News-Record.com

" ... falsely accused but did not have the means to seek the counsel necessary."

I heard all three had put up cash for their bail, which could have meant a house as collatteral, but still ...

Well at least Nifong didn't get re-elected!

“…never did they (CBS 60 Minutes) ask why they brought the young lady to the house in the first place.”

I think they did explain that Jessie. They brought the “young lady” there to dance naked while they got drunk. You talk about the lesson learned. The lesson you refer to is that CBS should “teach our children that we cannot dress up sin.” (I’m not sure exactly why CBS should be teaching out children.) The implication is that they brought the rape allegation and miscarriage of justice on themselves (the wages of sin I guess). Hey, they were young and stupid. Most everyone, myself included, was once young and stupid. They’re not heroes, but don’t we all applaud when someone who served 20 years for rape is exonerated by DNA, no matter what kind of person he might have been before? Shouldn’t we also applaud those who are exonerated before they went to prison, no matter what kind of people they might be?

Jessie Warren-Vinson, thank you for writing an LTTE that asks some questions that I have!

As for these young men being "young and stupid," due to the lacrosse team already being under scrutiny for previous "misbehaviors," they should have been thinking a little better. I thought that was one thing that was learned in college, how to think objectively!

While these three young men will carry with them for time eternal the "ghost" of this incident; I pray that they will continue learning from it and that the end result will be much better than had it not happened. That their "trial by fire" will help to mold them into better human beings because of that "trial."

Shalom

"Never did they ask why they brought the young lady to the house in the first place."

I thought a taxicab brought her to the house.

How many of you who excuse the "boys" for being "young and stupid" would extend the same compassion to the "young and stupid" woman in this case? As I said yesterday, I do not defend the actions to this young woman. But I also am not giving the young men a free pass as most of you are.

Yvonne,

FREE PASS! Unbelievable.
These guys got far less than a "free pass".

As for Ms Mangum, there will be no legal and probably no civil penalties. That is the best she could hope for in this instance.

Personal responsability is what these girls should learn from this mess. I wish them the best and I hope JJ pays up on his educational promise to Ms Mangum. Any bets?

The black community, the Gang of 80, New Black Panther Party, Jessie Jackson, Nifong, Broadhead, Raliegh N&O, etc each deserve every bit of bad press, civil and legal penalties coming there way.

I would, Yvonne.

I know next to nothing about the young woman in question. In my opinion, I am just as disinclined to make any comments in relating to her being a "bad person" as I think you and Darryl should be of the falsely accused.

How she made a living on the night in question is not enough evidence for me to decide her character. Additionally, since I am not a moral judge of others, I won't even try to do so.

I think the reason many people are being defferential towards the falsely accused is because of what they went through. Rape is one of the most hideous crimes someone could commit. Unbelieveably stigmatizing. They were know for over a year as rapists. Known nationally. It was later revealed that they were not. Imagine if your name and picture were broadcast all over the word as a rapist. Everyone who ever knew you or ever saw you, knew you as Yvonne the rapist. A little deference is not uncalled for, in my opinion.

Look at Darryl Hunt. Spent many a year in prison for something he DID NOT DO! Whatever kind of person he was then is not relevant to anything now, as he was innocent.

People want to run them down now because they drank booze and went to a party with a striper. Either those people are completely and truly the moral compass of which all others should aspire and have never done anything wrong in their whole lives, or they are giant hypocrits.

I just don't understand this "Well, maybe they didn't rape anyone, but......" type attitude.

As far as the LTE, I don't know why sin made its way into it. That merely seems to me like someone is trying to superimpose their moral fiber onto someone else, and then calling them "bad" when there isn't a perfect fit.

Swanks,

Thank you for your response. However, to borrow your question from yesterday, "Am I being unclear?" I am not condemning these three young men as you imply. I rejoice that they have been exonerated of the criminal charges since the evidence points to no rape or kidnapping.

What is bothering me and what I am addressing is this: what most who post here are assuming is these men are innocent of any wrongdoing just because they were not guilty of rape and kidnapping. And these same people are showing contempt and outrage towards the woman without knowing what actually happened at the party in question. They presume the men are innocent (and you know I'm not talking legalese here) and the woman is a guilty slut. Go back and read some of the posts.

As adults, and these men are, we all have to pay the price for stupidity at some time or another. I am still paying the price of some of my stupid acts of youth. Why should these men (and this woman) be any different? I am not wishing ill will on anyone and will say it may not be fair. However, decisions come with responsibilities and consequences. Therefore, why should these men be treated with sympathy while the woman is treated with contempt?

Mick,

I did not say these men were getting a free pass. What I said is most of you (based on your posts) want to give them a free pass.

What we should take away from this case is not disdain for the perversion of three college students being college students but disdain for the perversion of justice from rogue prosecutors and unscrupulous accusers.

Unless we learn the right things from this case- that any of us could be falsely charged and maliciously prosecuted- we too face financial ruin, false imprisonment and reputations forever besmirched out of any proportion to our true conduct.

Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty are not being held accountable for the rest of their lives for an evening of indiscretion, they are being held accountable for the rest of their lives for the lies of Crystal Gail Mangum and a self-serving, self-adoring prosecutor to whom Constitutional justice was an inconvenience.

In April 2006, shortly after the allegations of rape against members of the Duke Lacrosse team, Duke President Richard Brodhead commissioned a report on the team, to expose the team's vices and virtues.

Here are two representative paragraphs from that report:

"By all accounts, the lacrosse players are a cohesive, hard working, disciplined, and respectful athletic team. Their behavior on trips is described as exemplary. Players clean the team bus before disembarking. Airline personnel have complimented them for their behavior. They observe curfews. They obey the team's no alcohol rule before games. They are respectful of people who serve the team, including bus drivers, airline personnel, trainers, the equipment manager, the team manager, and the groundskeeper.

The lacrosse program has a 100% graduation rate. Alumni of the program apparently contribute to the community after college. We received letters of support for the team from two recently graduated former players who are presently serving in Iraq. A remarkable number of alumni are volunteer coaches for their local lacrosse teams. Many are employed in prestigious positions in business, law, and medicine."

source: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lacrossereport.html

Why should they be treated with sympathy?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that they were known worldwide, for over a year, as rapists? Or maybe the fact that they had to endure a year of worrying whether they were going to spend 30 or so years in prison for something they didn't do? Not to mention the free prison-lovin' that comes along with incarceration. And worry that, even after that, they would be forever labled as sex offenders? Or that they had to spend over a million dollars to clear their name? Or that their name will never be fully cleared, as people will always whisper and wonder as to what they "really" did that night?

No, I can see no reason whatsoever to give them any sympathy. Same with my man Darryl Hunt. Being wrongfully convicted or accused and had your good name ran through the mud is never a reason to give anyone any sympathy whatsoever. Everytime someone who has been wrongfully convicted of a crime they didn't commit we should never express any type of remorse or regret for what they went through.

The contempt and outrage expressed, that I see, come from the girl's assertion of false allegations. While it may be true that we don't know exactly what happened that night, we do know what didn't, and that was a rape. Notwithstanding any other issues the woman may have, and any reasons why she may very well deserve pity, it was her false allegations that started the ball rolling on the perversion of the judicial system that we have seen. I don't know what, if any issues she has, but she did falsely accuse 3 men of rape. Is that a non-issue to you? The woman may have some severe mental health issues and be well deserving of our sympathy, but she still did what she did.

You think it was stupid of the men to go to a party with a striper? Even if it was, is this transgression so severe as to warrant the results that we have seen? Should the character of these men be judged based upon a party they attended at one point in their life?

I don't think so. Not at all.

If any one of us were to be able to live a lifetime and go to our maker and have the worst thing on our conscience that we went to a party with booze and a stripper, I think we would have made pretty damn fine human beings.

This, as I have said in former letters, is a lose-lose for "everyone".

Some of the lessons I hope that all involved learned are:
1) Use good judgment and think with a clear mind,
2) If my club or group, with or without members being of legal drinking age,is planning a bash, is alcohol a good way to go? What are the paramenters of acceptable behavior going to be?
3) Knowing that alcohol can cloud good judgement, is it advisable to hire an exotic dancer? What is the reputation of the business which hires out exotic dancers? What controls will be in place for everyone's safty? If these basic questions can't be looked at, then maybe a different type of party needs to be looked at.
4) The exotic dancer or her supervisors might want to know: what kind of party this is or is going to be; who will be attending, will there be alcohol being served and what controls are in place for everyone's safty.
5) violence is never acceptable, but if the dancer had asked these questions ahead of time, she may not have gone!!

I've stayed away from many a party because it had disaster written all over it ahead of time. I am not trying to be judgmental or maralistic--just reasonable and judicious.

This, as I have said in former letters, is a lose-lose for "everyone".

Some of the lessons I hope that all involved learned are:
1) Use good judgment and think with a clear mind,
2) If my club or group, with or without members being of legal drinking age,is planning a bash, is alcohol a good way to go? What are the paramenters of acceptable behavior going to be?
3) Knowing that alcohol can cloud good judgement, is it advisable to hire an exotic dancer? What is the reputation of the business which hires out exotic dancers? What controls will be in place for everyone's safty? If these basic questions can't be looked at, then maybe a different type of party needs to be looked at.
4) The exotic dancer or her supervisors might want to know: what kind of party this is or is going to be; who will be attending, will there be alcohol being served and what controls are in place for everyone's safty.
5) violence is never acceptable, but if the dancer had asked these questions ahead of time, she may not have gone!!

I've stayed away from many a party because it had disaster written all over it ahead of time. I am not trying to be judgmental or maralistic--just reasonable and judicious.

This, as I have said in former letters, is a lose-lose for "everyone".
Some of the lessons I hope that all involved learned are:
1) Use good judgment and think with a clear mind,
2) If my club or group, with or without members being of legal drinking age,is planning a bash, is alcohol a good way to go? What are the paramenters of acceptable behavior going to be?
3) Knowing that alcohol can cloud good judgement, is it advisable to hire an exotic dancer? What is the reputation of the business which hires out exotic dancers? What controls will be in place for everyone's safty? If these basic questions can't be looked at, then maybe a different type of party needs to be looked at.
4) The exotic dancer or her supervisors might want to know: what kind of party this is or is going to be; who will be attending, will there be alcohol being served and what controls are in place for everyone's safty.
5) violence is never acceptable, but if the dancer had asked these questions ahead of time, she may not have gone!!

I've stayed away from many a party because it had disaster written all over it ahead of time. I am not trying to be judgmental or maralistic--just reasonable and judicious.

Sorry for the triplett; I was being impatient with the computer
JoeJoe

"While it may be true that we don't know exactly what happened that night, we do know what didn't, and that was a rape."

Do we really know this? I am not being argumentative, Swanks, only asking. All I really know is they found no DNA from any of the three young men in (for you Dan) the stripper. As I pointed out yesterday, that can be accomplished by wearing a condom. (I am NOT saying a rape did occur, only that I was not there so I don't know.)

"I don't know what, if any issues she has, but she did falsely accuse 3 men of rape. Is that a non-issue to you?"

Any time an injustice occurs, it is an issue with me. However, do I really know one did occur in this case? No, I don't. Did the woman change her story because her promiscuity had come to light, as well as her mental instability, and she knew no one would believe her or because the men were truly innocent of rape? Too many women who make charges of rape are put on trial themselves. And face it, who does believe even half of them?

"You think it was stupid of the men to go to a party with a striper?"

I think it is foolhardy for them to combine alcohol and naked women. But that is not addressing the full picture. I don't know what involvement any of them had in arranging that combination, do you? I also do not know what they did or did not do at that party. Do you KNOW for sure?

At any rate, if just going was as stupid as they were, then no, they should not have to wear that characterization for the rest of their lives.

For me, there are too many unknowns. It must be very reassuring to be so convinced you know all the facts of the situation.

Yvonne, the accuser told Tara Levicy, the SANE nurse who collected her rape kit, that her alleged attackers did not wear condoms, that they ejaculated on her and in her and that she spat some of the effluvium onto the bathroom floor. Her lab test also tested negative for latex contamination, no used condoms were found in the house on Buchanon Street and the blood work showed no evidence of the so-called "date rape drug".

Crystal Gail Mangum changed her story at least a dozen times. Changing her story a dozen times would not seem to mitigate mental instability. She worked a stripper and DNA tests showed the DNA of two males in her rectum, plus the DNA of three other males in and on other parts of her body, so her worrying about revelations of her promiscuity would seem ridiculous.

Nor did she have worries she would not be believed: the DA believed her from day one, to the extremes of prejudging the case based solely on her testimony, encouraging her to pick out suspects from a police lineup that contained only white lacrosse players, and making a deal with the DNA lab in Burlington to hide exculpatory evidence from the defense, then subsequently burying it amid 1800 pages of test results after finally being forced to provide it.

Nifong went to enormous lengths to "believe" in Crystal Gail Mangum, to and beyond the point of fabricating evidence in her support.

As for "what really happened in the house", there was a second stripper at the party, Yvonne: Kim Roberts Pittman. She detailed what happened at the party for 60 Minutes and called the accuser's story "a crock".

The State Attorney General's office did not just claim they had insufficient evidence to prosecute, they declared the defendants "innocent without prejudice". That means, to the satisfaction of the highest prosecutor in the state, the defendants have been, are and forever will be innocent of the charges leveled in this case.

And, if you think it extreme to declare defendants innocent if not proven guilty, I refer you to the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.

Oh, and one more thing, Yvonne: I have a cold and I'm grouchy today, so, sorry for the tone.

Amazing the Duke men are still under the gun. Yet Nifong, the Durham Police Dept, and Crystal Gayle, are getting a free pass. The real bad people in this! Go figure.

Pragmatist,

Thank you for the apology but it's not necessary. I found nothing in your post to be offended about. In fact, I appreciate you giving me the information I was ignorant of and stating it so factually. Had anyone bothered to do that earlier, it would have saved me a lot of typing (which I detest and am not very good at).

Since you have answered my "unknowns", I can say I was wrong in questioning the men's activities. And I understand why some of you got so perturbed with me. I will, in the future, do a little better research before second-guessing the issue.

Yvonne, methinks you've read Ben Franklin. He would have scowled at my rant, facts or no facts.