|
Here's a psych exercise:
Imagine yourself 18 years old, first time away from home, playing on the Duke lacrosse team. A stripper/hooker, who is on probation for grand larceny and attempted murder of a police officer, creates a “fantastic lie” to avoid being arrested and violating her parole. The District DA Mike Nifong sees this as an election opportunity, so he grants over 70 interviews (more than 50 hours of airtime) where he proclaims in the national media that “These boys as hooligans”, “That he has no doubt they raped her” , “That the DNA will prove guilty from the innocent”, “the boys are stone walling”, “That the stripper/hooker had medical evidence consistent with rape,” That the a rape drug was used”, “That the stripper was clawing at fighting and was severely beaten, punched, and kicked by the three boys.”
Thus: daily protests were held against you as every racist and sexist political wishing to take advantage of the media circus descended onto Duke to attack you. Your picture, name, and home address posted on wanted posters all over their school and community. You’re reputation destroyed as the DA, political groups, and 88 professors from your own school humiliate and insist that you raped the stripper/hooker and should just admit it.
To take apart Nifongs lies:
These boys as hooligans,
These boys aren’t hooligans, the cooperated and trusted the DA to conduct a professional investigation. They didn’t have to consent to the DNA testing, but they did so because they knew that no rape took place and DNA testing would be the fastest way to prove it, but they didn’t count on unscrupulous behavior from a DA wanting to use the false accusations against them as a political springboard.
That he has no doubt they raped her,
An investigator should not assume guilt or innocence at the beginning or during an investigation. He should have waited for all the evidence, and for the investigation to be concluded. We live in a society unforgiving of sex offenders, and women who make false claims are often protected by feminist “victims advocate” groups, so before destroying a young boy’s reputation, the officials involved should make sure the claim is credible.
It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?
That the DNA will prove guilty from the innocent,
Although there is no doubt that if the DNA results came back positive, the DA would be singing a different tune praisng DNA, since the DNA came back negative, the DA immediately went to “spin” this information and tried to “muddy” its signif
Betty Friedan |
07.01.06 - 12:29 pm | #
|