Last Exit for Mike Nifong
Jeff Taylor | January 12, 2007, 8:48am
Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong is running out of time to pull the plug on the Duke lacrosse case. The latest changes in the accuser's story -- teased forth by a Nifong investigator on Dec. 21, just days after new DNA evidence rocked his case -- strongly indicate the entire March attack was a fiction.
As ever, K.C. Johnson at the Durham-in-Wonderland blog has slopped through the latest twist in this vile story, which now features a magic towel and a rapist who only watches.
The New York Times seems to be treading water on the new story, which is something of an improvement considering the paper was Nifong's biggest defender for the past nine months.
martin | January 12, 2007, 9:17am | #
Not the MSM, who failed miserably, but KC Johnson, together with others such as
Liestoppers have done most of the work to prevent yet another conviction of innocents on sex charges.One of his recent posts contains a
link explaining what did happen when no national attention was mobilised. This passage is absolutely chilling:
"What did it matter, either, that special judicial hearings about the Amiraults' prosecution had concluded that it was a travesty, that a tough panel of former prosecutors, the Governor's Board of Pardons, had virtually declared Gerald Amirault innocent and voted for commutation of his sentence--or that he was finally granted parole nearly three years ago, after nearly 18 years' imprisonment? He was almost immediately classified by Massachusetts's Sex Offenders Registry Board as a Level 3 offender. The kind, that is, deemed the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend. This bizarre classification, the board made clear, had to do with the number of counts of sex abuse charged to him--and the fact, too, that he continued to deny guilt. He now has to wear a large tracking device around his ankle, and obey a curfew confining him to the house from 11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day. He has, not surprisingly, been unable to find a job. He is sustained, as ever, by the unstinting devotion of his family, and he grieves now mainly for the loss of the chance he had dreamed of in prison--of earning a salary and finally lightening the burden his wife had carried, uncomplaining and alone, during his years in prison. (He has recently been advised of pending legislation that will require him to pay $10 a day for the global positioning tag on his leg, that tracks him.)"
This is reminiscent of Nazi justice: Convict in a kangaroo court on trumped-up charges - and then send the bill for the punishment to the family.
This in the US of A in the 21st century? Incredible? Unfortunately not.
BadMood | January 12, 2007, 10:17am | #
A few months ago, I questioned the New York Times' accuracy about another matter by stating;
“I sure as hell ain't gonna take the NYTimes' word for it.”
To which commentor “Lamar” sarcastically replied back,
“Yeah, Ima gonna get me uh knife 'n' sit onna couch an' yell up a sandstorm at thems libral newspapers on the TV set.”
Lamar, are you going to stick up for the New York Times again in this situation? If so, I’ll respond now exactly as I did then:
Lamar, it must have been my use of the word "ain't" that threw your delicate sensibilities into a tizzy. Please forgive me, for I have used a word recognized by Lamar to be unfit for online conversational purposes. You see, Lamar is probably a lawyer. He will tell you himself if you just give him time. You have to understand that Lamar is at a disadvantage. You see, online we can’t tell he is a lawyer by the car he drives, the way he parts his hair on the side, and the ever so hip pinstripe suit that is all the rage in his men’s magazines he keeps on his nightstand. Here, online, Lamar has to prove he is witty, intelligent, and “snarky,” rather than letting us all know by looking at him. Our loss, really.
As the mighty lawyer, Lamar probably regards language as civilization’s foremost safeguard. I have broken that trust with the use of that southern colloquialism, “ain’t.” It shall not be done again.
By the way Lamar, how do you feel about coming to conclusions without having most of the facts, which was, by the way, the crux of my post. You seem just intelligent enough to make me curious.
By the way, Lamar, in case you haven't noticed, I'm calling your punk ass out......again.
VM | January 12, 2007, 12:25pm | #
"I'm comparing the OJ-ish media shitshorm that this case produced with the much more modest coverage that much more important cases get."
I think this is a good point and merits thought and discussion. One aspect of the OJ case of course was that he's famous, and it was built up as the "black vs white" battle of the century, at least on CNN International.
This case has other "schadenfreude-like" elements. It is the "rich, snobby college kids" against a stripper. There's enough emotional angles here to fill up an entire 3D version of Candyland meets Chutes and Ladders!
Duke is perceived to be an elite, expensive institution. It's also perceived as being a bastion of liberal PC thought. Right there, you have a conservative emotional reaction (think: how often people rag on "academia" here in the name of conservative agendae)
Then you have the stripper element. Again, you'll get a conservative response.
Probably add the black and white.
Then you have the liberal side: the sexploitation components. The race components. All that.
Then you get the antiOJ: instead of an overzealous police force trying to go after a black suspect, we have an overzealous DA going after white suspects. All the while, both sides are screaming, "if this had happened [with suspects' and victims' races switched], this would be solved right away! THE SYSTEM IS RACIST!!!!!!!!"
Finally, college athletics. Duke. Coach K. The contrast between Coach K's media image and this. (Not to mention the privileged athletes on one side, the poor art student angle on the other).
It's a virtual smorgasbord of Schadenfreude sandwiches!
