.
Comment by HardHobbit — April 14, 2007 @ 11:09 am - April 14, 2007
Who is prudish about her strippage? Seems to me more people were prudish about the boys hiring a stripper.
Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - April 14, 2007
HH, just for the record - it is women like Roseanne Barr and Hillary Clinton who made me gay in the first place. Nuff said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 14, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - April 14, 2007
#39 Peter, I remember sitting in Sunday school as a kid and being told that to even think of a female in a sexual way was tantamount to fornication. Well, when you beat that into the impressionable minds of 12 year-olds who can come every hour on the dot, there are going to be some issues. And some frustration. And some experimentation. When I was a bit older I went out to see strippers perform. Perhaps if my early religious instruction hadn’t been so unhealthy, I wouldn’t have found such behavior interesting. Likewise, perhaps if our drug and alcohol laws and culture didn’t pretend to retard the maturity of society’s children we would have less college kids dying from falling from a fraternity balcony while s***faced.
I had plenty of girlfriends, some serious. But I was only truly excited in the lockerroom. One of the reasons I like Camille Paglia is that she understands, accepts, and celebrates our natural selves — yet she’s a feminist, a true feminist. She understands that to celebrate the female isn’t automatically bought at the price of tearing down the male, that gender and sexuality isn’t a zero-sum game. (I would use the analogy of a pie, but I’d rather not go there.) She’s an honest intellectual — rare, these days.
I’m not quite sure why (perhaps it’s the double jeopardy the lacrosse players are inspiring in this thread), but I’ve been thinking about a movie I saw several times years ago that dealt with sexual repression (among many, many other things). If you haven’t seen Picnic At Hanging Rock, I highly recommend it. It asks many questions, but offers no answers. Based on what you convey in your posts, I think it’s a movie you’d understand.
Comment by HardHobbit — April 14, 2007 @ 8:48 pm - April 14, 2007
Yeah, I guess there is something hopelessly puritanical about being dismayed about women (and men) stripping naked so they can be objectified as pieces of meat that exist solely for the sexual gratification of drunks. I mean, it’s not like there’s anything the least bit dehumanizing about that, is there?
/sarc
Comment by V the K — April 15, 2007 @ 11:36 am - April 15, 2007
HH - You are correct about Camille Paglia. She is considered a gender feminist, meaning that she embraces the qualities that make her gender different from the male sex, rather than trying to make herself more masculine.
A lot of conservative women are more or less gender feminists, whether they articulate it as such or not.
Maybe that’s why so many libtards are afraid of true gender feminists?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 15, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - April 15, 2007
V, not to cause a riot or anything, but please show me ONE gay man who has not given a buck to a dick dancer, or rented a gay video, or downloaded jerk-off videos from YouTube.
And then I’ll show you someone who is afraid of his own sexuality.
It is the nature of the beast. All men - gay or straight - have that inner “id” inside of them that seeks to fulfill its sexual gratification. And if the guy in the g-string on the box at the local bar is there on his own free will, with no coercion or threats from others, and wishes to express himself in that way - who are we to stop him? Isn’t that the true meaning of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”
If a guy wishes to exhibit himself, it is between him and his God.
Sorry for the rambling, but this issue is a hot topic for me.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 15, 2007 @ 7:13 pm - April 15, 2007
I am totally and completely confused about modern liberalism. Three people wrongly accused, kicked out of university, facing prison terms of more than 5 years each. A lot of the press jumps to conclusions that they are all guilty, someone get a rope. A year later the prosecutors office says “never mind”. Liberals are suppose to defend those unjustly accused. They use too, thus putting the powerful on notice not to overreach again. Where are the true liberals who care about people instead of power?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 15, 2007 @ 8:35 pm - April 15, 2007
Gene: Leftists only want one thing…POWER, COCK.
All else is expenible.
Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 8:56 pm - April 15, 2007
Peter I’m a ‘ho just like those b-ball players.
Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - April 15, 2007
Peter, the point of being a man, of being a human, is to rise above animal impulses. Any dog or rat can jump anything that moves. Mastering base urges is what makes us more than animals.
I’m not about using state coercion to stop people from stripping or from ogling strippers. I am about making the point that as human beings, we can treat each other better than that.
It’s interesting to me the bargain the left has made with the great mass of society: “We will give you absolute liberty to do whatever you want in the bedroom, and in return you will surrender your freedom to do as you wish anywhere other than the bedroom.” It’s misfortunate that so many in society have embraced this offer.
But, I suppose, they were just doing what their base instincts drove them to do.
Comment by V the K — April 15, 2007 @ 10:20 pm - April 15, 2007
Point well taken, V. As one of my dear departed friends used to say, “the only thing that separates us from the lower life forms is our ability to accessorize.”
My main point was that we all aspire to conquer our base instincts. And sometimes we lose the fight. All we do then is pick ourselves up and try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 16, 2007 @ 9:40 am - April 16, 2007
I’m glad you see my point Pete, and I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct myself when I come across as unduly harsh. As a Mormon, I abstain from tobacco and alcohol. Yet, I also think the anti-smoking Nazis have gone way too far and think the drinking age should be either abolished or at least lowered.
There will always be stripping and pr0n and I don’t have a big problem with that. I just think it belongs in the shadows and not in the mainstream. Besides, I would think that making something forbidden would just add to the sweetness when it is indulged in… privately.
Part of it has to do with looking at my 16 year old and thinking, where do I want him to be in ten years? Settled down with a good, responsible woman… or stuffing fives into a strippers garter belt? I want him to choose the former… but I also don’t want any government to mandate that he has to.
Comment by V the K — April 16, 2007 @ 9:57 am - April 16, 2007