His credibility is on a par with the accuser that now suddenly is uncertain as to the details of her alleged rape by Duke lacrosse players, even the most important detail -- whether or not she was raped.
DURHAM, N.C. -- The district attorney dropped rape charges Friday against the three Duke University lacrosse players after the stripper who accused them changed her story again. But the men still face kidnapping and sex charges that could bring more than 30 years in prison.
A lawyer for one of the athletes bitterly demanded that District Attorney Mike Nifong drop the remaining counts, accusing him of offering shifting theories of the crime in an attempt to win the case at any cost.
"It's now the shifting sands again, the shifting factual theory," defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said. He added: "It is the ethical duty of a district attorney not to win a case, not to prosecute all cases, but to see that justice is done."
In dropping the rape charges, Nifong filed court papers that said the accuser told an investigator Thursday that she is no longer certain whether she was penetrated vaginally with the men's penises, as she had claimed earlier. Nifong previously said he could rely on the woman's account because of a lack of DNA evidence against the players.
Lacking any "scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony" to corroborate that aspect of the case, the district attorney said in court papers, "the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense."
Nifong is a disgrace.
He dragged three men through the mud. Their pictures and their names are public.
Now he pulls a "never mind."
What a loser!
A sign on posted on Nifong's office door read, "No media, please!" But as he left his office, he said, "All the documents have been filed and they speak for themselves."
"No media."
What a joke!
Tell that to the three Duke lacrosse players that have been accused of rape.
Nifong helped to set them up for a trial by the media.
Will they be able to restore their reputations?
If there's justice, Nifong will be the one remembered as an abusive thug.
In an interview Thursday with The New York Times, published late Friday on the newspaper's Web site, Nifong said the "case will go away" if the accuser ever says one of the players she identifed did not attack her.
"I've said I'm not interested in prosecuting somebody that's innocent," Nifong told The Times. "But until she tells me that, until she tells me these are not the right guys, we're prosecuting this case."
Why did Nifong do an interview with The Times on Thursday?
Why did that interview not appear on its website until late on Friday?
This guy was laying the groundwork for damage control.
The Times, of course, obliged.
Nifong and The Times and the accuser are in the same league when it comes to credibility.
...The accuser, a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University, has said three men raped her — vaginally, anally and orally — while holding her against her will in a bathroom at a March 13 Duke lacrosse team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper.
The indicted players — Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — all say they are innocent. Their attorneys have consistently said no sex occurred at the party.
Gerry Broome/Associated Press
Are these three individuals the real victims here?
If all of this turns out to be a pack of lies, will the accuser have her name and face splashed by the media?
She should be named.
In this case, if her accusations are false, identifying her might serve as a deterrent to keep other liars from crying rape.
I don't think rape victims should be named in the press. I do think that people who falsely accuse others of crimes should be.
The men are still charged with kidnapping, for allegedly holding the woman against her will, and sexual offense. Under state law, a rape charge requires vaginal intercourse, while sexual offense covers any sexual act. In dropping the rape charges, Nifong did not specify what sex acts prosecutors now believe occurred.
No surprise there.
Why would Nifong be specific?
Who knows what the accuser will magically claim to recall or forget?
...The defense has complained that the stripper has given authorities at least a dozen different versions of her story. Among other things, she has given conflicting accounts of the number of attackers — anywhere from three to 20 — and the ways in which she was supposedly assaulted. At least one time after the party, she told police she had not been assaulted.
Last week, it was learned that DNA testing arranged by the prosecution at a private laboratory found genetic material from several men on the stripper's underwear and body, but that none of it came from the players.
"The reality is, what else could the DA do?" said Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Once the DNA evidence came out last week, I can't imagine how they could sustain a rape charge."
Just think of where this case would be if not for DNA testing.
It really is a breakthrough in seeing that justice is done.
For instance, Bill Clinton was able to keep lying until the mess on the big blue dress did him in.
Indeed, DNA is powerful stuff.
I don't understand why the accuser would lie about being raped, knowing that there would be no physical evidence to back up her charge.
Apparently, she didn't think it through.
No comments:
Post a Comment