Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  July 11, 2006
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Comparing the William Kennedy Smith Case and Duke Rape Hoax

MSNBC's Dan Abrams, a Duke graduate, initially said that the idea that some Duke lacrosse players had committed a gang rape was plausible to him. Since then, to his credit, he's followed the evidence and figured out that the rape charge was fabricated and no one raped the accuser, much less any of the Duke Three whom that accuser made her victims by falsely charging them with a horrendous crime.

MSNBC's Dan Abrams, a Duke graduate, initially said that the idea that some Duke lacrosse players had committed a gang rape was plausible to him. Since then, to his credit, he's followed the evidence and figured out that the rape charge was fabricated and no one raped the accuser, much less any of the Duke Three whom that accuser made her victims by falsely charging them with a horrendous crime.

William Kennedy Smith studied at Duke University. He's a white Yankee from a wealthy family. The Duke Three also are white Yankees from wealthy families. Mr. Smith is the lucky one; the Duke Three are the unfortunate ones selected by their accuser from photos of the 46 white members of Duke's 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team. Mr. Smith was tried in the same year in which he allegedly committed rape, while the Duke Three can't get a speedy trial and must wait until next spring. Mr. Smith was acquitted, even though there was no dispute that he had sex with his accuser, while the Duke Three were wrongly indicted and DNA evidence shows that their accuser had sex with several men shortly before the party at which she claimed to have been gang raped and does not show that she had sex with any of them. Yet, despite a plethora of monumental problems with the prosecution's case, the case goes on (at least until a new appointed (and never elected) incumbent next year.

The indictments of the Duke Three at the behest of their accuser is a travesty of justice. A review of the William Kennedy Smith case makes it all the more obvious. In 1991, Mr. Smith was charged with rape and acquitted after a jury trial. The complainant, Patricia Bowman, was infinitely more credible that Crystal Gail Mangum, the ex-convict/stripper/"escort" accusing the Duke Three in what is increasingly recognized as the Duke Rape Hoax.

It was fifteen years ago. But a look back is timely. Because (1) Ms. Bowman passed TWO polygraph test and a voice-stress test before Mr. Smith was prosecuted; (2) NBC and The New York Times promptly disclosed Ms. Bowman's name; (3) three people came forward to alleged prior sexual assaults by Mr. Smith; and (4) the Florida court kept evidence of those alleged sexual assaults out of the case, thereby facilitating acquittal.

In the Duke case, has Ms. Mangum passed ONE polygraph test OR a voice stress test? (Each of the Duke Three reported passed a polygraph test.) If not, why would Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong treat Ms. Mangum's accusation as a sufficient basis for proceeding with a criminal prosecution[especially when she had contradicted herself repeatedly on whether she was raped and how many people raped her (pick one: none, three, five, twenty) and nothing in the history of any of the Duke Three supported the accusation that they have ever sexually assaulted anyone)? Hint: Mr. Nifong's only legal employment since he graduated from law school was with the Durham County District Attorney's Office and he soon would have lost his job if he lost the Democrat primary and, to win the primary (ordinarily tantamount to winning the election, but not this year, due to the perception of the Duke case as a political persecution instead of a proper prosecution), he desperately needed to win the black vote by a wide margin.

The basic facts of the William Kennedy Smith case are simple. During the evening of March 30, 1991, Mr. Smith was in a bar with his uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy (whose driving skill is suspect), and Senator Kennedy's son and Mr. Smith's Senator, (now) Representative Patrick Kennedy (another danger on the road). Mr. Smith met Ms. Bowman, then 29, and the younger Kennedy met another young lady. The two couples then went a nearby house owned by the Kennedy family and Mr. Smith and Ms. Bowman walked along the beach near the house. Ms. Bowman accused Mr. Kennedy of rape, and he insisted their sexual interaction was consensual.

NO one else has come forward to accuse any of the Duke Three with any sexual misconduct. In sharp contrast, in the Kennedy case, three women came forward to report that Mr. Kennedy had sexually assaulted them and Larry Tye and Irene Sege wrote about it in the July 24, 1991 issue of The Boston Globe:

What is especially noteworthy today is that Ms. Mangum seems to have skipped the polygraph and voice-stress hurdles put in front of (and surmounted) by Mr. Bowman; NO ONE has come forward to allege any sexual misconduct by ANY of the Duke Three; and it has been discovered that Ms. Mangum previously claimed to have been gang raped before and that claim was not deemed credible.

Should the credibility of Ms. Mangum's gang rape claims depend upon the color of those she accuses, or whether the families of those she accuses are wealthy, or whether the ones she accused are Yankees or natives, or whether or not a Democrat primary and unemployment are imminent for the incumbent Durham District Attorney?

Let's reject the premise that any of those factors should be relevant.

Should an accuser passing a polygraph PRECEDE indictment of those accused of raping the accuser?

Sound like a good general rule to me.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright 2006 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved