Duke Case: The "Liberal" Problem: Wanting the Hoax to Be True
With the first anniversary of what may be the world's best known, worst planned and least enjoyable sports team party imminent and the complete collapse of the opportunistic, oppressive and opprobrious case that resulted from it inevitable, it is fitting to focus on the general societal problem that has been exposed: "liberal" wishful thinking.
There was no kidnapping, rape or sexual assault during that Duke men's lacrosse team party last March.
Crystal Gail Mangum claimed otherwise, of course, but she was not credible, her claim was not confirmed and the evidence was exculpatory.
Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B, Nifong probably wanted it to be true more than Ms. Mangum, pretended that it was and even tried to keep exculpatory evidence from the defense.
He is now in the process of paying the price of being caught abusing prosecutorial power.
The egregiousness of Mr. Nifong's misconduct was immense, but his was hardly the only egregious offense.
Not all "liberals" succumbed to the temptation to believe Ms. Mangum, of course, but many of them not only believed, but acted on that belief in a shameful (and hypocritical) way.
The Group of 88 comes to mind.
To their own bad behavior, nearly all remain blind.
But "good" can result from "bad."
Example: The Group of 88 unintentionally made Brooklyn College History Professor Robert K.C. Johnson "mad."
For THAT, they are said: he turned his attention to the Duke case and their disgrace and they can't turn him off or keep readers away from Durham in Wonderland, his web space.
So be it!
The Group of 88's attitude toward the Duke case exemplifies the "liberal" problem with it: wanting the heinous charges to be true.
A Durham e-mailer highlighted what he described as an "oddity" in relating an experience of his own related to the Duke case:
"One of the odd things I ran across early on in this rape hoax was that two of my 'liberal' friends (both female) stated that they 'hoped the stripper was telling the truth'. I pointed out that by that they are saying that they wished rape on someone, and would it not be better if she was lying because that would mean she would not have been raped. They then rephrased their statements, but the fact was they would prefer that the guys get punished, even if it meant the woman was raped, than have some accused males go free because she lied. I think some of the Duke 88 are in a similar situation. And as you have probably addressed -- they were wishing and are probably still are wishing the rape was true. They did not care about the stripper -- to justify their anti-everyone-else biases they wanted her to have been brutally raped. If they really cared about that woman they should be happy that she is lying, and trying to get her treated for that self-image problem instead."
ISN"T it better that ONE stripper lied than THREE lacrosse players kidnapped, raped and sexual assaulted them and DOZENS of teammates ignored it and/or protected them?
Whether or not it is, every defendant is entitled to fair treatment and scapegoating individuals is un-American.
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.