Love him, or hate him...
I was on his show on Tuesday- I was his last caller-
"Cora, from Durham"-
So...any of you who were listening, or are 24/7 members- would have heard the Fair Mayden's voice just before 3pm on the 10th :)
Somehow I doubt that many of you heard it~
Of course, my call was about the Duke Lacross players being proclaimed "INNOCENT" by our Attorney General, Roy Cooper...at least 4 to 6 months later than they should have been.
Crystal Mangum, the accuser, has not been charged, and probably won't be, for the things she's said or done. No apology, no remorse, no words of regret have crossed her lips for the unjustice brought on 3 young men who will have a heck of a time trying to get their lives in order...but they will- trust me, they will. She's gotten a free ride from the Rainbow Push Coalition- Jessie Jackson has seen to it that her tuition will be paid in full- so that she doesn't need to "Strip" in order to put herself through school.
At least she has that going for her.
Mike Nifong should lose his job, and hopefully lose his license to practice law. However, this is Durham- hell, Mike will probably end up being the Mayor or something.
My sleepy southern town will return to normal, now that FOX News, CNN, NBC, and MSNBC have flown out of RDU and back to the Journalistic Pits of Hell from whence they came...only they don't realize how much dirt there is here, mixed in with the red clay and all.
They should have stayed- they might have found a 2nd home in the Bull City...
Ahhh- the "Bull City". People think it's called that because of the Durham Bulls baseball team...
but I'm here to tell you...the "Bull" in this city has nothing to do with the Ball team-
and everything to do with the load of crap the city leaders will dump on you- whenever and however they can- if it's in their best interest.
This time though- someone got caught.
Seems bittersweet though...
3 men will spend years cleaning up their names.
The DA, most likely, will lose his job.
Crystal Mangum, the accuser, will finish up college tuition free- and who knows, she might even get a job with the city one day.
But- at least I got to talk to Rush Limbaugh again...
28 comments:
Oh my GAWD!, Cora. That is so cool. What a "Rush." Sorry. Couldn't help it. My claim to radio call-in fame was my being the first caller with the correct answer to our local AM radio (KNPT) morning news quiz: "Yes, Bob. The answer is that the local sheriff's office has received a grant to do a pedestrian enforcement blitz at crosswalks." I get free Golden Arches. Woo-hoo!
My acquaintance with your town comes from a City Confidential story. Were you in that, too!? Hope not. But do tell.....G.
By the way----you are so right about those boys having to clean up after the damage brought about by some really poor behaviors on the part of the D.A. and supposed victim. Good for you to speak up. I'm with you on that score.
Oooh I know famous people now. Well at least the TV crews are out that's good thing.
man, mayden, i loooooooooooooath Rush. He gives me the creepy crawlies, the heebie jeebies, he elicits a gag reflex....
about those duke lacross players...
i thought you were innocent until proven quilty.. in this case, the guilty verdict was given way to prematurely apparently. I don't know why some women do that ... falsely accuse men of certain things.
many years ago mr f and i lived in durham for a few months until a job of his transferred us to the western part of our state. i liked durham's grittiness, but we never lived their long enough to get a feel for the politics of the city.
Sorry FM. I'm more of an Al Franken Pug. And everybody has their "la cross(e)" to bear.
That was one messed up case. There are real rapes going on, done by people who come from less prestigious schools than Duke and they are not proscecuted, and if the victim bothers to state the crime, she becomes the criminal. I regret this case because it hurt real rape victims. If these guys were guilty, that would have been one thing, but there was almost no evidence and the witness was unreliable. This upset me terribly. It put rape as a crime in the criminal justice system back 75 years, and it wasn't in the present century in the first place.
To be fair to the young woman, I have taught a lot of beautiful young women who "strip" for a living. They are not whores. Many have children to support, men who won't pay child support and college is their ticket. They need money and they need to finish school. They don't like what they are doing. I worry about them so much; they are young and trying so hard to make something of their lives with so little. I just wish men did not feel the need to go to strippers and we could rid ourselves of the sex industry which exploits the desires of men and the dignity of women. No one wins.
Sorry so long, but this touched a nerve.
Gawpo-
That was actually my 2nd call on the Limbaugh program :) And I spoke to Larry King one time too!
LOL...(I may be a "tad" lucky when it comes to these kind of things?)
I suppose the City Confidential story you saw was about Mike Peterson...who I had not met, but had emailed a few times when he was running for Mayor. I still wonder if he did it, however, I knew some of the officers who handled the case and they are good men- and they felt sure Mike was the reason Cathleen died.
Sad story~
I don't think that anyone who reads me likes Rush Limbaugh...
LOL :)
SJ- I'm not famous...yet ;)
Foam- LOL :) Rush is an interesting man- and one either loves him or hates him, there is no middle groud. I understand that :)
About the accuser...you said,
"I don't know why some women do that ...falsely accuse men of certain things."
I guess there are many reasons why a woman would do something like this, but in this case I think greed was the motive. She was also very drunk- and perhaps on something else when she made her charges. The DNA evidence indicated that she had been with several men, and none of them were the Duke players. This in itself is not a crime- maybe she had been attacked by someone else earlier?
I don't know.
What I do feel sure of- is that when she saw this house full of young men- all students at Duke, she saw MONEY.
I'd like to think that when she sobered up and realized what she had done- she would have re-canted the story...but by that time a "greedy" DA who was looking to be re-elected was already in her camp...this was just the kind of thing he needed to garner sympathy support from a large portion of the community. He got it.
Now it will be interesting to see what else he gets...
Pug- Al Franken was a funny guy- who I enjoyed very much when he was on SNL...it's unfortunate he didn't stay there.
EOR- I'm with you there. The real victims here are the women who are raped and can not get the help they need because of false charges brought about by women like Crystal Mangum.
And friend- I was not being critical of the fact that she was a stripper- here is what I would be critical of though...
Being a "Private Dancer" is potentially a dangerous job. And showing up drunk to perform is pretty stupid.
Getting separated from your partner is stupid too.
At some point in all of the choices this woman made- I have to ask when was she ever going to be responsible for her actions?
Now she's got her education paid for by Rev. Jackson-
who I think is rewarding all of her dangerous and foolish behavior. What message does this send out to the community- Black or white?
It's not good.
If I had made these charges- and they were found to be untrue-
I'd be in Jail.
You should read this guy.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/
His post today is no this topic.
He's often right on from my POV.
This whole story has me mad as can be. The young girl should have to stand up and face the hell she caused those 3 men. They will spend years trying to undo what she did.
I think there are young girls who choose that profession as a way to try to make their lives better and I also know (first hand) that there are despicible ladies that strip to take a man for all he is worth.
Iamnot- definitely a good read- I might link him on my home computer~
Barbouble...
It's easy to get upset with Crystal for what she did-and she should probably spend time in jail for it; but remember- she had some very powerful forces in her corner who were supporting her. She became a "cause" of sorts...a puppet in some ways. The "poor black girl, being abused by wealthy white men". However, she lied.
Clearly she was in the wrong- but once she got tangled up with the powers-that-be, it was hard for her to get free from them.
Still- she will emerge from this less tarnished than the men will...
who are INNOCENT.
And that is very sad.
The glove fit. I think Ms. Magnum needs therapy, not college and a dishonest lawyer? Whoever heard such a thing??
I supposed you "know"ticed that I sort of left out saying anything about liking Rush. But that wouldn't stop me from calling in. The local Northwest guy's name is Lars Larsen and he's quite conservative. But I enjoy listening to him. I do not forget that they are in the business of show, not the business of making everyone feel good. I love AM talk radio. Always have.
Let's see.....you aren't the father of Anna Nicole's baby, but maybe your emails drove Peterson to do the deed. Hmmmmm.........this is making that leaky roof dream make more and more sense.
so is it safe to say she is a nappy headed ho?
ok. that was completely inappropriate.
Phos- I agree she needs help...but not more than Nifong, and our Attorney General who should have stepped in LONG before now.
Gawpo- LOL- yep, I "know"ticed- I've heard of Mr. Larson, but I don't get him locally. I really love Glen Beck~ but I don't get him locally either. So- Rush it is :)
Crystal- Oh my...yes- inappropriate. There are 1,000 other things I could say right here-
I for one, have been called "Trailer park trash" even though I've never lived in a trailer (not that there's anything wrong with living in one.)
A "Bleach bottle Air-head" (even though I have my hair "foiled")
and a "Right wing nut case" for believing in Jesus and lower taxes.
However- I've never been called a
"ho"...
But hopefully I've never given the impression of being one either?
Not ever showing up drunk to a house full of college boys and taking off my clothes has probably helped me a little-
you think?
you are tooooooooooooooo much! I love it! Hey, I just nominated you for the Thinking Blogger Award! You do make me think!! =]
Enjoy your 24 hours!
people make stupid judgement calls and one little decision to execute one stupid action can bring a lifetime of grief to others. such is life. this makes me think of a case that's big in the news here ....
a young man (google his name 'grant de patie' you will see the story) - i think he was 24 - was working in a gas bar, which got robbed - a la the 'gas and dash' MO. anyway .... this gas bar attendant acted valiantly, trying to stop the getaway car ... i think by hanging onto it (you know, like bumper shining sort of). well, the car did not stop, but just kept dragging the dude when he fell away from the car .... and the gas bar attendant go dragged to his death. he was dragged 7 km, to be exact. and the little prick that did this - some piss ass 16 years old brat!
this happened a year or two ago. the case made the headlines again because the appellate court reduced the perp's sentence, because the perp was aboriginal (ie native indian) .... and, as such had a troubled background/past, and also because of his 'young' age.
now ... ain't that the biggest friggin load of crap goin? ok. so .... we, in this country, think 16 is old enough to manage the responsibility of driving a car ... but not of accepting responsibility for taking a life ... or committing some other crime? screw that!
i know my story has nuthin to do with yours ... but it made me think of it nonetheless. and the sad reality that the world seems to support failure to take responsibility - i.e. face the consequences - for one's own actions. it pisses me off, when i think of it!
grrrr.
we don't have a corrupt city hall, but we do have an incredibly corrupt police force here in vancouver. same poo, different pile, i suppose.
bottom line - power corrupts absolutely. no exceptions to that one.
sad reality. come and check out my good energy post. miss ya - hope things are going ok for you and your gang.
enjoy your weekend.
love, me.
(1) District Attorney Cooper did not proclaim the accused players innocent. He simply dropped the charges against them.
(2) It became clear from early on that the exact actions attributed to the players were inaccurate. A 60 Minutes piece aired last year seriously challenged the evidence presented, including the fact that the DNA collected off the victim's body did not match that of the accused.
(3) I agree that perhaps early on that the men arrested were villified in the press. But they were never found guilty of anything, and as the case wore on, the trial-by-media that happens in such cases severely criticized the accuser's story--especially on major sports venues and in such papers as The Wall Street Journal. With the events of the present day, I doubt very seriously if they will face a presumption of guilt when applying for a job, or preclude them out of the social circles that they seek.
I should say that I wouldn't expect recriminations based on this case. If people interacting with one of the accused, Colin Finnerty, have any ill will about his other assault charge, then that's another story.
(4) I have severe misgivings about Crystal Magnum being called a liar, or a "ho," or anything else derrogatory. Some of the aspects of that case that were stipulated by both prosecution and defense (but rarely mention) included numerous racial epithets hurled at both women, and the threat of rape (specifically with a broomstick). This was a woman who had been sexually assaulted ten years before, and found herself in a hellishly abusive situation. Furthermore, the DNA on her was not hers.
The problem is that no one has really explained this forensic aspect of the case other than to say that we can eliminate the three athletes charged as the providers of the material. Furthermore, we can eliminate, by DNA, actual members of the lacrosse team except for one, who was excluded by other evidence.
That's not to say that a guest who was not on the team might have attacked her. Nor is it to say that she was attacked at all. What we can say is that she was abused at that house on that night, wheether that abuse was criminal in nature or not.
Some might say that she got what she deserved because of how she worked her way through college. Enough of my friends have done sex work for me to realize that they too can be raped. Contrary to the myth, they aren't monsters who deserve uncritical scorn. They're more often than not trying to earn a living in an economy that will not pay them as well.
And no matter what she did for a living, nothing excuses the partygoers' acknowledge treatment of her. You say that she owes the players an apology? Fair enough. But I think that lacrosse team owes her one as well.
(5) This event did not take place in a vaccuum. A study by Duke University faculty (completed March of this year) found that there were severe underlying problems with the racial interaction in that university. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the local prosecutor (Nilfong) jumped the gun. It sounded plausible, given previous activity at the school.
(6) I'll restate, so that this is clear: I agree that Nilfong withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the charges against them should have been dropped last April 10th. If other charges stemming from this event were warranted, then the DA's office should have pursued them.
Maintaining this particular case, however, has just about polarized the student community at Duke, and has put black students and faculty behind the eight-ball in addressing actual issues of racism pervading the campus long before this incident took place.
Nilfong's actions are difficult to explain. If there were a sexual assault, he continued to prosecute a case against three men he knew were innocent. At the same time, he exploited Magnum, possibly for his own political ends.
But with the stakes his standing with the bar community and civil action, one has to scratch his or her head to think of why he insisted on this for so long. If you think it's because of Jesse Jackson, think again. Out of all of his pressure campaigns, few of them are successful.
I wonder if he delibeately wanted to enflame tensions on an already tense campus. He would have had to have known that proceeding in an unethical manner would have a divisive effect on the Duke community.
So would demonizing one side or the other.
X- you are mistaken...With my own ears I heard Roy Cooper say that the men were INNOCENT. Go read the transcript for yourself.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/563248.html
"We believe that these cases were the tragic result of a rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations," Cooper said. "Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."
2) So why weren't the charges dropped? There was an election to win.
3) But for nearly a YEAR these men were charged with rape- among other things, and were being investigated for a crime they did not commit.
4) I went out of my way not to call her names, except to use her own name. I let her actions speak for themselves. I did not, however, delete negative remarks made about her by other bloggers. Those remarks stand on their own, and I was clear to point out that those remarks were inappropriate.
If this woman really was attacked 10 years earlier, and I have read that some believe she was, and some do not- why on earth would she put herself in such a vulnerable position in the future?
I was sexualy assaulted as a teen. I can assure you that I went OUT OF MY way to never be in a situation where I could be hurt again. Her actions simply do not make any sense to me. A woman who was violently raped would not go around stripping for money at a later date- it would be the LAST thing she would do.
However, she might be mentally unstable...and that might explain a lot of things.
Jessie Jackson did what he does best- he swooped in like an Eagle to save the poor young girl from the evil Duke players. I do think that meeting him and knowing he was on my side of things- that would have prompted me to stay the course- even if I knew I was wrong. The presence of Jessie Jackson would have been enough to bolster Crystal and give her confidence that her case might go her way.
I don't think for a minute that Nifong was swayed by Rev Jackson...but was relieved to have a Black personality on his defendants side. I would wager that both Mangum and Jackson were USED by Nifong to further the case.
I do not believe for a second that Nifong gave a fig about the Duke community...he wanted to be re-elected. He found a victim who polarized the community- and he won.
There are no winners here. The Duke Lacross team was at fault for hiring a stripper- Period. They were unsupervised- and out of line.
I would have THROTTLED my son if I found out he was involved in such activity. It is demoralizing and unhealthy for both men and women.
And, as it turns out, rather dangerous for both sexes.
I am hopeful that Crystal will move forward, with her 3 kids, and lead a productive life.
I hope the Duke players will be free of the ugly charges they've endured for the past year.
I hope that Nifong will lose his job and license.
And I hope that my community will grow from this experience. I hope they have learned that sometimes their mistakes WILL be viewed under a national spotlight- and that alone might spur them to be better stewards of the city's resources.
Cora, a district attorney might say that people are innocent, but there is no legal proclamation of such, despite the terms he might use in his speech. In other words, he has no legal power to pronounce them innocent, only the authority to drop the charges.
That might sound like wordplay, but it isn't. For example, were the Duke players found not guilty after a trial, then a court cannot try them again on the same charge. By dropping the charge now, and not taking it to trial, another prosecuting attorney--with evidence or spurriously--can try them again on the same charge.
I would suspect that winning an election might have played a role in Nilfong's actions. I'm not sure when that election would have been, though. And like I said before, falling flat on his face wouldn't get him elected. But why does everyone assume that if he dropped the case his re-election would be in peril? Incumbents usually win.
I remember seeing reports that Magnum was diagnosed as bipolar. She probably suffered from PTSD (as many rape victims do), and thus was reliving the trauma over and over.
I know that it's difficult to understand other people's choices, sometimes. Truth be told, I don't think I'd want to be in the sex industry were I sexually assaulted either. Problem is, I cannot see the world through her eyes, and neither can you, even though you share a geographic and traumatic experiences.
I doknow that one of the reasons why people enter into sex work is because of the money to be made from it. Were she working full-time or close to it for minimum wage (or close to it), attending college and feeding a family at the same time might have been impossible. She might have seen her occupation as the most efficient way to raise funds for her education and to care for her children, and in the end that trumped her trepidation.
Still, however, I dont think she expected the atmosphere of that party, for if she did, she would not have performed there.
I will hope, like you, that the Duke community will grow together from this, but from the study I just mentioned, and the administration reaction to it, I fear that racial tension will further intensify on that campus, especially if people exploit that divide. If one thinks that Jesse Jackson is a polarizing figure in this case, then so be it. But he wouldn't be the only one, now would he?
This case strikes a lot of nerves...race, class.
Now I have to agree with the comment that a District Attorney or Attorney General does not have the power to proclaim innocence in the same manner that a Judge or Jury would, however, this is the land where someone is innocent until proven guilty...period.
To establish guilt, a person is indicted afterwhich they stand trial to determine their guilt or innocence, and the burden of proving that guilt belongs to the prosecution. A suspect/defendant remains innocent until proven guilty. In this case the charges (indictments) have now been dropped. With no outstanding indictments in effect against the players, they can not be viewed 'guilty' in even the slightest way, save for someone's personal opinion of a perceived crime.
I'm not saying those boys are angels...they were repeatedly rude and obnoxious, and on the night of the alledged rape they used racial slurs. Their behaviour was appalling and distasteful, however, no crime was committed that they have been indicted, tried, and convicted...hence they are innocent!
-- YYZ
Obviously, there is a presumption of guilt according to law. That being the case, a prosecutor has the burdon of proving a charge beyond resonable doubt or a moral certitude.
While there might have been an assumption of guilt at one time, many people thought of them as not guilty of the charges that they faced. Even if they had, there would be no legal bearing...that is, other than venue, and I doubt that.
In other high profile cases, public opinion has assumed that parties are actually guilty before evidence is actually presented. In many cases, polls are taken of the general public to determine where they stand, and where they break down demographically.
Presumption of innocence however, does not preclude a societal or empirical designation of guilt. How many people believe that O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife, despite the fact that a jury acquitted him? Whether or not one personally believes his story on a personal level, the assumption of guilt is presumably still there, despite the fact that innocence was presumed, and maintained by the verdict. I don't think such will be the case for these lacrosse players.
As to perceived guilt, that statement should perhaps read guilty in a legal sense. They were never guilty in a legal sense. Whether or not they participated in the climate that these women complained of is a separate moral issue that the court might either decline to pursue, or consider a misdemeanor, or view as lawful behavior.
Ah...our opinion of the players. So what forms our opinions?...what we read or what we are told.
In this information age, we have at our fingertips the latest news. News agencies move at light speed to be the first ones to get the scoop...that's the reporter's prime directive. The problem here was that errant accusations came out via the District Attorneys office. And the ever hungry media was all to willing to help propogate the sensational story to the masses as fast as possible...webpages, hourly updates, CourtTV, you click or surf to it and they had it.
The accusations were entirely believable. To borrow a line from Chris Carter's X-files - 'The most convincing lie is hidden between two truths'. Given the activities already in flight of the night in question, it was certainly plausible for a rape to have occurred. Mass quantities of alcohol, a bunch of horny guys, 2 exotic dancers taking their clothes off...need I say more?
Naturally when the claims were reported as they were public opinion polls of the players placed them under the jail.
My personal opinion of opinion polls is that they tend to be flawed. Ask the right questions and you can make it say whatever you want it to say. First break the group being surveyed into a demographic - as was mentioned. Then phrase the questions with slants in an effort to get the desired answers. And whichever group or groups responds with those answers are the groups you report on.
It isnt going to hurt the media one iota that they have propogated false allegations about this case...I mean, they were just reporting what someone else was telling them, right? The truth is the media mis-leads the American public on a daily basis so why should the truth be so important now?
Be warned...the thing about travelling at light speed is that road rash is a bit painful and we become the casualties when we blindly take what we read and what we see from the media as gospel truth.
Getting back to the presumtion of guilt issue, I agree that these players will not have the lifelong 'presumption of guilt' over their heads the way OJ has...and I think that for 3 reasons.
First - dropped charges. OJ's case went way beyond this point - Indictment, Grand Jury, murder trial - this case never made it to a Grand Jury.
Second...in OJ's case, the media tortured the world with a daily play by play of the trial. We received almost the same amount of information as that jury did. We did get a long drawn out indictment period in this case, but no day-after-day retelling of gory details during a trial.
Lastly, it's true OJ was acquitted of the murder trial...but he was convicted of Ron Goldman's and Nicole Brown-Simpson's deaths in the wrongful death suit brought against him by the Goldman family.
-- YYZ
(1) Opinion polls may or may not be flawed, depending on the randomization, the wording of the questions, and the procedure. I would agree, however, even when done properly, they don't reflect a reality of a situation. They could very well, however, reflect public attitudes--provided they are done correctly (not the call-in "unscientific" telephone polls that are common to tabloid TV).
(3) You should note, XYZ, that a civil court has a far less rigorous standard of proof. Plus, the civil case of O.J. Simpson occured considerably after the criminal trial, and in a venue that had already polled highly towards his guilt in the first trial, despite the verdict.
Wasn't there a Dire Straits song, which lines pretty much summarizes this? I think it went something like:
money for nothing and your chicks for free...?
1) But again, the danger is just taking what is reported as poll results for truth. The onus is on us, the readers to go and research the polls to find out what kind of questions were asked, to what groups of people, and with what slant. Only then can the results of the poll be vindicated because polls conducted by the media are simply untrustworthy.
3) Granted, the dynamics of a civic trial is different from a criminal trial. But that aside, thumb up or down, yes or no, guilty or innocent OJ was found responsible. Did he really do it?...who knows, he did have the means, motive and an unsteady alibi. Are you going to try to unravel that one at some point in the future? Perhaps after the Ted Kennedy story...which I have really enjoyed BTW.
What happened to #2? :)
-- YYZ
"A woman who was violently raped would not go around stripping for money at a later date- it would be the LAST thing she would do."
"Truth be told, I don't think I'd want to be in the sex industry were I sexually assaulted either."
Indeed, I or anyone else, for that matter, do(es) not see the world thru your eyes - or anyone else's eyes but mine own. However, I have been the multiply-raped girl, who begins to think of herself as simply a tool for the pleasure of men, and who sees men as ever hungry predators, simply and only ever wanting one thing from her.
After all, when one has suffered such repeated usage, what else is there in life, but to continue on in that role? And don't we, as a society, socialize girls to use their feminine wiles - and not pull out any stops - to get what they want? One only needs minimal exposure to mainstream media to see this play out.
And so, given this type of mind set, its not really a stretch to see why a woman such as this would gravitate toward a job as a stripper, sex trade worker, or some other job that involves making their bodies a tool of pleasure. What else does a slut do, but what she does best?
not really trying to be flip, this is honestly what i think. i no longer think of myself in that way ... but i know its not a stretch for any woman to fall into this mode of thinking. NOTE: i am not excusing her false accusations her - there is absolutely NO excuse for that and Susan is right, such stupidity just sets the crime back a whole lot.
2). as for the perception of guilt ... the law is the law, i suppose and i do not feel qualified to debate its semantics. i will just say that, in the end, it really doesn't matter now if we take out a full page ad in the friggin new york times to delcare the innocence of these men/boys.
the damage of association has been done ... and now the presumption of guilt lies in the association - people will remember the accusation perhaps and this may govern their views. its happened before ... we all know and have seen such cases.
i don't know this case ... so perhaps i am way off. but ... just wanted to pick up on those two strands of thought.
WOW...you made RUSH! My company advertises on his local syndicated show. (BTW...that's one ad that pays for itself).
That's really cool...and good for you for calling in.
Post a Comment