This admonishment to take a wait and see approach is ironic coming from someone who has decided he knows what really happened based on the 60 Minutes interviews designed by the interviewees to make the defendants look like they are not only not guilty of the crimes they've been charged with but that they are victims of a corrupt system which doesn't care about truth and justice.
... the bombshell admission on CBS's 60 Minutes by a friend of the black female student who claimed rape by a pack of white Duke University Lacrosse players that the rape may not have happened.
Women's groups should have taken the same wait and see approach to the case.
It's carefully crafted melodrama. Yes, folks the villains in act one are shown in act two to be the victims. (Picture Nifong removing his white hat and stroking his long black curly mustache.) But what will happen in act three, the trial? Will our hapless victims turn out to be as villainous as they seemed in act one or will our innocent victim turn out to be an evil Jezebel?
The defense attorneys are hoping the show will close during the intermission.
I notice there is no similar admonishment directed at all those who "knew" from the moment they heard about this case that this allegation had to be a hoax perpetrated by these 2 evil strippers. As details of this case have emerged the justifications for how and why this "hoax" was perpetrated have shifted with the smoothness used to justify invading Iraq once the initial story fell apart.
Apparently, attacking alleged rape victims before trial is good citizenship, but defending alleged rape victims is bad citizenship.
And the so-called bombshell is doubt by a witness who from every detail I've read on the case was a co-worker and not a friend of the alleged victim as described in HuffPost and whose credibility was shredded by those who believe this is a hoax. First she was a co-conspirator then she was a greedy opportunist with a criminal past who would capitalize on her involvement and now she's an innocent bystander brave enough to do the right thing.
I know people can change, but that's pushing the boundaries of credibility.
In other places I've read people saying that the revelation that the alleged victim was back working as a stripper 2 weeks after the alleged rape proves she wasn't raped. But if something happened to anyone else and they didn't go to work again for 2 weeks, that gap would be significant.
Does it only become insignificant because of her job? Or because of stereotypes about rape?
Also what does this do to the credibility of those who said she came to the Duke lacrosse party already raped?
There were those who said she couldn't have been raped because there weren't blood splatters all over the bathroom walls. If any sexual violence that doesn't leave blood splatters on the walls isn't considered real rape, I would never want to be alone with people who hold that belief.
In years past far too many authorities routinely laughed off, victim blamed, or simply turned a blind eye to the cry of rape, the only exception to that was when a white woman fingerpoints a black man as the assailant.This is still happening far too often and many of those who paint the Duke Rape Case as a hoax want to go back to those good old days when all but the most violent of rapists didn't have to worry about being arrested and treated like a criminal. They were just men who could say, "I was young, I was naive."
Those tempting women are the ones to blame. When they describe what happened to them as rape, they are lying.
Update: I just saw this quote from the second stripper describing (in her 60 Minutes intervew) what she said when she and the alleged victim briefly left the house: "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it."
That resulted in her being called the N-word.
This shows me that those who called for dancers were really looking for prostitutes and were thinking that the payment for dancing included sex. In the selfish minds of the lacrosse players that could turn a gang rape after handing over money into nothing more than taking what had been bought and paid for.
These were just strippers after all so it wasn't like they had any moral reason for not giving the lacrosse players what they wanted to make their party special.
If that's the case then the lacrosse players are Johns who broke the law before the N-word was uttered. I'm sure verbal crudeness is the normal treatment many strippers experience so that alone isn't a red flag for rape.
Drunken entitlement and a feeling of superiority is not a valid rape defense. Too bad so many people who hear details of this case seem to think it is.
It's also interesting that in the 60 Minutes story there was nothing about the taxi driver's report of overhearing some lacrosse players talking about how she was just a stripper and wouldn't go to the police.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault Duke rape