Ex-Duke lacrosse player doesn’t ‘feel’ for Nifong

[bluestateguy]

Source: NBC

Former Duke University lacrosse player Reade Seligmann, who had been cleared of charges he and two teammates raped a hired stripper, says he feels sorry for disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong’s family — but not necessarily for Nifong.

Seligmann says he was hurt by Nifong’s statement last week at a North Carolina bar disciplinary committee hearing that the former prosecutor still thinks “something happened in that bathroom” at that now-infamous team party last year.

“It was probably one of the most difficult parts of the hearing,” Seligmann, 21, told TODAY host Meredith Vieira during an exclusive interview on Monday. “I really did feel sympathy for his family ... It’s been a tragedy that another family is going to have to suffer because of Mike Nifong’s actions, but after hearing him say that, it really did make it difficult to feel .”

cut

Meanwhile, attorneys for Seligmann and the other two exonerated men, Collin Finnerty, 20, and David Evans, 24, are preparing to file a civil lawsuit against Nifong. The bar association found that Nifong withheld evidence that would have helped the men’s defense attorneys and lied about it.



Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19287960

---

Prediction: in a year Nifing will be bagging groceries and living in a cheap apartment in a bad neighborhood.

[AngryOldDem]

1. Or, he could have his own show on Court TV

Who knows these days.

[Occulus]

147. FYI, Future Readers,

I got so tired of seeing so-called "progressives" championing punishment for completely innocent people that I just went through this entire thread, ignoring everyone who publicly stated as much.

It was fun, and a total catharsis! But, I need some help.

See, I happen to think that the people on this thread who are saying, basically, that they deserved to be charged with something (to boil it all down to some stew you can chew) all deserve to be ignored for their intentional misunderstanding of how American justice is supposed to work.

These people don't want justice, no- they want punishment for perfectly legal behavior, or they feel that behavior makes their lack of punishment such a shame. Some of them believe these guys definitely will go on to do again something they provably did not do in the first place. Some of them think that "something happened" because of other people's behavior at the party.

Bollocks. Big, fat, hairy, lowhanging bollocks. This lying... woman brought a lot of innocent people a whole lot of grief and cost a big pile of cash in the process and they all know it.

So, I think if you're tired of it on DU of all places, just go through this thread and do what I did: ignore everyone like that and tell them why. Maybe after a few dozen such treatments they'll get the hint and finally shut the fuck up about this.

[CreekDog]

151. I get the feeling they've been ignored by many already

And perhaps that explains the ever increasing lunacy of their posts, fewer and fewer are actually seeing/listening to their posts.

[Occulus]

162. I certainly hope that's the case

Something nasty infected this board a while back. I don't know how or why, but it sure seems coordinated as all hell...

[mzteris]

196. I agree that something nasty

has infected this board.

[tularetom]

2. The fact that Nifong is an incompetent jackoff

does not mean that nothing untoward took place at that party. Maybe Marmalard and Niedermyer and the rest of the Omegas didn't rape the stripper but you can't tell me that they just sat and ogled. Gimme a break - a naked chick in a house full of horny drunks - there had to be some grab assin and titty grabbing going on.

[Sadie4629]

3. They were declared "innocent"

The assumption by so many that "something must have happened" is exactly why these three young men need to sue the asses off of EVERYONE involved in this whole persecution--Nifong, Mangum, Brodhead, Duke University, the 88 professors. There are those who will continue to believe that just because an accusation was made, they must be guilty of something. That is just so wrong, and contrary to all the facts that have been revealed.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Something did happen. Something was threatened...

Here ya go, since you seem to have forgotten...

from
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/20/for-the-guys-who-think-this-shirt-is-a-big-laugh/#comment-364978

tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all besides arch and tack please respond

[Sadie4629]

8. That e-mail was sent after the party

So, it wasn't exactly a threat. Poor taste? Definitely! But not even Nifong alleged that anyone was killed or skinned. Since that didn't happen, I believe that your assumption that "something did happen" is flawed.

[bluestateguy]

9. This strikes me as false, unsubstantiated and irrelevant

Given all the lies told in this case by Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum, why should we believe this alleged e-mail was ever written?

[pschoeb]

22. Because the e-mail writer admitted it

nt

[OzarkDem]

54. check Smoking Gun

Read more about the perverts there:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke1.html

[Louie the XIV]

10. Should every individual who writes an offensive email be charged with rape?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The crime of rape and sexual assualt that these boys were charged with has a specific legal definition in that jurisdiction. Writing an email, no matter how threatening, is not enough to be charged with rape.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. Well, yeah. Each and every one.

Can I ask completely loaded questions in hopes of eliciting a response that'll make me look good?

[OzarkDem]

55. No one said that

But most here are sick of being told we should sympathize with these sick, twisted perverts. Sorry, no sale. They won their day in court, but don't expect everyone to pat them on the back. These guys minds are twisted enough they'll end up in trouble again.

[Socal31]

66. If getting drunk and looking at strippers

makes you "twisted" and "perverted", then I must be one twisted and perverted asshole. Should I be charged with rape also?

[OzarkDem]

78. No, but you could

be called dishonest. I didn't say anything about charging them with rape.

Bottom line - these kids had their day in court, they beat the system. They won. That's fine.
But stop expecting people to think of them as heroes or martyrs. You may feel that way, but others don't and for valid reasons.

Stop the harassment, dishonesty and name calling. We don't like those kids, we don't feel sorry for them. Get over it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

88. "they beat the system...."

How do you define "beating the system?" Please elaborate.

[onenote]

152. they didn't "beat the system" -- they overcame nifong and magnums efforts

to pervert it.

[TommyO]

157. They "beat the system"?

They were railroaded by both Nifong and the college, they were vilified, they and their families spent millions of dollars defending them.

For all of their faults (and as humans we all have them), they didn't deserve this treatment.

[mondo joe]

271. They didn't beat the system. The system actually worked.

Equality and justice are not reserved for model citizens.

[silverojo]

102. Well, it IS kind of perverted

What's wrong with dating women and having real sexual relations? And why can't you enjoy looking at women without getting smashed? I'm not being sarcastic here, but absolutely serious.

Also...if you should be accused of anything, habits like these will make it much easier for the charges to stick.

[Socal31]

133. Maybe im the new generation....

But I do date women and have "real" relationships.....but when I go to...say Vegas with the guys, why cant we have a few extra drinks and look at beautiful women in the nude?? Its paying thier way through college, or supporting a kid most likely.

I guess what im saying is, if you suggest these guys are asking for rape charges by partying, (which 75% of people of that age do), that is the same as saying a women in a short skirt or revealing top is asking to be raped. Absolute garbage.

[Occulus]

138. And three's a crowd

Or am I up to four now?

Ignored for: "if you should be accused of anything, habits like these will make it much easier for the charges to stick."

:puke:

[onenote]

153. I hope you aren't condoning the idea that "habits like these" will make it easier

for charges to stick. Hopefully you would be as outraged at such a result as I am at the idea that the fact that a woman is a stripper should make it harder for her to prove an assault.

The stripper in this case wasn't disbelieved because of her conduct -- it was because her story constantly changed, was contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and unsupported by any physical evidence.

[Occulus]

137. Welcome to my ignore list

Presumptively judgemental and intentionally obtuse.

Bye.

[silverojo]

100. Maybe not, but....

It proves what was on the minds of these Duke people, and shows why an accusation of rape was so easily slapped on them.

Again, if you don't want to be falsely accused, don't make it so damned easy.

[Paladin]

108. Hey, If I Want To See Mindless Blaming-The-Victims Crap.....

...I'll visit Free Republic or Lucianne.com.

A expect better behavior here at DU. The ugly "they're white and rich, so they must be guilty" sentiments posted on these Nifong threads is genuinely depressing.....

[Mike Daniels]

114. The Duke situation has revealed a lot of hate and class resentment just under the surface at DU

It became apparent that once the stripper's case was going to fall apart that these students were still somehow guilty for no reason other than "they're white and rich so they had to have beaten the system"

There seems to be a general belief that if you have money you either stole it, cheated or exploited someone to get it or otherwise obtained it through some other method than plain hard work.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[toopers]

278. Thank goodness they were rich . . .

or they may have been imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit!

[TankLV]

128. Now - THAT is truly "blaming the victum"! The INNOCENT boys....

But don't let your prejudices stop you from sounding and looking ridiculuous...

Sounds kinda like "if you don't want to be raped, don't wear such sexy clothing"...

But you'll never see THAT similarity, will ya...!

[onenote]

154. you are coming perilously close to the same kind of logic

that would allow someone to say: you don't want your accusations to be treated with suspicion, don't be a stripper.

Is that what you think?

[hack89]

248. I think the point is that ,,,

if you don't want your accusations to be treated with suspicion, don't constantly change your story.

[jberryhill]

26. D'jever see the movie American Psycho? /nt

[bunkerbuster1]

28. I made about five pages into Less Than Zero

so I wasn't real inclined to watch a movie based on a novel by the same crappy author, no.

[jberryhill]

29. That's where the text of the email came from.

[tammywammy]

40. That email wasn't even sent by one of the three men

And it was after the party.

[OzarkDem]

56. And he was at the party

and he was one of their buddies. Why in the world would you want to defend such sick people?

[tammywammy]

203. I'm not defending the guy that wrote the email

And I hold nothing against people that drink or hire strippers. :shrug:

None of the guys that were charged with rape wrote that email. I have friends that have done some stupid shit to, so should I pay for their actions as well?

[marshall]

59. Oh something did happen, that's for sure

Hence the presence of seven, eight, or nine unknown male DNA samples on Mangum's underwear and from the anal swab.

[NaturalHigh]

74. Good point, and one that is rarely mentioned.

Not one of those samples matched any of the Duke players.

[Exiled in America]

76. None of which match any of the Duke players.

[TankLV]

130. Which leaves no doubt as to WHAT this skank is...

She is disgusting for RUINING these INNOCENT boys lives - and the whole team to boot...

[Occulus]

140. Ignored

Reason: not their DNA... and you probably know that.

[Exiled in America]

75. The email is quoting a movie.... wow that's a major indictment.... (rolls eyes)

[JVS]

92. what movie? Nevermind

[mahatmakanejeeves]

89. The writer of that email,

Ryan McFadyen, was not one of those charged in the case.

[SKKY]

134. You really need to check your facts. Neither of the 3 accused sent this...

...as far as I'm concerned, you're just as bad as Nifong.

[Occulus]

136. You, too.

Bye.

[demgurl]

150. I think what you are seeing is sarcasm and bad taste at its best.

This email was allegedly sent the day after the party. By that time the charges were set in motion and the men knew what they were up against. Who here has not been accused of something and responded with sarcasm 'admitting' to even greater offenses? I know when I was a teenager my Mom would ask if I had been out drinking and I would answer something along the lines of the fact that I was out drinking and doing every guy around as well as taking every drug available to mankind.

From the email, these guys sent, I see men who knew they were innocent and were making fun of the legal system (and the stripper) using sarcasm. As a rape victim I feel this is in bas taste but can I blame them? No. I have lashed out when people have asked me thing I took offense at and I knew I was innocent of.

Now if they had sent out a letter talking about the skanky ho and how good she felt when he forced himself upon her, I would be steaming mad. As I see it, this email was sarcasm at its best and humor at its worst. It does not prove they ever committed a crime of any kind.

[mbperrin]

No, plenty happened.

Minors hired women to appear naked at a party where underage drinking was occurring. The location of the party is the official residence of the lacrosse team. Neighbors complained often of loud and drunken activities from time to time at the house, including partygoers pissing on their lawns and shouting at all hours of the night. One of the young men in question plead guilty and was on probation for assaulting a stranger in DC, making homophobic remarks in the process, along with 2 of his friends.

So underage drinking, convictions for assault, hiring of sex workers, all by underage minors, and all participating in an official university sport, these are all part of the ongoing slate of things that happened. One of the young men works for Goldman Sachs now, so his life was certainly ruined, was it not? And why no one wants to point out these young men's connections to K street, to the media, and to political power is beyond me.

The young woman is always called a stripper, never a student, which she also was, and never a mother, which she also was. Now that these young men have been vindicated using power over techniques, they want to go ahead and ruin the DA family's lives. Nice.

So priveleged young hellraisers with loads of money and connections beat up on the locals. Big shock.

But don't pretend it's either right, or even justified.

[OzarkDem]

57. And don't expect them to stop

I pity any woman who has a relationship with one of these sick, twisted men.

[marshall]

61. Some corrections

Not all the players were minors. I believe David Evans is now 24 years old. And I believe Seligmann is the only one to have any other charges against him (for the homophobic incident). And it should not be forgotten that the third player left the party because he didn't want to participate in it.

Mangum is referred to as a stripper because that was her role that night. She wasn't hired as a student to tutor the playes, she wasn't hired as a baby sitter to mother them. She was hired to practice her legal trade of stripping. If anything illegal happened it happened wherever she encountered the men who deposited their DNA in and around her undergarments before or after the party.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

93. "the homophobic incident"

That was Colin Finnerty. It happened in Georgetown in DC.

Google for "colin finnerty assault"

No one said these guys were Mother Teresa. The question is, did they rape anyone?

[LisaL]

101. No they didn't rape anyone. The AG investigated the case

for months and declared they were innocent.

[Occulus]

142. Ignored

Reason: perpetuating the question of whether they raped anyone when the facts and the conclusion of the investigation shows they were not only not guilty but in fact innocent.

The which I'm almost 100% certain you and all the other people saying "something must have happened" know very well indeed.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

267. you and all the other people saying "something must have happened"

I think you meant that comment for the person to whom I was reponding, not me. My point was that the three may not have been poster boys for any sort of good behavior, but they had not done that for which they had been charged.

The thread is getting long, with answers to answers to answers.

[Exiled in America]

77. Bullshit. These young men were vindicated because there DNA does not match-

the DNA on the victim. And all your other blah blah blah blah blah doesn't change that fact.

The Duke players weren't just found "not guilty" - the Attorney General of the State said in his statement that they were INNOCENT - a step almost never taken by the prosecutors office. The DA didn't just mess up, it hid exhonorating evidence. These guys didn't do it. It's that fucking simple.

QUOTING the Attorney GENERAL now:


The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.
.....

The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser's story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself. Next week, we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred.


No matter how much your class prejudice blinds you to the truth, its still the truth.

[silverojo]

103. Being exonerated doesn't make you a model citizen

These punks are still scum, and need to learn to be more civilized before they're unleashed into the world.

And all YOUR blah blah blah doesn't change this fact.

[Mike Daniels]

119. They're no more or less scum than a good portion of college students across the country

Only one student involved in the case had a prior assault charge and the press misrepresented the circumstances of that charge as well. It was determined that the other party involved was just as responsible for the situation in G'town escalating to assault and the gay-bashing is a non-issue as the other principal has stated he is straight.

If hiring strippers, getting drunk and engaging in obnoxious behavior equals "scum" then I'd say there's a good portion of scum on any college campus and most of it isn't in the form of athletes and it's not limited to any political affiliation.

[Exiled in America]

125. You said: "Now that these young men have been vindicated using power over techniques"

Which is total bullshit, as I indicated. God this shit makes me so angry.

You have no fucking idea who these "punks" are beyond your dismally limited set of second hand information you get from the media machine.

"Minors hired women to appear naked at a party where underage drinking was occurring."

Translation: they had a party, something 90% of all college kids do as normal behavior, and they hired a stripper - something not, you know.... totally out of the realm of plausibility.

"Neighbors complained often of loud and drunken activities from time to time at the house, including partygoers pissing on their lawns and shouting at all hours of the night."

Big fucking deal. Just last week, myself (with six years as project manager, and formerly campaign manager for my states campaign to defeat our proposed marriage amendment, former employee of the ACLU, etc) and my friends (which include the program policy director for the largest progressive women's non-profit activism and lobbying organization in the state, and the former community organizer for Planned Parenthood, as well as three social workers who have devoted their lives to working for social and economic equality........

.... all got the cops called on us twice for partying too loudly with vacationing in Cape Cod. I know I for one pissed in the yard rather than go all the way back upstairs to the bathroom. If you think you have enough information to call any of us "punks" or "scum" then you are just plain fucking stupid.

I don't list all that stuff about my friends and I because I think we're so fucking great. I list it because YOU act like anyone who has a loud party and gets drunk is some kind of "punk" and "scum." That's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.

"One of the young men in question plead guilty and was on probation for assaulting a stranger in DC, making homophobic remarks in the process, along with 2 of his friends."

Wait along with 2 of his friends...that were accused of the rape? No? Ok so at this party there were some people there who had expressed prejudice in the past? GASP - shocking.

"The young woman is always called a stripper, never a student, which she also was, and never a mother, which she also was."

She has both regularly been identified as a student as well as a mother multiple news stories since the story broke.

"But don't pretend it's either right, or even justified."

Don't pretend WHAT is right? The issue is these people were accused of a crime they DIDNT COMMIT. I frankly, DO NOT GIVE A FUCK what you think the rest of their life is like. Basically, you come off sounding like your searching for some consolation prize because you were sooooooo convinced these guys were guilty before they even got a trial. It's like your five years old saying, "Oh yeah? Yeah? Well-- well they're still big fat poopy heads!" You sound like someone who basically is just pissed, bitter and jealous of any "rich person." All "rich" people are evil and bad, right? All poor people are saints and perfect, right?

What a bunch of crap.

Kids aren't be perfect. I certainly didn't assault anyone, but I sure was hell wasn't open and accepting of homosexuality when I was in college. I had to shed more of my religious past for that. So taking such a stupid ass dismissive attitude when you no absolutely NOTHING about it is just fucking asinine.

[mondo joe]

269. Who the fucks cares about being "model citizen"?

Is it Father Knows Best time again?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

96. people are usually described in the capacity they served,

They call her a stripper, because she was hired to undress.

A newspaper once described me as a "bankruptcy trustee" guess what I do?

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

141. Ignored

reason: you sound as if you think they should still be facing some nebulous punishment, and as though you think being falsely accused of rape isn't so bad if you get a good job later anyway.

Bye.

[silverojo]

99. "They asked for it"

Being at a wild party where there are hired strippers shows you these kids weren't exactly model citizens. If they'd been dating girls and going to decent places like ordinary people do, they wouldn't have been falsely charged with anything, because they wouldn't have been around the accuser.

Will people PLEASE quit acting as if these partying punks are little virgins? Face the facts--if you want to stay out of trouble, you stay away from situations where there could be trouble.

Maybe this will teach these spoiled brats to study instead of party. All the Paris Hiltons of the world, male and female, need to be scared straight.

[Marrah_G]

107. "If those women would just stop wearing such revealing clothes......."

:sarcasm:

[LisaL]

116. If they are strippers, they probably wouldn't make any money.

[TankLV]

132. DING DING DING! We have a WINNER! Somebody who "gets it"...

The smell of hypocricy is simply overwhelming...

[TankLV]

127. They were not only proved INNOCENT but also EXHONERATED...

NOT simply "not guilty" - but INNOCENT - the DNA tests are to thank for that...

[mzteris]

249. They were NOT "proved innocent"

They retain the presumption of innocence as there was insufficient evidence for a trial.

The AG erroneously declared that he believed them to be innocent. He had no right to say that.

The only valid statement he made is this:

"The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur. "


That he went on to state his personal belief has absolutely nothing to do with their "proven innocence". Didn't happen. And apparently, never will now.

[CreekDog]

253. There is no difference legally between innocent and presumed innocent

The Duke players are not in an indeterminate state of innocence/guilt because there was no trial or not guilty verdict.

The AG was absolutely right to declare the players innocence, because the legal system views them as innocent. It should be noted that they were innocent prior to that statement as well.

Stop putting these guys into an indeterminate state of guilt v. innocence --you have a faulty understanding of how our legal system is required to treat people with respect to their innocence.

You are putting a cloud over them that makes it appear that they might be guilty, legally, or that they are less than fully innocent of the charges.

The absence of a guilty verdict works hand in hand with the presumption of innocence. Because of this, their legal status is no different than yours or mine, despite the hearsay you engage in suggesting that we should focus on "evidence" which we don't know about that might prove them guilty.

Hogwash. You don't sound like a good liberal to me.

[mzteris]

258. no gdmit

The ONLY statement the AG should have made is the one I've posted. He had absolutely no right - nor basis - to declare that there were definitively innocent.

period.


edit to add - they were NOT PROVED INNOCENT. What part of "proved" do you not get?

[CreekDog]

260. Nobody is "proven innocent"

But what is the quote where the AG said that?

The quote you included had the AG saying "he believed them to be innocent"

That's a fair statement because they are innocent.

Nobody is proven innocent and those who are never accused are not proven innocent. Both of the above are simply...innocent.

Agree?

[mzteris]

262. I was repying to a post that said

they were "proven innocent and exonerated"

edit to add link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2884753&mesg_id=2885572

[CreekDog]

264. Okay, I see that post and obviously disagree with "proven innocent"

They are innocent without proof.

You probably want to slug me now and I'm not saying it simply to goad you.

It's just a really important point about their innocence that most people here get.

[mzteris]

266. the fact that we personally have

differing "opinions" - doesn't overshadow the fact that I think we're on the same side of wanting people to be factually correct.

[CreekDog]

268. I think our stated differences are becoming negligible

Amazing.

[mzteris]

272. you think any one here

will finally understand what polite discourse can accomplish?


Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

:rofl:

[geardaddy]

139. They were innocent until proven not guilty.

That's actually how it's supposed to work.

I agree. They should sue.

[mzteris]

197. FYI

you can't "declare someone innocent" - only a court of law can find that. There was no such trial as supposedly there was "insufficient evidence". Yes, one can say there is a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty, but that is nothing like being FOUND innocent. The AG was WAAAAAY off base saying that they were definitively "innocent"

The fact that there is such a loud hooraw push for DECLARING "innocence" raises another red flag in my book.

Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. No one but the people there actually KNOW the truth. NO one. NO ONE else does.

[marshall]

198. They were covering their own behinds

By declaring the former suspects innocent they were trying to create cover for themselves, in my opinion. Nifong did not act alone--he had a coterie of assistants who colluded in various degrees with the lies and coverup. Either they were afraid of Nifong or they felt they could ride his coat tails or maybe some of them were just stupid.

Nifong made a mistake by saying he still thinks something happened in that bathroom. When you consider that neither he nor his assistants ever even spoke to Magnum and put that with the complete lack of any evidence you have to wonder what he is basing that on.

But the rest of the officials decided to cut their losses, thus the statement. (And I have no problem with the statement, I believe it).

[CreekDog]

202. Mzteris: Courts do not "find people innocent"

They find you not guilty. When you are found not guilty, your presumed innocence stands.

The accused Duke players were presumed innocent and nothing in the legal system has changed that to date.

You make it sound as if the players had gone to court and been acquitted, they would have more claim to innocence, through a verdict, than they do now. As if they are in legal limbo because their case never went to trial. But you are completely wrong.

They were presumed innocent and nothing legally has changed that.

And by the way, what you've said would have no standing in court --the "someone knows" is hearsay.

[mzteris]

204. please excuse the wordage -

You are absolutely correct.

They were - and are - still "presumed innocent".

The AG had absolutely no legal standing to declare them INNOCENT of all charges.

[CreekDog]

209. Yes, the AG can state that they are innocent

Because they were already presumed innocent and the AG has found nothing that would change that.

Legally, there is no change in status before or after. However, a public exoneration is appropriate considering that the former DA had declared these boys to be guilty of the charges.

[mzteris]

211. This

"The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur. "

is fine.

This ". . . we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."

is not.

Well - okay - he can say he "believes" it - but not in his role as AG, imo.

[CreekDog]

215. The AG is stating fact, the boys are innocent, period

They would be no more innocent than had a court handed down a "not guilty" verdict.

This seems to bother you, but that is our legal system.

[mzteris]

218. what bothers me is that people

seem to believe that the AG "FOUND" them to be innocent after reviewing the "facts". He did not.

He found: "The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges."

That is all.

People really should comprehend the difference.

[LisaL]

238. And what do you think Cooper found when he said this:

"We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."

Get a clue.

[mzteris]

245. we believe -

he can believe what he wants - he canNOT pronounce they are "not guilty".

Yeah, the whole investigation was f'd up in one way or another - some of it suspiciously so, wouldn't you say?

I have a clue. Lots of them. Probably some you aren't even aware of.

I've said and continue to say - I don't know whether they are innocent or guilty. And neither do you nor anyone else that was not there.

I think it was possible. It may even have been probable that *something* occured and money and power - as usual - has swept it under the rug.

Justice was never - and never will be - served in this case.

[LisaL]

287. O'key, since you don't ever know if you weren't there, all those

people exonerated by "innocence project" due to DNA should maybe be put back in prison to serve out the remainder of their life sentences, or be put back on their death rows. Cause you just weren't there, and how can you know if they are actually innocent? One wonders why states are paying those people money for having falsely convicted them?

[mzteris]

206. eh?

this remark of yours: "the "someone knows" is hearsay."

I had to go look. I didn't say that.

I said NO ONE KNOWS but the people who were actually there.

For people to say "I KNOW THEY're INNOCENT" is as wrong as people saying "I KNOW THEY"RE GUILTY."

No one of us knows any such thing.

[CreekDog]

212. Legally, if someone says those guys are innocent, then yes, that is true

Presumed innocent means innocent nontheless.

So, legally speaking, I KNOW the formerly charged Duke LaCrosse Players are innocent.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it (outside of course) ;)

[mzteris]

213. don't smoke

And "legally speaking" - they were never found guilty.

[CreekDog]

217. In the absence of a verdict, they are presumed innocent

No more or less innocent than had a trial taken place.

What's the problem with this?

You seem to subscribe as another poster did, that not going through a trial and being found not guilty means that they are not as innocent had they been acquitted.

Not in this country, okay?

By the way, I hope when you are up for jury duty, that you inform the judge and attorneys that you have this predisposition.

[mzteris]

219. so let me ask you something Creek

Is OJ innocent?

[CreekDog]

222. Yes, OJ is innocent under the law

OJ was acquitted of the murders.

But to respond in general to your argument, which is, "did OJ do it?". I don't know. The law says he didn't.

As for the Duke players, the difference is that nearly all the evidence about the incident seems to exonerate the players rather than cast doubt on whether they did it or not.

So, for the Duke players, the laws says that they are innocent and my take is that there is no way in hell that they "did it" either.

[mzteris]

228. all the evidence

of which you are aware.

Don't forget, though, not everything may be put out for the public purview. Even with such a widely publicized - and public - "case" such as this.

[CreekDog]

232. So, you are surmising that there must be "something" out there

Hidden from view that means the exonerated Duke players may actually be guilty?

Which means you don't know squat, which shouldn't harm their reputation at all, however, since they've been smeared, even though later exonerated, they will always be known as those guys accused of rape.

They have a big civil case to win now, but they will never be the same and you've judged them on the crime of rape without evidence.

You don't even know that what you are suspecting is out there amounts to a hill of beans.

Shameful.

[mzteris]

246. You don't know squat - either,

CDog - remember that.

You know exactly what the media and rich and powerful people WANT you to know. That, too, is something you should never ever forget.

And that, my friend, is truly shameful.

[CreekDog]

254. I don't know squat to say their guilty, so I say they're innocent

You don't know squat, but you assume what you don't know might make them guilty.

That's where you are jumping to conclusions of suspected guilt based on what you don't know.

I admit I don't know, but I am making no conclusion that changes their legal status.

That's a big difference. You are casting aspersions based on evidence you have not substantiated or even aware of --in other words a big fat nothing.

I am saying I don't know of anything that changes their innocence, therefore I will not suspect them.

[mzteris]

257. again -

no one knows anything.

My personal opinion notwithstanding -

I've never said definitively that they were guilty or innocent. (It's the same thing I say about OJ, btw.)

My problem is - and always has been - the rush to judgement based on faulty reasoning and limited information (not to mention bias.)

[CreekDog]

263. They are definitively innocent until that status is removed

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/481/739.html

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895). Our society's belief, reinforced over the centuries, that all are innocent until the state has proved them to be guilty, like the companion principle that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"

You keep saying that only a court can declare innocence, but the rights of due process means that the innocence can only be removed. A not guilty verdict doesn't declare innocence, it simply has no effect on it legally.

The accused are just as innocent as those not accused. Those accused but never tried are declared by their constitutional rights as innocent as those tried and found not guilty.

Do you agree with this or not?

[mzteris]

265. I agree -

but for the AG to say this: "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges"

bestows some sort of "proven innocence" (as evidenced by the way people have reacted to his statement.)

I'm saying that he should not - in his capacity as the AG - have stated such in an official communication.

[LisaL]

288. What do you think happens when a convicted person found guilty

by a jury is released from prison (based on DNA tests, for instance)?
Why does a state usually pays this person large amount of money?
The jury does not have a last word, or nobody could ever be exonerated and released from prison after being found guilty by a jury.

[mzteris]

289. and what you're saying is pertinent

how?

You're reaching. Though, of course, you don't think you are.

Let it go.

A. I believe the GP hasn't a friggin' clue how the judicial system really works.
B. I believe there were enough ERRORS in this imbroglio to go around.
C. I believe that NO ONE KNOWS the "TRUTH" of what really happened, except the people who were there.
D. I have a personal opinion that really doesn't have all that much bearing on my arguments.

[LisaL]

291. How is it pertinent? Simple. Prosecutor represents the state.

State has the final word on someone's innocence or guilt, since even if someone is found guilty by a jury, he/she can be exonerated. So, WTF are you to say Cooper shouldn't have declared them innocent?

[mzteris]

292. because he didn't

FIND them to be innocent.

This is what he legally found:

"The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. "

That is the legal aspect of the case. The fact that the AG said "we believe" has no LEGAL bearing whatsoever. And, IMHO, was improper for him to say in that case.

[marshall]

293. I believe there were two senses of the word innocence being used

When the AG said the boys were innocent he wasn't using the word in the legal sense, because that's not an opinion. It is a fact that in our legal system the former suspects are innocent. I think he was using the word innocent in the layperson's sense. Maybe he didn't intend to go that far and got caught up in the moment and blurted out the statement. Then again it could have been carefully planned to cover themselves. Maybe we'll all know more later when all the various books come out and the inevitable Oliver Stone movie.

[CreekDog]

233. Mzteris: There could be hidden evidence suggesting they did it

Just as much chance that there is evidence that you did something illegal.

Got any unpaid traffic tickets? Prove it.

And by the way, even if you produce evidence that you didn't do something wrong, if we play by your rules, you are still suspect because there might be some evidence that I don't "know of" showing your guilt.

Man, I thought this was the USA. You prefer Saudi Arabia? No innocent until proven guilty there.

[LisaL]

284. The law doesn't say OJ is innocent.

Going through the trial and being found not guilty legally means there was
not enough evidence to prove OJ committed the crime.
That's what verdict of "not guilty" by a jury means. Our juries don't have an "innocent" option. So, if somebody here claims that to be proven innocent someone must go through a trial-that's crock.

[CreekDog]

285. OJ's innocence is because we all are presumed innocent until proven guilty

OJ was found not guilty, so that did not change his presumption of innocence.

That's the point.

You are setting up some indeterminate state for people who aren't tried or aren't convicted, suggesting that their guilt or innocence is never decided.

But our legal system says that you are presumed innocent unless a verdict changes that.

Without that presumption of innocence, in fact, innocence under the law, we would be sunk.

[LisaL]

286. People can be tried and convicted and still be innocent.

Ever heard of an Innocence Project?
Legally not guilty means there was not enough evidence to prove guilt.
The person found not guilty can be innocent (he/she did not do it), or guilty (just not enough evidence to prove he/she did it).
Even after someone is found guilty by a jury, they can be exonerated (innocence project, DNA tests) and released.
Regarding lacrosse players, Cooper clearly stated there was no credible evidence that a crime as alleged even took place, let alone the accused did anything.
The accused also had credible evidence of their innocence, such as cell phone records, photos and videos of the party.
DNA evidence alone (DNA from unknown men found not matching the accused) could exonerate someone convicted of a crime.

[CreekDog]

294. Yes Lizzy I know that

I'm referring to the legal system's view of people.

Whether they did it or not is almost a separate matter unfortunately what with wrongful accusations, pleas and convictions.

Aside from those, adherence to the presumption of innocence simply keeps it from being worse than it is.

[brentspeak]

275. We know two things: 1) The alleged victim was lying. She wasn't raped.

2) The students who were accused of raping her -- never raped her.

Case closed. Everything else is just parsing what the meaning of 'is' is.

[mzteris]

290. You KNOW no such thing.

There was insufficient evidence to try the case.

Unless the victim SAYS she was lying - you don't KNOW if she was, or not. Regardless of anything else.

[marshall]

295. Actually, do we even know WHAT she said?

We only know what Nifong says she said, and he has been proven to be a liar.

We do know that the other dance said a rape did not occur, she has stated that in public.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. And there was that email

Has everyone forgotten the violent email invitation that was entered in evidence?

Honest to god, it's like everyone's completely forgotten about it.

Do I really have to quote its sickening contents again to remind everyone?

[jberryhill]

13. The one NOT written by any of the defendants? That email?

The one with the text lifted from a movie script? Is that the email you're talking about?

[bunkerbuster1]

14. And connected to the case, yes.

I didn't claim the defendants wrote it.

[Louie the XIV]

15. What does the email have to do with Nifong's actions?

or the guilt of the defendants? I'm having a hard time seeing its relevance in this context.

[bunkerbuster1]

16. At atmosphere of violence surrounding this party.

I can't believe I really have to spell that out.

[Louie the XIV]

18. But the email was written after the party

by somebody who we have no evidence was even at the party in angry response to what we now know were fraudulent charges.

Linking the email to the events at the party is a huge causation error on your part.

[bunkerbuster1]

19. In angry response?

This is an expected response--to threaten to skin someone alive?

[Louie the XIV]

21. It's neither an expected or what I would consider normal response

however it occured after the party and like I mentioned early has no causal link to any of the events in question or the guilt of the accused. As a side note, Duke University reinstated the writer of the email so they must not have been concerned about any of the threats in the letter being realized.

[jberryhill]

25. It was a MOVIE REFERENCE

Two sources close to the team, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that the e-mail was a reference to a movie called "American Psycho." In the movie, which the sources described as a cult favorite that had been viewed by a number of players on the team, a Wall Street banker goes crazy and kills several women, though possibly only in his dreams. After seeing the e-mail, sent on McFadyen's e-mail account, one of the team members remarked, "I'll bring the Phil Collins music," the sources said. In "American Psycho," the killer delivers a tribute to the music of pop singer Collins as he cavorts with intended victims.

I haven't seen American Psycho. Perhaps someone who has can enlighten on this topic.

[Exiled in America]

80. Its a quote from a FUCKING MOVIE.

I like Quintin Tarrantino movies and he's had a lot worse dialoge than this - which I I have regularly quoted in what are supposed to be PRIVATE contexts, and I don't feel the need to have my character questioned by anyone because I know the difference between entertainment and reality.

[AngryOldDem]

35. I thought that was sent by a kid who was pissed off over the arrests

And I thought he was kicked out of school for sending it.

[mzteris]

201. written at 1:58 am just after the party

well before any arrests or investigation.

[onenote]

159. since you claim to be so familiar with the email, perhaps you can provide a link

so we can all read it. All I've seen is bits of it, with no context. The only other thing I know is that the student who wrote it was suspended from school and then, after around 3 months, reinstated because it was determined by the school that the email was not a threat but rather was a misplaced and poor attempt at humor based on the novel American Psycho. Since all I've seen is a partial excerpt from the email -- not the full text which might provide additional context -- I am not in a position to make a judgment as to whether the school's determination regarding the email is defensible.

You, on the other hand, seem to be certain. Have you read the entire email?

[Louie the XIV]

5. Calling Nifong incompetent shows an ignorance of the facts of the case

the truth of the matter is that he intentionally withheld evidence from the defendants, intentionally smeared their names and reputation to the public, and knowingly went ahead with a meritless prosecution that he knew was based on lies.

I would hardly consider this mere incompetence.

[jobycom]

7. But that wasn't her charge, and there has been no evidence.

So it's just speculation.

I suspect that they did something bad to her to make her raise the charges in the first place. But she's the one who accused them of rape, and the evidence didn't back her.

I can understand the DA bluffing for a while to see if he could get someone to crack, maybe to a lesser charge. But at some point he has to make the right decision to back off and let the evidence speak. He didn't, and he lied to keep the case going. I can see non-selfish motives for doing so. He may have believed the players were guilty of harassment, and couldn't stand the thought of letting them get away with it. But his job is to prosecute the law, not just to punish people. He didn't have enough faith in the law, so he tried to subvert it. I do feel for the dude, but not enough that I think he shouldn't have been disbarred.

As for the players, I don't feel anything one way or the other for them. I have trouble believing there wasn't something going on, but I don't have evidence. Maybe these were the same type of pricks as the frat boys in Borat, treating these strippers with the same disdain the Borat stars exhibited, or maybe they were saintly lads who were well-mannered and nice. I don't know. So I just don't feel anything one way or the other.

[Sadie4629]

12. The dancer was (is) mentally ill

IMO, no provocation was necessary for her to make false charges. Would you say Andrea Yates' kids must have done something bad for her to drown them? Of course not! I believe Crystal Gail Mangum truly thought, because of her illness, that something had happened; but there is no evidence at all that anything did.

Anyway, even if Nifong believed that they had harassed her, that's not justification for proceding with a rape case.

[jobycom]

17. Is there evidence of that?

That would explain things, but I've seen no evidence. Having been around a lot of mental illness, she doesn't strike me that way. She strikes me more as someone who made a false charge to get revenge on someone for something they've done to her (I've been around that type of person a lot, too). But that's just speculation on my part. And whether what was done to her was bad enough to warrant criminal action, or was just boorish, or was more in her own perceptions than in reality, I have no way of knowing or speculating.

You are right that Nifong had no justification for proceeding with a rape case if he believed the victim had only been assaulted or harassed. That's why I said he got what he deserved.

[Louie the XIV]

20. She had a history of erratic behavior

including stealing a car and passing out drunk at work. I wil leave the mental health diagnosis to the professionals but I think it's safe to say the woman is very troubled.

[Sadie4629]

23. I believe it has been widely reported

that she has some serious mental health issues. I think her family may have even made those claims. And it seems to me that I read that she was on some serious anti-psychotic medications.

[jobycom]

30. I looked it up. She was bipolar, which does not fit a pattern of delusion.

In other words, it fits more that she would feel offended and make up a charge than that she would imagine something happening that didn't. Bipolar leads to mood swings and even manic behavior, but not delusion.

The students themselves admitted they told the women to use a broomstick as a dildo and to give them back their money, that both women got scared at the broomstick and locked themselves in the bathroom, that the men did get ahold of some of their money, and that the N word was used. It's hard to imagine a bunch of drunk frat boys swinging broomsticks, telling women to stuff broomsticks up their privates, calling them racial slurs, and taking their money as not seeming a bit threatening.

The students themselves admitted to obnoxious behavior.

[yardwork]

32. Some students behaved badly, but not necessarily the ones charged.

Reade Seligmann, for instance, wasn't even at the party during the time that the stripper said that the assault took place. He left early.

I'm sure it was a drunken, boorish, disgusting spectacle. Underage drinking, hiring strippers, behaving like assholes. This does not, however, mean that they deserve to have been accused of rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and assault.

[jobycom]

38. And nothing I've said suggests they did deserve the charges.

Quite the opposite. You'd have to read this whole sub thread.

BTW, Seligmann was there when the broomstick was waved, which is when the women were frightened into the bathroom. He left while they were in the bathroom.

[silverojo]

110. I'm bipolar, and you're absolutely correct

Only in very extreme (as in medical emergency!) manic phases do you experience any hallucinations or delusions. Patty Duke comes to mind--she went for decades without being diagnosed or treated. But if somebody is being treated for bipolar disorder, manic phases never get that far along, for a person to have any sort of delusions.

As jobycom mentioned, mood swings are the primary symptom of bipolar disorder.

But it seems to me that, if these punks admitted to doing this sort of thing to the women that night...this woman had a lot of reason to want revenge. I think other charges should have been brought against these guys, just not rape.

However, when they're violent enough to demand that women do such things, you know it's only a matter of time before they do rape somebody, if they haven't already. Sexual violence always escalates....

[Occulus]

143. And I'm NOT ignoring you

because you were actually reasonable.

Unlike SOME people.

[silverojo]

106. Anti-psychotic meds are doled out like candy these days

My aunt was depressed b/c she was dying from heart failure, and her hospice psychiatrist was going to prescribe her Seroquel--which is a powerful atypical anti-psychotic. I nixed that idea real fast.

My mom just had some anxiety issues, and a doctor gave HER Seroquel. She stopped it after one dose because it made her a zombie.

And that's not counting how they dole these meds out to younger adults. I've been given Seroquel, Risperdal, and Zyprexa, and had to stop taking them all because they were too damned powerful.

Being on these drugs does NOT mean you're psychotic. In fact, most people on these drugs have other, lesser mental illnesses. Zyprexa is Lilly's biggest seller for that very reason.

[silverojo]

105. Mental illness doesn't make people fabricate things

Most mentally ill people suffer from mood disorders, which simply means there is a chemical imbalance in the brain that makes it hard to control your moods. Forms of mental retardation are also mental illnesses.

Those who are mentally ill enough to have hallucinations and major delusions (as you're suggesting) would definitely not be competent enough to be working--as a stripper, or otherwise.

[ncabot22]

24. And your evidence is?

I think everyone who keeps claiming "something happened" needs to start posting evidence. There is a hell of a lot of evidence that nothing happened. If you have information to prove otherwise, please post it.

[Buzz Clik]

27. Flame bait, and nothing more. You'd be better received at some fundie website than DU.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

64. Wow.

Any other allegations of assault and battery you want to throw out? Without any evidence, I might add.

[NaturalHigh]

73. "Grab assin and titty grabbing"?

Do you have the least bit of evidence to back this up? If not, that's a pretty rough accusation to make just because you don't like these guys.

[JVS]

94. Has anyone here ever been to a party where there are strippers?

Things can go on that would make grab-assing and titty-grabbing looks like walk in the freaking park. And all of it with the consent of the strippers, the customers, and that vital link in the chain of any respectable stripping enterprise: the guy who probably has a gun hidden in the strippers' bag of toys and is responsible for their well-being.

[Mike Daniels]

121. I've been to parties that made the Duke situation look like a convent

Strippers who told the bodyguard to go home and who then proceeded to have additional friends come over and entertain the guests in ways that involved more people than just the strippers being undressed

But, according to some of previous posters, even though this was all consensual and partly instigated by the stripper we're all scum.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

124. actually yes,

the women who showed up were disgusting, looked like they belonged on the "face of meth" poster and I decided to leave as did some of the Duke boys. Watching my friends oogle a pair of 90lbs drug addicts didn't seem like a worthy use of an evening when Arrested Development was on.

I grew up surrounded by rich white assholes, and while many of them were boorish pricks, I wouldn't wish false rape charges followed by prison rape on any of them.

[LisaL]

98. Well, on the photo taken at the party, they are just sitting, and

no one is grabbing at Mangum.
By the way, the DNA found on Mangum belonged to unknown men, so if anybody was grabbing her, it weren't lacrosse players.

[Occulus]

135. Bye

Intentionally obtuse. They're completely innocent of wrongdoing and were set up.

Your willingness to continue to cast doubt upon them proves their reputations are totally ruined beyond hope of repair. It also puts you on my ignore list.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Wonder what he was "feeling" when he & his drunk buddies hired strippers & hurled racial epithets?

Nifong screwed up big time, but the facts remain that:

1.) It is long known that the Duke Lacrosse team was known for thuggish behavior.
2.) They did hurl racial epithets at the dancers that they hired for their party.
3.) One of the accussed was arrested for assaulting a homosexual man in Boston earlier in the year (or the year before).

I'm glad justice was finally served, but cry me a friggin' river for Richie Rich and his Merry Band of Young Repukes.

J

[yardwork]

33. Would you feel better if those falsely accused had been poor and black?

False accusations are not ok. If it's happening to the well-connected, imagine what is happening to the poor and voiceless. Take a look around. This isn't ok.

[Mike Daniels]

34. If in number 3 you're referring to Finnerty - the incident was in DC

The "victim" wasn't one (a victim) in that according to the police report he actively participated in the melee and by his own testimony isn't gay so "gay bashing" seems a bit of a stretch.

[NoodleyAppendage]

46. Sorry. You're right it was "only" assault. Jeez.

That poor ole Finnerty. The world just seems to keep on bothering him and causing him problems. Paint him shades of Paris Hilton...

J

[bluestateguy]

36. Hiring a stripper and making racist remarks are not crimes

and therefore have no relevance to anything here. Furthermore, do we even know if the persons making racist remarks were the accused persons?

When I was in college I happen to know of a lot of boys and girls who hired strippers to come to their home to celebrate things like 21st birthdays, and other such occasions. I know of at least one time where a group of freshman girls hired a stripper to "entertain" them in their on-campus suite. This kind of stuff may have been immature, but it is not criminal, and the law is only concerned about what is criminal, not what offends people.

Nor do we know if the players are "Repukes" or not, not that that is relevant.

[NoodleyAppendage]

39. No, but the racism did appear to jive with the accuser's initial report of thuggish behavior.

Their racism at the time of the alleged crime does lend support to a motive for the reported attack.

J

[bluestateguy]

41. You're grasping at straws

The young men are innocent, and you are desperately trying to find a "consolation prize" because you were deprived of a nice story befitting the Lifetime Channel.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exiled in America]

81. DING DING DING DING we have a winner.

[ncabot22]

37. Again, post evidence

Reade Seligman wasn't there when the racial epithets were hurled. He left shortly after the strippers arrived.

Collin Finnerty was accused of gay-bashing in Washington, DC, not Boston. Even the victim says it wasn't a gay bashing as he isn't gay.

Finally, how do you know they are repukes? Just curious. Do you know them or how they vote? They could easily be democrats, too.

[NoodleyAppendage]

42. Hmmm...Lacrosse players at a private univ. costing North of 40K/yr. I guess they are hippie Dems.

Jocks at any expensive private university are more likely to be conservative. It's just a fact of life. Sorry you can't live with it.

J

[ncabot22]

47. Wow...you've never heard of scholarships

Too bad. They are these really helpful monetary gifts that help students afford college.

[Marrah_G]

118. Lacrosse is the best monetary athletic scholarship available to male students

[brentspeak]

60. Uh, yeah

Have you considered quitting while you're still far behind?

[NeedleCast]

70. I make a fairly substantial

salary.

I am not a Republican. Sorry you can't live with that.

[LisaL]

113. I am not sure what you are going at, but is there any law

that it's o'key to charge republicans with crimes they didn't commit?

[Marrah_G]

115. Oh really?

I know lots of very liberal people from some very expensive colleges, including an athlete here and there. My guys son is a college Lacrosse player. He loves sports, he works his ass off (literally), he is very good at lacrosse and football and it opened a door for him to have a chance to become a phys ed teacher someday, a chance that grades alone would not have allowed him. A liberal, dem kid raised in a Wiccan home. You would see him as a spoiled, white male who deserves anything bad that might befall him.

Check your own biases at the door please. White, athletic and in a good college in no way means they are automatically spoiled rich kids who never earned anything.

And one other thing....

People with higher education levels tend to be liberals and democrats. You are judging these families by your own racist, classist views.

[onenote]

160. those rich Kennedy kids -- what a bunch of repukes

:sarcasm:

[mbperrin]

43. Go to this link:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/25/wall_street_k_street_take_aim_at_a_poor_black_woman.php

"Among the other Duke University players, one parent's name jumps right off the page.

Bruce E. Thompson Jr., father of Bret Thompson, has been a major figure in the Republican Party for years.

Here is his biography as shown on the website of The Policy Council, a lobbying group:

Bruce E. Thompson, Jr., is a First Vice President of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Senior Director of Government Relations.

In this capacity, he is responsible for representing Merrill Lynch in all Legislative and Executive Branch matters of interest to Merrill Lynch and the financial services industry. He is also responsible for policy analysis and development, and for keeping Merrill Lynch and its clients apprised of government policy developments.

Prior to coming to Merrill Lynch in February 1986, Mr. Thompson served as the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Legislative Affairs. As the Treasury Department's chief representative to Congress on all legislative initiatives, his areas of responsibility included tax policy, domestic finance, and international affairs. Upon leaving the Treasury Department, he was awarded the Alexander Hamilton Award, the department's highest honor, by Treasury Secretary James A. Baker, III.

Prior to his May 1984 Senate confirmation to the Legislative Affairs position, Mr. Thompson served as the Assistant Secretary for Business and Consumer Affairs, to which he was named in June 1983. In that role, he was the Department's principal liaison with all business, financial and consumer groups. For the preceding 16 months, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, where he was responsible for all tax legislation.

Before joining Treasury, Mr. Thompson had been legislative assistant to Senator William V. Roth, Jr. from 1974 to 1981, serving as the Senator's chief advisor on tax, budget and economic policy issues.

From 1971 to 1974, he was senior policy analyst for the Government Research Corporation, a business-government consulting firm to major corporations which also published the National Journal.

Bruce Thompson, who donated $2,000 to the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, enjoyed himself at the Republican Convention in New York:

"Wall Street stood out among this week's hosts. Of the 78 major contributors to the New York host committee, 31 are accounting firms, investment banks, mutual fund or insurance firms. Together they contributed as much as $25 million - and threw a dizzying array of soirees honoring congressional committees, chairmen and state delegations. 'For us, it's just a matter of building relationships,' said Bruce Thompson, vice president of government relations at Merrill Lynch. He is attending four parties a day." (Source: "NY Newsday, 9-4-04, cached copy) "

Lots more on the rest, too. NEWSDAY certainly qualifies as evidence, yah?

[NoodleyAppendage]

45. People find it hard to believe that a private univ. with Xtian roots might be conservative.

I'll lay odds that few (if any) of the student Lacrosse players (not on scholarship) come from liberal roots.

J

[bluestateguy]

49. What, like Harvard ?

In any case, even conservatives deserve to be treated equally before the law.

[ncabot22]

50. Brown, Yale, Harvard

Three schools with Xtian roots that are among the most liberal today. Your point?

[CreekDog]

65. Duke is considered a liberal university politically

And Duke's hometown of Durham, NC is considered a safe Democratic area.

Get a clue.

[NoodleyAppendage]

83. I LIVE IN DURHAM. I know that it is very racially divided.

Where do you live?

Get a clue.

[LisaL]

112. Who is saying it isn't?

[Zynx]

126. What does racial divisoin have to do with the political leanings of the students?

This thread is full of garbage.

[yardwork]

68. And so? This is really getting offensive, imo.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

97. I went to a private school,

and my parents started saving for if before I was born, we are all quite liberal thank you.

[ncabot22]

48. Thanks, however

That doesn't prove that the three ACCUSED were or are repukes, does it? It shows that one of the members of the Duke Lacrosse Team as a father that is a repuke...not Seligmann, Finnerty or Evans, yah?

[mbperrin]

51. Didn't go to the link to see more, didya. Didn't think so.

Folks too lazy to Google around or to even hit a link are part of the problem. See ya.

[ncabot22]

52. Well, considering the title of your link is

"Wall Street, "K" Street Take Aim at a Poor Black Woman", I take your link with a huge grain of salt. I did find it interesting that Kevin Finnerty, Collin's father, runs a hedge fund but I see no evidence that his son is a repuke--which was the question of the day, no?

You know, folks too lazy and post articles from overtly biased sources or fox (god forbid) are also part of the problem. See ya!

[Mike Daniels]

58. Yep, to this day News Hounds continues to avoid the issue that the woman

made a false claim of rape. I guess it's much easier to dodge the issue than admit they were wrong in defending this woman and blasting FOX for defending the students.

Frankly, all I see in that article is that the families of the accused did really well for themselves, are connected and made lots of money and that the parents happen to be Republicans. I would think that Reagan's son and daughter are proof enough that not all children follow their parents' political leanings.

One would also think that behavior demonstrated by certain Hollywood actors and musicians indicates that being a boorish individual/tool/jackass is a politically-neutral undertaking.

[Louie the XIV]

82. Fortunately for these kids their parents are wealthy and had the resources

to fight these false charges. Estimates I have seen have put their legal bills at close to $3 million.

Unfortunately many others are not this lucky and this is why all prosecutors that break the law need to be severely punished as a deterrent to any other potential Nifong's out there that are looking to exploit a racial or political situation for personal gain.

In the end it will be the people of North Carolina that will foot the bill for Nifong's misdeeds, and perhaps this is the way it should be considering how many of them supported this vindictive witchhunt.

[LisaL]

104. So freaking what? This guy wasn't accused of anything at all.

He is not one of the accused, he was not accused of using racial slurs, sending any e-mails, doing anything, and frankly it's not clear to me if he even was at this party at all.

[onenote]

191. wow. an article that shows that one parent of one Duke player (not accused) has repub ties

whoop-de-do.
I see your reference and raise it with the fact that Colin Finnerty's parents, one of the students actually accused, have given several thousand dollars to John Edwards presidential campaign in the past few months. Or that the very first name I checked of any of the Duke players in 2006 (Breck Archer -- not one of the accused) revealed that his mother gave $500 to John Kerry in 2004.

Grow up. Not everyone who has money is a repub.

[tammywammy]

210. So what? My parents are republican too

That doesn't make me one

[OzarkDem]

53. Agree, these guys are dangerous

expect to see them continue to have problems with the law.

[LisaL]

120. Oh please.

[TommyO]

161. What's dangerous is now that they've been proven innocent

people like you will still hold it against them. The stigma of this witch-hunt by Nifong will be with them for the rest of their lives. Your posts are proof of that.

[Occulus]

170. Yeah, these types never realize they're proving the point FOR us!

Each and every time they post that shit it only proves that there really have been reputations ruined permenantly, even among people who don't even know them at all!

I mean, geez.... can anyone at all be more dense than this? It's getting downright silly, and if it keeps up, I'll start to call it a "telling sign".

[LisaL]

189. Exactly. They got a lot of damages to collect.

[Occulus]

205. Do you think they could use this thread as evidence to support their civil claim?

After all, we're a whole big long line of people who don't know them.

At all. Period.

And to look at this thread and see the vitriol spewed at them... well, it sort of proves the civil cases against Nifong, doesn't it?

:evilgrin:

[CreekDog]

62. You are smearing using "guilt by association"

Bad behavior by members of the LaCrosse team doesn't mean that these members of the LaCrosse team were guilty of the same behavior.

It doesn't work that way, well so far it isn't supposed to.

[OzarkDem]

63. Lay down with dogs

you get fleas. Personally, I hope these guys go on to lead boring, ordinary lives and never bother anyone again.

[CreekDog]

67. Ozark, you'd moderated since yesterday

When you wanted them put behind bars by the "next woman they victimize", all but deciding that these former defendants, now exhonerated, had victimized Crystal Gail Magnum.

And you were in fine form today calling Lizzy a Republican.

If you want to convince anyone of your ideas, maybe you can get another DU'er to post them because your credibility is shot.

[OzarkDem]

79. Putting words in others mouths

is usually something conservatives do. So is obsessively keeping score. I'm surprised someone who considers themselves a liberal to be using that tired old trick.

Do I think there is a likelihood these guys will end up victimizing women in the future? Yes, I do, and you would probably find a number of experienced law enforcement officials who would agree. If they victimize women should they be held accountable and go to jail? Absolutely.

You're not winning any supporters here. These kids and many of their friends on the team are sick people who have warped views of women. That's been demonstrated numerous times in the past and its sadly not unusual among their peers.

They had their day in court, they won, we still don't like them and think that treating them as heroes or martyrs is not only inappropriate but could prevent them from learning from this experience. As much as you may like them or condone their behavior, accept that others don't.

[Marrah_G]

122. Three cheers for the alert function , eh?

This one has one a rare spot on my ignore list, a special place I save for only the truly ignorant.

[NaturalHigh]

72. Personally, I hope they're never falsely accused of rape again.

Even my many here on DU, they will always be considered rapists, or that at the very least "something happened at that party" to get them charged.

[NoodleyAppendage]

84. Give me a break. On what continent of "la la land planet" do you live?

Liberal jocks are the exception, not the rule. It has been this way for decades. You might be right that one or two of the accused could be liberals, but the odds are not in your favor.

How liberal is it to hire strippers and then hurl racial epithets when they don't perform to your satisfaction? Shows lots of respect for women, doesn't it?

J

[mzteris]

199. but in all fairness

NA,

"How liberal is it to hire strippers and then hurl racial epithets when they don't perform to your satisfaction? Shows lots of respect for women, doesn't it?"

same could be said of a bunch right here in river city, ya know?

Sad, ain't it?


ps - I lived in Durham for 10 years before I moved to Raleigh.

[Occulus]

144. Ignored

Reason: False accusations of this level are never a laughing matter AND YOU KNOW IT.

I am so sick of this shit on DU and today my ignore list has grown and grown and grown. I'm being shameless about it because all of you out there who still for some reason think these guys deserve "somethig" (and really, that's how all of you are coming across) deserve to be ignored.

Why? This is the reason people who get out of jail can't find jobs. This is the reason people accused of crimes lose their jobs. This is the reason people exonorated of crimes often can't get jobs.

I've seen it happen, to more than one person, and it's always becausd "something must have happened" even though the courts said, "why no, that didn't happen.

Shame on ALL of you. You don't want justice... you want revenge.

[superconnected]

149. Boy are you delusional

"something must have happened" even though the courts said, "why no, that didn't happen."

The court did NOT say nothing happened. The prosecutor decided not to take it to court so the court didn't get to judge the case.

The prosecutor determining the students are innocent means NOTHING. He could just as well declare they are guilty, and he would STILL have to prove it before a REAL COURT.

No innocene or guilt has been proved in ANY court here so you may want to site REAL FACTS instead of this "oh they were proved innocent in court" NONSENSE.

And yeah, I fully understand you ignoring people. I ignore incredible ignorant people myself. They include people who don't know what PROVEN IN COURT means.

[LisaL]

156. I don't think you yourself have a clue what proven in court means.

Our juries don't even have an "innocent" option. It's either guilty or not guilty. You can't go on trial and be found "innocent." It's impossible.
And prosecutor isn't supposed to take a case on trial unless he has evidence of guilt. In this case AG had evidence of innocence.
In which case he isn't supposed to take it on trial. Prosecutors aren't supposed to try innocent people.

[superconnected]

163. Well, then you understand innocence has not been proven.

[hack89]

220. Innocence is presumed ... not proven

especially in the lack of any evidence indicating guilt. The AG dropped the case because there was no indication of guilt - the legal system is not supposed to try people they know are guilty.

[Occulus]

165. Can you believe that shit?

Oh, and the whole "they were found not guilty and that's not the same thing as innocent" schtick is a major, bigtime Authoritarian talking point. They always leave out the little detail you pointed out- that juries don't have an "innocent" option.

And guess who the Authoritarians are...

(What would happen if a jury returned a verdict of "innocent", perhaps defying the judge on that one point?)

[CreekDog]

168. Lizzy, actually you are wrong when you say...

"I don't think he has a clue what proven in court means."

You know and I know that HE doesn't have a clue.

And thanks for calling him on it. Your kindness meant that you pointed it out in a nonthreatening way.

Cheers to you for your comments on this thread :)

[youngdem]

69. Nifong should face prison time equal to the maximum the boys were eligible for

If more prosecutors and cops faced real time for such conduct, we wouldn't have such conduct.

Our continued kid glove treatment of misconduct by those in positions of authority is one of the reasons it continues.

[bamacrat]

71. He shouldnt, Im glad this man is going down for this.

Prosecutorial misconduct happens all over this country everyday, its good to see when one gets caught.

[NoodleyAppendage]

85. How "liberal" or openminded is it to attend an off-campus party w/ strippers?

Everyone on this thread is jumping for joy for the accused and running to their defense when people point out the boorish behavior that got them into the predicament in the first place, so for these "defenders" I ask...

Does it show good judgment, open-mindedness, and a healthy respect for women to attend a party where you know strippers will be performing? Is it appropriate to hurl racist comments when the strippers don't "get their freak on" to your liking?

J

[CreekDog]

86. There would be no national story had the boys simply been at a party with a stripper

Nifong made it into a national story first by pursuing the indictments and then made the story bigger by pursuing it as the evidence failed to materialize and was later found out to be exculpatory.

In other words, had the 4 guys on the team not been accused of rape, this would have been a story in Durham at most and wouldn't have singled them out, but instead been about college parties and what goes on there. But that's not what happened.

These guys were accused of rape, kicked out of school, made out by the prosecutor to be guilty when the prosecutor knew based on the evidence that they were not guilty. They had to have lawyers to force the system to do the right thing, they had to put their lives on hold, they will forever be known for these false accusations and it was all so unnecessary.

And my judgement is that men or women should not hire strippers for any party. But, first, it is not illegal to do so. That is my moral take on the matter. Just because I believe that, I should not be happy that the legal system almost had them for lunch, and despite the exhoneration, the media had them for dinner beforehand.

And before we take out all our anger about hiring strippers and having drinking minors at parties, don't take it out on these few guys. Bachelor and Bachelorette parties routinely hire stippers, there are strip clubs everywhere, every campus or college community and other community has underage drinking. I think this is all wrong --but it's more wrong to scapegoat some guys over that.

That's what you and many others here are doing --you are scapegoating these LaCrosse team members at Duke because of what you see wrong about their actions. Actions that are not illegal. Scapegoating is wrong.

You hate stripping, then criticize it. You hate underrage drinking, then do something about it. You hate people using money to evade justice and poor people not being able to obtain it for lack of money --change that too. But none of those things are accomplished by lashing out at the Duke students, no not a one. You are doing your cause a disservice by distracting it from the real issues. Worse, you seem to be getting some visceral pleasure out of doing so.

Shame on you for that.

[hack89]

109. You are right

even though it was perfectly legal it is still appropriate to severely punish them for moral lapses and wrong thinking. In a Christian country like America it is perfectly appropriate for judges, DA's and juries to inject their moral judgments into legal proceedings.

[bluestateguy]

117. I happen to know a lot of people who did just that when they were in college

I knew a lot of people in college who had parties with strippers, and it's fairly common at bachelor parties. I'll tell you something else (and this will really make your head explode) some of the people I know who hired a stripper were freshman girls hiring a male stripper.

It's not illegal, which is all the law should be concerned with. If you want to make it illegal, then write your state legislator. I'm sure you'd find a lot of support from fundamentalist Christian conservatives on that.

[Marrah_G]

123. I know PLENTY of liberals who have seen strippers and probably will again

I've been to a few bachelorette parties in my younger days and had some liberal friends who worked through college as dancers.

Your consistant pushing that "if they hadn't gone to such a ~bad~ party then it never would have happened" sounds VERY much like asshats who blame women for wearing the wrong outfit in the wrong place. "if they were just more careful, or acted more like a lady, they wouldn't have been raped"

[tammywammy]

214. Does this mean I need to turn in my "liberal" card?

I've been to quite a few strip clubs with guys that I work with. I even *gasp* dated a dancer. dammit, and I've been voting dem this whole time.


But I don't use racial slurs, so maybe I'm just a "moderate" now. :shrug:

[CreekDog]

223. Tammy you could be a conservative if...

You went to the clubs and

1) didn't admit it
2) made a big, big deal lecturing other people not to go to strip clubs

[tammywammy]

225. Oh, good I get to keep my card.

:rofl:

The funny thing is, I didn't realize that strip clubs/strippers were anti-democratic as some are implying. :shrug:

[Xithras]

261. Lots of liberals go to strip clubs.

Post a couple of polls on porn and stripping, and I think you'll be shocked at how varied the opinions are on it. Even prostitution doesn't have consensus. Some liberals see it as the ultimate objectification and commodification of women. Others see it as the ultimate expression of freedom over their bodies and how they use them. To some, it's a blight on society that demeans women. To others, it's two consenting adults taking part in consensual sexual activity, and society should have no say in what we do sexually.

I respect women. I also admire the female body and like to have sex with women. I see no conflict between those two positions. And yes, I've been to a strip club.

[mondo joe]

274. How liberal is it to be the moral arbiter for others engaged in legal consensual activities?

Just wondering.

[brentspeak]

276. I don't know. Is it appropriate to hurl bogus accusations of "racist comments"

when you have absolutely no clue what it is you're talking about?

[Lasher]

87. I heard Playboy magazines were found at the residence.

Normal college boys would never have such filth in their possession. I wonder why they ever bothered to have a trial. OK so they managed to beat the system on the charges that were brought against them. I say we should imagine something else.

[DubyaSux]

90. DU never ceases to amaze me...

The amount of disappointment expressed here because the lacrosse players were vindicated astounds me.

These guys got railroaded and had good enough lawyers to prove their innocence. Then somehow, some claim they "beat" the system.

To me, this shows how well our system works and why Bush is wrong to keep detainees from legal counsel and our courts. Our system is great, works great, and should be embraced. But in reviewing many of these posts, can I assume that if a person unlawfully detained by this administration is proven innocent by our courts, that s/he beat the system or is probably guilty of something?

[JVS]

91. Fucking "they didn't do it" loophole! Makes me soooo mad!

[LisaL]

111. You.

Just imagine how Nifong feels.
:rofl:

[SayWhatYo]

281. hehehe "they didn't do it loopholes" I like that.

[Occulus]

145. I'm going through this thread and visibly ignoring everyone like that

Some long-time posters, too. For shame.

[mzteris]

200. this is hysterically funny -

do you really think anyone you'd put on ignore gives a rats patootie that you DO?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMG - too f'ing funny. Seriously. This should get it's own DUzy for supreme egocentricity! (not to mention eccentricity!) roflmaoplomp......

[CreekDog]

207. The posters who had the mangled knowledge of our legal system

Now that their arguments have been repudiated, those posters have absconded for some other thread.

They certainly are no longer here defending their unsubstantiated positions.

So I think we know the truth of their opinions.

And assuming these folks want to be heard, being ignored is sort of counter to their purpose. But I dunno, I don't ignore people. I like to know what the enemy is up to. Muahhaha.

[mzteris]

208. the enemy?

Clarify, please.

[CreekDog]

224. Clarification: enemy = a joke

But some people certainly do annoy me, and I annoy them back I am sure.

But they aren't my enemies.

[mzteris]

227. ok - I guess I was wondering

who you thought the 'enemy' were.

It's really weird to be thought "the enemy" by some because I might happen to have a differing opinion about an issue.

[CreekDog]

237. Welcome to the USA, them's the breaks

Some people think we are the enemy merely for being Democrats or liberals.

[mzteris]

247. I am a Democrat - and it seems

far more liberal than most here.

[CreekDog]

250. I think I'm more liberal

Since you don't quite go for the innocent until proven guilty thing, and I do go for that.

[mzteris]

251. Actually -

I think you completely misunderstand me.

[CreekDog]

256. Possibly I don't understand you

I have taken issue with you on 1 basic thrust of your argument, so if you are not arguing this, please clear it for the record:

You seem to be pointing out that the Duke players were not "proven innocent" as if to say, we don't know if they are innocent. Even with a not guilty verdict, we don't prove innocence per se, but we don't even have that.

Where I think you are in serious error is that you seem to be saying that we really don't know if they are innocent or guilty --they might be guilty because their might be evidence out there (that we don't know about, that the big wigs have withheld from us, etc) that proves them guilty.

This is a catch-22 you have set up that is simply not valid.

They are legally speaking, as innocent as you or me with respect to the stripper incident.

Now, you may think they did it, but that carries no weight legally. Their innocence as a legal status is not in question.

But this just seems to bug you, like they got off because of who they were, and in fact really did do it. This thinking is precisely what most posters in this thread are attacking because plain and simple it ruins lives and it shouldn't matter to us whether those lives are well to do or poor, or men or women, or what race they are of. It's simply wrong to cast aspersions on someone with respect to the serious accusation of a serious crime based on no evidence (and that includes evidence that you don't cite --hidden evidence is the sort the administration uses to hold prisoners at Guantanamo).

How has that worked out?

And this is why I think you are not quite as liberal as you claim to be because one of the hallmark's of liberalism is holding fast to the presumption of innocence to protect the little guy against the angry mob out for vengeance.

[mzteris]

259. I 've just replied

to other posts that should clear it up for you.

If not, I'm not sure how else to spell it out for you.

[superconnected]

146. I fail to see how the person was "proven innocent by our courts"

It was tossed out of court.

The prosecutor declared them innocent.
The Prosecutor before him declard them guilty.
When a prosecutor declares someone innocent or guilty they still have to PROVE it to a court. So what a prosector declares someone means, NOTHING.

One thing that DIDN'T happen was they were "proven" innocent in a court of law.

A prosecuter is NOT a judge and they were NOT declared innocent in court.

The woman may still get a lawyer and take them to court herself. And yeah, I'm hoping we've seen the last of her and she doesn't.

My point is the kids weren't PROVED innocent or guilty for that matter. No innocence or guilt has been established.

The accused did not recant, hince the accusation is still there.

[CreekDog]

148. superconnected: Innocent until proven guilty

Thus, their lack of trial means that their innocence is still presumed.

By your standard you could be guilty of many crimes simply because a jury never acquitted you.

Do you want everyone to presume that you are guilty of nun-beating and vehicular homicide of kittens with malice because someone says it but it never goes to court so no jury ever acquits you?

My goodness. Do you know how our legal system is supposed to work? Wait, scratch that last statement.

You don't know how our legal system is supposed to work.

Please be silent, then please learn and then come back and comment.

[superconnected]

164. The person used the term "proven innocent"

Did you forget to take a reading comprehension class?

[LisaL]

167. And you need some sort of law comprehension class.

[CreekDog]

175. super: yes, proven innocent is not legally correct

You are correct to point out that the former defendants were not proven innocent.

But you actually make a worse error in saying that their legal status is indeterminate until there is a judicial verdict.

Someone can be proven guilty.

In the absence of a guilty verdict, they are presumed innocent.

Now, I don't know why we have to keep explaining this to you. Clearly you don't understand it. You are even spelling prosector incorrectly. This and a bunch of posters here are demonstrating to you that your understanding of guilt and innocence in our legal system --your understanding is faulty.

Otherwise I'm presuming that your posts are not helpful in this discussion. Only for myself of course, other readers can come to their own conclusions.

[superconnected]

174. I did not say they were guilty.

I said they were not proven innocent. I was quoting your statement that they were "proven innocent".

Perhaps you should be silent and learn.

[CreekDog]

176. super: nobody is proven innocent

"Conversely, in many authoritarian regimes the prosecution case is, in practice, believed by default unless the accused can *prove he is innocent*, a practice called *presumption of guilt*."
source: Wikipedia

Super, please define for us what presumption of innocence means. Does it mean the following, just say yes or no:

"In many countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, the Principle of Presumption of Innocence is phrased such that "the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court". This abbreviated form neglects the point that a person may continue to appeal a decision, and will be presumed innocent until a final decision is made. Therefore people who have been found guilty in lower courts of law, but have pending appeals, cannot have their citizen's rights (such as to vote and to be elected) stripped nor can they be permanently removed from their offices, but merely suspended." source: Wikipedia

Now, stop being thick headed. I've been wrong before. If I was this wrong and it was pointed out to me, I would retract my statement.

[superconnected]

179. I'm not challenging presumption of innocence.

I'm challenge your statement that they have been "proven innocent".

[CreekDog]

181. I never said anybody is proven innocent

Which post are you referring to? It wasn't something I said.

[CreekDog]

180. I was criticizing the use of the term "proven innocent"

I never used it to say people are proven innocent. I was trying to get you to stop using the phrase.

Egads. Are you high?

[superconnected]

185. You changed your post and took out proven innocent.

I should have cut and pasted it.

[CreekDog]

192. No I didn't you liar

Which post do you claim that I said that the boys were "proven innocent" only to later edit my post to remove it?

How far are you willing to stretch this lie?

Besides, you never seemed to know the term "presumed innocent" until this thread after it was repeatedly pointed out to you.

[NeedleCast]

230. Innocence does not have to be proven

You ARE innocent until you are proven guilty. Watch, I'll show you.

Superconnected, I accuse you of aggrivated assault on me.

Hmmmm, doesn't matter. You're still innocent. You're innocent of my charge until a judge or jury says otherwise. The only part of your argument that is correct is that these guys were never "proven" innocent. You don't have to be proven innocent in our legal system. You just are innocent. I can sit here an accuse you of stuff all day and you'll still be innocent. No one in this country has ever been declared innocnet. If you are not guilty of something, you ARE innocent. This case did not make it to court because there was not enough evidence to even bother trying it.

The woman can get a lawyer and try a civil suit, but I doubt there's a slime bag attorney in the country that would touch this case with a 10 foot pole.

[CreekDog]

236. Amen Needle

But the obtuse can't quite figure out that our legal system is not subject to their interpretation.

[ryanmuegge]

241. No, they did get railroaded. It's just a stupid story in the face of everything else.

Police/prosecutorial corruption? Wow. What a surprise that is!

[hadrons]

95. Some of the anti-Duke students frankly sound like Bush supporters ....

'well, all the evidence points to them being innocent, but "something happened" and they "beat the system"'

My worldview says so!

I don't care if these guys wack-off to Rush Limbaugh when the strippers aren't around, wrong is wrong and what nifong did was wrong. Grow up and accept reality, those guys were railroaded and Nifong and Mangum are scumbags, end of story.

[Occulus]

184. Isn't that interesting?

That is how a lot of them sound... I wonder why that might be :freak: :think: :rofl:

[tammywammy]

216. Indeed

[superconnected]

155. I think that many people here are missing the point.

The Duke students win was getting the case tossed so it didn't get to court.

They didn't want a judge and jury to hear it.

The prosecutor taking it to court changed to a new prosecutor who did not support the womans claim and so he dropped the case.

It does not mean innocence or guilt was proved.

There has to be a court ruling for that. There has been no ruling.

Anyone who thinks there has is seriously delusional. A prosecutor declaring someone "innocent" means nothing. He has to prove it to a court and they have to decide. What he can do is drop a case and refuse to take it further. In that case, no court has ruled on innocence or guilt. You guys are acting like a court made a ruling. The duke students lawyers fought for a YEAR so a court wouldn't get a chance to hear that case.

The only ruling made here, is that the case was dropped because the prosecutor wouldn't prosecute it. The woman has not recanted so the accused are still, accused. They are just not being tried until the woman comes up with her own lawyer who she pays to take it to court(which I hope she doesn't).

[LisaL]

158. You don't seem to have any comprehension of the laws in this

country.
Prosecutors don't take someone on trial to prove them innocent. They have to have at least probable cause to take a case on trial.
The woman can't come up with her own lawyer to take this to criminal court. It's absurd.

[superconnected]

166. No but she can still get a lawyer and try to charge them for damages.

As far as proven innocence, then you must understand by your statment, that the people here saying the duke kids were "proven innocent", are incorrect.

[LisaL]

169. And they could get a lawyer and sue her.

[superconnected]

171. Correct.

[CreekDog]

173. Ok, let's go over this because you diddly-doodly don't get it

You don't get proven innocent. You are proven guilty to remove the presumption of innocence which you carry, unblemished until you are proven guilty.

There is no need to prove innocence, you are presumed innocent.

Thus, if a prosecutor says you are innocent, well you were presumed innocent prior to that statement. The prosecutor is essentially saying you cannot be proven guilty.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

177. But these guys are saying "proven innocent"

There is a difference.

Do you understand that presumed innocent and proven innocent are two different things?

Do you understand that you said "proven innocent"?

[CreekDog]

178. Yes, 'proven innocent' is faulty because they are already assumed innocent

You're reasoning is just as bad in declaring that a trial where they would be found "not guilty" PROVES their innocence. It would do nothing of the sort.

Do you agree that in legal terms, they are already innocent as we speak?

[superconnected]

182. I will not say they are innocent because that is faulty.

I will say they are "presumed innocent".

I will say they have not been to trial yet where a jury will rule if they are guilty or not. Notice I used the word "guilty" this time so you don't have to bury the fact that a jury gets to decided whether they are really guilty or not, because of the term innocence throws you off.

[onenote]

186. more than merely "presumed" innocent

The case was reviewed by the state attorney general and here is what he had to say:
"
Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.... we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred."

Thus, while one can quibble as to whether they were "proven" innocent, whatever you may think that means, it is clear that the "conclusion" of the state was that no attack occurred. That is more than merely presuming that they are innocent. That is determining that the event that would be required as a prerequisite to charging them with a crime and finding them guilty of it, as a factual matter, never happened.

[CreekDog]

188. Innocence is from our legal system, not me

But it's progress with you if you will at least admit to the "presumed innocent".

When you started, you were saying they were in a legal limbo state of not being proven innocent or guilty (wrong). That's not how our system works. Innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty yet --still innocent.

This is a good thing, it is designed to protect your good name and your well-being from fraudulent accusation.

[ncabot22]

195. In order to go to trial, you need evidenciary support

that means...you must have evidence to support a claim. There was no evidence in this case: no DNA, the other stripper saw nothing, nada. No evidence. Thus, the AG of North Carolina rightfully declared the innocent.

You cannot go to trial if there is no evidence of a crime commited. Once again, as there was no evidence in this case then it didn't go to trial.

[CreekDog]

183. superconnected: you are the one who used the "proven innocent"

Nobody else in the thread has used it. You misquoted someone to say that they used it, you said that I used it (though I quoted your use of "proven innocent" to point out that it is a fallacious phrase in our legal system).

I actually did a search to see who used the term proven innocent and the first occurence was your post saying someone else said it. Yikes.

[superconnected]

187. Actually I DID quote someone saying proven innocent, they changed their post

I just found my quote of it up there. It said:

"proven innocent by our courts"

And I quoted it from someone saying the duke kids were proven inncent by our courts.

Anyway, so I think you guys finally figured out they were NOT proven innocent.

And that was my point.

[superconnected]

190. .

[CreekDog]

194. The person who used the term "proven innocence"

was poster #90, "dubyasux" and the post is still there.

Next time don't accuse me of saying something I didn't say.

[CreekDog]

193. I never said the boys were proven innocent

That's fallacious.

The term used frequently in this thread was that the boys were "exonerated".

Where you made the mistake was in arguing at first(and middle) that the boys are neither guilty nor innocent until a trial resolves what you framed as an open question regarding their guilt or innocence.

That was so wrong and that's what you were corrected on.

And I wouldn't say the boys were proven innocent because it you don't prove innocence --that's what I was trying to get you to understand.

But then you started lying about what I said and I kind of just think you're just trying to avoid correcting your obvious misstatements.

[Joanne98]

221. People go to jail for things they didn't do everyday in this country!

This must be a "jail is for the little people" thread!

[CreekDog]

226. Jail/Prison should be for the guilty only

Of course, with the unfairness of the system, there is a cloud over many guilty verdicts.

Let's not go looking for the guilty among the acquittals.

[Joanne98]

229. There is a cloud over many guilty verdicts. It's called NO MONEY!

[tammywammy]

231. No, I believe it's a

No one should be railroaded by a DA and be sent to jail for something they didn't do.

[ryanmuegge]

234. Ahh, shut up, rich white boys. Even if you were guilty, you wouldn't have done any time.

Fuck this story.

Will this ever die?

[CreekDog]

235. You edited your post and it's still that lame?

Jeez.

[ryanmuegge]

240. Sorry. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone involved in this story.

Plus, it's a stupid tabloid story that never seems to go away.

There are more serious things going on, last I checked (unless the long-term energy issue was solved while I was away at work today).

No one outside of North Carolina has any right to give a shit about this story, and still the media will focus on it endlessly.

[Psephos]

242. "No one outside of North Carolina has any right to give a shit about this story"

I hadn't realize you were in charge of assigning rights to others, and determining whether a subject is interesting to them or not.

Sounds rather authoritarian to me.

[ryanmuegge]

243. Well, I don't see why anyone would. It isn't really national news.

It's just another tabloid legal story like the latest kidnapped kid. It's trivial in the face of everything else that really affects the country. I see the "national" media's excessive coverage of this local story as part of the larger problem of diverting accountability from corrupt politicians who do nothing about serious issues.

Yeah, and I'm really endorsing authoritarianism. Sure. Give me a break.

[mondo joe]

273. Prosecutorial misconduct is, naturally, of interest.

Who the fuck made you Pope of What is Interesting?

[ryanmuegge]

279. Again, police/prosecutorial corruption. What a surprise.

And, sure, it's interesting, but it is it important on a national level? That's debatable.

Oh, that's right. The long-term energy situation has been resolved. There are no issues of greater importance than some corrupt prosecutor in North Carolina.

[mondo joe]

280. How many issues can you pay attention to in a day?

Hm?

[SayWhatYo]

282. If it was happening to you then I'd bet you'd want it covered.

Or would you be happy with a quick 30 second blurb on your local news about how you're being railroaded?

[robcon]

244. Amazing that the following quote is on DU

"No one outside of North Carolina has any right to give a shit about this story, and still the media will focus on it endlessly."

Although there was an enormous interest in the story last spring (front page of NY Times several times, front page of Time magazine, etc.), when the students and the entire lacrosse team was tried to be railroaded, somehow you think we haven't "any right" to be interested in the case now that the students, coach and team have been exonerated.

Methinks you're a hypocrite. Methinks you were interested last year, but pretend not to be "interested" now. Methinks you wish it wasn't a fascinating story of a media and University's rush to judgement last year, and a story about the dishonesty of the DA.

I FEEL I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE INTERESTED IN THIS CASE. TOUGH SHIT, PSEPHOS.

[Psephos]

252. Umm, robcon, I was quoting what ryanmuegge said. I believe exactly the opposite.

Re-read my post, and you'll find we share the same views on this matter. ;-)

[robcon]

277. my apologies. I made a misattribution.

sorry.

[marshall]

283. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton brought national attention to this story

They related it to issues that concern us all. As it turns out the DA trumped up all the evidence that was supposedly making the connectoins. But once it's in the media spotlight and the national attention it is there to stay.

[Marrah_G]

239. Never a shortage of ignorance...

[mondo joe]

270. Why shuold any wronged person have to shut up about it?

Hm?

[pitohui]

255. no reason this kid should 'feel' for nifong

dude was an evil creep who deliberately and willfully set out to put innocent young men in prison for years, destroying their lives, for no better reason than to self-promote himself

no one should feel for nifong, there needs to be a way for DAs who do this to go to jail

he schemed to destroy young lives, knowing they were innocent, for nothing! it's asking too much for the victims of his attempted crime to 'feel' for him, might as well ask someone to 'feel' for satan

the stripper at least had the excuse of being drunk and mentally ill and incapable of distinguishing confabulation from reality, this man had no excuse for faking and concealing evidence, he knew exactly what he was doing