Duke Case: What a Difference Color (and College) Make
Dr. William L. Anderson, in his latest article, "What If the Duke 3 Had Been Black," opined with respect to the Duke case: "The real problem here is that racial politics, as well as the politics of entitlement, have clouded the judgment of many Durham residents. As I stated previously, I have no doubt that blacks in Durham in an ordinary rape case would have recognized the situation for what it was and would not be pressing for trial and conviction. Indeed, blacks have been railroaded in courts of 'justice,' and they rightly have had a historical reluctance to believe everything a prosecutor and the police might say."
With all that, I agree.
Dr. Anderson focused on this question: "What if the three white Duke lacrosse players charged with rape had been black athletes at nearby North Carolina Central University?." He acknowledged "the standard answer"--"they already would have been railroaded into a conviction or would be languishing in jail, unable to post bond" and then expressed "serious doubts" about it. "given the history of athletes and rape charges."
He's right about that too.
If three black athletes at NCCU had been accused by Crystal Gail Mangum, I doubt that Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael D. Nifong would have rigged the identification procedure and the accusation would not been particularized, so no one would have been arrested, much less indicted and jailed pending trial.
Assuming that three specific black athletes at NCCU had been identified by Ms. Mangum and the "evidence" against them was the same as the "evidence" against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (aka the Duke Three), no indictment would have been requested and there would not have been a case to collapse.
There would have been some feminuts insisting that no rape claim is false, but the North Carolina NAACP and NCCU Law Professor Irving Joyner (who is monitoring the Duke case for the North Carolina NAACP) would have no interest in pressing for a trial on bogus rape, kidnapping and sexual assault charges.
Racial considerations would not skew perceptions (or pretended perceptions).
IF Mr. Nifong actually prosecuted three innocent black NCCU athletes on bogus felony charges at the behest on an ex-convict stripper who had cried gang rape before and nothing had come of it and accused her husband of trying to kill her and then not pursued the charge, and the DNA results in the hypothetical case were the same as the DNA results in the Duke case, it is conceivable that North Carolina journalist and television commentator Cash Michaels, who is black, would have turned to Joseph Cheshire and Brad Bannon, lawyers representing David Evans in the Duke case, for help in putting an end to an unwarranted prosecution and preventing a further travesty of justice.
Mr. Michaels himself told the story of how he and Messr. Cheshire and Bannon interceded for an innocent (black) male accused of rape.
Mr. Michaels post on August 8:
"Joe Cheshire....and I worked closely together many years ago to get a 13 year-old black teen released from prison after he was falsely accused of raping a nine-year-old white Middle Eastern girl.
"No physical evidence, no penetration, no witnesses. The Wake County jury prayed, then convicted him because, according to the foreman I interviewed later, 'We felt that he (the teen) had to have done something.'
"The jury got that impression because the kid had a cheap so-called attorney who knew nothing about criminal case procedure, and was run ragged by the prosecutor.
"After the conviction, the family wrote me a letter, asked me to expose what happened. They also asked me to help them get a real criminal defense attorney. I didn't know Joe personally, but I was impressed with his representation of a mna accused to setting a fire that killed four of his children. He got that man acquitted.
"I told the parents to go to Joe, and drop my name.
"They went, met him, mentioned me. Cheshire called me from his office while they were still there, and told me he would take the case, charging them only office expenses, which was very, very fair of him.
"I was the only reporter until then championing that boy's case. The rest of the media, especially the N&O, thought I was crazy.
"Joe Cheshire did not, and when we reported that he was now onboard, the rest of the media here gulped bigtime.
"A year later, Joe Cheshire, and a very young Brad Bannon (yes, I know him well too), got that young man out of prison on appeal, and based on their work, the Wake DA decided not to retry.
"So I have a definite history of dealing with not just a false rape charge, but a false rape conviction, and with the very defense attorneys who are representing Dave Evans as we speak."
Messrs. Cheshire and Bannon are once again in the right, fighting the good fight (while Mr. Michaels covers the Duke case for America's Black Press).
Dr. Anderson: "It is my opinion that had the accuser in the Duke case made such charges against black athletes, the case would have developed much differently than it has for one important reason: the black community of Durham would have demanded that District Attorney Michael Nifong pay attention to the huge amount of exculpatory evidence that exists – instead of trying to explain it away with half-truths or outright conspiracy theories. Nifong does not even have to acknowledge that such evidence exists because the most influential and politically powerful blacks in Durham demand that it be ignored."
BUT, Mr. Nifong himself would not have benefited by ignoring evidence of innocence and pursuing bogus charges, so Durham's black community might not have had to do much, if any, demanding.
Mr. Nifong's prosecutorial abuse is not misjudging evidence, it is ignoring evidence and forcing identification in order to have three white guys to prosecute while running for election.
Dr. Anderson: "Nifong fanned the flames, and was able to form an important alliance with Duke feminists, the local NAACP, people at NCCU, and other black activists."
Absolutely! But, if the three defendants were black NCCU athletes, only feminuts would have been blind to reality and, even though Mr. Nifong was likely to lose the district attorney primary to a woman (Freda Black), I doubt Mr. Nifong would have found Durham County's feminut vote worth the risk and pandered shamelessly to them, when the important black vote would not abide a persecution of THREE innocent young black NCCU athletes at the behest of ONE black ex-convict stripper.
Dr. Anderson: "While no doubt some of the feminists at Duke would have made some noise, their reaction simply would not have been as intense as it was when white Duke males were accused. I suspect that some of the feminists at NCCU might have had a candlelight vigil or two, but the overall reaction would have been much more cautious."
Dr. Anderson: " I doubt anyone in Durham really is listening or is willing to understand the ramifications of what Nifong and others there are doing. We are seeing the politics of entitlement at work, and in this case, there exist many people in Durham who believe that they are entitled to a conviction, even if it is wrongful. Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans are not real people to them, only political symbols that must be destroyed at all costs, and if this madness is permitted to continue, innocent blacks in the future also will suffer prison sentences or worse. Right now, however, the representatives of the NAACP and people like Joyner really don’t care about that; they just want to see people go to prison, even if they committed no crime."
Messr. Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans are not only "real people," but innocent of the felonies with which they have been charged. When all is said and done, in court and in the eyes of all fair-minded, they will have won.
Mr. Nifong, on the other hand, will be undone, and eventually regretful about disregarding the evidence of innocence to which he chose to be willfully blinded.
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.