Daily Kos

Like Anyone Still Cares, But...Charges Dismissed

by Free Spirit

Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:56:50 AM PDT

Until this morning, I can't remember the last time I saw a diary about the ongoing saga of the Duke rape case, a story that was once/briefly of such interest interest here on DKos.  And, make no mistake about it, it was ongoing.  Just as stories continue after the the MSM has lost interest, they continue without any attention from DKos, too.

Anyway, all charges were dismissed.  Links to the coverage by the local media and a few musings on the flip...

http://www.heraldsun.com/...

http://www.newsobserver.com/...

http://www.wral.com/...

I can't think of much to add to these reports. I noted the widespread use of the phrase "rush to judgement" and thought about the discussions here on DKOS last year:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/...

The only coverage of interest to me was our Mayor's response when a journalist asked how long it would take for Durham to complete the healing process. Mayor Bell replied that he didn't really think Durham needed much healing...because, by and large, the good citizens of Durham had been willing to patiently let the process play out, and leave the rushing to judgement to everyone else. Indeed, I am pleased to say that, by and large, we did.

Then I thought once again how much I love living here, in my bluest county in the South. John Edwards can keep his mansion in Orange County. Gore can keep his in Nashville, too.  I'll stick with my modest little abode here in Durham, where poverty isn't just a campaign slogan.

And I'm not even a Democrat, LOL.

Tags: duke university, rape (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 30 comments

  •  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    decon, oops, davidincleveland, dennisl, statistic

    Saw two yesterday.  You were probably too busy gratuitously congratulating yourself for something or other to notice.

    Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.

    by Inland on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:00:33 AM PDT

  •  I have kind of a stupid question.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...regarding the Duke rape case.

    Given the fact that these three young men have been vindicated, does that mean that: (1) a rape did not take place at all, or (2) a rape did take place, but NOT by members of the Duke lacrosse team (maybe a party crasher or something. I understand that the entire team was DNA tested, but does that preclude the possibilty that some other people were at the party?).

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:09:57 AM PDT

    •  If you believe the prosecutor (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      justalittlebitcrazy

      #1, no rape took place.

      The "victim" had already recanted the rape part prior to this, these were the last remaining charges, rape had already been dropped.

      by RyoCokey on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:23:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The remarks (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      justalittlebitcrazy

      from the North Carolina Attorney General seem to indicate that it is likely that no rape occurred.

      by Richard Lyon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:23:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They have not been vindicated (0+ / 0-)

      The charges were dismissed, period. If a rape occurred, only the victim and the rapist know it. Maybe. If one didn't, only the person who claimed she was a victim knows it. Maybe. "Knowing" is mostly a myth.

      All else is conjecture, some conjectures fits the available data better than others, but it's still just conjecture.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:33:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This post (0+ / 0-)

        really makes no sense at all.

        by Richard Lyon on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:36:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I believe they have.. (0+ / 0-)

        ...been vindicated, or exonerated. I saw the early part of the press conference on ESPN and I could have sworn that the AG used the term "vindicated" or "exonerated". My apologies if I used the wrong term, I know they are technically not interchangable.

        "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

        by lams712 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:42:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What does that mean? (0+ / 0-)

          How are the terms "vindicated" and "exonerated" defined under NC law?  If they do not have a specific definition in NC law, then you are left with the common usage of these terms, and the NC AG using these terms carries no more or less weight than if anyone else used them.

          If Gonzales announced that GWB was "vindicated" or "exonerated" of all impeachable offenses, would you believe it?  Why or why not?

          by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:07:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They have been vindicated (0+ / 0-)

            As far as the law allows.  The NC AG didn't just say that the charges were being dropped due to a lack of evidence.  He said these three were "innocent."  That's a very revealing thing to say, most unusual in typical cases.

            Everything we have available should lead us to presume these young men are indeed innocent.

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:14:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like I said (0+ / 0-)

              Unless these terms are defined under NC law, that's all just so much hot air.

              And nothing should ever lead anyone to presume anything.

              by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:18:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                Do you actually know anything about the law?  It doesn't sound like it, so I find it ironic you mention "hot air."

                The only thing that matters under NC law--or any U.S. law--is a guilty verdict.  Absent that, people are presumed innocent.  That's a basic matter of American jurisprudence.  I'm surprised you're not aware of it.  Perhaps a middle school civics class is in order?

                I finally put in a signature!

                by Boris Godunov on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:23:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  By whom? (0+ / 0-)

                  By whom are they presumed innocent?

                  by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:35:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Uhhhh (0+ / 0-)

                    By the law?  You were the one asking about the "law" regarding the AG's comments.  By the law, these men are presumed innocent.

                    Beyond that, we as Americans should be very much inclined to follow the same mindset.  This is reinforced by the fact that the AG went out of his way to declare them innocent, something he didn't have to do.  There's also the rather salient point that there isn't a shred of evidence of any criminal wrongdoing in the matter.

                    I finally put in a signature!

                    by Boris Godunov on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:55:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

                      By the law. It is regrettable that Americans confuse the law with their own mindsets.

                      I'm afraid I will continue to perceive all pronouncements by the AG as motivated by the fact that this case was a political embarrassment to a number of people who have been up to their eyeballs in embarrassments lately. Whatever the facts of the case, the intense desire to see it just go away has been the primary driver for a long time now.

                      PS  You will be happy to know that the local paper is trumpeting "INNOCENT!" today.

                      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:48:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  So, do you still presume (0+ / 0-)

                      ...that OJ is innocent?  Actually, I believe according to your logic, this isn't even a matter of presumption...he is innocent, right?

                      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:51:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  By the law, yep (0+ / 0-)

                        And we have to treat him as if he's innocent.  So if he applied for a job with my company, I couldn't deny it to him because he had been charged with a crime, since he was aquitted.  And he gets to retain his voting rights, something felons don't get.  And all the other things associated with being not guilty of a crime.

                        Whatever I personally believe isn't relevant.  Of course, there are a lot of other factors at play with the OJ case that aren't at play in the Duke case.  Certainly, we don't have the prosecutors proclaiming his innocence!

                        I finally put in a signature!

                        by Boris Godunov on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:45:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  We are close to agreement (0+ / 0-)

                          ...so I think I'll quite while we're ahead. :-)  I'm tired today, and mixing up comments across diaries.

                          Whatever I personally believe isn't relevant

                          Agreed. I don't think what the AG personally believes is relevant, either.  And unless there is a legal NC definition of "innocent" that comes into play when charges are dismissed, that's all the AG's statement is...his personal belief. Or his personal something.

                          As for OJ, I don't know if he did it and, I don't  have an opinion. At most, three people know if OJ did it, two of them are dead, and I'm not the third one. OJ himself seems so far gone at this point, I'm not sure if he knows either.

                          by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:20:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks... (0+ / 0-)

        ...RyoCokey and Richard Lyon for your answers.

        "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

        by lams712 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

    LOL LOL LOL

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

  •  Why are you here? (0+ / 0-)

    From the DailyKos FAQ:

    "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together"

    You wrote:

    " I'm not even a Democrat, LOL."

    Aside from the bizarre "LOL" -- and I'm not sure why this is funny to you -- I have to wonder what you are doing at this site, posting diaries. "This is a Demorcatic (that's a capital "D") blog, a partisan blog" -- what part of that staement don't you get?

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

    •  I get it (0+ / 0-)

      I know it is a partisan blog. So what?

      The LOL harks back to some other diaries and a running thing between me and philgo. If you don't get it, just ignore it.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps she is independent (0+ / 0-)

      of partisan political thought and mistakenly assumed that there was intelligent discussion instead of groupthink?

      I would say that suppression of discussion, while legal on messageboards, demonstrates clearly how little regard for communication one really has. If all you wish to hear is the party line, then I'd say you are not really "liberal" at all.

      44 y/o male, $$ self sufficient, great w/my kids, wed 25 years, & knows that actions have logical results. How much more out the box can you get nowadays?

      by pegwinn2 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:15:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 30 comments