Privacy Shield

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

UPDATE 2:
I have removed Ms. Mangum's image but left the original post.

What I wanted to have with this post was the possibility of her image being associated with a good discussion about this case. I think it is important that when people go searching for her photograph --given it has been released and it's under the public domain-- that her photograph is associated with a good discussion about this case.

This unfortunately is not the post.

UPDATE :
I have been asked to take down the photograph of Ms. Mangum. Believe me, I am not taking lightly at all that The Smoking Gun rushed to reveal her. On the same breath, believe you me when I say I am not taking lightly at all the gross miscarriage of justice involved in this case.

I want to go on record as saying that I do believe Ms. Mangum when she says she was raped. Yet, as the mother of two boys, one of whom could easily pass as a "white boy", I can't even fathom having to hold my son's hand during a trial in which he was wrongly accused of rape.

There are serious issues that have to be discussed about this case : Mike Nifong was a Democratic candidate for District Attorney who needed to be in the graces of the "black vote" to win the primaries and reelection.

It's indecent that many people in the "left" --people who traditionally vote Democrat-- found it politically expedient to decry Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty as guilty of rape because, you know, they were three easy "white guy" targets. This particularly goes out to the feminists who rushed to called them rapists.

Now let me reiterate : I believe Ms. Mangum was raped. I do believe the three "privileged white guys" didn't do it. I do believe there is a truth that nobody who was in that house that day wants to reveal.

What terrifies me is that the evidence that could have potentially vindicated Ms. Mangum was probably tainted, mishandled or even not gathered at all because of the political ambition of a corrupt Democrat who saw her as a political expedient pawn for black votes.

To call this case a gross mishandling of justice is to put it mildly.

And yes, I have even more to say about this, but that goes on a separate post.

++++++++++

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the woman who accused Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty of raping her at a team party where she had worked as an exotic dancer.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced yesterday his office was dropping all charges against the three Duke students and that they were closing the criminal case because there was no credible evidence against, and I quote, "the innocent" trio.


liza's picture

| | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 1755 guests online.

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify