False accuser of Duke Lacrosse players charged with stabbing her boyfriend

[pnwmom]

Previously, she was accused of setting a fire and found guilty of several misdemeanors.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42403448/ns/sports/

DURHAM, N.C. - Authorities say the woman who falsely claimed she was raped by Duke lacrosse players has been accused of stabbing her boyfriend in the chest at a North Carolina home.

Durham police say 32-year-old Crystal Mangum was arrested Sunday morning several hours after the stabbing that seriously injured her 46-year-old boyfriend.

SNIP

[dems_rightnow]

1. She's saying the Globetrotters did it.

I believe her.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Where is the "I just know those boys are guilty" crowd now

[underpants]

65. The point of that was, to me, was how the right wing press leapt over themselves to defend ...

the accused

Have you ever seen that before?

No of course not. They convict people pre-trial. But hold on these are the best of the best, creme de la creme, sons of corporates titans --they just CAN'T be guilty. Ignore please that they hired strippers...black strippers. And the whole thing exposed how the people in the area see Duke as renting them as farmhands.

[LisaL]

183. Hiring stippers is not illegal. Black or otherwise.

And they didn't specifically ask for black strippers, by the way.

[Cid_B]

189. I think what bothers your side of the fence...

... is that there is literally nothing wrong with what the accused players did.

It is really rare to see one side proven to be 100% wrong. It is so utterly damning and damaging and there is absolutely zero defense.

[Darth_Kitten]

200. What's the other side of the fence, how many men are allegedly "falsely" accused all the time?

:shrug:

[Cid_B]

219. When I refer to the other side of the fence..

I am talking about this issue only with the Duke case. IOW that group of people so desperate to find something to lay some hint of blame on the players.

On a side note, sometimes men are falsely accused of rape and sexual assault. Just like there are false accusations of every crime we have on the books. Statistical certainty.

[pnwmom]

201. I wasn't following the right-wing press.

I was following DU, and what I saw was the vast majority of DUers condemning the students for being privileged white boys -- so they must have done it.

By the way, when asked by the agency, they actually specified white or Hispanic strippers. They didn't intend to hire black strippers. Not that that should make any difference to their guilt or innocence.

[crazyjoe]

217. racist bastards.....:-)

[WatsonT]

262. They weren't guilty

and if they'd refused to hire a black stripper (which isn't illegal BTW) wouldn't you have called them racist?

Should they be condemned for a crime they didn't commit because they're wealthy and white? Does that make up for all the times the reverse happens?

[LoZoccolo]

3. !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhOj2dQTrk

[Codeine]

4. Them Duke boys are at it again. nt

[NeedleCast]

257. Therad should have ended after this awesome response

No other comments were needed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. If she was still in jail for her previous felony, this wouldn't have happened. n/t

[onenote]

259. if you're talking about her false accusation

she was never charged or tried for that. The reason given was that the authorities felt that she actually believed what she was saying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

268. She said many, mutually contradictory things. She couldn't have believed all of them.

This thread demonstrates the real reason she wasn't sent to jail.

[onenote]

270. Frankly, I'd have had no problem with her being prosecuted

But in many ways forcing Nifong out of office was more important and prosecuting her might actually have made that more difficult.

[apocalypsehow]

6. Trust me, before this thread is over someone will show up and proclaim her the victim - just like

they continued to do long after the Lacrosse players were cleared of any wrongdoing, and the evidence was as clear as day that she had falsely made those horrible charges up. You can count on it.

[RZM]

7. The hits just keep coming with Ms. Magnum

She's clearly has 'issues.'

[LisaL]

163. And they gave her kids back to her after she was not convicted of arson.

Ain't it grand?

[Buzz Clik]

8. pnwmom...

You may recall that in the first weeks of the heated discussions about the incident, there were just two voices at DU taking the side of the lacrosse players.

I shall not forget.

:thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

11. I was not here when the case first broke, but when one of the subsidiary episodes - maybe it was

when Nifong was being disbarred or the victims (the three Lacrosse players) were suing Duke, I can't remember which - I did witness a thread that literally took my breath away. This would have been 2008-early 2009 timeframe.

There was still a good deal of "this is a cover-up" and "we'll never know what REALLY happened" and "her (Mangum's) voice has been silenced" and "rich Frat boys get no sympathy from me" and "people don't lie about rape!!!!11" posts floating around. I'm paraphrasing, of course, since I can't remember the exact words. But the gist of it was: evidence be damned, these rich college boys were guilty of something, and deserve whatever misery they were suffering for the ruination of their reputations by a proven, perpetual liar.

It was appalling. And it was wrong.

[pnwmom]

16. That same attitude is fueling much of the antipathy

toward Amanda Knox, who was portrayed in the Italian media and elsewhere as a child of privilege. She wasn't -- she was just the daughter of a single mother in a middle-class home, before she made the fateful decision to take a junior year abroad. Three weeks later -- before any DNA evidence had been analyzed -- the prosecutor was announcing that the murder was solved and that in a crazed act of sexual violence, Amanda and her boyfriend were the perpetrators.

The actual evidence is as pathetic as in the Duke case -- there's enough reasonable doubt to fly a 747 through. But Amanda's still in prison three years later -- and might have as many as 23 to go.

[apocalypsehow]

20. To be honest, I haven't followed that case as closely as I should, and the few posts I've here on DU

about it have been woefully uninformed.

I was not aware of these problems with the case and (to my shame) just assumed she was guilty. I won't be doing that any more: before I post anything again about the Knox case I intend to study what's out there on the internet about it, and try to educate myself regarding it. Sounds like some of the same problems we saw in the Duke case are popping up in that one. In any event, thanks for the heads-up on these problems with the case - it's prompted me to rethink my position and study some more. :thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

31. Here's a place you might start.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html

It contains links to other sites whose owners have done some research on the case.

What I can't get over is the number of Americans who will respond -- well she must be guilty, because of X or X -- seeming to forget completely that the standard, even in Italy, is beyond a reasonable doubt. And there aren't just holes in the prosecutor's case, there's a pit the size of the Grand Canyon. The murder took place in a tiny bedroom covered with DNA and bloody footprints, handprints, and fingerprints. Not one bit of this physical evidence belonged to Amanda Knox -- and yet the prosecutor claimed that she wielded the murder weapon! How could she have been involved in this murder and not left a single trace ANYWHERE in the room? It's just not possible. And yet they decided she was a crazed sex murderess and sentenced her to 26 years.

[apocalypsehow]

50. Thank you for the link - I will definitely check it out.

:thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

237. I suggest you take a look at some independent sources also.

I did study the case as it was happening, and if she was not involved, she has certainly failed to prove it. She had a very fair trial and her conviction was based on evidence, that is being disputed by her family.

There's a lot to wade through though since you have not followed it. Her family did not help her much either. Amanda Knox, eg, falsely accused a black man, a well respected owner of a nearby club who had been very nice to her, and was willing to let him rot in jail when she knew perfectly well he was not guilty. Fortunately for him, the police were pretty thorough and he had enough witnesses to his alibi that he was released from jail. But his business and his reputation were ruined. She did not seem to understand the harm she had done to that man. The woman lied a lot which is why people had to rely on other evidence and witnesses.

After reading and following the trial, if I had been on the jury, I would have voted 'guilty' of at least being present when the murder occurred. She was not able to provide a credible alibi.

Anyhow, now you have two different assessments. The link you received is very biased towards her so it would be necessary to read other sources also to make an independent decision imo. It's a very sad story. The Knox family slammed the Italians, wrongfully and didn't help their daughter with the public in Europe. They even tried to involve Clinton who backed away airc, maybe after reviewing some of the evidence.

The girl who was murdered was a beautiful girl, in every way and her family were the exact opposite of the Knoxes, never appearing on the media which could have influenced the outcome, they were dignified and as far as I know, never said anything personally negative about the Knox family, which considering their behavior would have been understandable.

[EOTE]

247. Are you familiar with the burden of proof?

You say "and if she was not involved, she has certainly failed to prove it. " Well, she sure as hell doesn't have to prove it. That's one of the good things about our justice system and Italy's. You can't just have people throwing out wild accusations and then expecting them to be able to defend themselves. The burden of proof resides on the prosecution. If they can't PROVE she was there and that she killed that woman, then she should be set free. The prosecution did NOTHING of the sort. And I hope they get nailed for prosecutorial misconduct.

[sabrina 1]

272. I am speaking about the 'court of public opinion'

Those of us who followed the case saw nothing that successfully refuted the prosecution's claim that she was there. There was plenty of evidence presented that made a credible case that she was in the apartment, and in fact, she said so herself.

But when someone lies and points a finger at an innocent person, as she did, that raises a lot of questions about the person.

I am aware that not being actually on the case, not knowing any of the participants, makes it difficult for the public to do anything more than have an opinion based on what they learn as a case unfolds. And I have always said, there is always a possibility that someone has been wrongfully convicted. If that is the case, I hope she and her friend are released as quickly as possible.

And yes, I am aware of the role of whose responsibility it is to prove the case 'The Burden of Proof Rests with the Prosecution'. However, the defense has to be able to provide facts that refute the prosecutor's claims.

[apocalypsehow]

277. I will definitely look into both sides of the case to bring myself up to speed. It's important to

examine both sides: point taken. Thank you for the post.

[pnwmom]

13. My mother actually asked me the question

that started my questions. And the more I read, the more painfully obvious it was that the students were being railroaded. People used to accuse me of being related to the students. I wasn't, but I did have my own college freshman at the time. And I did empathize with the nightmare those families were going through.

Since then, I've been following the case of a local girl -- Amanda Knox, an ordinary girl who graduated from a nearby Catholic prep school and went on to U.W. before she decided to take her junior year abroad. Three weeks later she was accused of being a crazed sex murderess by another vicious prosecutor -- even though the DNA hadn't been analyzed yet. When a known criminal turned out to be the one who spread DNA, footprints, handprints, and fingerprints all over the murder site, the prosecutor couldn't let go of the idea that Amanda and her boyfriend had had something to do with it. And so they sit in prison, appealing their 26 year sentences.

So much of the two cases is similar, but especially the resentment toward young people who are perceived to be "privileged" college students. That really seems to send some people into a fury. (And, of course, she wasn't really privileged -- she lived in a middle-class home with her single mother.)

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

235. I think there were a few more than two.

I was here then and was pretty convinced she was lying and said so many times. I was using a different handle, had to change it for personal reasons since then but it wasn't just DU. A lot of people assumed the men were guilty.

The people I felt most sorry for back then were men who tried to say there was no real evidence of guilt. They were often accused of hating women and assuming women always lied.

[darkstar3]

9. Didn't we already fight the war over her personality and sexuality?

Does she really need to be run down into the dirt anymore? I thought gravedancing was looked down upon here.

[dems_rightnow]

10. They're trying to keep her from running herself into the dirt.

No luck so far.

[darkstar3]

12. Who is?

[pnwmom]

14. If she's being run down into the dirt, she's the one digging the hole.

And I have no sympathy, since the students would still be in prison if she'd had her way.

[darkstar3]

15. That trial showcased the problem of putting the victim on trial,

and it will be used time and again by those who believe that it's nearly impossible to rape a woman because women are the sex class. Continuing to run her down in association with that case serves no one but the enablers.

[blondeatlast]

17. "Used time and again"? Specifics, please? She hurt ALL rape victims--

and fwiw, I started out believing her.

She needs help--but sadly, it's too late to save her; the DA is gonna slam this out of the ballpark because no one, but no one, is going to give her an ounce of credulity.

[darkstar3]

21. I said "will be used"

and I have absolutely no doubt that it will. And you know it too, because you said she "hurt ALL rape victims." Thanks to the fact that JUST ONCE, putting the victim on trial in a highly public case got the defendants off, it will now be a tactic excused in every rape case you can find.

[dems_rightnow]

23. The defendants got off because they weren't guilty.

Which is a good thing.

[darkstar3]

32. Not before the victim had been put on trial in both court and public opinion.

This wasn't the first or hundredth time that a rape victim had a trial turned around to make her the focus rather than the defendants, but THIS one makes the practice excusable in the minds of the laypeople, and continuing to harp on it is a way to ensure that said practice is easy to continue.

[pnwmom]

34. I think the issue then and now was prosecutorial misconduct.

And that is something we should be on guard against. Not every person who is accused of a crime is guilty of a crime, and we sometimes need to be reminded of that.

[darkstar3]

39. Unfortunately, prosecutorial misconduct isn't what misogynist rape-apologists care about.

All they care about is being able to point to a publicly accepted case of "she lied about being raped" so they can associate that doubt with whatever current case floats their boat. To be clear, if you want to talk about the prosecutorial misconduct, I'm ALL for that, but the piece in the OP is clearly concerned about HER character, not the prosecutorial problems.

[pnwmom]

41. Then you should be blaming Crystal for handing those apologists

more evidence for their claims -- not trying to defend her as a victim of anyone.

[darkstar3]

46. I blame the system that publicized the shit out of the case,

and treated her as a liar and a suspect from the outset. I blame the system that cared more about trying the word of a woman than about evidentiary discovery and prosecutorial method. And I blame the masses who treat that trial as blanket proof that women lie and should be doubted when they claim assault.

[pnwmom]

48. Sorry, but the media "publicizing the shit out of the case"

is probably the only thing that kept those students out of prison.

When we had a lying accuser, and a lying, evidence-withholding prosecutor, the only thing that saved the students were the members of the media who took the evidence provided by the defense attorneys and put it out in public for all to see. Eventually, enough public pressure was brought to bear that the state finally looked into the prosecutor's handling of the case. And we have the media to thank for that.

But the students didn't "get off" because people didn't like the accuser. They got off because the whole case had been a house of cards. And when it was finally put out there for the world to see, it blew apart with the first puff of wind.

[darkstar3]

54. If the case had never been publicized, they still wouldn't have gone to prison,

because there would have been NO way to establish their guilt beyond doubt. The case would have actually gone to a full jury trial, and they would have been exhonerated. There wasn't enough evidence to convict, and there was no need to make Crystal the focus of the case in order to ensure victory. Battery victims wouldn't be treated the way Crystal was in non-sexual assault cases, for example, but it was OK to treat Crystal as a suspect and liar in this case because it was about rape.

[pnwmom]

56. That would be news to the defense attorneys.

They and their clients were very worried about what would happen in a trial. You keep forgetting that the prosecutor was withholding exculpatory evidence. The jury could easily have found them guilty.

[onenote]

52. so you sort of blame the system that presumes people are innocent until proven guilty?

As I recall, the press, the public (and in particular a lot of people on DU) were not treating her as a liar and a suspect from the outset. They were treating the accused Duke lacrosse students as presumptively guilty because they were a bunch of drunk, spoiled preppies who hired this woman to be a sexual object for their pleasure and then took it the next step and raped her. Much of those assumptions may well have some truth to them, except for the one, most important part -- they didn't assault her and being drunk spoiled preppies who hire women to dance naked for them isn't illegal, even if it isn't very nice.

On the other hand, lying about being raped: that's illegal

[pnwmom]

58. That's pretty much how I remember it, too. n/t

[darkstar3]

63. Not at all.

Innocent until proven guilty does not require that the accuser's word be questioned again and again simply because of their sex. Innocent until proven guilty requires that accusers provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She wouldn't have been able to make that case, and the boys would have been exhonerated, and there was no need to treat her as a de facto liar as the lacrosse supporters did in order to see that chain of events play out.

You remember people assuming that the Duke players were guilty, but not I. I vividly remember people vehemently and repeatedly making the case that they couldn't possibly have done it, and backing that up with nothing more than the idea that women lie, or the idea that sex workers cannot be raped.

[pnwmom]

69. Where is your evidence that her word was "questioned again

and again simply because of" her sex"? For many long months she was treated with kid gloves here on DU and in most of the media. And I never saw her being doubted on account of her gender.

And I'm certain you can't show me any post where a DUer said that sex workers cannot be raped. Maybe you've been reading too many freeper sites.

[darkstar3]

73. Well done. Since you know that calling out DUers is against the rules,

you know I cannot provide the evidence that you seek. Therefore you get to stick your head in the sand.

Those questions about her word and those accusations about her station were made right here in the height of the debate over the case. More than one person flatly stated that her consent to sex was given by her actions as a stripper.

You cannot tell me that you haven't seen these wars over sexism fought in GD for nearly a decade. I need not go to any other site to find rampant misogyny.

[pnwmom]

81. darkstar3, I was very active in those threads and I never saw

such a suggestion -- and I would have denounced it if I had. I really think you're getting DU mixed up with some other site.

[apocalypsehow]

83. What you define as "rampant misogyny" seems to include defending innocent persons falsely accused of

about the most serious crime one can be accused of, short of murder.

That's an interesting standard of "rampant misogyny" you got there. :eyes:

[EOTE]

250. I call bullshit.

"More than one person flatly stated that her consent to sex was given by her actions as a stripper. " Yeah right, that would be an instant ban. I don't believe that for one second. You may find misogyny here, but that never happened.

[onenote]

80. Her word was questioned not because of her sex but because of evidence

that gave reason to question her word, including physical evidence, statements by the other stripper who went to the party, etc.

Your memory is faulty. The party at which she claimed to have been raped occurred in mid March 2006. Arrests and indictments were not handed down until mid-April (in the case of a couple of the students) and mid-May (in the case of another one of the students). Some, but not all of the charges were not dropped against the students until late December and the rest of the charges weren't dropped until mid-April 2007 -- more than a year after the event become public. During the initial months of this timeline, the students proclaimed their innocence, but the reaction of the media and even the Duke authorities, while giving lip service to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" was at best neutral and was certainly did not involve vehement defenses of the students. The Duke lacrosse season was cancelled and even as late as June, the school's administration was not taking a position on whether the team would compete during the next season. There were protests at the Duke campus in support of the accuser. I don't recall counterprotests or public demonstrations in support of the students in those early months.

[pnwmom]

87. A good description of the time period. n/t

[sabrina 1]

239. She was doubted because as more and more evidence came

out, such as time stamps on bank withdrawals proving that one of the boys was telling the truth, it was apparent she was lying.

This was not a case about ALL women, it was a case about one woman and several men. The woman WAS lying. It happens, women lie sometimes, and sometimes they do not, just like men. I think people are capable of judging each case on its merits.

I have a friend eg, whose girlfriend had an affair with a married man. He was a prominent politician in their town. When he stopped calling the woman was furious and informed my friend that she was going to accuse him of sexual harassment and 'ruin his career and marriage'. She did. It became a scandal and it looked like he might go to jail. My friend decided to go to the prosecutor and tell him what she knew. It took guts to do that, the prosecutor wasn't happy at all to have his case messed up. But in the end, the truth prevailed, but not before a lot of harm had been done to him and his family. He was cheating on his wife, but while that's a pretty rotten thing to do, it isn't a crime.

As I said, women do lie. For a long time, and in the Lacrosse case airc, the prevailing attitude was 'women wouldn't lie about something like this'. I know it was said to me many times because I thought she was lying.

Maybe if we just view people as human beings, instead of women v men and realize that human beings can be pretty nasty and sometimes some of them lie. That way we can keep an open mind and not worry about extraneous things when someone's freedom and very life is on the line.

[blondeatlast]

243. +1,111 and very well said. This isn't about ALL women--and making it so

hurts actual rape victims more than it can possibly help.

The law is rigid in form for a reason--because human beings are creatures of emotion and capable of cruelty and frailty.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. I agree that will be a consequence; that's entirely the accuser's fault

and that of the prosecutor who egged her on, and not the fault of the people who drew attention to the fact that she was lying.

[jberryhill]

245. Her conduct and character were never an issue before any court

The strategy employed here was "attack the prosecutor's case" not "attack the victim".

There was damned little in the preliminary motions about Mangum, her history, behavior, or anything else.

There was quite a bit about how the prosecutor had violated due process. What made the case striking was how far the prosecutor went in so doing.

I'm not sure you understand the actual issues that were before the court in the preliminary stages of this thing. Those issues had practically nothing to do with this woman's character, history, behavior, or anything else.

[ecstatic]

115. OJ got off too... we can't pick and choose which

verdicts are acceptable. I'm not saying they're guilty, just pointing out that an acquittal doesn't always mean a person is innocent.

[onenote]

119. They weren't acquitted. The charges were dropped and the state Atty Gen'l

actually took the rare step of publicly declaring that the students were innocent.

[pnwmom]

127. We can logically look at all the evidence and decide whether we think

the outcome was just.

But, unlike OJ, the Duke students were NOT acquitted. No jury found that their guilt couldn't be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the case of the students, their case never went to trial because the State Attorney General ended the travesty of a case and said they were actually "INNOCENT."

Nobody ever proclaimed OJ to be innocent; the jury merely said his guilt wasn't proven.

[apocalypsehow]

24. She was NOT the "victim" - the falsely accused Lacrosse players were. I knew my prediction would

come true, just not so few posts in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=803629&mesg_id=803792

[darkstar3]

29. In the case being brought to trial, she WAS the alleged victim.

Were the lacrosse players victimized? Yes, I believe they were victimized by the legal system and by the media. But so was Crystal Mangum. She was the alleged victim in the trial, but they put her on trial rather than have an actual investigation and properly treat the evidence.

There is no excuse to try the victim, even if it got the defendants off in this one case. They still could have been found not guilty without trying the victim, if the proper evidentiary and prosecutorial procedures were followed

[pnwmom]

35. The victim was not put on trial. She got off incredibly easy,

since she could have been charged with making a false accusation and they decided not to do that.

[darkstar3]

43. She was treated from the outset as a liar and a criminal,

as are many rape victims in this country every single day. She was put on trial in the court of public opion, she was treated as a suspect in the pre-trial court filings that were handled by attornies, she was the focus of the investigation, rather than evidence or the defendants. Just like so many other women in the past. That's why rape is one of the most underreported crimes in the world. Women know that coming forward is dangerous, and may end, not with justice, but with them being metaphorically branded with a scarlet letter.

[pnwmom]

47. By whom? Not by the prosecutor. Not by her publicity-seeking allies. Not by DU.

She was treated as a victim for months and months, until finally people started to put the facts together.

[darkstar3]

49. She WAS treated that way by the defense attorney,

who cross examined her statements again and again because he automatically doubted them. She WAS treated that way by the people who automatically backed the lacrosse players for whatever reason they may have had.

People jumped to conclusions on both sides of the case LONG before any real evidence came into play, and the people on the side of the players ALWAYS claimed the same things: "She's lying." "She has an ulterior motive." The worst one was the assumption that she was a sex worker and therefore automatically lying about rape. THAT was the reason for the ad campaign characterized by the phrase "this is NOT an invitation to rape me." And that campaign, BTW, makes a good point regardless of the outcome of the Duke case.

Edit: wrong word.

[pnwmom]

51. The defense attorney never cross-examined her at all.

There wasn't a trial and it wasn't his job to cross-examine her before trial. And, as the defense attorney, it was his JOB to scrutinize and cast doubt on her accusations. Do you think the students should have had no defense?

[darkstar3]

70. Cross-examination is not something that happens solely in a courtroom.

It is something that happens every time a statement or testimony is reviewed using psychological interview tactics to determine the continuity of statements.

Casting doubt doesn't include treating the accuser as a liar. There is no award for "your word against theirs" in legal proceedings. But the assumption of her word being in question was made immediately based on several facts, including that she was a woman accusing several men and that she was a sex worker. These assumptions don't get made in regular assault cases, and it is incorrect to do so in sexual assault cases.

[pnwmom]

72. It is the job of defense attorneys to defend their client,

but they never questioned her word on the basis of her being a sex worker. And they never said that she couldn't be raped because she was a sex-worker. They simply said that she was lying -- that her statements didn't accord with other hard evidence (such as cell phone records) and they were right.

[darkstar3]

79. In THIS case, they were right.

That's no excuse for the automatic assumption of deception applied to women who claim rape. It was applied to her, and it just happened to work out, and that one case is used as confirmation that the tactic is OK in other cases. The terminology used in the OP is used to remind people that this tactic should be valid. That's why I find the OP distasteful.

[pnwmom]

84. Exactly what "terminology" in the OP implies that we should

automatically assume that women who claim rape are being deceptive?

The OP is about Crystal and Crystal alone. You're the one who keeps trying to link it to real victims of rape.

[darkstar3]

89. That's the whole problem with the OP.

It's about Crystal, and not about the crime she committed, and it continually ties her back to the rape case. It reminds people for no reason whatsoever about the case, in order to reinforce one simple message: "women lie."

[pnwmom]

92. No, it's not meant to reinforce the message that "women lie."

This isn't about all women, it's only about one: Crystal. And she's going to have to carry that false accusation around for the rest of her life -- just as the Duke students will have to.

[darkstar3]

One that serves as a scapegoat, which you acknowledge with your last sentence.

[pnwmom]

95. She's NOT a scapegoat, because she's NOT a victim!

Not in any sense.

[darkstar3]

102. #92 clearly shows otherwise.

[onenote]

110. #92 merely says that Crystal, not all women, has to carry the consequences of her false accusation

Seriously.

[darkstar3]

121. Sure it does,

assuming of course that you wish heartily not to see the consequences of the statement.

[pnwmom]

124. What are the consequences? Why shouldn't Crystal

have to live with what she did, just like the rest of us do?

[onenote]

125. actually it doesn't

unless of course you wish heartily to see something there that's not.

[EOTE]

253. So you still see her as a victim?

Wow, when you defend the indefensible, you REALLY defend the indefensible. I'm guessing it was the MSM who caused her to stab her boyfriend too, right? Somehow or another, she's not to blame.

[EOTE]

252. A defense attorney doing his job?!?!?

Well, I never!

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

36. It never went to trial

pre-trial investigations are what cleared the players - there were so many inconstancies in her story.

[darkstar3]

37. You get my meaning.

[hack89]

59. No I don't

the lacrosse players were indicted by an out of control prosecutor before any investigation was completed. She was not attacked - her lies were so obvious that any competent investigator would have discovered them.

[pnwmom]

62. Any competent HONEST investigator, you mean. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

42. She is in no way, manner, shape, or form the "victim" of anything - period. Indeed, she was the

victimizer, and the three falsely accused Lacrosse players were her victims. Period.

[LisaL]

160. Oh give me a freaking break already.

WTF was she a "victim" of? Enough already.

[pnwmom]

33. The defendants didn't get off because she was put on trial.

If anything, they got off because the errant prosecutor and his made-up case was put on trial -- and the world finally realized that there had never been a real case, from the very beginning.

[sabrina 1]

238. She wasn't a victim. The accused were the victims. They are very

lucky not to still be in jail with their lives totally ruined because she lied. I have zero sympathy for anyone who would send others to jail based on lies. She is a perpetrator, not a victim.

I will say that she seems to have many problems and probably needed help a long time ago. But her personal problems should not be allowed to cause harm to innocent people. I hope she does get some help and straightens out her life for her sake and her children's.

[pnwmom]

18. That trial showcased the problem of presuming guilt before the evidence is in,

and it showcased the problem of ruthless, showboating prosecutors.

And being reminded of these problems serves the cause of justice.

I wish more people would think about this with regard to the current case of Amanda Knox, who deserves our strong support.

[darkstar3]

22. I don't question that. The case went to trial too fast,

and the evidence gathering in the case wasn't handled properly. Of course, evidence gathering in rape cases is ALWAYS shoddy, as studies of treatment of rape kits have shown time and again...

It was a shitty trial all the way around, but tying her back to it again and again, as the piece in the OP does, serves no purpose to illustrate the prosecutorial problems, because it doesn't delve into them. It serves only to remind people that putting the victim on trial in rape cases is OK.

[blondeatlast]

25. +1, and if people knew how incredibly prevalent that tactic is

among DAs, all hell would break loose.

It's fucking despicable; innocent people go to prison way more than we like to think. I don't know about Ms. Knox's innocence or guilt--but I know for sure that the prosecutor made much use of the tactic--and it's vile.

[pnwmom]

38. I would appreciate it if everyone who cares about justice

would read more about the Amanda Knox case -- and then contact your representatives if she isn't freed during her appeal. It's appalling enough that she's spent 3 years in prison on trumped up charges, but she faces an extended sentence -- beyond the 26 years she's already been sentenced to -- if she loses her appeal. (That's the Italian system; you can appeal, but if you lose they can increase your sentence.)

[blondeatlast]

74. I plan to--I'm a law geek

(and a budding paralegal).

Thanks; I saw the link you provided and will check them out.

[pnwmom]

76. I think you'll see the same parallels I did; both to the Duke case

and to the Salem witch trials.

[RZM]

19. You want to shove the whole thing down the memory hole, then? n/t

[darkstar3]

26. Did I say that?

No.

I believe the case should be studied by law students from now until the 22nd century, for many reasons. I don't want to throw it down the memory hole. I do, however, think it irresponsible to continually tie this woman back to the case, because it helps remind people that she, as the victim, was put on trial, and people thought it was OK.

Rape, and other forms of sexual assault, seem to be the only crimes where we question and cross-examine and try the victim more than we do the suspect.

[blondeatlast]

28. She. Wasn't. A. Victim.

Please let that thought sink in for a moment or two.

[darkstar3]

30. Keep telling yourself that.

The case had an alleged victim, or plaintiff if you want, and an alleged criminal, or defendant. There is no excuse for trying the alleged victim. The defendant should be tried on the amount and veracity of the evidence. We don't try the victims of other crimes, but somehow we always turn rape and sexual assault cases around to try the victim instead of the defendant. It's disgusting.

There were no winners in that case, not even the American people or the boys from Duke.

[tammywammy]

53. There was no trial against the Duke lacrosse team. n/t

[blondeatlast]

55. Plaintiffs don't exist in criminal cases. The STATE (as in, you and I)

is the adversary to the defendant. WE acted shamefully in trying the case in the public before it ever went to trial. I went through a sympathy phase for the poor woman (who needs serious help, clearly) but she put the state through a wringer and the only good that came of it was a that a corrupt DA was brought down in public.

She needs help, and at some point (I can attest to this) if you don't get it yourself, you have to stop blaming others. Sorry, can't find sympathy--the only victims here were those wrongfully accused.

[onenote]

57. Do you think the "veracity" of her statements should have been immune from being questioned?

If not, how do you propose her veracity should have been tested?

[darkstar3]

86. Yes I do.

I think that the veracity of the word of the accuser, and the veracity of the word of the accused both, should not be questioned. Both are different stories regarding the same event, and there is only one way to verify the truth: evidence.

Going after the word of either party is nothing but fallacious reasoning of the ad hominem variety. It shouldn't be done.

[pnwmom]

88. How can you not question the veracity of BOTH accuser and accused

when their statements are direct opposites? Of course you have to question the veracity of both sides. One thing you should do, besides looking at other evidence, is look at the internal consistency of any statements. In the case of Mangums, her's were both inconsistent and constantly changing -- which should have been a major clue to the prosecutor not to take her word at face value.

[darkstar3]

90. Logically you cannot.

One person's word against another is a worthless circle jerk of argumentation. Evidence is the only way to solve that problem, which is why court cases REQUIRE it.

[pnwmom]

94. That is why you should examine each person's statement for

consistency, logic, and fit with the other evidence. And that is what the media helped us to do -- by releasing documents that had been filed in court -- when the prosecutor failed to do it.

[darkstar3]

101. No, you shouldn't.

Pressuring people, in any case, to repeat their story verbatim again and again in order to examine it for consistency and logic serves little function. Why? Because stress makes people make mistakes and misremember items they supposedly saw. Not only the stress of whatever situation launched the investigation, but also the stress of interrogation. Read some studies on eyewitness accounts to find out more.

Innocent until proven guilty and evidence based prosecution do not require interrogating either side. Once the accusation is made and disputed, the only thing necessary is to prove it beyond doubt through evidence.

[blondeatlast]

105. LI work in the legal field--there's a HUGE difference between victim accounts

and eyewitness accounts in terms of consistency.

Eyewitness accounts can often be easily swayed by good investigators and attorneys (DAs often do this--just as you see it on Law & Order). It's quite rare when actual victim accounts change greatly.

Ms. Magnum's changed a LOT.

[darkstar3]

106. The books I've read suggest otherwise.

Victims of violent crime have been found to paint a face on their attacker in their own memories under heavy questioning, after originally stating that they saw or remembered nothing. Trauma and stress play havoc with memory.

[blondeatlast]

112. And those books would be? nt

[darkstar3]

118. Textbooks from my years in college,

the names of which I do not remember. Which doesn't change the fact of the malleability of memory.

[blondeatlast]

122. And what were you studying?

As I say, I work in the legal profession; one of my most important responsibilities is gathering, keeping track of, and handling evidence.

[pnwmom]

132. That doesn't change the fact that witness testimony has always

been a key part of trials.

[onenote]

108. wow. just wow.

First, the statements that accusers and the accused make ARE evidence. Second, whether you're male, or female, whether the accusation is one of sexual assault or some non-sexual assault or even a property crime, the police always ask questions of both the accused and accuser.

I'm a white male. If I call the cops and say "I was at a party and when I was leaving this guy came out of the house next door pulled a gun on me and took my wallet," the police are going to ask me a lot of questions. When did I get to the party. When did I leave? Where was I before the party? Where did I go after my wallet was stolen. Who can vouch for my statements about when and where I was before, during and after the party. What did the guy look like? What did the gun look like? And then they're going to question the guy next door and ask him a lot of questions. And assuming he denies having gone outside, then they're going to come back and question both of us some more to see where the stories diverge and maybe where either story has inconsistencies with the first versions we told.

[blondeatlast]

111. B,b,but--on "Law & Order" they only question the suspect!

Of course, you are quite correct, but I don't think it will matter.

[darkstar3]

116. Police are involved in gathering evidence,

prosecutors and defense attorneys are not. Most of the questions you mention above deal not with verifying the truth of your claim, but with you providing them with help in the search for corroborating evidence. If they cannot find corroborating evidence, then it is the job of the prosecutor to drop the case due to lack of incriminating evidence. At no time during that process should you be treated as a liar, and the same goes for your neighbor.

Do the police always do their job well and without bias? No. But that's no reason to excuse mistreatment of parties in a legal case. Just because we have to assume that your neighbor is innocent unti there is enough evidence to prove him guilty doesn't mean we have to assume you are lying. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[blondeatlast]

120. Where are you getting your information on the legal system?

Of course DAs and defense attorneys gather evidence--the case doesn't end with the police investigation.

"Law & Order" DOES get this part right--sometimes, DAs will uncover exculpatory evidence and have to drop the case, much to the chagrin of the police officers who investigated.

[darkstar3]

126. Why did you focus on that and ignore the point of my post?

You DID read that the examples above were about discovering evidence and not about establishing whether either party in the dispute is a liar, right?

You DO understand that my whole point is that there's no reason to assume anyone is lying in a legal system where we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

[blondeatlast]

133. Because you keep focusing on the role of the police and attorneys

to amke your point (that turns out not the way you wanted) and I'm wondering why you think that way.

I work in the field; it's rather important to me to get it right.

[darkstar3]

138. Let me ask again:

You DO understand that my whole point is that there's no reason to assume anyone is lying in a legal system where we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

[blondeatlast]

141. It's a damn good idea to assume EVERYBODY is lying at first.

We don't have to be assholes about it--but that's pretty much how the police conduct investigations although they tend to be nicer to victims than suspects. If we could assume everyone is telling the truth there'd be little need for police investigations, grand juries, trials, and juries.

Do you seriously want to believe that EVERYONE is telling the God's honest truth? Think about that for a moment.

[darkstar3]

144. There is more to investigation than either lie or truth.

I'm of the opinion that facts must be gathered through proper discovery of evidence, and that those facts will be used to find what is true, and what is not. Assuming that anyone's statement is true or false is not the place of the person taking the statement.

[blondeatlast]

154. That's precisely what happened in the Duke case, so I'm not sure why you have

such a problem with the outcome?

Get this through your head--STATEMENTS ARE EVIDENCE. If they contradict other evidence, what conclusions are we supposed to draw? Her own evidence (statements) contradicted her other evidence (statements).

And the prosecutor should have gone forward for just what reason (at least answer this one specific question--the judge would insist you do so)?

[darkstar3]

166. That's not EXACTLY what happened in the Duke case.

Assumptions were made, contrary to my description in #144.

And to be clear, I never said the prosecutor should have gone forward. Once again, you're making assumptions. I actually believe that the prosecutor made a lot of mistakes because he didn't have enough evidence to move forward.

[pnwmom]

164. It might not be the place of the person taking the statement

but it is definitely the place of whoever is investigating and prosecuting the case.

And later, it is the job of the defense attorney to thoroughly question the accuser's statement.

[pnwmom]

155. No, I don't understand your point.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty entails guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." One of the ways doubt may be created is by accuser statements that don't make internal sense or don't accord with other known facts. That is why we have to look with a skeptical eye at all witness statements. Who is telling the truth? Are only parts true? We can't assume anything -- every statement must be tested against everything else we know.

[darkstar3]

165. And that method of creating doubt makes the victim the focus of the investigation.

Especially in the case of violent crimes, this can be further trauma and stress visited upon the victim, and this is inexcusable. I'm not saying this process isn't done, and I'm not saying that it's not a successful ploy for an attorney, but I AM saying that it is wrong and unnecessary. There are a myriad of ways to cast a reasonable doubt without putting the victim on trial. That's been my whole reason for posting here, but people keep thinking that trying the victim must be excused.

[pnwmom]

184. Too bad. It must be done. It is correct and necessary

to judge the veracity of an accuser's statements. And that isn't the same as "putting the victim on trial."

(Why you keep calling Mangum a victim, I don't understand.)

[darkstar3]

186. You haven't shown why it's necessary. No one has.

You believe it necessary for reasons I do not know, but so far all I see from you regarding its necessity are misconceptions regarding the burden of proof in a legal system with a presumption of innocence.

The only reason I can think of where trying the victim, and that's what it is, would be necessary, is because jurors hold even more misconceptions about that presumption than can be found on this board.

[blondeatlast]

193. You are completely unwilling to accept how the legal system works because

it doesn't allow you to attain your goal. Understandable--that's why we're human, and why the legal system is structured so rigidly.

You still haven't answered me what your experience in the legal system is. That's fine--but I think it's a little cowardly.

[darkstar3]

195. See my post #159.

There is a difference in how our current legal system "works", and how it was to work theoretically.

[pnwmom]

203. You are the one with misconceptions.

You don't understand the very simple fact that witness statements, including accuser or "victim" statements, are an important part of the evidence, and must be examined for truth as carefully as all the rest of the evidence. If those first statements don't hold up, and no other solid evidence has been uncovered, that is the end of the investigation.

That is what Nifong should have done at the very beginning, but he chose to go on -- without follow-up interviewing of his own witness -- for his own self-serving reasons.

[snooper2]

251. you wouldn't make for a very good cop FYI

You been drinking sir?

Yeah, I had one beer at lunch time but nothing since...

But your eyes are red and you just slurred the word nothing?

Oh, damn alergies and I'm on some pain pills, got a prescription, want to see it?

No- that's okay. Now try to stay between the lines- no more swerving around. You have a good evening.


You too Officer, Burp! See ya later! :beer:

[pnwmom]

137. We should assume ANYONE is capable of lying and view EVERY

statement with an eye for gaps in logic and inconsistencies.

[darkstar3]

139. Why?

If we assume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, what function will your assumption serve?

[blondeatlast]

148. Let me ask you--does everyone who reports a crime, whether they be

victims or witnesses, tell the truth? If we presume that they do, should the resources of law enforment and justice be used in every case?

REALLY?

[darkstar3]

153. "The full resources of justice" wouldn't be used in cases where evidence cannot be found,

and it is difficult to find evidence when people are lying. Of course, that's beside the point since you seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between investigation of assertions and assumtion of truth or falsehood. You really don't get the fact that it is possible to take someone's statement and treat it as neither true nor false.

[blondeatlast]

161. Law is black and white--which is something you don't seem to get, so can the condescension.

I can understand the difference--but the law can't afford to make that distinction.

EVERYONE's statements have to be weighed equally until proven true or false by further evidence.

[darkstar3]

169. Now wait just one fucking minute.

"EVERYONE's statements have to be weighed equally until proven true or false by further evidence."

That's EXACTLY the point I've been making! And that statement contradicts your earlier assertion that accusers must be assumed to be lying in order to presume the innocence of the accused.

We need not assume that anyone is lying or telling the truth. Your own statement backs up that point I've been trying to make.

[pnwmom]

173. But you also disagree with interrogating someone as a way

to weigh their claims, and whether the claims are truthful. You want to assume all claims are truthful and somehow only look at other kinds of evidence.

[darkstar3]

177. So because I won't assume accusers are lying, I assume all claims are truthful?

Nope, that's not how it works.

[pnwmom]

171. If you're treating a statement as "neither true nor false"

then you're treating it as if it might NOT be true. You then investigate to see if it is true, and part of that investigation is to see if it MAKES SENSE. If a person comes into the police station and says "I was attacked" and the police take a statement, and the accuser says, "My boyfriend just cut off my third arm!" -- then this is a statement that can be examined to see if it comports with the facts. People don't generally have three arms -- and the accuser isn't bleeding. Therefore, she must be either deluded or lying.

It really wouldn't be possible for any sane, logical person to listen to that person's claim ("My boyfriend cut off my third arm") and treat it as neither true nor false.

(And once a sane, logical State Attorney General got a look at Mangum's crazy claims, he wasn't able to pretend that they could be true.)

[darkstar3]

175. Guess what, you made an evidence-based decision.

Claim: "My boyfriend cut off my thrid arm"
Evidence: Humans in general do not have third arms. If we really wanted to get specific, a cursory medical examination would reveal that she was not a genetic mutant and she did not, in fact, have 3 arms before coming to the police station.
Decision/conclusion: She is not telling the truth.

You see, there was an intermediate step there. We didn't just go from claim to assumption of falsehood. We applied evidence.

Now, let's change this around to a rape case:

Claim: "He raped me."
Evidence: In your mind, the evidence is the fact that she was questioned again and again and each time her story was a little different.
Conclusion: She's lying.

That would make sense to me, and to most people, but I have a problem with the evidence. WHY was she questioned again and again? The only conclusion I can come to is that the assumption of deception was made before physical evidence was sought. I have a problem with the assumption of deception.

[pnwmom]

185. But "He raped me

while we were flying through the air on magical elephants" is a statement whose truth could be judged without resorting to any outside evidence. And so could many of Mangum's illogical claims -- if the prosecutor hadn't been so caught up in the thrill of his election campaign.

[darkstar3]

188. Going by memory, that's not entirely true.

Mangum's statements under repeated questioning were contradictory, but I don't recall that her statements contained clear physical impossibilities.

[pnwmom]

190. One of her many statements described her as being raped in that tiny

bathroom with three students while she was dangling in mid- air. It was completely impossible to believe.

[darkstar3]

192. At the risk of massive digression,

you haven't seen bad quality porn? I have no problem believing that three athletic men could hold a stripper off the ground during a sex act. As for the tiny bathroom, at the risk of sharing too much, I've had sex in places where, afterward, I never understood how two people could fit in there.

You see? You disbelieve this claim is possible. I do not. We have a disagreement because this is only HER WORD. We need real evidence to back it up, and that's how shit in this legal system is supposed to work.

[pnwmom]

209. This isn't 2 people in a tiny bathroom, it was 4.

Three of them were quite large and one of them was supposedly suspended in mid air.

And this story didn't jibe with any of the others she'd previously told. Sorry, but her stories, when taken together and in context with the rest of the available information, had no credibility.

[darkstar3]

223. We've dealt with the suspension. How tiny was the bathroom? Do you know?

Have you ever tried, in the middle of perhaps a college activity, to fit as many people as possible into a shower stall, phone booth, or other cramped space and been surprised at the results?

You purposely ignore the point. Word isn't enough. Evidence is necessary, and what you're coming up with isn't evidence, it's assumption.

[pnwmom]

225. All that was necessary to know is that she had as many different

versions of the rape as she had statements. Sometimes there were 3 attackers. Sometimes there were 20. And I did see a diagram of the bathroom at one point, and it was VERY tiny.

What she described this time wasn't trying to fit as many people as possible in a small space. She was describing three large men, two of them holding her suspended in the air, while the three of them took turns jumping around, swapping places, attacking her different orifices. The actions that she described couldn't have taken place in that small a space.

Of course, 20 men couldn't have raped her in that tiny room, either, which is probably why the prosecutor chose to withhold that particular account.

[darkstar3]

227. And my problem with what you're saying here is two-fold.

First, the fact that she was interrogated again and again is a problem for me because it is the treatment you give a liar. That's unnecessary, and traumatic in other cases where it happens to people who were actually victimized.

Second, you're making assumptions again.

[pnwmom]

162. It could, for example, prove that an accuser is not telling the truth.

Which would add to reasonable doubt.

For example, assume an accuser says that she was robbed at 9 o'clock in front of the 7/11, and she knows that this time is correct because she looked at her watch. But then a bank machine in the next town shows her withdrawing money at that time. We would know that she wasn't telling the truth about these facts, and it would lead us to doubt her veracity in general.

[darkstar3]

167. That would be pointless in a situation where we assume innocence and evidence is scant.

Like this one.

[pnwmom]

174. In the Duke case, there was lots of evidence, but much of it

was being withheld. And other evidence was being twisted to make the students look guilty.

Crystal's physically impossible and inconsistent statements helped greatly to demonstrate the weakness of the prosecution's case.

[darkstar3]

179. As I recall, the prosecution's case was weak without taking Crystal's statements into account.

There wasn't much evidence to show beyond doubt that the lacrosse players had done anything. What we had was circumstantial and overhyped.

[pnwmom]

187. The prosecutor had put out plenty of "evidence" -- enough so

that most DUers and most media were convinced for months that the students were guilty. People have gone to prison for much less. At the same time, the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence -- and when defense attorneys released this, they were accused of putting out falsehoods in order to help their clients.

[darkstar3]

191. I don't remember any evidence that wasn't circumstantial.

True, there were many morons among us laypeople who took that circumstantial evidence and ran with it, convicting both sides of crimes in the court of public opinion. But you of all people, as a very frequent poster, should know that such occurences on DU aren't going to come close to mirroring what would happen in an actual court of law. I don't agree with your assertion that "People have gone to prison for much less."

[blondeatlast]

194. You clearly don't understand much of anything about evidence.

Circumstantial is as valid (often more) than any other kind of evidence, but since that's a doctrine of law I'm certain you won't accept it.

Oh, yes, indeed, people have gone to prison for much less. But you just go on, bless your heart.

[darkstar3]

196. Circumstantial evidence is valid, now?

wow.

[blondeatlast]

202. Why don't you get back to your textbooks and study up--oh, I'll save you:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5218/Circumstantial-Evidence.html

Oh, and you might want to use DU's technology as it was intended by clicking "reply..."

[dems_rightnow]

204. Always has been.

Go back into those textbooks you remember.

[blondeatlast]

205. Wow, backatcha--you don't know the law, period.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5218/Circumstantial-Evidence.html

[darkstar3]

212. For both of you:

Circumstantial evidence is not valid by itself. You either need direct evidence to go with it, or you need a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence to eliminate doubt. And in some cases, as in the OJ case, a mountain of circumstantial evidence still can't eliminate doubt.

The circumstantial evidence in the Duke case just wasn't enough for a jury worth a damn to convict. It simply isn't valid unless and until there is enough other evidence to make it so.

It's like the difference between a parabolic curve and an arch. A solid parabolic curve can stand on its own, while an arch will crumble if you remove only one piece.

[blondeatlast]

216. But it most certainly is valid and admissable and you said quite plainly otherwise. nt

[darkstar3]

220. Where?

I mocked you when you said it was valid, because you implied that it by itself was valid or even more valid than direct evidence, which is of course ridiculous. Nowhere did I say it was inadmissable, just that I felt it was worthless in the Duke case.

[pnwmom]

230. Testimony can be a form of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence

and in either case it must be carefully examined.

That is what happens in a correctly performed interview, interrogation, or cross-examination.

[pnwmom]

226. And what is non-circumstantial evidence? Witness statements.

Which you've already said can't be used.

[darkstar3]

229. You don't read very well.

Where did I say that witness statements are inadmissable?

Here's an example of non-circumstantial, non-witness evidence: Security camera video tapes.

[pnwmom]

207. Of course. Circumstantial evidence is evidence other

than having an eye-witness.

You have already said that you don't think the truth or falsity of witness statements should come into play. Now you don't believe in using circumstantial evidence either?

[blondeatlast]

208. I believe what darkstar is saying is that circumstantial evidence isn't admissable or valid.

Quite incorrectly.

[pnwmom]

210. S/he doesn't believe in using witness statements or circumstantial evidence.

What does that leave, anyway?

[blondeatlast]

211. Lassie?

I'm at a loss.

[darkstar3]

213. That is patently incorrect.

Direct evidence involves much more than eyewitness testimony.

[pnwmom]

228. It turns out that testimony can be either direct evidence

or circumstantial. According to Wikipedia, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence


Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.<1> In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.)

On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating evidence.

[EOTE]

256. You have no idea how circumstantial evidence is weighed in a trial.

Your many comments on the subject make that quite clear. There have been many prosecutions based primarily or entirely on circumstantial evidence. I find it hilarious how those least qualified are the ones screaming the loudest that they should be taken seriously.

[pnwmom]

206. Their own attorneys acknowledged that they'd been afraid

that their clients might have been convicted. The railroading job at one point appeared very solid.

[EstimatedProphet]

255. It will serve to show the truth in the way this case actually played out!

[onenote]

123. I guess you don't realize that a lot of Crystal's inconsistent statements were made to police

or that prosecutors and DAs have investigators that work for them who interview accusers so that the DA can build his/her case.

[pnwmom]

134. The whole problem was no one treated Mangum as a potential liar.

For far too long the prosecutor accepted all her conflicting statements at face value and he declined to interview her himself, in person. If he had, he might have had to acknowledge the glaring inconsistencies in her claims and he might have had to drop the case -- but that would have interfered with his election campaign, where he was posing as the "victim's" champion.

[pnwmom]

131. In the American legal system, "evidence based prosecution"

requires interrogating both sides. Witness testimony is an important part of the evidence.

[bettyellen]

151. wasn't it inconsistant stories that made the police look twice at Ms Knox?

particularly the two of them lying about calling the police in the first place, nd their wherabouts?

[pnwmom]

197. That is what they claim. But I suggest you look more deeply

into the case. Ask, for instance, why -- after they realized all the DNA in the bedroom where the murder occurred belonged to a known criminal who had previously broken into other homes -- they didn't just drop the case against Knox and her boyfriend? (Six weeks later, they finally found a bit of DNA that MIGHT be the boyfriend's on a bra clasp -- but they didn't have that speck when they charged him and Knox. And they didn't find a bit of evidence linking Knox to the murder site.) Why did they interrogate Knox for 5 days straight, including an overnight interrogation on the 4th night, with no attorney present? With no interpreter most of the time? With no audiotapes, videotapes, or even a transcript to show exactly what she said?

The sad fact is that the prosecutor -- who has been convicted of prosecutorial misconduct in another major case -- announced that he had found the guilty parties only a few days after the murder: Amanda and her boyfriend. Then, when the DNA evidence tying the case to Guede came back he had the choice of admitting he'd been wrong -- i.e., LOSING FACE -- or developing a new theory of the case: that Amanda, her boyfriend, and a person they barely knew (the one's whose DNA, handprints, fingerprints, and footprints were all over the murder scene) had forced Kercher to have sex with them and killed her when she didn't want to.

The prosecutor's case is as crazy as that. The way they've treated Knox -- it's like something out of the Salem witch trials. It's even worse than the Duke case because the case was pulled out of thin air -- there was no accuser behind the prosecutor's actions. And, of course, two innocent people were sentenced to 26 years in prison.

[blondeatlast]

91. Let's go back 80 years and consider your statement in terms of the Deep South

Think about false accusations of rape back then and what happened to those accused. Do you still stand by that statement? Not all of those accused had Atticus finch for a defense attorney--in fact, none of them did.

[darkstar3]

93. False parallel. This isn't the Deep South of the early 20th century,

and our jurisprudence can improve. As I said in another post, you cannot logically focus on the veracity of claims from either party. You must find evidence.

[pnwmom]

96. When the accuser's own statements contradict each other

and make no sense, a prosecutor damn well should focus on them.

[darkstar3]

104. If the focus had been on evidence instead of word,

multiple statements would not have been taken, and the boys would have been found innocent because there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Innocent until proven guilty requires evidence, not interrogation.

[blondeatlast]

107. WRONG. No one, but no one, is required to "prove" innocence.

The DA is required to PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and until the jury comes back, EVERYONE (including the DA and the judge) is required to presume innocence.

You have a very twisted idea about what goes on in the criminal justice system. .

[darkstar3]

109. You mistook my meaning.

I was saying that if we presume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, then we require evidence to overturn that assumption, and we need not interrogate people. I KNOW that the DA is required to prove yaddayaddayadda, that's exactly what I MEANT.

[blondeatlast]

117. Victim/eyewitness statements ARE evidence just as much as fingerprints,

clothing, etc. What you stated is that the accused is NOT innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of all court servants they are; the DA has to make the same presumption (the public, with the exception of the jury, does not, however).

[darkstar3]

128. Your view is black and white.

You seem to think that innocent until proven guilty requires that we assume the accuser is lying. This is simply not the case.

[blondeatlast]

136. Gosh, I wonder why I would think that--maybe because it IS?!

"The law is reason free from passion," sayeth Aristotle. The law is meant to be rather rigid in form--to be interpreted by mere humans.

[darkstar3]

142. That's sick.

So everyone who ever files a police report should be thought of as a liar until they are proven truthful? Aside from the fact that there is no need to do so in order to presume the innocence of the accused, I find the entire idea of victims treated as liars abhorrent.

Again, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[pnwmom]

149. Every defense attorney is doing his job when he questions

the accuser's statements.

And since a prosecutor's job is not to represent the "victim" but the State -- in other words, justice -- s/he also must also test the truth of an accuser's claims. As you have pointed out, the accuser may be suffering from a faulty memory. If the accusations won't stand up to a trial, better to find out before the case goes that far.

[darkstar3]

159. Poorly,

but then again if my experience with people debating this topic today and at other times is any indication, few people on a jury of peers truly understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that we have two different issues here: The theory of jury proceedings, and the actuality. In theory, the attorney is doing a poor job when focusing on the accuser rather than the evidence, but it appears that in actuality it is required that the attorney do so because the jury is made up of people incapable of understanding the idea of innocence until proof of guilt.

[pnwmom]

145. The truth in this case is black and white.

A witness statement is part of the evidence, and it must be scrutinized to see if it is logical and accords with the known facts. If it doesn't, it adds to the doubt. Enough doubt, and the person will be judged "not guilty."

Any defense attorney that did not interrogate the accuser and did not cast doubt on his or her claims should be disbarred.

[pnwmom]

143. Witness statements, including accuser's statements, are part of the evidence.

And inconsistencies and other problems in accuser's statements are part of what create "reasonable doubt."

You don't seem to understand this extremely basic fact of the judicial system.

[onenote]

135. why do not get the concept that words are evidence?

When she reported the assault, her description of what happened was part of the evidence that gave probable cause for the police to go the student's house and search it. When she told the police she was attacked by 3 students, that was evidence. And when she said it was 20 students a short time thereafter, it also was evidence -- evidence that maybe there was reason to check her story more carefully.

If I call up the cops and report I was mugged and they ask me for a description of who mugged me and I say it was a short white male, around 5 feet tall and then, when the police, reviewing with me my statement say: you say he was a short white male, around 5 feet tall and I say no, it was a tall asian female, the police are going to question me further. As well they should.

[pnwmom]

140. The prosecutor was withholding exculpatory evidence,

and the students could easily have been found guilty -- as they already had, in the court of public opinion.

Defendants don't have to prove their innocence, they have to induce doubt. Interrogation is one of the ways of proving "reasonable doubt." When an accuser's statements don't make sense or correlate with other facts, that adds to the doubt.

[bettyellen]

156. like Ms Knox's stories? Ironic you should bring us inconsistencies if you believe in her innocence.

[pnwmom]

168. Amanda Knox was subjected to five solid days of interrogation,

including an overnight interrogation, with no attorney present. The prosecution has provided no transcripts of her interrogation and no videotapes -- only notes that she scribbled after hours of interrogation (and later, after finally sleeping, disavowed) and statements in Italian that they drew up and had her sign.

And she, who had only been in Italy for a few weeks, wasn't provided with an interpreter for most of that time.

I'll believe there are serious inconsistencies when they produce the video of their interrogation. (And they had the capacity to make one -- at trial they produced "hidden camera" tapes of Amanda talking to her mother while she was being held there.)

[darkstar3]

170. Now you begin to see my problem with attacking the stories of either party in a case.

Her interrogation yielded more problems than it solved, yes? Maybe if the focus had been on evidence...

[pnwmom]

178. If her interrogation had been conducted with an attorney present

and an interpreter, and she hadn't been kept overnight on her fourth day of interrogation, and there were at least audio tapes if not videotapes, I would feel different about it.

As it is, under those conditions, whatever those interrogations yielded was worthless.

[darkstar3]

180. There's something to be said for small steps, I guess.

[pnwmom]

182. delete

[bettyellen]

249. it was my understanding her first story was a lie, so they had her back...

and she changed it something like two more times. that they didn't keep her overnight till they had heard three or four different versions. Anyway, your opinion on inconsistency, isn't consistent at all. Funny how that works. You appear to have a real personal interest here defending any and all college kids, and it seems it's blinding you - or giving yourself permission to be all over the map regarding judging these matters. And trust me, you're acting like judge and jury- just as much as any DUer who thinks these kids could be guilty.

[blondeatlast]

64. "Keep telling yourself that"? She made a false accusation--you know, like all those false accusation

many females of one race made against the males of another race back in the day. I'm guessing you are aware how "well" those false accusations turned out for those falsely accused. "Strange Fruit" by Billie Holiday explains it well if you aren't.

False accusations are hideously damaging at all levels--and should be discouraged at all costs.

She's not a well individual--the only sympathy I can muster for her is that she didn't get help earlier--but at some point, even that becomes your own problem (something to which I can attest; it almost came too late for me).

You might want to rein in that condescension--"keep telling yourself that"?

[alphafemale]

113. She. Was. Not. A. Victim.

[darkstar3]

172. It's funny you should post that pic,

considering that what gave HER away was the evidence of the B being backward...

[alphafemale]

231. um...That wasn't the only evidence against her

She was a hateful little packet of snot.

Did she really think a black eye looks like smudged make up. Really?

[lumberjack_jeff]

234. There was, in retrospect, a very good reason to investigate.

The goal of the justice system is to capture criminals. Not imprison whomever she points at.

[joeglow3]

248. From what I can see, her identity was not revealed by major outlets until...

...it had been determined the players were innocent.

[EstimatedProphet]

254. That's not even remotely true

We don't try the victims of other crimes, but somehow we always turn rape and sexual assault cases around to try the victim instead of the defendant.

Tell you what - go out right now and try to accuse someone of robbing you at gunpoint. Try to claim that you are the victim of a robbery. See how long you can remain not on trial when it goes to trial.

It is patently absurd to claim that she shouldn't have been tried - especially since the fact that she was tried is the key factor in proving that she was not a victim. There is every reason to question the alleged victim's story in every case, and the proof of that was shown in this case.

[pnwmom]

40. I didn't see this woman as being subject to any special trial.

What I saw on DU was a tremendous outpouring of support for her, through month after month of her lies.

[RZM]

61. Maybe it helps remind people that she's unstable and nutty, which were factors in the original case

BTW, had she NOT been continually pressed and scrutinized, she might have gotten away with her attempts to level false accusations. So perhaps in this case, it was a good thing that she wasn't taken at her word.

[naaman fletcher]

181. She wasn't a victim. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

221. I don't know why you persist with all this

fearmongering.

[darkstar3]

224. And with that,

you proved yourself incapable of having an adult conversation.

[Warren DeMontague]

233. You're needlessly stirring up panic based upon nothing more than your own feelings.

it's fearmongering, pure and simple.

[JonLP24]

68. She has been

diagnosed with mental illness. Far too often, the system fails and breaks down for these people and something happens like doing something that lands them in prison. I really hope she gets the help she needs.

[Yo_Mama]

27. She's the one running herself into the dirt

If some people still believe that the lacrosse players are guilty, I'd say something like this is fair publicity.

The woman is not right. Probably not right in the head.

And it's a good lesson to us all not to assume something because it feeds into our own fears/prejudices.

[pnwmom]

44. Some people DO still think the players were guilty.

No doubt some always will, so yes -- this is a fair counter to that.

[Zhade]

45. "The woman is not right. Probably not right in the head." "a good lesson to us all not to assume"

I love unintentional irony.

[Yo_Mama]

130. It's the kindest possible interpretation

And that much we generally owe to each other.

If you look at statistics, a shockingly high number of incarcerated people do have significant mental issues. In some studies I looked at, it was as high as 40-50%. If we understood that and were better able to handle those problems, we might have many less people in jail.

[onenote]

218. not really irony

The reason that she was not prosecuted for her false claim was that, in the view of the investigators, she may have actually believed what she was saying -- in other words, she probably was not right in the head.

[Chorophyll]

77. Apparently, if you're a female person with a criminal background

you can't possibly have ever been raped. Only good girls can get raped.

Which sort of screws up that whole "she was asking for it with her short skirt" argument, but I don't expect consistency from misogynists anymore.

[pnwmom]

97. Who in this thread has said anything remotely like that? n/t

[blondeatlast]

99. No one. The poster above is comparing apples

to airplanes.

[pnwmom]

100. LOL.

Thanks for the tension-release, blondeatlast.

[Chorophyll]

236. No one said it outright, but the fact that the thread even exists

smacks of this attitude. "Look! She stabbed her boyfriend! Those poor Duke Lacrosse players! How much more innocent can they get?" Let it go already.

[blondeatlast]

242. Really? You've read through the entire thread?

Because I have, and your observation is--what's the word I'm looking for?--oh, yeah.

WRONG.

[EOTE]

260. Yes, and that's totally the same as "Only nice girls get raped."

I'm hearing a ton of disgusting crap on this thread, and it's almost all from people like yourself who believe that this woman is still a victim.

[yardwork]

146. She's back in the news because she tried to kill somebody by stabbing them this morning.

She's put herself back in the news by trying to kill somebody. Allegedly.

[WatsonT]

263. Yeah, poor little thing, never hurt a flea. Why is everyone picking on her?

[ecstatic]

60. Stuff like this is why some rape victims don't come forward

There's a good chance the rapist(s) will go free and on top of that, there's a good chance of getting slimed for the rest of your life.

[pnwmom]

66. The Duke students were slimed for the rest of their lives.

There will always be many people who are still convinced, despite all the evidence, that they were guilty.

If other rape victims were hurt by this, it's the fault of the false accuser, not of the students or those who supported them.

[ecstatic]

67. How? I don't know any of their names, do you?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

75. Yes, I remember their names. And so do many people from their hometowns

and in North Carolina.

[apocalypsehow]

78. What you do or don't know is irrelevant: those men were slimed forever, and one quick trip to Google

or Wikipedia and you find their names all over the place, forever associated with the false accusations made against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Of course, you well know this - but for some reason continue to act as if they are the ones with the problem, not their false accuser. :eyes:

[yardwork]

150. In this particular instance I think that they were fully vindicated and everybody knows it.

The attorney general of the state of North Carolina said that they were innocent. Not just not guilty - innocent.

[pnwmom]

198. yardwork, there are still DUers who don't know it,

who claim that we'll never know the truth of what happened.

But I agree, the students were innocent.

[blondeatlast]

71. And false accusers make that situation even WORSE by providing anecdotal evidence

that victims "make up" rape claims. Read nearly any rape thread on DU--the idea that women make rape up is not only there, it's quirte prevalent.

People like Ms. Magnum hurt the cause--the last thing those of us who are concerned with stopping rape should do is excuse her so easily.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. So you're still holding the line that she's the "victim", here?

Yeah, don't let facts get in the way of what you already know.

[WatsonT]

264. She wasn't a rape victim.

[apocalypsehow]

85. I gotta tell you, when I first made this prediction just a few posts in to your OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=803629&mesg_id=803792

I never dreamed how quickly and to what extent I would be proven correct. But boy was I ever.

[pnwmom]

98. yeah, I know. But it's still kind of shocking. n/t

[blondeatlast]

103. You took me to the cleaners on that case a few times and that made me

start paying more attention to what was going on.

It's one of several times that my mind has been changed, or at least my thoughts broadened, by participating in DU.

[pnwmom]

152. My mind has been changed here, too, blondeatlast.

In the case of the students, though, it was my elderly mother asking me a question that got me involved. I first assumed they were guilty, too -- but when I started to look for the answer to my mother's question, I got more and more unnerved by what I was reading.

[Buzz Clik]

214. Good gawd. What a shit storm.

:shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

147. They are actually pretty mellow now,

One of the more forceful Duke rape dead-enders, subsequent to all charges being dropped dubbed me the leader of DU's "racist hetero-patriarchy" and implied I should be executed in public along side the Duke boys as I was equally as guilty and another one compared me to a holocaust denier and suggested that I myself was a rapist defending my brothers in arms!

Fun times and many "deleted sub-threads".

[LisaL]

158. Well, this is DU so you aren't exactly a psychic.

LOL.

[NoodleyAppendage]

114. Where's Al Sharpton now? Typical.

Like Tawana Brawley (sic), Rev. Sharpton has a very poor track record with the female accuser types.

J

[Biker13]

176. I Worked In NYC ...

when that fiasco was in full play! I will never forget or forgive Al Sharpton for what he did. For me, it destroyed his credibility.

Biker's Old Lady

[ecstatic]

232. You will never forgive him for standing behind a woman

who claimed to be brutally raped? What exactly made his actions unforgivable?

[Biker13]

261. The Fact That He Never Apologized...

for his actions. He destroyed reputations and even when it was apparent she was lying, he still backed her. The whole story smelled from the beginning, but he jumped in without a second thought. He used her to make his name, not because he cared. At least, that was how I saw it.

You may see it differently, and that's fine. But the whole thing looked like a publicity stunt.

Biker's Old Lady

[NoGOPZone]

244. Same place he was during the case

He did not get very involved in the Duke case.

[LisaL]

157. Well, considering she was not convicted of arson, I am not

optimistic anything will come out of this one either. Is this the same boyfriend or a new one?

[ileus]

199. The patriarchy strikes again...LOL

[Terra Alta]

215. She clearly has some mental issues.

Apparently, those issues have yet to be resolved. I hope she gets some help, and soon.

[ecstatic]

240. Which begs the question: If a mentally ill woman is raped,

would she have any chance of getting justice? Or would the case be dismissed as soon as she is revealed to be "crazy."

[onenote]

258. well, in this case, it took almost a year to get the case dismissed

so I'd say she was given ample chance of "getting justice" -- justice that she didn't deserve. The accused students? I guess they finally got the justice they deserved when after a year of having their names dragged through the mud they were declared to be innocent (not merely not guilty) of the charges that were brought against them.

[NoGOPZone]

246. This notion actually came in the press conference where the NC Attorney General

announced the termination of the case.

Q: Was the woman somewhat mentally unstable? Was that part of the problem? With all these stories. You mentioned she believed some of these different stories. Is there a mental illness?

COOPER: I -- I don't want to characterize that in that way. What I would want to say is that our investigators looked at all of the records, think she actually believed what she -- the many stories she was telling, and we made the decision based on a lot of things. I don't want to talk about what was in those records under seal, but I think it's in the best interest of justice.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/cooper.transcript/

[LisaL]

274. Well she was obviously deemed to be stable enough to have

custody of her three kids. Even after her trial for arson (where the jury was deadlocked) she got these kids back.

[NoGOPZone]

276. and stable enough to stand trial nt

[Keith Bee]

241. So?

Unrec

[Freddie Stubbs]

265. She should have been presecuted for her actions in Duke Lacrosse case

[blondeatlast]

267. The follow-up DA thought she should get mental help--but

it isn't his job to make that happen and she either got really bad help or none at all.

[onenote]

271. My gut reaction is that she should have been

But I can understand why they didn't. Among other things, doing so might have made it harder to force Nifong out of office for his acts.

[LisaL]

273. I don't believe it would have made any difference, considering

Nifong was disbarred for a number of specific reasons, so her prosecution or lack of it shouldn't have played any role.

[NoGOPZone]

275. This also was addressed in Cooper's press conference

where he announced the termination of the case against the Duke students

Q: Do you believe the accuser lied in this case? And will there be any criminal charges against her?

COOPER: Well, we have considered that. Our investigators who talked with her and the attorneys who talked with her over a period of time think that she may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.

And in reviewing the whole history, there are records under seal that I'm not going to talk about, but we believe it's in the best interest of justice not to bring charges, and we have made that decision, as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/cooper.transcript/

[Electric Monk]

266. Stay classy, Crystal

nt

[Lucian]

269. Ah, old flamewars never fail to disappoint me.

Let me make it easy for everyone: she lied. Case closed.