>>>>You don't think the Duke lacrosse players gang raped her? Because I do, and I don't have an agenda in saying that. I think money bought them off. They were smart, rich kids with too much alcohol in their systems who figured she was an easy victim. (In the southeast, but let's not go there). Sometimes you just have to have an instinct about what's true. I don't think we fundamentally disagree that money corrupts.
>>>
>>>Mike, to answer your question, no, I don't. There was never enough evidence for this to go as far as it did. Remember, Mike Nifong (lead prosecutor) was disbarred for his actions (which included withholding findings from the court and the defense) . There were tons of inconsistencies in Crystal Mangum's accusations, and her credibility was terrible. The only thing the Duke players were guilty of was some drinking and going to strip clubs. I'm sure they weren't choir boys and neither am I, but I do not believe any rape occurred at all.
>>
>>There we diverge.
>
>Mike, you're free to hold any opinion you wish, but I'm really curious why you think they were guilty.
>
>Like I said, Nifong was disbarred for (among other things) hiding exculpatory DNA evidence from the court and the defense. The North Carolina Attorney General dropped all charges. The accuser gave wildly different and conflicting accounts. Yes, rape victims can and do give accounts that are confusing and non-linear, but if you follow the details of the chronology of the accusations, it's quite clear the accuser has no credibility.
>
>There is now a call to audit prior Nifong cases:
>
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/11/3999355/durham-judge-calls-prosecution.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1My first journalism professor said one thing you are going to need in this business is a 100% foolproof BS detector, because you are going to run into lots of it. The powers that be want to write history in their own words. To me that case involving a bunch of entitled Dukies and their equally entitled parents was a good example.
