In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What was that about “exoneration”?

Jill

Defense lawyers for several players on Duke University’s lacrosse team said Wednesday that they expected at least one player to be indicted, perhaps as early as Monday, in the investigation of a woman’s charges that she was raped by three players at a party last month.

Based on statements made by Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, the lawyers are bracing for him to bring a case to a grand jury that meets on Monday. That move, they said, would inevitably produce an indictment of a player on sexual-assault charges, and perhaps indictments of other players on charges of aiding and abetting the assault.

An arrest warrant would be issued for any players who are indicted. After Monday, the grand jury here is not scheduled to meet again for two weeks.

“We know this case is going to a trial, a jury trial,” said Bill Thomas II, who represents one of the lacrosse team’s captains.

Not saying that these men are absolutely, unequivocally and without-a-doubt guilty. But the cries of, “See, they’ve been proven innocent!” were a little premature, no?

14 thoughts on What was that about “exoneration”?

  1. Only an idiot would say the Duke players are definitely innocent. But plenty of reasonable people have doubts about the accuser’s story. The evidence slowly rolling out all hurts the prosecution. I don’t know why you continue to conflate people like me, who think the evidence is very weak, with the few people who unreasonably think these guy’s are 100% innocent.

    As far as the defense attorney’s comments, I wouldn’t take them as a sign of weakness, but rather as an acceptance of reality. The prosecutor has boxed himself in a corner. Prosecutors don’t back down once they’ve made this big of a deal–regardless of the exculpatory evidence. Especially when that prosecutor is running for office. This prosecutor either files charges, no matter how weak his case, or he puts it off for the three weeks or so until the election and then lets it die.

  2. Josh-

    I’m not criticizing the people who have doubts about this case. I’m criticizing the ones who took the statements of the defense attorneys and ran with them, declaring the players absolutely innocent.

  3. I guess I didn’t read the article closely enough. I guess the defense lawyers are counting on the prosecutor punting the ball–letting a grand jury decide whether to charge the players. Which makes sense, considering the political situation he’s in. But my prior point still stands. The case isn’t any stronger and it sounds like the defense attorneys are confident and going to make this case one hell of a tough case to prosecute. “We know this case is going to a trial, a jury trial,” sure sounds like a dare and a threat, and the defense team is not going to pull punches. I bet the prosecutor is not enjoying the corner he boxed himself into on this one.

  4. “I’m criticizing the ones who took the statements of the defense attorneys and ran with them, declaring the players absolutely innocent.”

    They are worthy of criticism.

    How about the ones who took the statements of the accuser and ran with them, declaring the players absolutely guilty? Are they worthy of criticism too?

  5. There’s been a lot of talk about “Due Process” in this case. However, I’ve been dissappointed that many people jumped to defend the “Due Process” of the men at the party. What about the Due Process of the victim?

    People forget that the victim has a right to Due Process. She has a right as a citizen to access to the court system. She has the right to present her evidence and name her attackers in court.

    For many years African American women had to fight to get access to the court system. I am very glad that this women will be able to bring her case to court.

  6. How about the ones who took the statements of the accuser and ran with them, declaring the players absolutely guilty? Are they worthy of criticism too?

    No, of course they’re not worthy of criticism! Around here it’s all man-hating, all the time. Around here the bloggers take any bit of news they can find and force it to fit their paranoid patriarchy-blaming agendas. Around here we sit nursing our unhealthy fears of men like grandmas in a nursing home. Around here all men are suspects, guilty until proven innocent. Around here we depend on the brave sons of the Enlightenment to remind us of such basic principles as truth, fairness, and decency.

    So thank goodness you’re back to do just that! Hooray for Dr. Pepper!

    Nice cites, by the way.

  7. Well, a lot of people tend to believe the woman, because they work with rape issues. Many women are scared to come forward, because they are worried about being called a liar or slandered. We must acknowledge that many of the posters of this blog have an interest in empowering survivors. I for one have heard the stories of people who haven’t come forward, some who haven’t even told the guy’s current g/f that he is a rapist. I’m sick of the silence around rape,ok?

  8. How about the ones who took the statements of the accuser and ran with them, declaring the players absolutely guilty? Are they worthy of criticism too?

    …seriously?

    Of course they are. What have all you commenters been doing over here for the past week? We haven’t been deleting your comments, so obviously we think they’re worth something.

  9. Didja see that Bob Bennett (brother of Gamblin’ Bill) was hired by a committee of “concerned” Duke alumni and families?

    I used to see Bob in 1998, at the height of the Clinton thing, when I worked at Skadden Arps and he’d visit the New York office (and, weirdly, eat in the cafeteria). His time probably bills out at at least $600 an hour by now, so this committee is backed by some serious cash.

  11. …seriously?

    Yep.

    On a previous thread regarding this issue, my first comment stated my belief that those who assume guilt in this case based only on the accusation, are no different than those who assume the accuser is lying. It provoked many responses.

    Some people agreed that accepting the accusation as fact was a sign of an unhealthy attitude towards men. But then in the next breath they would declare the accuser a liar.

    Many people agreed that assuming the accuser was a liar was a sign of an unhealthy attitude towards women. But then in the next breath they would defend those who assume the accusation to be true.

    No one seems to want to acknowledge that both groups are doing the same thing; turning this serious issue into a football game to be won, and not a search for the truth and justice, whatever the truth turns out to be.

    Of course they are.

    If you have criticized them and I missed it, I aplogize for not reading your posts thoroughly. If you have the time to post a link, I’ll gladly read it and eat my crow accordingly.

    But if you have not criticized them even though you deem them worthy of it, well what does that mean? Both groups are worthy of criticism but you’ll only criticize one of them?

  12. No, of course they’re not worthy of criticism! Around here it’s all man-hating, all the time. Around here the bloggers take any bit of news they can find and force it to fit their paranoid patriarchy-blaming agendas. Around here we sit nursing our unhealthy fears of men like grandmas in a nursing home. Around here all men are suspects, guilty until proven innocent. Around here we depend on the brave sons of the Enlightenment to remind us of such basic principles as truth, fairness, and decency.

    This is off-topic, but seriously, bugger off. If it’s that miserable for you to read, then spare your pretty little head the stress and go somewhere else.

  14. But if you have not criticized them even though you deem them worthy of it, well what does that mean? Both groups are worthy of criticism but you’ll only criticize one of them?

    No, it means that I’m coming at this with my own views, biases and opinions. Just because I think both are worthy of criticism doesn’t mean that I don’t think one isn’t more worhty. There are millions of things that I think are worth criticizing that I don’t. I think most of the things that I write and say are worth criticizing; that’s why we allow comments. Doesn’t mean that I feel the need to be the one doing the criticizing.

    To clarify further, thinking something is “worth criticizing” doesn’t necessarily mean “thinking those criticisms are correct.”

Comments are currently closed.