Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Duke rape case update

So a Duke law professor thinks there should be a "Special Prosecutor" in the rape case (Article).

First of all, I don't believe a rape occurred. This woman can no more prove that these guys raped her than I can prove that I have a vagina. I mean, come on! The facts of the case do not point to rape at all. She shows up to the party with a shiner, she had just had "rough" sex and had not showered, she has prior convictions, and on top of that, she has lied to police before.

She saw these guys as her meal-ticket. In this country, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she HAS to be telling the truth. I mean, a woman wouldn't lie about something that serious, would she? The man is then presumed guilty, flashed in the newspapers, etc. He also has no remedy if he is proven innocent. I mean, could these lacrosse players sue her for slander in a civil suit and get anything in damages? NO! Further, their families will be subject to a civil suit by her, and even if they are proven innocent in a criminal trial, the odds are that she'll win a civil suit.

So why a special prosecutor? What am I missing here? The guy said something about the case before charges were brought? Don't DAs and police-spokesmen do that all the time?