We have a new friend named Lloyd, who had this to say regarding the Duke Lacrosse case and the editorial I posted yesterday. I had a few comments about Lloyd's take on a few things, so I figured I'd chat for a couple of minutes. I took the liberty of pasting Lloyd's post at the bottom of this email so that I could link to various parts of it, but his original comment is preserved in its entirety.
Hey, Lloyd –
Thanks for stoppin’ by. I can only assume that you’re Stuck in Maryland like the rest of us, and I’d like to extend my sincere condolences. I’d also like to encourage you to take a course on reading for context. I have a few of my own points to make, but mostly I just want to defend Ms. Ream with her own article (which, despite your lengthy post, I think is pretty damn good.)
Your first argument : The Duke players are upstanding, they didn’t falsely accuse anyone else, and they didn’t plea bargain, something that the DA did was illegal but I’m not sure what.
You’re simply not responsive to Ms. Ream’s article. She’s not interested in discussing the legal context of the case, she’s interested in the moral context. Surely we, as civilized people, can agree that “musing about bringing in more "strippers" and cutting off their skin while ejaculating” is not upstanding, moral behavior. It’s gruesome, it’s chilling, and it is a pretty damn low bar for acceptable male behavior.
Moving on. I followed the media coverage of the case pretty closely, and never heard about death threats from “radical feminists and racists blacks” or about the extremist feminist and black political groups that “heaped…unjust persecution.” Could you point me in the direction of some articles? And you’ll be relieved to know that your boy did not, in fact, lose his job on Wall Street, but instead landed a job a Morgan Stanley paying him well into the six-figure range. (This is why citing your sources are a good thing, Lloyd. The internet knows most things.) Oh, and who’s the evil tyrant divested of power? I’m just kinda curious.
Here’s the funny thing about legal precedent: cases need to go to court in order to set one. Smed and Shween might be willing to chat with you about that later, but in the mean time here’s what Wiki has to say.
Lessing is not a word. Just FYI.
I kind of love this paragraph, so we’re going to address a lot of it sentence by sentence:
I find it a little strange that you feel so strongly about stripping, but it's completely irrelevant. Ms. Ream does not take a position on stripping one way or another. She draws the line at mutilating the body of strippers while masturbating, suggesting that strippers use broomsticks as sex toys, and racial slurs. Again, seems to me to be a fair line to draw.
You seem to believe that strippers engage in immorality, and thus cannot be sexually assaulted. But strippers can be raped. Prostitutes can be raped. And strippers who have three children have remarkably little choice as to whether to go back to work the next day. Such is life.
It warms my heart that you have an emotional connection to the Duke Lacrosse team (just curious – would you let them date your sister or babysit your kids?) but even you cannot possibly know whether the men accused have stopped hiring strippers. The public statements made by the Lacrosse players were part of a highly sophisticated PR campaign. It is good PR for the boys from Duke to say that these types of allegations hurt poor and minorities and actual victims of sexual assault. It is good PR for them to, sheepishly, apologize for their behavior and say it will never happen again. It is good PR for them to, looking a little woeful, question the sanity of the accuser.
What political agenda was the accuser advancing?
Good lord, your post just keeps going. Most of it is unfounded rambling. Who says people hate the gender of the stripper? And, again, if you refer to evidence, cite evidence, otherwise I don’t know what you’re talking about. Your paragraph about the evidence in its entirety is eloquent, but thou dost protest too much: the good folks at the Charlotte DA’s office agreed with you. Due process was served. The system worked. The case did not go to trial. Charges were dropped. Those are your constitutional rights.
I think the rest of your post is answered by Ms. Ream’s discussion of two topics you overlook altogether: the imperfection of memory in the wake of traumatic events, and that: “it is underreporting, not false reporting, that poses the greatest risk to our families and our communities.”
Experiencing violence or trauma of any kind can cause dissociation and fragmentation of memory. This is particularly true in cases of rape and sexual assault, because of the intensity of the physical and emotional violations.
Does this mean that women falsely report instances of rape? No more than any other crime. About 2% of rapes are falsely reported, which is the same amount of made-up car burglaries or physical assaults. (There are men’s rights groups that say the numbers are much higher, but those numbers are based on the number of reported cases that do not go to trial, which is different than a false report.) When men are falsely accused of rape in our society (at least, the rape is decided to be false in the courtroom of public opinion), we get screaming headlines and furious editorials (like yours, Lloyd) and talk shows dedicated to the phenomenon of false rape. The reality is that 84% of rapes are never reported. 98% of sexual assault survivors will not see their attacker imprisoned.
Second to last paragraph: to what misdeeds should Ms. Ream publicly confess? That of writing an editorial? What agenda is she pushing here - that of rape survivors being able to report their rapes and be treated respectfully? And, finally, do you really believe that white male athletes attending a Top Ten University are a “group” that is “selected out unjustly for selective and unfair treatment?” Really, Lloyd?
Lloyd's comment:
Having read this article by Ms. Ream, it appears that she cares little for the truth. It also appears that she does desperately care about pursuing and agenda even when doing so will cause significant damage to others.
Ms. Ream wrote: But praising the players as "outstanding" and "upstanding" young men, as the Duke Lacrosse Booster Club did in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, is a reminder of just how low the bar has fallen when it comes to acceptable male behavior. Perhaps she doesn't think that telling the truth, even when there are serious negative consequences to yourself and your family isn't considering updstanding. That's what happend to the 3 young men from Duke that were falsely accused. They could have succumbed to the incredible and illegal pressure put on by the DA and police to falsely confess and receive a plea bargain or even better to false accuse a teammate. Instead they stuck to the truth, that nothing happened. It cost their families their life savings and millions in debt. It cost one a prestigious job on Wall street. It cost all three a year of their life wasted on defense and a transparently false allegation. They incurred death and physical threats from radical feminists and racists blacks and other extremists. They still fear some wacko either too lazy to research to find the truth or too wrapped up in their personal agendas will kill them or their families falsely believing that nothing happened. They risked spending most of the rest of their lives behind bars for by telling the truth. But by steadfastly doing so along with 44 of their former teammates, they helped topple an evil tyrant from power and set an important legal prescedent for those victimized by prosecutorial misconduct.
Furthermore, despite the unjust persecution that was heaped upon them by extremist feminist and black political groups, they refused to stoop to the same level. The conducted themselves with dignity. They expressed fears that this case would hinder those who truely had been sexually assaulted from coming forth or if they did from being treated fairly by the legal system. They expressed regret that thousands of others, mostly minorities, did not have the financial resources to adequately defend themselves from prosecutorial and police misconduct as they themselves did. One young man even announced that he wished to become a defense attorney to help protect the rights of those falsely accused.
I will agree with Ms. Ream that hiring strippers and watching women strip for money is not a moral activity. I was pleaed to have seen where the 3 young men publicly apologized for this behavior and did not repeat it. But I would have to conclude that anyone who willingly takes their clothes off for money is engaging in immoral behavior. It should be noted that while the young men have not returned to the activity of hiring strippers, that the accuser was back stripping in the club a few days after claiming that she was violantly and brutally gang raped. Furthermore, while I find the behavior of 2 consenting adults of legal age intering into a monetary transaction for one to take off their clothes for the other, I do not find it near as morally reprehensible as purposely spreading vile and malcious lies against innocent individuals to advance a political agenda. I would add, that the agenda may have great merits in many instances, only adds to instead of lessing the moral reprehensibleness of the act. I believe that Ms. Read has engaged in such an act. In the long run I believe that this behavior will be very harmful to the cause of obtaining full and fair treatment of women by the legal system. It certainly will have a much more detrimental affect than some college kids having a few strippers entertain at a private party. Both are bad, but one is a much larger and more detrimental affect.
I would add that becoming a stripper nor hiring one necessarily makes one a hater of the gender of the stripper. This is a ludicrious charge. In fact evidence showed that one of the young men went to extraordinary lengths to insure that the strippers were not abused in any manner nor vicitmized. However that didn't stop the strippers from pulling a quick scam to extract more money from the Duke boys and leave much earlier than promised. Nor did it stop one stripper from what appears to be an attempt to extort a great deal more money from false rape allegations. Unfortunately for her she chose 3 individuals from an illegal lineup that refused to be extorted.
If one takes the time to review the evidence in it's entirety, there can be no doubt that the accuser flat out lied and that absolutely no crimes were committed against her at the Duke Lacrosse party. Ther is extensive evidence from over 40 plus consitent statements from those attending the party, 3rd party witnesses other than the party goers, the other stripper, DNA, video, photograph, cell phone, credit card, medical exam, and much other forensic evidence to back this up. The only evidence against the boys is the word of a noncredible excon stripper who had a history of filing dubious charges at best. There exist no reasonable doubt to presume that the 3 accused and all attending the party are not completely innocent of any alleged crimes by the accuser.
Perhaps Ms. Ream should follow the upstanding example of the 3 Duke Lacrosse players and publicly confess her misdeeds and refuse to do them again. She could follow up by pursuing fair treatment for all by the law, including upholding due process and innocent until proven guilty. Obtaining fair treatment for women does not need to come at the expense of robbing innocent men of their constitutional rights. Nor can fair treatment truely be achieved for anyone as long as certain groups are selected out unjustly for selective and unfair treatment.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This is a motto that everyone must learn to live by. We all need to strive with all our might to achieve fairness and justice for not only women, but for all of mankind.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Responses to Lloyd
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nuraido,
I appreciate you taking time to respond to my comments regarding Ms. Ream’s article. No, I’m not stuck in Maryland, though I have visited a few times. I’d like to respond to your points to my comments.
1. You stated “something that the DA did was illegal but I’m not sure what.”
a. It appears that you don’t understand what the DA did that was illegal. Well there are three major categories of things that the DA has been alleged to have done which are illegal. The 1st category is civil charges for violations by the NC code of ethics for lawyers. A legal tribunal has ruled that NiFong was guilty of 27 of the 32 alleged violations. The 2nd category is criminal contempt for lying in court to the judge and in lying in legal documents presented to the judge and for criminally conspiring to hide exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys. A motion to was presented to the presiding judge in this case earlier this week and is waiting for a hearing for the judge to rule on it. The motion also asks for relief in having NiFong personally pay for the costs the defendants attorneys in uncovering NiFong’s fraud. The 3rd class of illegal actions are alleged criminal charges for civil rights violations, criminal conspiracy, criminal fraud, and obstruction of justice. So far state and federal authorities have been reluctant to investigate these allegations. IMO this is because of political fear of offending special interest groups. In any case, no reasonable explanation has been given for refusing to at least investigate the validity of the allegations. Since we only have one legal ruling, from the NC State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Committee, I’ll list those finding of facts as to the legal violations by NiFong (see http://www.ncbar.com/Nifong%20Findings.pdf):
i. "Did Defendant make extrajudicial statements to or in the presence of representatives of the news media, including those set forth in paragraphs 12 through 177 of the Amended Complaint?" Yes.
ii. "Did Defendant know or should Defendant reasonably have known that his extrajudicial statements set forth in paragraphs 12 through 177 of the Amended Complaint would be disseminated by means of public communication?" Yes.
iii. "Did Defendant know or should Defendant reasonably have known that his extrajudicial statements set forth in paragraphs 12 through 177 of the Amended Complaint would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter in violation of Rule 3.6(a)?" Yes.
iv. "Did Defendant's extrajudicial statements set forth in paragraphs 12 through 177 of the Amended Complaint have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused in violation of Rule 3.8(f) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
v. "Did Defendant by not providing to the Duke defendants prior to November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the potentially exculpatory DNA test results and evidence, a, fail to make timely disclosure to the Defense of all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused in violation of former Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
vi. "B"--cell phones off--"B, failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request in violation of former Rule 3.4(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
vii. "Did Defendant by not providing to the Duke defendants prior to November 16, 2006, memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI in written, recorded or any other form, a, fail to make timely disclosure to the Defense of all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused in violation of former Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
viii. "Did Defendant by not providing to the Duke defendants after November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the potentially exculpatory DNA test results in evidence, a, fail after a reasonably diligent inquiry to make timely disclosure to the Defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure or court opinions, including all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused in violation of current Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
ix. "B, failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew or reasonably should have known was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence or court opinions in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
x. "Did Defendant not providing to the Duke defendants after November 16, 2006, memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI in written, recorded or any other form, a, fail after a reasonably diligent inquiry to make timely disclosure to the Defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure or court opinions, including all evidence or information known to him that tended to negate the guilt of the accused in violation of current Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xi. "B, failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew or reasonably should have known was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence or court opinion in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xii. "Did Defendant by instructing Dr. Meehan to prepare a report containing positive matches, a, knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xiii. "Did Defendant by representing to the Court that he had provided all potentially exculpatory evidence, a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" Yes.
xiv. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xv. "Did Defendant by representing to opposing counsel that he had provided all potentially exculpatory evidence, a, make false statements of material fact to a third person in the course of representing a client in violation of Rule 4.1?" Yes.
xvi. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xvii. "Did Defendant by representing to the Court that the substance of all Dr. Meehan's oral statements to him concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI were included in DSI's report, a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" Yes.
xviii. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xix. "Did Defendant by representing to opposing counsel that the substance of all Dr. Meehan's oral statements to him concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI were included in DSI's report, a, make false statements of material fact to a third person in the course of representing a client in violation of Rule 4.1?" Yes.
xx. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xxi. "Did Defendant by representing or implying to the Court at the beginning of the December 15, 2006, hearing that he was not aware of the potentially exculpatory DNA results or alternatively was not aware of their exclusion from DSI's report, a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" Yes.
xxii. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" Yes.
xxiii. "Did Defendant by representing to the Grievance Committee of The State Bar that he did not realize that the potentially exculpatory DNA test results were not included in DSI's report when he provided it to the Duke defendants or thereafter, a, knowingly make a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a)?" Yes.
xxiv. "B, engage in conduct involving25 dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c)?" Yes.
xxv. "Did Defendant by representing to the Grievance Committee of the State Bar that his statements to the Court at the beginning of the December 15 hearing referred not to the existence of the potentially exculpatory DNA test results but to the Duke defendants' purported allegation that an intentional attempt had been made to conceal such evidence, a, knowingly make false statements of a material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a)?" Yes.
xxvi. "B, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c)?" Yes.
xxvii. "Did Defendant through one of more of the above violations engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d)?" Yes.
2. You wrote: “You’re simply not responsive to Ms. Ream’s article. She’s not interested in discussing the legal context of the case, she’s interested in the moral context. “
a. Well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether I was responsive to Ms. Ream’s article, but I feel that I did directly address the moral aspect. I would argue that it is with the legal context where we can find both the most moral and immoral behaviors in this fiasco of a legal case. I think that most people would agree that honesty, altruism, and refusing to respond in kind to attacks based on racism, classism, and sexism would be considered much admired moral virtues. This is why Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans are heroes. These young men displayed integrity that I have seldom seen matched in the public arena, and they did so under the extremely trying circumstances. They also displayed a level of forgiveness to many who have wronged them that I seriously doubt could be matched by very few men of any age, much less ones so young.
b. Here is a link to an interview with Reade Seligman shortly after the ruling by the NC State Bar DHC disbarring Nifong: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19287960/
c. Here is a video of some of Reade Seligman’s testimony in NiFong’s trial by the NC State Bar DHC: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7864618721160173654&q=reade+seligman&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
3. You wrote: “Surely we, as civilized people, can agree that “musing about bringing in more "strippers" and cutting off their skin while ejaculating” is not upstanding, moral behavior. It’s gruesome, it’s chilling, and it is a pretty damn low bar for acceptable male behavior. “
a. This argument is a red herring on several levels. First of all, this was written by one and only one member of the team, Ryan McFadyen. He was not among the players indicted. Surely you aren’t arguing that everyone on a sports team is guilty of what ever act done by a single player are you?
b. Second, the email was obtained by dubious legal means. It was a private email sent only to team members. All team members claim to not have referred the email to police. The police are presenting essentially a blue wall of silence as to where and how they obtained a copy of the email. They basically procured a search warrant for Ryan McFayden’s computer without detailing where the where and how of obtaining a copy of the email. The city of Durham has appointed a committee to investigate why this case went so very wrong. Additionally the judge’s decision to release this document in violation of Ryan McFayden’s rights to privacy is highly controversial. At the time of the release, McFayden had been eliminated as a potential suspect. The only thing that the release of the email could do is create an unjustified prejudice in the potential jury pool for those that were accused. The judge who issued the release also made several other highly controversial rulings, always in favor of the DA. Because the charges have been dropped, there will most likely be no appellate review of the judge’s decisions.
c. Thirdly, the email was a sophomoric joke. While I wouldn’t consider it to be of the highest of moral conduct, I wouldn’t consider it to be exceptionally immoral either. Poor taste and lack of maturity would better describe this behavior. Most any reasonable person would conclude that the email was a parody of the book American Psycho when viewed in it’s full context. This book was required reading in several classes at Duke, and was a frequent source of jokes among the Duke Lacrosse team. Most people, certainly most young people, who frequently use email most likely have authored several emails that if taken out of context as this one was would look very immoral. First appearances are not always correct. This was most likely a blatant attempt by NiFong to unethically and dishonestly prejudice the jury pool. It someone goes to a slasher movie and makes a joke about some lines said by the villain, it doesn’t make them a mass murder nor even especially immoral. Sophmoric behavior is not the same as immoral behavior. This isn’t a case of boys will be boys, it’s a case of 20 year olds often have very sophomoric tastes in humor.
d. Bill Anderson from Maryland of all places has an excellent and detailed article on the McFadyen email at the following link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson188.html.
Well, I will have to address the rest of your points tomorrow. I do apologize for being so lengthy, but you did ask for more detail.
Lloyd
Nuraido,
Sorry for the delay, but a family emergency has eaten up most of my free time lately. Ok, here’s part two of my comments on your response.
1. You wrote: “Moving on. I followed the media coverage of the case pretty closely, and never heard about death threats from “radical feminists and racists blacks” or about the extremist feminist and black political groups that “heaped…unjust persecution.” Could you point me in the direction of some articles?”
a. Well I’ll start out with one better than an article since as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture is of a rally of protesters outside of the house where the party was. You should notice the huge banner with the word “CASTRATE” on it. Most people would consider that a pretty darn clear threat. http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1338/castrate2pi2.jpg
b. Here are a couple of videos of the obnoxious protester’s so you can more clearly see the context of the protest.
i. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7312719565598769164&q=potbangers&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 This one also has quite a speech with threats of “community consequences” that will be far worse than the legal consequences. The legal consequences would have been up to 30 years in jail.
ii. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8938425867334609071&q=potbangers&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2.
c. Here is the testimony about threats by one of the players in court, under oath, and under threat of perjury. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S5ecokEIC8&feature=PlayList&p=239A45E4338428F9&index=2
d. Now for some articles:
i. “As for the demonstrations and threats loudly voiced by some local blacks, in the wake of the accusations against the Duke lacrosse students,” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWM3MmZiOWQxODM3NzIxNDZmN2ZiYjE4NTkxMDdhNmM=
ii. “To have people banging pots in front of your house … carrying signs that say, 'Castrate,' 'Real men tell the truth.' 'Sunday morning, time to confess' and going out there and saying all these things before any piece of evidence had been presented is just mind-boggling” http://kutv.com/national/topstories_story_105202205.html
iii. “We had so many threats that were well documented, from signs in the yard to e-mail to threats of violence” http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1491927/
iv. Here’s a paid article placed in the Duke student paper by 88 of Duke professors, most of them from the African American Studies and Women’s studies program. The article was placed before indictments and purposely rushed to press so it would print the day before DNA test results were turned. They said “We’re turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and the protestors making collect noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/99636/Listening_Statement_b.jpg
v. “Osborn recalled shouted taunts and threats he heard as the two approached the Durham County courthouse for a May 18 hearing: " 'Here comes the rapist and the rapist's attorney.' It was just so offensive." http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/story/451986-p2.html
vi. Student government leader at near by mostly black college states that he wants the Duke Lacrosse players "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page/7/
2. You wrote: “And you’ll be relieved to know that your boy did not, in fact, lose his job on Wall Street, but instead landed a job a Morgan Stanley paying him well into the six-figure range. (This is why citing your sources are a good thing, Lloyd. The internet knows most things.)” If you read more carefully what the article that you reference, you will see that it actually confirms my point. It’s true that Dave Evans is currently employed. However, Dave Evans had a job offer to start after graduation in May 2006. That job offer was rescinded. Mr. Evans didn’t receive any offers for employment until after the NC Attorney General dropped all charges against him in April 2007. Missing out on almost 11 months of employment would qualify as losing your job to most any reasonable person. That’s 11 months of earnings and experience in his chosen profession that he’ll never get back all because of abuse of power by the NC legal system.
3. You wrote “Oh, and who’s the evil tyrant divested of power? I’m just kinda curious.” That would be Mike NiFong. I’ll admit to the use of some hyperbole here. However the facts of NiFong’s egregious behavior will support that it is only some.
4. You wrote “Here’s the funny thing about legal precedent: cases need to go to court in order to set one. Smed and Shween might be willing to chat with you about that later, but in the mean time here’s what Wiki has to say.” The NC State Bar Disciplinary Committee is considered a court in the eyes of the law. Mike NiFong was tried and found guilty in that court. See my 1st posting for the verdict of that court against NiFong or go here http://www.ncbar.com/Nifong%20Findings.pdf,
5. You wrote: “Lessing is not a word. Just FYI. is not a word. Just FYI.” Sorry, I’m far from perfect at either spelling or typing. The word should have been “lessening.”
6. “I find it a little strange that you feel so strongly about stripping, but it's completely irrelevant. Ms. Ream does not take a position on stripping one way or another. She draws the line at mutilating the body of strippers while masturbating, suggesting that strippers use broomsticks as sex toys, and racial slurs. Again, seems to me to be a fair line to draw. “
a. 1st of all I’ve discussed how the email was a parody on American Psycho. There is no evidence to suggest that it wasn’t and an overwhelming amount to suggest it was.
b. Next the email was written by one and only one player. Why then does Ms. Ream use this email as a basis for disparaging the character of most of the rest of the team?
c. There is only compelling evidence to suggest that a single person, not necessarily a Lacrosse player, issued a racial comment, and then only in response to like comments from the Kim Pittman, the other stripper. There exists no credible evidence to suggest that there could have been at most 2 attendees of the party who issued racial comments.
d. Only one attendee suggested that Kim Pittman use a broom as a sex toy in her show.
e. So at most we have 3 individuals who may or may not be team members who participated in the activities you outlined. Why does Ms. Ream attempt to throw most of the 40+ team members under the proverbial bus for what at most was behavior perpetuated by less than 10% of the team and maybe by none? This is why I concluded that she was including hiring strippers in the laundry list of moral misdeeds.
7. You wrote: “You seem to believe that strippers engage in immorality, and thus cannot be sexually assaulted. But strippers can be raped. Prostitutes can be raped.”
a. For the record, I believe both hiring strippers and stripping for hire to be equally immoral. That alone wouldn’t stop me from being friends with either group. And that doesn’t mean that I believe that it’s OK to commit any sort of crime against members of either group because of those immoral activities. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
b. However, I am extra skeptical of the credibility of a stripper or a prostitute or any type of sex worker. Likewise I have the same skepticism towards the credibility of those who hire strippers or prostitutes who claim to be innocent when accused of rape.
c. But in our criminal justice system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accuser’s testimony was the only evidence against the accused that tied them to the alleged crime. There is natural skepticism towards strippers and prostitutes who claim rape. They have to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the testimony of the accused becomes relevant in a criminal trial.
d. Skepticism doesn’t mean dismissing their testimony out of hand, just means questioning if it is valid and digging deeper for other evidence to substantiate it or invalidate it.
8. You wrote: “And strippers who have three children have remarkably little choice as to whether to go back to work the next day. Such is life.”
a. I think that she had valid choices to provide for her children without going back to work as a stripper in a couple of days. She was charging several hundred dollars per hour as an escort/stripper. She had family who could have helped. She did receive funds from the police department for support. Durham has a rape crisis center and other organizations to help her.
b. It is highly suspect at best that someone who claims to have been violently ganged raped by 3 men for a half hour and then brutally beaten, kicked and stamped; would show up at a strip club to strip a couple of days later. It is even more highly suspect if she doesn’t have any sort of visible mark on her nor move as if she was in any degree of pain.
9. You wrote: “It warms my heart that you have an emotional connection to the Duke Lacrosse team (just curious – would you let them date your sister or baby-sit your kids?)” The only real emotional connection I have with the Duke Lacrosse team is that I admire the character that they displace while dealing with a great amount of adversity. I would only decide who my sister or daughter or any other female dates if she was a minor and I was her legal guardian. Whether I would let her date them or not would depend on my ward and her maturity and character. As far as the Duke Lacrosse players, I wouldn’t have any problems with them or their character above what I’d have for any college age young man dating my ward.
10. You wrote: “but even you cannot possibly know whether the men accused have stopped hiring strippers”. I’ve seen no proof that they have continued hiring strippers and they have been under a great deal of media scrutiny. Is it possible that they have hired strippers? Yeah, it’s possible, but extremely unlikely that they would have done so without a major media report. I apologize if I don’t clarify every assertion with those exact words. But please don’t hesitate to ask for clarification if there is any perceived ambiguity where I haven’t.
11. You wrote: “The public statements made by the Lacrosse players were part of a highly sophisticated PR campaign. It is good PR for the boys from Duke to say that these types of allegations hurt poor and minorities and actual victims of sexual assault. It is good PR for them to, sheepishly, apologize for their behavior and say it will never happen again. It is good PR for them to, looking a little woeful; question the sanity of the accuser.”
a. This is circular logic. If they make public apology statements it doesn’t mean they’re sorry because it’s part of a PR campaign. On the other hand if they don’t make public apology statements, then they’re not sorry at all. According to this logic there is no possibility for them to be truly sorry and repentant. You view on this appears as if it may be tainted on your world views. Only you can say for sure. But aside from the belief that this PR would help them, what discredits their words? I suppose that you would argue that Reade Seligman just happened to sign up for an African American history course, as the only white student, in January 2006, because he was planning his PR campaign for when he would be charged for an act that wouldn’t be alleged to happen for another 2 months? There are many other similar types of incidents in the lives of all 3 players. If this is just PR, where are the actions that would suggest otherwise?
b. The accuser’s problems with sanity or lack thereof started long before the Duke Lacrosse case. She has an extensive history of mental problems including being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown in the past, drug and alcohol abuse, and violet actions against police officers. The NC Attorney General labeled her unstable mentally, and used that as the main reason listed as to why he didn’t believe bringing charges against her. I’m not sure what it would have hurt the Duke boys if any to demand that she be tried. At that point charges had been dropped against them, and many are clamoring for her to be tried and if found mentally unstable to be institutionalized until she becomes completely sane and mentally competent. Personally, I would like to see this action because of the danger she poses to the community and the extensive amount of damage, millions of dollars, that she has played a major part in causing. I cannot see how any persons in their position could have been expected to be more gracious to her. But if you feel that way, please elaborate.
12. You wrote: “What political agenda was the accuser advancing?”
a. I think the agenda of the accuser was pure self interest. First most likely to keep from spending the night in the drunk tank, or Durham’s version of it, which was where she had been taken when she first made the claim that she had been raped. There certainly would have been opportunities to get money from the players via a civil suit if they were convicted either in a court of law or the court of public opinion of the alleged charges. Fortunately the conviction in the court of public opinion was overturned when the facts came out. The accuser also received assistance from the police for her and her children’s support. Jesse Jackson offered her a full scholarship even if the charges proved to be false. Last I heard, Jesse hasn’t reneged on that pledge. I’m not sure what other possible self interest motives that she might have had. I don’t know of any political ones. She may have just been plane crazy and was taken advantage of by NiFong.
b. I also think that I must not have been clear in the where I used the term “political agenda.” I think that you are referring to my use of the term in the following sentence: “Furthermore, while I find the behavior of 2 consenting adults of legal age entering into a monetary transaction for one to take off their clothes for the other, I do not find it near as morally reprehensible as purposely spreading vile and malicious lies against innocent individuals to advance a political agenda.” Here are I am referring to the political agenda that Ms. Ream appears to be set on advancing the agenda of a radical branch of feminism which among other things would rather see many innocent men to go jail than to have so many rapes go unreported.
13. You wrote: “Good lord, your post just keeps going.” I apologize, but even my original post was a highly abridged summary of the facts in the case which Ms. Ream so completely ignored. Additionally, I don’t have any great talent in communicating about a highly complex issue in very concise writing without leaving an undue amount of ambiguity.
14. You wrote: “Most of it is unfounded rambling.” I apologize if there are areas that you did not understand completely. If there are any that you have not specifically pointed out already, please let me know what they are and I will try and communicate the information in a more understandable format.
15. You wrote: “Your paragraph about the evidence in its entirety is eloquent, but thou dost protest too much: the good folks at the Charlotte DA’s office agreed with you. Due process was served. The system worked. The case did not go to trial. Charges were dropped. Those are your constitutional rights.”
a. A case against a totally innocent person not going to trial is not the same as due process being followed and constitutional rights not being violated.
b. Due process as defined in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process, is defined as “the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.” Due process in this sense was not served, as only some, but not all legal rights were observed. Some examples of violations:
i. 1st the accused rights were violated by the DA deciding to prosecute a case where he knew that he could not proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA is the 1st check and balance to insure the innocent are not falsely prosecute. This failed, because the DA chose self-interest over justice.
ii. DA attempted to deprive Lacrosse players of right to attorney.
iii. DA attempted to deprive Lacrosse players of right to remain silent.
iv. DA and police and possible Grand Jury and judges did deprive the accused of a right to a speedy trial.
v. DA did deprive accused of right to a fair trial.
vi. Right to privacy was violated.
vii. Right to exemption for unreasonable searches was violated.
viii. 1st amendment rights were violated by unconstitutional gag order.
ix. Property was unconstitutionally taken for government use.
x. Excessive bail was required.
xi. And the list goes on. Forgive me if I don’t include them all, but I’m already presenting a very long post and do have limited time to write this.
16. You wrote: “I think the rest of your post is answered by Ms. Ream’s discussion of two topics you overlook altogether: the imperfection of memory in the wake of traumatic events, and that: “it is underreporting, not false reporting, that poses the greatest risk to our families and our communities.” ”
a. Let me 1st address “imperfection of memory.” I’ll readily agree that traumatic events can have effects on memory. Rape and sexually assault would qualify as a traumatic event. What this means is that we need to question the credibility of the memory of anyone who has been in a traumatic event. This is especially true if their accounts significantly differ over time. And if the accounts differ so much to be completely outside the norms even for victims of traumatic events with memory imperfection, we can give precious little credibility to any memory related by these persons. This is the case of the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. She differed from being penetrated by penises from 20 different men to 3 to none. She differed from being orally raped and having accused ejaculate in her mouth, to not being sure if a penis was used on her at all. The times of the assault changed drastically both in duration and starting time. [b]It goes against all logic to claim imperfect memory from a traumatic event, and then pick and choose which memories from the event you accept or pass off as being imperfect memories. [/b]
b. Now on to Ms. Reams unsupportable statement of “it is underreporting, not false reporting, that poses the greatest risk to our families and our communities.”
i. First of all it doesn’t have to be a false report for an innocent man to be railroaded. There are many examples of rapes with conclusive physical evidence to show a rape did occur, but which DNA later has exonerated the individual convicted. Bottom line is that even honest eye witness testimony is inherently very unreliable.
ii. This statement flies in the face of the guiding principle for our entire criminal justice, which is that it’s better to let many guilty men go free in order to not unjustly punish an innocent man. Or put another way, innocent until proven guilty.
17. You wrote: “Experiencing violence or trauma of any kind can cause dissociation and fragmentation of memory. This is particularly true in cases of rape and sexual assault, because of the intensity of the physical and emotional violations.”
a. Let me repeat: [b]It goes against all logic to claim imperfect memory from a traumatic event, and then pick and choose which memories from the event you accept or pass off as being imperfect memories. [/b]
b. Alcohol and drug abuse also because fragmented memory. The accuser in the Duke case claims she did this. Of course her credibility is non existent, but there are numerous other eye witnesses who can confirm as well as substantial physical evidence.
c. Liars also relate stories which may appear to be very “fragmented.” When memories become fragmented quite often when evidence comes to light to dispute previous memories, it is only logical to question if there are lies. In the case of the accuser, this was a long and persisting pattern where her memory became “fragmented” to conveniently no longer be in conflict with exculpatory evidence.
18. You wrote: “Does this mean that women falsely report instances of rape? No more than any other crime. About 2% of rapes are falsely reported, which is the same amount of made-up car burglaries or physical assaults. (There are men’s rights groups that say the numbers are much higher, but those numbers are based on the number of reported cases that do not go to trial, which is different than a false report.) When men are falsely accused of rape in our society (at least, the rape is decided to be false in the courtroom of public opinion), we get screaming headlines and furious editorials (like yours, Lloyd) and talk shows dedicated to the phenomenon of false rape. The reality is that 84% of rapes are never reported. 98% of sexual assault survivors will not see their attacker imprisoned.”
a. At best this can only show the false rapes that are being caught, and maybe still not be right then. Doesn’t include the rapes that may be false and can’t be proven or especially the false rapes where an innocent is sent to jail.
b. So you measure the way that is most favorable to your world view, and others measure the way that is most favorable to their world view. Problem is this is a highly politicized topic. I doubt the 2 %, but definitely don’t accept counting every rape that is not provable to be a false claim. Problem is we can’t know about the one’s we’re not catching, and the innocents being exonerated after years in proven shows that we’ve made lots of mistakes, but can’t tell necessarily us whether mistakes were false charges or not. In reality something shouldn’t be labeled a false charge unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a false charge. I truly wouldn’t expect many false claims to be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However in the Duke case there definitely exists sufficient evidence to support a false claim. The only question is, was she mentally competent or not.
c. When men are falsely accused of rape we get stories on the front page of the NY Times with big bold headlines. When those false accused are exonerated, we get articles covering it buried in the middle of the section in the NY Times. Of course we also get articles like Ms. Ream’s which still try and assassinate the character of the innocent with false and malicious lies. At least that’s what has happened in the Duke case.
d. Also, when men are false accused of rape, no matter how compelling the evidence that they are innocent is, there are always a significant number of our society such as Ms. Ream, Mr. NiFong, and Victoria Peterson (prominent black activist in Durham) who will insist on believing that “something happened.”
e. The reality is that rapes do go unreported. What is not reality is knowing what % of rapes go unreported any closer than an educated guess at best. Even an extensive and unbiased survey by a team with no political agenda that would benefit from higher or lower %, could only guess at how many falsely claim unreported rape and how many falsely deny that they were raped and didn’t report it. It is tragic whatever the amount is. However, altering due process to make it more likely for innocents to be abused by the justice system is not the answer. And also even sending someone to jail may very well provide closure and comfort to victims of rape, the price is too high if it means altering due process to where it will be more likely that we will convict an innocent.
19. You wrote: “Second to last paragraph: to what misdeeds should Ms. Ream publicly confess? That of writing an editorial? What agenda is she pushing here - that of rape survivors being able to report their rapes and be treated respectfully? And, finally, do you really believe that white male athletes attending a Top Ten University are a “group” that is “selected out unjustly for selective and unfair treatment?” Really, Lloyd? ”
a. Ms. Ream should apologize for spreading malicious lies about the members of the Duke Lacrosse team. What she did is many times worse than what Don Imus did to the Rutgers women’s basketball team. And yet where are the same number of protests when Ms. Ream's article if published? Imus made a joke that was in extremely poor taste. Ms. Ream, meanwhile makes no pretense that this is a joke. For a group of players who have received intense and negative victimization by the press for over a year, it is totally unconscious for any journalist to repeat such lies. The truth is ready available.
b. Opinion is one thing, repeating lies is entirely another.
c. The agenda that she’s pushing is that we should punish everyone accused of rape whether innocent guilty in court if possible, other was in the press so that more women will feel safe to come forward with rape accusations.
d. What happens if you pick on pick on what in politically correct minorities? Ask Don Imus. But if you must tell a joke, make sure it’s about a rich white guy and you’ll probably be pretty safe. And if you want to get elected in the Democratic primary in Durham, you really need the black vote. A large portion of Durham voters appear to be very politically motivated to vote for someone who picks on rich white and privileged young men, or they certainly did in the spring of 2006. NiFong went from down about 17 points in the polls to winning just barely. The rise coordinated exactly with when he began his illegal public statements falsely maligning the Duke Lacrosse players. Hitler had the Jews to pick on, the Jim Crowe south had blacks, the McCarthy had the communists, and the contemporary political correct movement has rich white guys. Trouble is you never know who will be next.
Post a Comment