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:  August 12, 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

UNgag the Duke Three Immediately

After David Evans became the third of the Duke Three, he boldly and quickly appeared in public and delivered a statement. For more, read on ...

After David Evans became the third of the Duke Three, he boldly and quickly appeared in public and delivered this statement:

Bravo, David!

The good news is that David will be proved right. 

In America, an accused person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes he (or she) is presumed guilty in the courtroom of public opinion until proven innocent and it behooves him (or her) to prove themselves innocent, for example, by taking a polygraph test and appearing in public to demonstrate that he (or she) is not the monster he (or she) is being portrayed as, especially when the prosecutor is declining to conduct a polygraph test (presumably because that prosecutor would become a national laughstocking if his witness, the accuser, took one, and a defendant himself if he took one).

The first two of the Duke Three (Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann) could (and should) have made similar statements, but they did not.  From that, David and his advisers learned that: being innocent is not enough, that standing up to public scrutiny is demanded in the courtroom of public opinion, and he stood up strongly not only for himself, but for Collin and Reade too, and to their accuser and prosecutor.

Collin and Reade learned from the captain that taking a polygraph test (and passing) is a good thing to do, especially when the prosecutor doesn't want you to do so.  They were tested, and Collin's father announced on television at the end of June that they had passed. 

Meanwhile, the accused, Crystal Gail Mangum, is hiding (no polygraphing her!); the prosecutor, Michael B. Nifong, having won his primary, wants to wait until after the general election to discuss his prosecution of the Duke Three; and Judge Kenneth Titus did what the NAACP of Durham wanted: he shamelessly gagged potential witnesses, including the Duke Three!

The gag order must be lifted, so that Collin and Reade each can do what David did: introduce himself to America, so that America can be comfortable with him instead of worried about them as possible threats to common decency.

Should Collin and Reade do MORE than David did: let surrogates for their prosecutor cross-examine them?

No. There's no need for that now.

Americans don't need the details yet. The great majority of Americans want to be assured that all of the Duke Three personally that they are innocent of the heinous charges against them.  They know the accuser is an ex-convict stripper/"escort" in hiding.  But they wonder why Collin and Reade are so quiet and expect the innocent to proclaim their innocence, especially when the charges are so heinous.

The gag order is a good reason for the Duke Three to be quiet now, but the motion to modify was submitted four days after the order was issued suddenly and America too should demand it be granted.

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