Log in

View Full Version : Duke players cleared of all charges



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Eric Stoner
04-13-2007, 04:04 PM
I think I found it. Post # 56 from y-day ?

Well, your version doesn't fit with the reported facts as I previously pointed out. The nurse did NOT find any cuts,scrapes or abrasions only some vaginal swelling is not necessarily indicative of rape and IS consistent with having multiple partner sex in one day which Mangum admitted to PRIOR to the party. The examining DOCTOR said he found no evidence of rape.

You're at least partially correct about the fingernails but IF they were torn off in a struggle why wasn't there any DNA from anyone other than Mangum found on them ? They really don't show or prove anything. It's just as likely Mangum took them off herself.

Cooper and his staff reviewed the whole file and spent hours with Mangum. Cooper wants to run for Governor of N.C. If there were anything resembling a viable case why wouldn't he bring it ? If there were any leads pointing to other suspects, why wouldn't he pursue them ?

At some point doesn't Mangum have an obligation to tell something resembling a straight consistent story if she seriously expects to be believed ?

Eric Stoner
04-13-2007, 04:14 PM
I'm humoring you as to this identity thing. Think as you like. I don't care. I am who I am.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that polls taken during and after O.J.'s criminal trial were rigged or skewed to show that most AA's polled thought he was innocent ? Have I got it right ? So all the articles, columns, news reports and the like reporting and commenting on the marked split of opinion along racial lines on the O.J. case back in 1995 were based on rigged or skewed polls and most AA's at the time really thought he was guilty and was not being framed by the LAPD ? Or am I not reading you properly ?

DylanAngel
04-13-2007, 04:22 PM
Eric....not rigged...just not the proper cross section of people taken.

Okay, would you like a course in Marketing 101 because I'm actually proud to share my knowledge with you.

If I was going to test out a new sugar free salad dressing, I would poll diabetic vegans. Why? Because I'd get the most favorable results for my new product due to the fact that there are not many SF dressings on the market, they usually don't like the taste of full sugar products any more, and vegans eat a lot of salad.

I wouldn't poll heavy meat eaters or people who like full sugar things because a) my dressing would probably taste like shit to them and some people just don't eat a lot of salad to care, thereby possibly splitting the favorable results.

So, in this case, they might have been polling inner city people who might feel they have the odds stacked against them already, live in abject poverty and might blame the government (predominantly white) for their predicament. Not to mention that that ding a ling Furman was a white man and we know what an upstanding guy he was.

Notice I said "might".

So, if I poll those black people, I'm going to get a different set of results than if I polled the black people living in affluent suburban towns.

Can you understand it this way?

kittygirl
04-13-2007, 04:28 PM
Just a THEORY of mine,

But why would a man who has no relation to the accused spend hours and hours crafting debate about something none of us will ever know...

Dude, you obviously have some rape/not rape issues in your personal past.

Now, to argue in vain with a bunch of girls about this somehow relieves you of your own skeletons.

PS -= Ain't no prosecutor going to publicly ruin his career for no reason without millions of fucking dollars sliding in his pocket. Like criminals, if he had done anything wrong, he'd lie forever....

DylanAngel
04-13-2007, 04:43 PM
PS -= Ain't no prosecutor going to publicly ruin his career for no reason without millions of fucking dollars sliding in his pocket. Like criminals, if he had done anything wrong, he'd lie forever....

If I had the power, I would soooo close this thread on that note as it seems to put into words, what all of us gals are thinking on here. That something is amiss and we'll never know what it is.

But you can be sure someone is profiting from it.

leilanicandy
04-13-2007, 04:50 PM
Just a THEORY of mine,

But why would a man who has no relation to the accused spend hours and hours crafting debate about something none of us will ever know...

Dude, you obviously have some rape/not rape issues in your personal past.

Now, to argue in vain with a bunch of girls about this somehow relieves you of your own skeletons.

PS -= Ain't no prosecutor going to publicly ruin his career for no reason without millions of fucking dollars sliding in his pocket. Like criminals, if he had done anything wrong, he'd lie forever....


I dont think it is totally wrong he follows these cases. He is proubarly a lawyer or a college professor, maybe a teacher. I am hope maybe a future politians. He also kepts up with politic pretty well!

For what I hear the prosecutor career was going down the drain anyway because of some stuff in the past. The DA knew about the rape victim results before all of us. They are highly educated people. Yet they went foward with this case. Why? What made them stop fighting after so many months?What made them spend so much of our tax dollars on this case? with what people call really no evidence. There are so many things I bet was going on. Proubarly had nothing to do with the case. This is another reason why I thought those boys family had to pay to clear thier son names. We all know frat boys are not always that good. Yet some our good. But it is something about this case that screams. There is more to it!

as_intended
04-13-2007, 05:11 PM
She had unprotected vaginal sex with no less than 5 ( FIVE ! ) different men within a short time BEFORE the alleged attack.
She let herself be falling down drunk at the party and was stupid enough not to have any security with her.

No one is arguing that the girl made some stupid mistakes, just because she slept around a bit and probably drinks too much and didn't take intelligent precautions doesn't make her a liar it just makes her stupid. and last time i checked that wasn't against the law and that didn't mean it was ok to target her for assault. everyone is making the debate based on how she behaves. I mean what has this girl really got to gain with lying. Attention? Money? I dont know about you but a years worth of being told i'm a liar and having my name dragged in the dirt isn't worth all the money in the world and its certainly not the type of attention anyone wants.

Paintbaby
04-13-2007, 11:39 PM
Jill over at Feministe has a really awesome articulate post on this subject. Scroll down to "About that Duke Lacross thing".

http://feministe.us/blog/

Kinda cuts to the heart of the matter, without all the frothing at the mouth from some of the "gentlemen" gracing this thread. Isn't it funny how issues such as rape or violence toward women always seem to invite angry, scoffing, and contradicitory responses from certain types of men, who seem to enjoy shouting over the voices of women? I've noticed this outside of the internet as well. I can't decide if it is because certain types of men don't believe rape exists, or if they think it isn't something to get worked up about, or that the woman is always lying about it.

I'll say it again. That woman got hurt in that house. Someone in that house hurt her. Maybe not the three who had the charges dropped, but someone did. Why that is so hard for certain people to believe, I have no idea. Oh wait! Yes I do. It's because she was sexually active, but had the audacity to say try to say "no" to the men who had the "right" to fuck her. After all, you give it up to one man, you have to give it up to whoever else wants it, right? Especially if you are a stripper, and have several other partners. The nerve of her, fighting back like that, to the point of breaking her fingernails off. Who did she think she was, anyhow?

The mind boggles. This thread has made me very angry, and my "ignore" list a little bit longer.

threlayer
04-14-2007, 11:52 AM
I see NO REWARDS in prolonging pointless discussion about something that NO ONE HERE can prove one way or the other. Extended discussion about this event, in light of ones' personal feelings or anecdotal experiences you've heard about, seems just to get people riled up to no avail. Better to absorb some lessons from this and apply them to your lives than to speculate about what should happen if this or that occurred etc.....

To me the lesson here is how dirty politics/personal ambition can be and how much disregard the law can have on the TRUTH.

MeganR
04-14-2007, 05:19 PM
Radley Balko absolutely nails this one: both the political left and the political right look pretty bad here. The left for condemning the accused without any evidence of guilt, and the right for suddenly caring about due process when the accused happen to be a bunch of white rich kids while the complaining witness is a black stripper.


Duke (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027692.php#027692)
Posted by Radley Balko on April 12, 2007

I'm happy for the Duke lacrosse players. And I'm glad that the 90 percent of America that otherwise doesn't pay attention to the flaws, biases, and corruptions in the criminal justice system got to see a real, live, outrageous injustice play out on national television before their very eyes. And I'd love to think the upside to all of this would be increased scrutiny on overly zealous prosecutors and the incredible damage they can do to someone if they wield their power inappropriately (I have my doubts). I'd also like nothing more than to see Mr. Nifong stripped of his office, his ability to practice law and--if it's proven he broke the law--his freedom.

That said, this statement (http://instapundit.com/archives2/004101.php) from Glenn Reynolds doesn't quite cut it:


In the conventional imagination, it used to be -- see To Kill a Mockingbird or reports of the Scottsboro rape trial -- that it was the noble fairness-obsessed lefties who supported due process against the ignorant right-wing hicks who tried to lynch people out of a mixture of racism, political opportunism borne of racism, journalistic sensationalism, and sheer meanness. Now the hats have switched. That's worth noting.

I'm not left-wing or right-wing (though I've been accused of both).

But the reason why the narrative for most of the last century has been that of noble, left-wing ACLU and NAACP lawyers coming to the aid of black people wrongly accused by racist white people is because for most of the last century, that's the way it has actually happened. Over and over and over. And I'm not just talking about the Jim Crow era. See Tulia (http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/police/tulia/index.cfm). Or Hearne (http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/racialjustice/10868prs20021101.html). Or the dozens of people freed by the liberal lawyers at the Innocence Project.

And let's not go overboard in heaping praise on the Duke players' more conservative defenders. Reynolds is an honest-to-goodness civil libertarian. So I don't include him in this. But to hear law-and-order right-wingers like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, or the Powerline crew scream about prosecutoral excess, the rights of the accused, and political opportunism on the part of a prosecutor these past few months really strained all credulity. Yes. I'd love to think their interest in this case was motivated solely by their sense of justice. But come on. Does anyone not think the race and class of the accused, the race and class of the accuser, and the politics of feminism and anti-feminism had something to do with their sudden embrace of and familiarity with NACDL (http://nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/publicwelcome?opendocument) talking points?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these conservatives have gotten religion. Maybe in the future, O'Reilly, Hannity, & Co. will actually make a cause celebre about cases where the accused aren't rich white kids with high-paid attorneys accused of raping a poor black woman. I'm skeptical.

Yes, Nifong was rotten to the core. Yes, the liberals who convicted the lacrosse team in the press rushed to judgment, and were dead wrong. But listening to the right wing over the last several months, you'd think this kind of thing only happens to white people, and only liberal, bleeding-heart prosecutors like Nifong are capable of unjust, overtly political, race-fueled witch hunts. The unique thing about this case is that everything happened in reverse. So it tested the principles and allegiances of everybody. The real credit I think goes to the handful of liberals who stood by the lacrosse team, bucking the civil rights groups and feminist groups on the other side.

These kinds of injustices happen to all people, of course. It's just that most of them don't make the newspapers. The do also tend to happen disproportionately to black people, and to poor people who can't afford big-shot attorneys. And they happens far more frequently than most conservatives I know would ever care to acknowledge.

The right-wingers who left their law-and-order perch to hustle to these players' defense were no less politically motivated than the left-wingers who left their rights-of-the-accused perch to condemn them.

The right-wingers just happened to be right this time.
Exactly right.

MeganR
04-15-2007, 10:06 PM
John Stewart vs. Nancy Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXizCq6ODTg)

tootsie
04-15-2007, 10:32 PM
eric are you one of the duke players? you just sem to be very defensive like you are on trial.

evan_essence
04-16-2007, 02:12 AM
John Stewart vs. Nancy Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXizCq6ODTg)Yeah, speaking of prosecutorial bias, that's proof that former prosecutors don't make good journalists.

-Ev

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:13 AM
Alright. Let's assume the polls were skewed to over-canvass poor, inner-city African- Americans with negative experiences with and thus predominantly negative opinions about the police. I have to admit, I recall reading the polls but didn't do an in depth analysis of the sample. That does not account for the African Americans I spoke to at the time ( primarily women btw ) who said they thought O.J. was innocent and had been framed. The important thing to note afaic is that O.J.'s support among fellow African Americans has evaporated over the last
decade or so and the overwhelming consensus NOW is that he got away with murder.

Please let me be clear. Afaic O.J.'s acquittal was a classic case of the "chickens coming home to roost." Decades of a racist police force ( the "Hat Squad" ; Chiefs Parker; Davis and Gates; the "chokehold deaths" of the 70's and early 80's and of course the Rodney King case ) coupled with political cowardice created the conditions for what happened. Add in Marcia Clark's incompetence and O.J.'s acquittal isn't all that surprising. It wasn't too hard for the jury to buy the defense "frame-up" and subconsciously it may have been "pay-back" for the Simi
Valley acquittal of the four cops who savagely and unjustifiably (imo) beat King to a pulp.

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:19 AM
Just a THEORY of mine,

But why would a man who has no relation to the accused spend hours and hours crafting debate about something none of us will ever know...

Dude, you obviously have some rape/not rape issues in your personal past.

Now, to argue in vain with a bunch of girls about this somehow relieves you of your own skeletons.

PS -= Ain't no prosecutor going to publicly ruin his career for no reason without millions of fucking dollars sliding in his pocket. Like criminals, if he had done anything wrong, he'd lie forever....


This is not worthy of response. On second thought I will respond : I hope this whole fiasco has served to have a chilling effect on rowdy
frat behavior. I'm sure that the men of Duke ( and other schools ) will think twice before having another stupid party. When I was in college one of the frats had an annual stripper show and one year the "audience participation" went too far even though it was consensual and in fact instigated by the stripper. That was the LAST time they ever had a stripper on campus and we managed to live without it. My freshman
year one guy drank too much at the "pledge" dinner ; aspirated his own vomit; got pnuemonia and almost died. After that the frats backed off on alcoholic hazing.

If some are convinced that "something" happened to Ms.Mangum- go ahead. Think what you want and hopefully there will never come a
time in YOUR life when you'll have to fend off baseless allegations of wrongdoing ; or that it will never happen to a loved one or someone close to you. And if, God Forbid , it should happen then I hope you have a competent attorney AND a professional and unbiased prosecutor.
I hope the police look at the exculpatory evidence you present and that your community does not pre-judge your case and that you're not convicted in the media before your case ever goes to trial.

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:21 AM
eric are you one of the duke players? you just sem to be very defensive like you are on trial.

All I've tried to do is focus on the reported facts of the case and sift out the emotion and other subjective factors.

missjzone
04-16-2007, 09:22 AM
what frustrates me about the Duke case is that the mainstream media has been quite unfair with this situation. They plastered this all over the news, papers and internet when the story first broke but, now that the Duke players have been found innocent this story has hardly been receiving mass media attention. there is some hypocrisy within the media at best, at worst there's a divisive racial agenda.

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:23 AM
No one is arguing that the girl made some stupid mistakes, just because she slept around a bit and probably drinks too much and didn't take intelligent precautions doesn't make her a liar it just makes her stupid. and last time i checked that wasn't against the law and that didn't mean it was ok to target her for assault. everyone is making the debate based on how she behaves. I mean what has this girl really got to gain with lying. Attention? Money? I dont know about you but a years worth of being told i'm a liar and having my name dragged in the dirt isn't worth all the money in the world and its certainly not the type of attention anyone wants.

I think it has something to do with the fact that she is apparently mentally ill.

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:25 AM
Radley Balko absolutely nails this one: both the political left and the political right look pretty bad here. The left for condemning the accused without any evidence of guilt, and the right for suddenly caring about due process when the accused happen to be a bunch of white rich kids while the complaining witness is a black stripper.


Exactly right.

Amen. Exactly what I've been saying on this case. Thank you Megan.

Eric Stoner
04-16-2007, 09:43 AM
John Stewart vs. Nancy Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXizCq6ODTg)

Nancy probably won't be adult enough to admit she was wrong.

Hugh_Jardon
04-16-2007, 12:10 PM
Here's a link that details what really happened that night:

MeganR
04-17-2007, 12:33 PM
More from Radley Balko:


Rambling Duke Post (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027709.php)
April 16, 2007
by Radley Balko

MichaelW at a Second Hand Conjecture (http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=828) gets awfully mad at me for suggesting that there's something wrong with the comparative lack of coverage of the James Giles versus the Duke lacrosse case.

Well first, I wasn't saying that everyone who has written or commented on the Duke case is a bigot. I'm saying the sudden rush of coverage and I-do-declare outrage from law-and-order conservatives strikes me as disingenuous, given that for many, this is the first time they've ever given a damn about prosecutoral misconduct and due process. Generally, they spend their time doing their damndest to underplay the former and undermine the latter. If MichaelW doesn't fit into this category (and he doesn't), then I wasn't talking about him, and he has nothing to take offense at.

Second, I wasn't saying the cases were exactly similar. Certainly, the media attention granted the Duke players when they were first accused merited continued coverage as the case fell apart (though, ironically enough, the initial media coverage triggered the continued scrutiny and public pressure that made it impossible to continue with the case. Were it not for the media coverage and exposure, Nifong may well have gotten at least to trial, where anything can happen). But the discrepancy in coverage between the two cases is pretty hard to ignore. Especially if you read a bit more (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-exonerate9apr09,0,2045894,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) about the circumstances behind Giles' conviction:


Dallas County has had more people exonerated by DNA than all but three entire states. Texas, which leads the nation in convictions overturned by genetic testing, has had 27, Illinois, 26, and New York, 23. California has had nine exonerations.

But a whole heck of a lot more are coming:


With countless current and former Texas prisoners clamoring for testing to clear their names — more than 430 in Dallas County — law enforcement officials predict that the number of overturned convictions will grow exponentially.

Texas prosecutors have typically fought activists' attempts to revisit cases. But Dallas County Dist. Atty. Craig Watkins, the first African American elected to the office, has forged an unusual alliance with the Innocence Project, a New York-based group that uses DNA testing to challenge convictions.

Watkins has proclaimed "a new day in Dallas" and is promising to right past wrongs of his office — particularly the many disputed convictions during the reign of Henry Wade, Dallas County's top prosecutor from 1951 to 1987.

"The mentality of the office at that time was, 'I don't care if there is some doubt, let's make sure we keep up our conviction rate,' " Watkins said.

Wade's a legend in law-and-order circles. There are buildings named after him in Texas.


"Back then, if you sent someone to jail who was possibly innocent, it was a badge of honor," Watkins said.

[...]

Nearly all the Dallas DNA exonerations have involved men who were convicted of sex crimes based on dubious witness accounts. Most are African Americans — Giles will be the 10th.

Here's the kicker:


Unlike many other jurisdictions, including Houston, Dallas County preserved blood samples and other evidence collected decades ago, a stroke of luck that is allowing felons to seek a review of their convictions.

Think these types of wrongful convictions only happened in Dallas County, coincidentally the only county with blood samples on hand for testing to prove their innocence? Of course not. The only difference is that the people in other prisons across the country won't get the chance to free themselves.

In the Giles case, prosecutors also withheld evidence. There were also racial elements (Giles was "the only black man in the courtroom" at his trial).

I just find it odd that though he was exonerated the same week as the Duke players, Giles' case got .006 percent (I did the math) the coverage in the blogosphere that the Duke exonerations did. And this man lost 24 years of his life. Ten in prison, and 14 where he couldn't go ten miles from his home without first obtaining permission. He also lost a marriage, and contact with much of his family.

I'm not saying anyone who didn't write about Giles is wrong or racist or bigoted. Hell, I didn't write about it until this weekend. I brought it up to point out the contrast between the two cases, and the contrast in the coverage of them, in the hopes of nudging conservatives outraged by the Duke case to see it as more than vindicating their feelings about feminists, liberal academics, the media, and civil rights groups, and look at it for what it is: a glaring illustration of the inadequacies of the criminal justice system.

That is, get over the identity politics and cult of victimhood. Yeah, the Duke guys got screwed. But they were exonerated. There are lots more innocent people who need to be exonerated, people who have been in prison a long time, and who don't have the benefit of high-priced lawyers or media attention or the powerful pundit advocates the Duke players had.

Unfortunately, just as the left did with the Imus case, conservatives seemed to have drawn all the wrong lessons from Duke. See Jack Dunphy (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTZmN2EyYTAxY2YzMGQyMmI5ZDUxODg4OTA5ZDdhZjY), Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007316.htm), and Heather McDonald (http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html), all of whom have decided to use the Duke case to lament how the media doesn't do enough to tell us about how black people are inherently more criminal and dangerous than white people.

When people write this kind of tripe, I always wonder, so what's your point?. That is, what do they want to happen?

Should every crime story come with a disclaimer that says, "NOTE: The Daily Herald wants its readers to know that black people commit disproportionately more crimes than white people"? Should Time magazine do a cover story on "The Dangerously Criminal Black Man?" What's the point in letting everybody know what races commit the most crimes?

Are they giving us these statistics for the purposes of making public policy? What would a public policy look like that takes these statistics into consideration? Would it mean that black people should get fewer constitutional protections than white people because of their propensity to commit more crime? Would it be a justification for racial profiling--for police to randomly pull over black men in nice cars because there's a higher chance that they're dealing drugs? Does it excuse some of the horrible police attitudes toward black people? Does it excuse the use of racist informants like Tom Coleman (http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/tom_coleman/index.html) and Randy Gentry (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027052.php)?

(Side note: Racial profiling is perfectly fine when police get a report that "a black man of X height was just seen robbing a bank," then go looking for black men of X height. I'm talking about the "X percentage of drug dealers in this area are black, therefore, we should pull over black men driving nice cars in this area at random, because there's a good chance one of them is dealing drugs" kind of profiling.)

What is the point?

Conservatives are always quick to rail against group rights. But it seems to me they can sometimes get downright giddy when it comes to pointing out "group wrongs."

Now, there are also problems with the statistics themselves. The stats I've seen come out nearly flat when adjusted for class and income. The drug war also disproportionately affects blacks, both in subtle ways (the lucrative drug trade is going to be more enticing to a black kid with few prospects than it is to a white kid with lots of options) and overt ways (the crack-cocaine disparity, and the increased likelihood of black offenders getting jail time over white offenders for the same crimes--meaning nonviolent offenders get imprisoned alongsided violent ones. Guess what happens next?) And there are chicken-egg problems (for example, maybe blacks are disproportionately convicted because they're disproportionately targeted and prosecuted, a theory that's bolstered (but certainly not completely validated) by the fact that they're disproportionately represented among those exonerated by the Innocence Project).

Dunphy's article about media taboos and black crime is particularly galling. He misleadingly hooks the reader with the story about a gruesome murder of a white couple in Tennessee by a bunch of barbarians who happen to be black. It's a horrible story. But it's an anomaly. It's also completely hideous and ridiculous to try to score racial points with the tragedy. As if white people have never committed horrible crimes. Or that the fact that the men who commited this one are black reveals something deep and disturbing about black mens' souls. Dunphy's own statistics later in the article show that black-on-white crime is extremely rare, which makes his leading with the Tennessee story more than a little disingenuous.

I'm sure latent prejudice did play into the media's willingness to bite early on the Duke story. The college journalists I worked with at my college newspaper salivated over stories that made the rich, white-kid Greek system look bad (unfortunately, the Greek system gave them way too much material, and I say that as someone who was in a fraternity at the time). I've no doubt that those biases are common, and probably carry over when college journalists become professional journalists. But the idea that the Duke story is part of some larger criminal justice/media bias against rich white men is so absurd it's laughable.

Though I've gotten lots of emails of support for the issues I've covered lately, I've also received a few chastising me for becoming a "bleeding heart," or drifting to the left. Frankly, I don't care. My positions and principles haven't changed at all. I'm just spending more time on issues with which I happen to share common cause with the left. And on which I find the right's indifference particularly appalling.

In most of society (see the Imus case) I think race is blown wholly out of proportion, and that we spend way too much time fixating on it.

But the criminal justice system is different. Here, racism is more prominent, less noticeable, less catchable, and what's at stake if it isn't corrected is of much graver concern: someone's freedom, or in some cases, his life. I didn't always think this. I've generally been skeptical of claims of racial bias. But the more time I've spent the last few years looking into these cases, the more evidence I see that it's not only present in the criminal justice system, it's pervasive. Don't get me wrong. Lots of white people get caught up in the spokes, too. And I think I've advocated pretty strongly for them when those cases have caught my eye.

All of this is why I find the right's outrage over the Duke case to be so grating. And the fact that so many conservatives seem to have walked away from the case thinking the lesson is not that the criminal justice system on the whole needs more accountability, transparency, and balance, but rather that we aren't doing enough to vilify black people, and that rich white people are the real victims here, well, that's just plain stupid. And wrong. And infuriating.

blondi553
04-17-2007, 01:49 PM
i was watching cnn or msn or something the other night and they were talking about this case. what made me angry was the fact that the guy was so pissed of that a "stripper" ruined these guys lives and future lacrosse players from duke.

he was saying that in future job interviews and stuff like that, that these and futue lacrosse players would be looked down upon just because they put "duke lacrosse " or something to that effect on their resume. thats bs!!!!!

but anyways, back to my point, the guy also made the point clear that this girl was not and "exotic dancer" she was a nasty "stripper"!!! he was mad at the fact that everyone was referring to her as an "exotic dancer" and not a "stripper" as she should be called! that was just unnecessary!

i dont know where my stance is on this because she may or may not have been raped, but these guys are filty rich, am i correct? so you never know who was paid off or anything like that? im just confused on this whole situation!

Eric Stoner
04-17-2007, 02:28 PM
i was watching cnn or msn or something the other night and they were talking about this case. what made me angry was the fact that the guy was so pissed of that a "stripper" ruined these guys lives and future lacrosse players from duke.

he was saying that in future job interviews and stuff like that, that these and futue lacrosse players would be looked down upon just because they put "duke lacrosse " or something to that effect on their resume. thats bs!!!!!

but anyways, back to my point, the guy also made the point clear that this girl was not and "exotic dancer" she was a nasty "stripper"!!! he was mad at the fact that everyone was referring to her as an "exotic dancer" and not a "stripper" as she should be called! that was just unnecessary!

i dont know where my stance is on this because she may or may not have been raped, but these guys are filty rich, am i correct? so you never know who was paid off or anything like that? im just confused on this whole situation!


The Duke Lacrosse team did not exactly cover itself with glory the last year or so. This whole thing did start at a sophomoric house party.
I'm sure some employers would look twice and be suspicious of ALL recent white, athletic, male grads from Duke and doubly so of lacrosse players. I don't think it would be a point in their favor.

"Exotic dancer" and "stripper" are used interchangeably afaik. This yutz you were watching probably thinks "exotic dancer" is a cut above a "stripper." So what ? Let him focus on semantics if he wants to. It's the least of the issues involved afaic.

You're not the first poster to suggest the 3 players bought their way out of trouble. Just the latest. This is just something you suspect; right ? You can't prove a word of it ?

Who said they were "filthy" rich ? What if they were ?

Anyone who seriously thinks Mangum was really raped- start a committee. I'm serious.Call it "Justice for Gail ". Hire a lawyer and have her sue the entire Duke Lacrosse team for assault, battery and intentional infliction of serious emotional distress by outrageous conduct. No need to worry about "reasonable doubt" or anyone taking the 5th. You can add in the landlord of the house as a defendant
and maybe Duke itself. The standards for admitting evidence are lower and all you have to do is show by a preponderance of the evidence ( it was more likely than not ) that she was attacked. Videotape everyone's deposition. Put it on Court T.V. I'll even contribute. I'm serious. Get it over with once and for all.

Otherwise move on and maybe focus on some black guy doing life for raping a white woman who just might be innocent. Whose lawyer didn't give a damn and did a lousy job. Who can't afford the $50 the state wants to run the DNA tests that might show he's innocent.

JustJayda
04-17-2007, 03:48 PM
You're not the first poster to suggest the 3 players bought their way out of trouble. Just the latest. This is just something you suspect; right ? You can't prove a word of it ?

Who said they were "filthy" rich ? What if they were ?

Anyone who seriously thinks Mangum was really raped- start a committee. I'm serious.Call it "Justice for Gail ". Hire a lawyer and have her sue the entire Duke Lacrosse team for assault, battery and intentional infliction of serious emotional distress by outrageous conduct. No need to worry about "reasonable doubt" or anyone taking the 5th. You can add in the landlord of the house as a defendant
and maybe Duke itself. The standards for admitting evidence are lower and all you have to do is show by a preponderance of the evidence ( it was more likely than not ) that she was attacked. Videotape everyone's deposition. Put it on Court T.V. I'll even contribute. I'm serious. Get it over with once and for all.

Otherwise move on and maybe focus on some black guy doing life for raping a white woman who just might be innocent. Who's lawyer didn't give a damn and did a lousy job. Who can't afford the $50 the state wants to run the DNA tests that might show he's innocent.

Eric CHILLAX!!! She said was confused about her stance, and said it was a possibilty. You, imho, are at this point "drawing". Its Philly slang for, making a mountain outta a molehill, being extremely defensive etc.

Not that you can't post freely (obviously), but you seem to be taking this whole thing wayyyy to personally. Everytime someone posts something contrary to your opinion and beliefs you go ape-shit and read another page of your "Shut em' Down Soliloquy"

If you wanna get rid of $50, buy some tape for the people who's heads you're biting off.

RELAX dude! Its gonna be okayyy!

Eric Stoner
04-18-2011, 01:15 PM
Mangum was just indicted for Murder . After being repeatedly in trouble in the years since her rape allegations were proven to be phony. Wonder what her defenders are saying now ?

slowpoke
04-18-2011, 06:12 PM
Based on WHAT ? There is NO EVIDENCE ! No physical evidence. No reliable accuser. No eyewitness. NOTHING ! Worse yet, one of the accused had ATM receipts and a taxi driver who remembered him to PROVE he wasn't even there when the supposed attack went down.

Nifong should be disbarred and its too bad they're NOT going after the accuser for filing false reports. I hope these guys sue and collect BIG ! Ask Melonie how it feels to be accused of something you didn't do AND have to waste YOUR TIME and YOUR MONEY proving your innocence.

I think he has already been disbarred.