UPDATE : The Smoking Gun publishes Duke Lacrosse accuser's photograph

and like she could be my sister.

[deleted by the Liza due to insensitive bullshit by the poster]

I did not take it lightly AT ALL when I decided to post her photo and link to TSG.

I find it indecent that Mike Nifong is a corrup Democrat who saw it politically expedient to use Ms. Mangum as a pawn to garner black votes. I also find it indecent that many people in the left rushed to judgement w/o remembering the white guys Miranda Rights. The only post that I can remember as having some level of measure with this debate was this one by Jill. The disclaimer in the second paragraph ought to be copied and pasted by everyone ever wanting to post again anything about rape.

There is a level of responsibility we have as publishers and public figures. The lawyers for the Duke3 have hinted they're considering going after the most flagrant cases of defamation on the web. I smell lawsuits in the air. This post is about bringing to focus the injustices that have been perpetrated to not only Ms. Mangum but to the accused as well.

White people ought to NEVER EVER use colored victims like Ms. Mangum as a way to garner votes for their political careers or sympathy points for their causes. Especially if they are Democrats of feminists. I kept my mouth shut most of the time with this case because the information was so outrageously choppy. But I am not staying silent at the politically-correct bigotry and racism that corrupted this case.

Yes, I am going all RWOC on this one.

Last but not least : I have deleted defamatory or virulent comments on my site before because it is, after all, a private service I am providing to the public. If there is one safe place for this kind of discussion, it's a place like my site.

But why publish her photo, then? Especially since you believe she was raped. With all due respect, it might make more sense to publish Mike Nifong's photo.

I just don't really get it. If you think she was raped, then who by? Every single white lacrosse player was asked to submit DNA samples and not a single one matched and we know there were 5 different semen samples on/in her. Do you think she was raped before the party and then simply threw a wobbler later and had to accuse someone so pointed the finger at three random lacrosse players? It's almost impossible for her to have been raped after the party based on the timeline involved and the fact that Kim Roberts was around the entire time and would have had to be in on it.

I'm just not sure where the belief that she was assaulted is coming from. I asked previously what evidence you felt was produced that indicated there had been a rape and I haven't seen a response yet. What troubles me about this whole situation is the fact that there is no physical evidence that a rape occurred, ecspecially if we take the accuser at her word. She said she was beaten and medical reports and photos taken that night and 2 days later by the police show no injuries like what she described (blows to the face). She said it was a violent 30-minute oral/vaginal/anal assault and yet the only evidence that a SANE nurse found was difuse swelling in the vagina and no damage at all to the anus. I simply cannot manage to connect the dots in any fashion to come to the conclusion that she was assaulted and I'm really curious as to how you're constructing your belief she was.

There are other national cases with the lure of sex, violence and race. This would not compare in media coverage to the O J Simpson spectacle. Perhaps it brings national attention because it is not so Hollywood as that one was. A new element this time seems to be the specter of privilege and lack thereof. Or could it be because black woman against white men is a new form in the South?
I look at the extreme interest in the case to be the age-old battle of the sexes. Lisa brought out an important consideration. Androgyny is quite as much to be reckoned with as misogyny. I notice that young men nowadays have a lot to understand about their female associates. There must be a group of teen boys who have a hard time when teen girls range from demure to demanding.
Where does the joking end and crudities begin? Speech can be so strident these days. And actions follow suit. As for the political operatives, once an incident gets to court, we recognize that all sides are swayed by community pressures.
I thought the Duke case seemed a small metaphor of the serious national matter of dismissed US Attorneys.
See if you can hear what Senator Leahy said about the White House's veracity. Not so sexy, perhaps, but if Heather Wilson has to go before a judge, some reporter will make it seem so.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041207A.shtml

I've been wondering what's sparked such particular handwringing among conservatives about this particular case. Rather than leave a lengthy comment, I'll just direct you to my take on it:

http://rhetoricgarage.blogspot.com/2007/04/duke-lacrosse-case-idelogical...

ted

The accuser must have lied at least once, because she told several contradictory stories. If at least one of them is true, the others cannot be.

I suppose she told the truth, as well?

This is an absurd mistrial of justice. When someone says that they are raped, that is a serious matter that has to be dealt with as such. But there was a rush to judgment on many people's parts to make this into a very white male/black female issue instead of looking at the facts. I personally tried to refrain from taking a side in this issue because it was a complicated case with no real validity to any side of it. The woman has been assaulted, and I hope that no woman would ever lied about something as serious as thing. It makes themselves look bad as well as makes it difficult to believe any woman who comes forward later who actually has been raped to prove her case. There were males involved, but we don't know if it was those males or different males because the best we could do was "three white males."

This was only made worse because it was taken out in public, in full display of a culture that requires everything to be in Black and White (non-racial) with clearcut lines. It's very with/against. There are people who are clearly going to side with the women, others with the men. This case was also made worse due to the overzealousness of Mike Nifong, who used it to campaign for an election. If that is not the slimeiest thing I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

But, when it came down to, this case was made into a racial issue, which it shouldn't have been. It should have been an issue about a woman who was raped by three men. case closed. The fact that she was black and they were white only plays into the fetishization of Black women and white men that has developed through years of inequal treatment. This also biased many people because it made this case into a national spectacle. It split people along racial lines instead of factual lines and investigating the story that the woman told instead of going on a witch hunt. Additionally, this case was turned into an issue of class as well. The Black, poor woman was raped by the rich white kids. Many wanted to see these men be charged because they felt it would put them in their rightful place, strip them of the privilege that they had been so accustomed to all of their lives. All of the things that this case stood for are all of the things that were wrong with the media's coverage of the case, the national obsession with the case, and the prosecution of the case. It became an issue of stripping privilege and proving that white people were not superior instead of ensuring that this woman was actually treated properly and had her CORRECT assailants brought to justice, not for political reasons but for criminal reasons.

I apologize for this being so long, but this is another case that was blown far out of proportion. Women are raped all across America (I don't mean for this to sound trivial, as it is quite sad). This one case should have been handled like many others are: on the local and state level. The accused's families should never have been on 60 minutes, and America should not have labeled these men criminals until they were proven as such. This case became what it was because it was sexy; it stirred up so many taboos and raised the ire of so many with regards to class, sex, race, and gender. I am sad that this case is not closed, but I now hope that we all can move on and that these three men can hope to regain some of their dignity from this huge mistrial of justice and journalistic responsibility.

I too believe she probably was raped. I also believe they probably - based only on the facts as they're come out - were not the guilty parties.

But I have another point. I bring it up because I think language is important and forms our thoughts.

And it's this. You wrote:

"People who traditionally vote Democrat..."

For the record, and as I'm sure you know - the word is DemocratIC.

Let's not let the Rove-speak infiltrate everywhere.

Thanks.

You still didn't have to put up her picture, Ms. Sabater. You put up her picture because YOU wanted to have her pic "associated with a good discussion of the case." In other words, YOU decided that putting up her picture and violating the privacy of a blue collar working class black woman from the South served YOUR purpose.
You're playing God here, Ms. Sabater.
What's more, your argument is highly disingenuous. You're violating her privacy and placing her in right in the crosshairs of full public scrutiny all in the name of saying that YOUR crosshairs are somehow morally superior to somebody else's.
As for your repeated assertions of your own painful history of sexual assault, while I have the greatest sympathy for you on that count, I fail to see the connection between your position as a college educated white collar professional and that of a poor blue-collar working-class black Southern woman with a history of alcohol addiction. You seem to be beating the very same drum of feminist sisterhood rhetoric of shared suffering for all women that you seem to deplore.
You seem to have placed yourself upon a pedestal of high moral political incorrectness. Bravo, Ms Sabater. You seem to think you're displaying some high defiant moral courage in putting up that woman's photo on your website. You seem to think that your brand of brash openness is unique. Maybe you're unique in your family circle or your group of relatives and friends. But out in the broader scheme of things, you're more similar to Tom Leykis, Howard Stern, Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh. Tom Leykis was the pioneering LA shockjock, convicted of domestic volence, who advises men to date sexually abused women because he says such women tend to be sexually promiscuous. He is also the man who outed Kobe Bryant's rape accuser.
So take heart ms Sabater, you are in distinguished company. You are yet another in a long line of narcissistic and self righteous media figures who enjoys doing outrageous ballsy and politically incorrect things such as contributing to the violation of privacy of a blue collar poverty-stricken woman. Wow, your courage and badassery knows no bounds. I can hear the evil liberal political establishment trembling before you as we speak.

You still didn't have to put up her picture, Ms. Sabater. You put up her picture because YOU wanted to have her pic "associated with a good discussion of the case." In other words, YOU decided that putting up her picture and violating the privacy of a blue collar working class black woman from the South served YOUR purpose.
You're playing God here, Ms. Sabater.
What's more, your argument is highly disingenuous. You're violating her privacy and placing her in right in the crosshairs of full public scrutiny all in the name of saying that YOUR crosshairs are somehow morally superior to somebody else's.
As for your repeated assertions of your own painful history of sexual assault, while I have the greatest sympathy for you on that count, I fail to see the connection between your position as a college educated white collar professional and that of a poor blue-collar working-class black Southern woman with a history of alcohol addiction. You seem to be beating the very same drum of feminist sisterhood rhetoric of shared suffering for all women that you seem to deplore.
You seem to have placed yourself upon a pedestal of high moral political incorrectness. Bravo, Ms Sabater. You seem to think you're displaying some high defiant moral courage in putting up that woman's photo on your website. You seem to think that your brand of brash openness is unique. Maybe you're unique in your family circle or your group of relatives and friends. But out in the broader scheme of things, you're more similar to Tom Leykis, Howard Stern, Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh. Tom Leykis was the pioneering LA shockjock, convicted of domestic volence, who advises men to date sexually abused women because he says such women tend to be sexually promiscuous. He is also the man who outed Kobe Bryant's rape accuser.
So take heart ms Sabater, you are in distinguished company. You are yet another in a long line of narcissistic and self righteous media figures who enjoys doing outrageous ballsy and politically incorrect things such as contributing to the violation of privacy of a blue collar poverty-stricken woman. Wow, your courage and badassery knows no bounds. I can hear the evil liberal political establishment trembling before you as we speak.

A lot of good thinking on a hard question.
Below is a link to today's column by Don Williams, late of Knoxville News Sentinel until they parted over whether Don should lay off Bush, and such. He went to journalism school before he decided to lay out his ideas. See if you can pick up what he says about MSM and logical thinking.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_don_will_070413_logic_101_could_...

as logical thinking, fair analysis and real public problem-solving, until and unless the author also shows how it applies to equally fallacious arguments made by those with whom he AGREES -- not just those to whom he's so ideologically opposed.

This comes up in education all the time. The medium is the massage. If you're arguing that all kids must learn critical thinking, you had better be using it well in the argument you make! If you're arguing the importance of logic in public discourse, you'd better be damn sure your own syllogisms have been purged of politics.

I see lots of people here don't get your "a rape happened" but "the accused are innocent" statements. To me you are suggesting a scenario quite similar to that in To Kill a Mockingbird but with something of a reversal regarding the races involved. Am I getting your suggestion right here? And if so, is it just that the other readers haven't read To Kill a Mockingbird or don't understand that such things don't just happen in fiction?

This is one of those cases I don't follow closely, so I am, as it were, coming in in the last chapter.

is definitely a good scenario. I take it to the current Southern cultural level. Innately, there are people I know who never saw the movie or read the book, but hate the story. They are older folks. My guess is that the movie was banned in their neighborhoods, but reviewed in their churches. Cultural propaganda lasts longer than the event for which it was created. Of course, political propaganda is famous there too.
Republicans running for office present themselves as Reagan Republicans. And to mention the Watergate "caper" is to hear some oldtime Republicans declare a mistrial of justice for Nixon.
Among all the purists of their particular dogma, none probably remains constant for some people more than the "pox on both their houses" nonvoters. They challenge us who study the political process to be wary. If one promotes the views of a party, they can respond that it's just a game to see who can get the most leverage. If one delineates core issues, they can respond that no one listens to the people. Pols are rotten folks. Period. Cultural propaganda, but powerful.
So, to get to Atticus, we must surely have some respect for those who live by their principles.
I guess the round robin of this current case might be: There's an election and the DA needs electing. There's a raunchy college sex case, which is distracting the campaign. Therefore, call in the media and let the public decide the outcome.
My question is: Why are we so concerned? Are we outraged at the way a very personal matter became inflamed? Are we familiar enough with law and the case to add information and opinions? Is it our considered place to get to the bottom of every gender/sex case which touches the race question? Have we learned anything from hearing others' opinions?

Harking back to OJ's case. This was murder(s) and thus more serious, potentially, on outcome. This was sex (husband) and implication of it by non-husband. Or do you call that just marriage? This was race, black perpetrator against white victims. But above all, this was celebrity stuff. Don't we make allowances for the elite?
Getting to politicians and their social errors, it seems great to unravel them when the persons involved are out of the limelight, most likely dead. Which president met which maid in the broom closet. Which Senator fought civil rights and supported an illegitimate black child. Which of Jack Kennedy's trysts hazarded national security. Which Arkansas governor had state patrol help for his dalliances. You get the drift. Before citing the forefathers on the Constitution, what would Thomas Jefferson have to say?
When push comes to shove, speaking truth to power is not easy. Caesar's wife is reputed to have had experience in that line.

in the OJ trial -- the larger publicly important one I mean -- and it was a VERY discouraging tale. Like the white woman in Georgia (Laura Mallory) using the court system to try to ban Harry Potter. And to keep appealing the decision. IDIOTS. So deep in their own story they've lost touch with any community truths or transcendent principles under which we all can live together.

Has anyone ever seen a follow-up on those jurors, how their own lives turned out? Hmmm, never thought to wonder about that before, bet I could write a bang-up story from that and use it to tell my own truths, no matter what the facts are . . .the Georgia woman is still in the news so she would be easier, wish I had more time . . .

Even if something did happen in the house the night that Miss Mangum stripped. Lets think about something she is NOT at all a productive citizen she is trash and these young men are productive citizens so lets think about this there should be NO tears shed over her or sympathy. She deserves to rot in hell