The alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse no-longer-rape case has apparently changed her story, again, in many ways. Allah lays it all out and deals the death blow: “I don’t want to be harsh, but her credibility is approaching Greenwaldian levels.”
Ouch. For a guy who doesn’t want to be harsh . . . that’s harsh.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
“I don’t want to be harsh, but her credibility is approaching Greenwaldian levels.”
Does that mean her credibility is going up??
Lord Nazh (285c90) — 1/12/2007 @ 9:28 amEr… you don’t know Glenn “Ellers McEllisonburg” Greenwald very well, do you?
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/12/2007 @ 10:34 amAren’t there laws against making false charges?
(Pardon my ignorance of the law, but I’m a programmer.. I live in a fantasy world)
AndrewGurn (c37ea2) — 1/12/2007 @ 11:31 amSo a pathetic fucked-up black stripper with a couple of kids gets hired by some all american white boys -all I have no doubt from “good families” – and somehow your gloating over whatever went down gets tied up by by you and your peanut gallery of whiteboy dimwits with Glenn Greenwald?
The boorishness, vulgarity and racism gets to be a bit much.
And then you still waste time with Jamil Hussein.
I wish you had something more than your ego in mind when you posted here. You’re an expert, why not behave like one?
Why make the choice for narcissism. You’re a big fish in your own pond. This site could have been more.
ban me if you want. It’s a serious question
[You’re saying it’s *racist* to note contradictions in an alleged victim’s story, and to discuss how they reflect on her credibility? I think it would be racist *not* to, as it would be a refusal to hold minorities to the same standard as everyone else when it comes to honesty. I couldn’t care less what the race of any of these people are. But it’s concerning that there are this many contradictions in her story. Calling my viewpoint an example of “racism” is total nonsense. — P]
AF (8f7ccc) — 1/12/2007 @ 11:53 amAF, the problem is that NOTHING “went down”. Typical leftist bullshit, hey, they’re white so ‘something must have happened’.
Ryan Frank (83c643) — 1/12/2007 @ 12:24 pmAF
I guess I qualify as part of the “peanut gallery” but I’m actually kinda beige and [looks down] not.a.boy.
The racism (classism and sexism) in this case is directed at the Duke players.
And if you won’t see that, you’re definitely a member of the pathetic gallery.
Darleen (543cb7) — 1/12/2007 @ 12:51 pmWords to live by: “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation, than any other person in America.” — Attributed to Justice Robert H. Jackson.
LBO (c9fca3) — 1/12/2007 @ 1:23 pmThe woman’s a walking disaster area, the DA seems to have been playing politics and the “nice young men” are pigs who may not be guilty of anything other than that, but the vibe here is all very Simi Valley: that is and was my point, and it was clear.
I’ve read enough comments and complaints here about black racism, and claims that it’s much more common than white etc. (which is absurd). White resentment, along with other kinds, is a common theme.
AF (8f7ccc) — 1/12/2007 @ 1:39 pmBut the logic is lacking.
“So a pathetic fucked-up black stripper with a couple of kids gets hired by some all american white boys-all I have no doubt from “good families” – and somehow your gloating over whatever went down gets tied up by by you and your peanut gallery of whiteboy dimwits with Glenn Greenwald?”
The use of the racist term “White boy” twice in one paragraph? In a post accusing the proprietor of the site of racism?!? Wow. Got Irony? Don’t worry, though – what you lack in a sense of the absurd, you more than make up for in your lack of coherence.
Let’s look past your virulent racism to the predicate conditions in your …um … statement. Parsing your words, you seem to think that all this case revolves around is a mercantile exchange between individuals of different races. Why their race would matter to you I’ve no idea. Oh wait, I do: it’s because you’re a racist.
Moving on from that unhappy fact (I recommend Samuel Clemens to combat your peculiar instit- er, malady), and looking deeper at the case we find that it’s not *at all* about mercantilism – it’s about a rape charge that, according to the evidence in the public domain, is fraudulent – or, as you so pithily put it – “…whatever went down…”
Seeing how rape is a charge that, should it be well-founded, is fraught not only with steep criminal, but also steep social and moral penalties, it is only proper that the false accuser be subject to those same social and moral (and legal – but let’s not hold our breaths) penalties. If it comes out, as I believe it will, that she has played fast and loose with – among other things – the truth, then it will be only just that she be mocked and publicly scorned for her actions. And the truth is leaking out; hence the scorning is commencing.
Greenwald gets dragged into this because:
a. He’s guilty of multiple counts of public douchebaggery, and as such should be mocked whenever possible.
b. He’s the most perfect example of “un-credible-ness” in the known blogosphere, therefore he’s used as a superlative to compare to something so completely unbelievable you’d have to be a leftist to even *begin* to think it was true.
As an aside – it’s perfectly delicious how you drag in “…with a couple of kids…” as though this is some sort of marker in her favor.
Now, I’m all for reproductive freedom – everyone should be able to have kids. But the fact that she’s a prostitute and a drug addict who choose to have children at a young age should not ennoble her in anyone’s mind.
While we’re on the topic, the notion that many of her supporters have that this woman is somehow not responsible for her situation in life, or it’s the fault of some ephemeral force of society, is absurd (see: 88, Statement of the). She made the choices that led her to the failure to live a good and decent life. She keeps making the same choices and they (surprise!) keep leading her to the same failures. That’s not the “White Boys” fault.
”The boorishness, vulgarity and racism gets to be a bit much.”
Stop engaging in it, then.
”And then you still waste time with Jamil Hussein.”
Create your own blog, and then you can write about whatever you want, and you can even dictate the content. Meanwhile, if it’s such a “waste [of] time” to deal with the Jamil/AP story, why do you bother to read and/or comment on it? Why not simply read the headlines of the posts and say to yourself, “My goodness, that silly Patterico is yapping about that story again, I think I’ll go down to the corner store and pickup a case of 40’s with my welfare check.”
“I wish you had something more than your ego in mind when you posted here. You’re an expert, why not behave like one?”
Ah yes – you knew P’s state of mind when he posted did you? Can you also read my mind; can you tell what I’m thinking of you right this very moment?
”Why make the choice for narcissism.”
Because narcissism is the new black this year?
“You’re a big fish in your own pond.”
Patterico is the *only* fish in this pond. He pays the bills, he decides the topics of discussion. Here’s an idea: you could start your own blog and you could title it “Crackheads for Defending Spurious Rape Charges Against White Boys.” That’s just a suggestion, of course – I’m sure you could come up with something more elegant.
“This site could have been more.”
Yes, it could have: it could have had trolls that make at least a modicum of sense. Thanks for queering *that*.
”ban me if you want. It’s a serious question”
When will you learn that off-point, imbecilic postings do not an argument make?
It’s a serious question.
Abraxas (2f586f) — 1/12/2007 @ 1:50 pmGiven that the new story appears designed to neutralize the exculpatory evidence, I am suspicious about the possibility of witness tampering. I’m not convinced that the AV changed her story without a lot of help.
The prosecutor has more invested in making this case viable than she does, in my opinion. I wonder if some type of intimidation might have been used against her.
I don’t exonerate her, but I always thought that she made these claims to get out of incarceration and the situation snowballed far beyond what she expected. I think that the prosecution team bears much more culpability–and has more to lose.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 1/12/2007 @ 1:51 pmDrudge is reporting that Nifong wants out.
Old Coot (581b7e) — 1/12/2007 @ 2:17 pmAbrax: that was the single greatest fisk that I have ever read. Do you mind if I post it?
AF: If you look real hard and try real hard, you’ll see your ass on the other end of Abrax’s hand, I believe he’s handing it to you
Lord Nazh (285c90) — 1/12/2007 @ 2:59 pmLord Nazh,
By all means.
best,
A.
Abraxas (2f586f) — 1/12/2007 @ 3:15 pmI wish I had a blog. I’d post it, too.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/12/2007 @ 3:20 pmAbraxas: Yes, very nice job.
Old Coot (581b7e) — 1/12/2007 @ 3:31 pm“You’re a big fish in your own pond. This site could have been more.
ban me if you want. It’s a serious question”
Patterico, this sure sounds like David E. Have you checked the ISP ? There could not be two like him in the world. Twin brother ?
I’m voting for sock puppet.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 1/12/2007 @ 3:41 pmThank you Abra.
posted and linked (since Patterico needs the traffic heh)
Lord Nazh (285c90) — 1/12/2007 @ 4:08 pmAF
“Good Day Sir!”
Bill M (afe2c3) — 1/12/2007 @ 6:36 pmProbably deserves an update: Nifong wants out, and the AG will take over.
Prediction: The AG will take it within a month. They’ll take another couple of months to review what they have. They’ll have a meeting with all the attorneys, who will then produce their clients for limited interviews with the prosecution and their investigators.
Then the case will be dismissed.
BTW, it’s clear AF is baffled. Nobody’s gloating. Prosecutors nationwide are mad as hell; yes, there have been cases where the cops have been pretty clearly corrupt (Tulia, Texas), cases in which white people got wildly lenient sentences for what appeared to be race-based reasons (Linden, Texas), and cases in which the system seems to have broken down (Satanic child molesting cult cases in several jurisdictions.)
Me, I’ve been mad about all of that stuff; the Linden one had me screaming at my computer. But right now, what’s happening is this case, and it’s screwing up hundreds – maybe thousands – of good cases, and giving people the idea that prosecutors seek convictions of whoever they have around. I’m mad not because of white or black; Nifong’s actions pretty clearly took those into account and he shouldn’t have, but if the races were reversed I’d be at least as mad.
And I’m sure there are places other than Linden where the white kid doesn’t get his just desserts because, you know, he has a nice family and all. That makes me want to spit nails – and when I first heard about this case, I hoped those lacrosse players fried. At the time, the publicly available evidence seemed strong. But that’s because Nifong misinformed the media.
And the prosecution ran the case in a manner inconsistent with making an effort to find the truth. The way the prosecution has gone about this would be funny if it weren’t for the destruction of so many lives, inside and outside the case.
Injustice sucks. Injustices can occur for a lot of reasons, but when it occurs because a prosecutor is doing a bad thing…. can you see why this would make prosecutors mad? Really mad?
I have to go back to the 1980’s to remember such bad prosecutorial form on a public case.
–JRM
P.S. Lectures about wishing them fried before the presumption of innocence was defeated in court will be taken poorly. That’s a legal standard for juries. You’re factually guilty when you do the crime, not when you get convicted. The evidence publicly available now in the Duke case appears to show these guys are very unlikely to be guilty, and didn’t screw with the police to the extent that this is on their dime (See: Lewis, Ray.)
JRM (78df3e) — 1/12/2007 @ 6:40 pmJRM,
(everything I write from this point on is presumptive of the fact that the accuser has fabricated large parts of – or the entirety of – her story)
Of course you are right about this case giving prosecutors heartburn. It’s very much like (pardon the digression) a single Marine in Iraq unjustifiably shooting an Iraqi civilian. Once that’s in the news, no one’s going to report on the tens of thousands of honorable service people over there busting it to make the next day better for Iraq.
Same case here – no one is going to want to hear about the (vast majority of) ethical criminal prosecutors in the country. The minute something doesn’t “look right” in a “People vs. scumbag” case, then you can bet your J.D. that the cries of “Nifong” will ring throughout the land – probably and ironically (I would lay money on it) by the same sorts of people who were handing out “wanted” posters of the Duke Lacrosse team not long ago.
There’s a larger damage that the accuser and Nifong have done though. While this case illustrates quite clearly the need for prosecutorial reform of the handling of sexual assault cases* (and we can debate what those reforms should be) it also threatens, because of its national stature, irreparable damage to an already frayed social compact; and I don’t think I’m exaggerating.
If this woman is allowed to escape with little or no responsibility for her conduct, whether from a prosecutor shy of inflaming racial tensions in the city, or because of a sense that she may have “suffered enough” through this ordeal, I believe that will be a major blow to the confidence of the public of this nation in its judicial system. Is it fair that what should be a local case has attracted national attention? No – but neither is it fair that the entire Duke lacrosse team – let alone the three accused – has been treated in the way it’s been treated, again, with national attention.
Both Nifong and the accuser should, if guilty, pay and pay heavily. Her kids should be taken from her, she should be thrown in jail for the maximum time allowed and *never* left alone by the state for the rest of her natural life. Yes, I know it sounds harsh, especially to Libertarian ears, but please remember she tried to tag this “gang rape” charge on others not long ago – how many times are we to let her keep doing this? Until she succeeds? We know, objectively, that she cannot make rational, healthy decisions for herself; how are we to expect that she can make the same for her kids? Take them from her before they are irreparably damaged or killed by one of her Johns.
I say if the price of justice is inflamed racial tensions, then let there be racial inflammation in the city. There is far more injustice in patronizing and infantilizing an entire group of citizens than there is in making those same citizens face up to the fact that yes, there may be racists in their neighborhood; they’re just not who we thought they were. I think if we give the black community of Durham the chance to face the truth, and we stand with the reasonable members of that community in facing down the “Tawana Brawley” advocates, then they might just surprise America. Goodness knows, *something* has to finally break the cycle of victimization in this country – it might just be this sorry episode.
But apart and aside from any “National Lessons” you or I would hope this situation could teach, let’s focus on the fact that there are three young men – and peripherally their families and friends – that have been essentially abused by a justice system of diminished credibility and denied their basic human rights by a conspiracy of a prostitute with no mercy or morality … and a stripper.
* There absolutely needs to be hand-in-hand reform and normalization of the handling of these cases along with a serious rethinking of the kinds of campus corporate culture codes of assumed guilt that help lead directly to this legal farce. That may be the slim silver lining in this cloud of unending bowel-gas this thing has become.
Abraxas (52f32e) — 1/12/2007 @ 7:51 pmFollowing up to Abraxas’ interesting second post:
1. Yeah, that is too harsh for the accuser. But I’m absolutely for substantial sentences for false accusations, more than is usually seen.
2. There’s a right place to be on these cases, and a lot of prosecutorial offices are there. It’s not walking away from the tough cases – because on these cases, you’re going to have some marginal situations where proof is difficult but the prosecutor is legitimately satisfied of guilt. If you’re winning 100% of your cases, you’re almost certainly a chicken.
But it’s also not charging the unprovable cases, the cases where the prosecutor’s only 80% certain the defendant is good for it, the cases where you need to ask the logical questions of the accuser before you issue. And it’s also recognizing that the nature of the beast is that some of your cases are going to go south, and they need to be sent away. Prior to trial, keep your eyes wide open for all evidence, and evaluate everything. Think.
We don’t need to globally rethink the handling of these cases – I suspect most offices handle them well, some very well. But there are over a thousand prosecuting agencies in the nation, and those that aren’t doing things sensibly should have their feet held to the fire.
3. I suspect the majority of both the white and black citizens of Durham would have reacted sensibly to a competent early investigation and a clear (well, as clear as you can on this type of case) explanation of why the case wasn’t going to get charged. What happens now is anyone’s guess; putting the worms back in the can is going to be tough.
–JRM
JRM (78df3e) — 1/12/2007 @ 8:16 pmJRM,
“We don’t need to globally rethink the handling of these cases – I suspect most offices handle them well, some very well.”
I apologize; I was unclear.
I was not trying to indicate that we needed to review the *prosecutorial* handling of cases such as these. I meant to say that the fundamental laws involved needed (in my opinion) to be changed. Re-reading myself, I see where I didn’t make that explicit.
The fact that the majority of the prosecutors manage to do their jobs as well as they do with (again, what I believe to be) fundamentally unsound or unfair laws is simply a testament to their professionalism.
Abraxas (52f32e) — 1/12/2007 @ 8:29 pmJRM,
As I recall, you are a prosecutor, too. Do you think the NC AG should also review DA Nifong’s recent felony cases (e.g., the last 3-5 years) given his handling of this case?
DRJ (51a774) — 1/12/2007 @ 8:30 pmAbraxas,
I’m unclear on your last point. What laws do you believe are fundamentally unfair?
DRJ (51a774) — 1/12/2007 @ 8:33 pmDRJ,
There seem to be standards of behavior or even states of mind for the accuser and the accused that determine whether or not a rape or some sort of sexual assault did or didn’t take place – these standards seem to be highly subjective, and vary (based on public accounts) in their prosecution and time served of the perp based on what (again, to an layman’s eye) seem to be irrelevant factors. Some of the “female hot teacher seduces teen-aged student” stories we’ve been inundated with over the past few years may serve as an imperfect example. As well, we might look at those accounts that deal with two drunk college students enjoying each other’s company for the night and in the morning, there’s a rape charge with which to be dealt. Again, an imperfect example.
I’m sorry I’m link-free at the moment, but I didn’t expect the conversation to take this tack (not that I’m complaining) and so don’t have supporting materials.
I will make the stipulation that I’m not a lawyer – not even a little bit; so there may indeed be sound reasons for what I think are major irregularities in the laws. Sure, I know a few Latin phrases, but, ipso facto, that does not make me a lawyer, per se.
Abraxas (52f32e) — 1/12/2007 @ 8:49 pmIt seems like criminal charges that are based on “he said/she said”-type events are the types of cases that most concern you and, if so, I agree they are some of the most difficult cases to deal with. In my experience, juries have problems with them, too, and always prefer cases where the is some corroborating evidence they can hang their hats on.
I’m not a criminal law lawyer but I do see analogous case in the civil law area. Some examples are contract disputes where the dispute involves interpreting a contract that is silent or ambiguous on a specific point, so you need the parties’ interpretations and they don’t always match. Another case would be employment disputes, especially where the employer and employee have different recollections about important events. Frankly, many cases involve disputes where it can be difficult to discern the truth. Our justice system is imperfect, as is every human invention, so it’s not surprising that sometimes the results are imperfect.
But I think it’s good to be concerned about this subject. The only way to improve things is to work at them. In addition, you’ve probably come to a good website to discuss this subject because our host always seems to have an thoughtful and ethical take on criminal law matters.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/12/2007 @ 9:27 pm23:
That’s a very interesting question.
KC Johnson hypothesizes that Nifong was motivated in this case by wanting to ensure his pension by winning the election. Professor Johnson’s postings on this case have been somewhat slanted against Nifong (and, yeah, that’s possible) but he’s had a good grip on the facts from early on.
I’m uncertain that’s true, but if it is, it explains why things happened in this case at this time, pressures which would not apply to any other case.
But…. it’s alarming. My (very weak) understanding of North Carolina law is that the AG would be unlikely to be able to review those cases unless they became a party, as by an appeal by a criminal defendant.
The willingness to do the press nonsense is bad, and it’s misconduct, but… that’s not worth a review of a bunch of cases; just a review of press cases. A person willing to do the lineup and DNA things Nifong did…. I’m worried.
You can bet the DNA lab – which cooperated with Nifong’s request to keep the results out of the report – will stop being used by sensible prosecutors. Appeals will be had on prior cases with that lab. Possibly, guilty rapists will go free. That’s a nice side effect, eh? As a line prosecutor, I would scream before anything went to a lab that did that. I think there’s a good argument that this conduct is relevant to some set of other cases where this lab performed tests, and it will certainly lead to fun defense cross-examination on the subject. Fun for the defense, anyway.
And now defense attorneys can’t trust the system. Some defense attorneys in my jurisdiction scream misconduct over and over and hope someone believes something, but pretty much everyone knows we have a clean office. I can’t imagine what it would be like if the judges and defense attorneys were suspicious of everything we did.
Wait – I can imagine. They would be entitled to treat all the prosecution representations like we treat some of the defense representations.
Bleah.
–JRM
“My client has proof of completion of the program, your honor.” – Defense
“Would you like to see that, Mr. JRM?” – Judge.
“Yes. [Pause]. He hasn’t completed it.” – JRM
“Yes he has.” – Defense.
“It says: ‘Mr. Defendant was thrown out of the program for lack of attendance and giving positive alcohol tests twice.’ ” – JRM
“No it doesn’t.” – Defense [Remaing two minutes of the conversation too tedious to repeat; suffice to say that JRM can read.]
JRM (78df3e) — 1/12/2007 @ 9:29 pmJRM,
Your reply was thought-provoking. I assume there will be several felons who have recently been convicted by Mr. Nifong who will be looking at additional appeal issues, especially those whose convictions involved line-ups or DNA/lab testing. Should Mr. Nifong also recuse himself from those appeals given his pending ethics proceeding?
It seems to me that this might be a prologue to his recusal from virtually all cases. His deputies may be able to handle some of the more straightforward appeals but they might prefer that the AG conduct an inquiry – provided this case was atypical compared to other cases.
It reminds me of something similar several years ago in Texas – a Texas medical examiner (I think it was an ME) who falsified results. They are probably still unwinding those cases.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/12/2007 @ 9:42 pm[…] Via Hot Air, via Patterico…Allah, commenting on the sham of a case against the Duke Lacrosse players, and on the “accuser” therein, draws a reference to one of our favorite self-aggrandizing self-promoting self-disgraced liberal friends… I don’t want to be harsh, but her credibility is approaching Greenwaldian levels. […]
House of Eratosthenes (a2d188) — 1/13/2007 @ 2:54 amThat’s a damned strange way of putting it, AF. Was that gloating you were doing before you decided that she’s “a pathetic fucked up black stripper”?
Yeah, get them white boys from good families. Go, nifong! Go, Nifong!
You’re a sick puppy, AF.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 1/13/2007 @ 5:41 am