Sunday, April 29, 2007

The Agenda Behind Duke Hoax Theory

Another Anonymous commenter has accidentally revealed more than he intended.


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Duke Lacrosse Case Report Exposes Flaws In State's...":

I'll repeat it again: not having credible evidence to support a criminal conviction isn't the same as having credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that no rape took place. The North Carolina AG seems have forgotten this basic truth

What a total crock!

There was all sorts of evidence in this case. The woman was, to use the words of Dennis Miller, the Louvre of DNA. The problem was that none of the DNA belonged to anyone that could have possibly been the perpetrator in any of her many stories.
Sorry, but when your expert on DNA evidence is a comedian your credibility goes right in the toilet. The analogy isn't even slightly accurate but apparently inaccuracy is fine and dandy as long as you aren't an alleged rape victim. Then it is EVIL!

If the DNA is unidentified and there isn't solid evidence (not just testimony) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt exactly who was there and for how long, then that evidence only tells us who it doesn't match. But again reasonable doubt is being applied selectively.


What this case DOES demonstrate is the fallacy of the feminist argument that women never lie about rape, in fact they lie frequently and even when they don't knowingly lie, are frequently tremendously unreliable. How many more people does The Innocence Project have to free by demonstrating that a large number of those convicted demonstrably could NOT have been the perpetrator to convince people of that?

Since this case's resolution is not based on any evidence of a lie committed by the alleged victim, this case doesn't demonstrate anything about women's honesty and it certainly doesn't prove that women lie frequently and it doesn't prove that when women are honest that they are frequently tremendously unreliable.

The only proven lie by anyone involved in this case is the lie made by the lacrosse player who ordered dancers for this party. He lied about his identity and he lied about how many people would be at the party and he lied about what type of party it was. But this case proves that it's women who lie. Right.

This case doesn't prove anything about women as a whole. Yet repeatedly men who insist on calling women as a class dishonest and unreliable say it does. To me these men sound unreliable and incapable of basic logic.

If they can judge all women based on only one woman, then I should be allowed to judge all men based on only one man. Since they get to select the woman who represents all women, I would get to select the man to make each of my points, I could say that men frequently murder, men frequently rape, men frequently attempt to kill witnesses in rape cases, men frequently lie, men frequently are unreliable witnesses, men frequently are serial murderers. The list of what I could assert about men as a group could go on endlessly and as long as I had one case as my prototype for each male characteristic, I'd be fine using the identical type of logic this man and many others like him are using.

Hey, I could even say that men frequently walk on the moon if all I need is one example to prove my assertion. Hopefully, we all know men don't frequently walk on the moon and that one example is just that.

What Mr. Anonymous is carefully avoiding mentioning is that many of the problems in this case were caused by men. The problems in some or possibly all of the Innocence Project exonerations were caused in whole or part by men but all exonerations prove women lie or are unreliable while men are honest and reliable. Right.

Some of the Innocence Project exonerations involve murder cases and those exonerations didn't magically reincarnate the victim. Other Innocence Project exonerations also didn't disprove the rapes men were convicted of committing. But the victims in those cases are the one and only problem.

Mr. Anonymous seems to believe that every time a man isn't found guilty or is exonerated that a woman is to blame. Personally, he sounds highly unreliable. But I don't judge all men based on him and others who share his opinion on the Duke case. I certainly don't judge all men by the vile things men have written in comments on my blog. I don't judge all men by what men have done in criminal cases or that lead to criminal cases. I understand that each of those men are not automatically representative of all men.

What this case DOES demonstrate rather conclusively is that the rape-shield laws and similar policies of the media need to be terminated. If an accused person's name is published, it is only fair that the accuser's name is also published.

Here we get to the heart of this comment. The wish to be able to attack all alleged rape victims without limit inside and outside of the criminal justice system from the moment a rape victim reports being raped.

He wants trials to be based on character assassination rather than evidence. The media should be encouraged to give out the alleged victim's name so every sicko in the world who believes that women frequently lie about rape can find her and harass her -- or worse.

This call for change has nothing to do with an honest desire for justice and everything to do with a desire to support all those accused of rape and to destroy most of those who report being raped. A few rape victims must be supported to prove that men like Mr. Anonymous are completely against all "real" rapes.
Enough of this compromising of justice in the interests of political correctness.

Mr. Anonymous doesn't want to compromise justice. And what is the compromise he's against but balance. He wants justice in rape cases to be tilted so far in the men's favor until one side of the scale touches the ground and stays there.

When justice in rape cases is for men only, it isn't justice at all. So what possible reason could so many men have for wanting this outcome which would benefit so many rapists?

Hmm.

Technorati tags:

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 9:14 AM   5 comments links to this post

5 Comments:

At April 29, 2007 10:27 AM, Blogger UneFemmePlusCourageuse said...

"He wants trials to be based on character assassination rather than evidence. The media should be encouraged to give out the alleged victim's name so every sicko in the world who believes that women frequently lie about rape can find her and harass her -- or worse."

What an idiot. As someone who was called a slut pretty much every day in high school and then was a victim of rape during my senior year, I can see EXACTLY how damaging that would be to a woman. Had I reported it and had anyone at school known it was me, no one would have believed me, I'd've just've been 'some dumb slut who wants money,' or something like that. Sorry for ranting, but this sort of person pisses me off to no end.
Good work Marcella.

 
At April 29, 2007 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a rape victim at Appalachian State University in a dormitory in 2004, I agree wholeheartedly. Note please that this case was not a media frenzy, not even semi-locally. A few papers reported, and my identity may as well have been revealed. The victim becomes the bad guy because the accused (who also lived in my dorm) had friends. He bought beer for these people on a refular basis and partied with as the life of the party. They despised me first of all for taking away their good time, and secondly for questioning their safety. The trial I am sure made them feel better, he was convicted of sexual battery with 75 days in jail. He was facinf in upwards of 80 years-- 1st degree rape, two counts of 1st degree sexual assault, and felony assault by strangulation. I was beat by teh system, and I am sure the other inhabitants of the dorm just knew that it could not have possibly happened so close to home and were upheld by the court decision which is now under appeal. Due to failure of the court and university police system, this man will walk free, with no record. With the exception of a great loss of money, he will be untainted, and I as the victim, will live with this for the rest of my life. Where is the justice?

Good work to you, I hope that one day I will be able to attempt to help others see that victims are real people with real feelings, not just someone out there to ruin someone else.

Current ASU student.
Please feel free to contact me: sweethart0403@yahoo.com

 
At April 29, 2007 8:43 PM, Blogger Megan Bayliss said...

Hi Marcella
just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated you for the Thinking Blogger Award: http://homeschoolingaspergers.blogspot.com/2007/04/tag-for-my-five-thinking-bloggers.html
You may like to see what I say about you,
Megan in Australia

 
At April 30, 2007 11:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Marcella,

Although I agree with much of your post, I do have some serious problems with a couple of your beliefs. (If you're tired about reading the thoughts of people who disagree with you, then skip the numbers and read the end [if you have time, of course]).

1) This woman had DNA from 5 different men inside her.

2) This DNA does not match any of the lacrosse players.

3) Crystal claimed all three "rapists" ejaculated on/in her.

4) Crystal claimed she had no sex in the week leading up to the "incident".

5) Crystal claims she was raped in mid-air by the lacrosse players.

6) Crystal changed her story 12 times (only three times in the "immediate aftermath" of the event).

We both know I could go on and on. Obviously, there is no evidence that any of these students raped her. In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. The stripper in this case, is undoubtedly a liar.

I think we strongly disagree on most aspects of this case. I encourage you to read the full case report and the Coleman report and I strongly believe you will change your mind entirely.

Lastly, I appreciate that you work hard for survivors' rights. I do, however, believe that Crystal has harmed beyond repair the rights of real rape victims (sadly) and hurt your cause dearly.

My best friend was raped (in a foreign country), and nothing makes me more angry than to know that it happened to such a fantastic person (or any person, of course). So please, do realize that although I disagree with you, I hold great respect for your position and the efforts you make.

Thank you and have a good night,
Ben

 
At April 30, 2007 11:58 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Ben, none of your points provide credible evidence to support the hoax theories. If this woman wasn't perpetrating a hoax as has been repeatedly alleged (the report undermines the hoax theory btw) then she can't have harmed the rights of real rape victims and she can't have hurt the fight against sexual violence.

Many people, including yourself, have made conclusions about the unkown DNA that simply isn't backed by evidence which makes those conclusions mere conjecture.

The source of that DNA is simply unknown unless or until one or more matches are made. Only then can anyone come to any firm conclusions about the source of that DNA.

When it comes to alleged rapists we are told we must wait and no matter how improbable we must give these men the benefit of the doubt while those who tell us that fail to follow their own standards when it comes to alleged victims.

They repeatedly overstep the evidence. We are told not to trust prosecutors, but when a prosecutor says something against alleged rape victims their words suddenly become gospel. Very convenient.

If this case sets back the fight against sexual violence then it is the fault of those who have used this case as a bat to make unfounded accusations about all women who report being raped. Most of those people want the fight against sexual violence harmed but they want to pass the buck for their concerted efforts onto a woman who from the AG's report has serious issues and who he is convinced absolutely believes what she has told investigators.

That harm also means that more people like your friend will be raped and their rapists will get away with their crimes. Is that really okay with you?

If you believe the AG is smart enough to accurately declare the 3 defendants innocent then he must also be smart enough to accurately declare that the alleged victim has always attempted to cooperate to the best of her ability. Yet you villify her for that.

There are enough pieces of evidence which have not been refuted so that I cannot conclude that everyone at that party that night is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home