Topic category:  Other/General

On March 21, 2007, Delores Williams posted a thoughtful article entitled "Is the Duke Case the Kobe Bryant in Reverse?"

Great question!

Ms. Williams: "It is striking the similarities of the Duke Case and the Kobe Bryant case, just a reversal of the color of the alleged victim. Both cases are high profile because of the accused; with Duke as the Ivy League school, and Kobe Bryant as the star basketball player in Los Angeles. Let's take it one item at a time."

The colors of the alleged villains are reversed too; Duke, although an elite educational institution, is not part of the Ivy League; and, most importantly, there is an enormous difference: there WAS sex in the Kobe case and NO sex, or assault, or kidnapping, in the Duke case.

Ms. Williams: "The women willingly went to the place where the rape occurred. The victim in the Duke case was hired to dance at a party.  They hired two strippers. It is alleged that the victim was already drunk when she arrived. Kobe's accuser flirted with the player on a hotel tour and went upstairs after work where she continued kissing and so on."

WRONG!  The women willingly went to a place where NO rape occurred.  They are opportunistic victimizers, not "victims." There were many victims in the Duke case, but they were the members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team and their families and friends, NOT ex-convict stripper and false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum.  Kobe was a married man, so he should not have been romancing a perhaps star-struck young hotel employee, but adultery was not a crime in Colorado and prosecuting someone for rape as punishment for adultery is not a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Hosting and attending a stripper party were foolish acts, but not crimes.

Ms. Williams: "Both women have a history of mental problems, drug and alcohol history. Kobe's accuser has attempted to kill herself and threatened to do so in order to get back an ex-boyfriend. There were text messages and the fact that she did not report her rape until after 24 hours when the DNA was tainted. Kobe's accuser spent a week in a hospital for mental problems in 2005."

Ms. Mangum had a criminal record as well as other problems and there was only allege rapes and sexual assaults, not actual ones, involved in either case  No jury ever convicted Kobe, and no jury of fair-minded persons would have convicted either Kobe or any of the Duke Three--Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.  There was ample reasonable doubt in Kobe's case, and NO doubt that the Duke Three are innocent and were falsely accused and wrongfully prosecuted.

Ms. Williams:  "The women were with other men on the night or right before the alleged rape. DNA showed that both women had been with other men before or right after the alleged rape. In both cases it was multiple samples, not single."

There's a message there, isn't there?  When a women is promiscuous, men...BEWARE!

Ms. Williams: "Both women lied when convenient to make themselves more like victims. Duke accuser was set to be sent to the mental ward when she accused the players of rape. She became pregnant within two weeks of the alleged rape, according to District Attorney Mike Nifong. Kobe victim would not acknowledge that she had sex with multiple partners even though the DNA revealed she had."

Expect conniving and cunning from promiscuous people, not honesty.

Ms. Williams: "The prosecutors filed cases based on elections and have paid for their choice. Nifong was in the midst of a campaign to keep his office, mission accomplished. He is dealing with ethics charges that could have him disbarred. Mark Hurlbert decided to run for office during the prosecution of the Bryant case, ultimately losing the office he was appointed to. The cases were made to be racial when it was clearly financial or an attempt to stay out of the mental ward. Who could know the real reason why these District Attorneys brought these cases, but it has not bode well."

I'm glad other people can tell!

In "The Deplorable Duke Political Prosecutions," posted on May 23, 2006, I began:

"When a young white woman who chose to visit Kobe Bryant in his hotel room later charged him with rape, it soon became apparent that she was hoping for the local prosecutor to pave the way for her to hit the jackpot by way of a civil suit. Convinced that there was ample reasonable doubt that Mr. Bryant had committed a crime, I criticized the prosecutor for pursuing the case. I do not believe that a prosecutor should pursue a case where there is reasonable doubt, especially when there is or will be a civil suit in which the plaintiff hopes for a free ride at taxpayer expense. Unsurprisingly, the criminal case against Mr. Bryant eventually fell apart, and Mr. Bryant later settled the civil claim in order to get on with his life.

"When a young black woman who chose to strip at an off-campus Duke lacrosse party later charged Duke lacrosse players with rape, I suspected that it was not the Duke lacrosse players were guilty only of bad taste, not rape. Subsequent developments have repeatedly confirmed my suspicion. But, the local prosecutor continues to prosecute three Duke players on what surely seems to be a phony rape charge." Ms. Williams: "Neither woman will ever see a criminal conviction. Kobe accuser refused to testify, so the case was dropped. She took it civil where she settled her allegations for an undisclosed amount. Duke accuser has given inconsistent stories from the start. It was rape to 'not sure if there was penetration.' Rape charges were dropped, but men still accused of kidnapping."

Actually, Ms. Mangum stuck with her penetration claim, but subsequently said she was not certain what penetrated her.  The "broomstick" suggestion made by one of the players was so unfortunate in multiple respects.  Hopefully, Ms. Mangum will be investigated for filing a false rape claim, but I'm not counting on it.

Ms. Williams: " Both cases were about whether or not a woman was raped, but the women had so many motives and problems that it became an effort to hide the motives of the accuser and focus on the wealthy accused. These cases were reduced to race, class, and politics."

So true!

Ms. Williams: "The family and most friends have remained silent except the other dancer who says that she was with the Duke accuser who says nothing happened. Her story has become inconsistent the further along it has gone. Kobe's accuser had friends saying she 'liked attention good or bad.' They went on to call her, 'vindictive, impulsive, and emotionally fragile.' So it would seem that in the case of the Duke rape, there will be no resolution that will please the community. The African Americans will see it as a race issue if there is no prosecution, even though the accuser has ruined her own case. Kobe's accuser got some money, but lost her reputation. Nifong used the Duke case to win reelection, but now may be disbarred. Hurlbert has already lost his job. If these women were raped, their behavior and that of the prosecution made it impossible to get the case to court let alone to a conviction. It seems the real victims in both cases are the accused who will always be labeled even if they are innocent. Sadly, it will come down to race lines thanks to prosecutors like Nifong and Hurlbert."

Mr. Nifong makes Mr. Hurlbert look great by comparison and yet Mr. Nifong is still in office.  He needs disbarment and removal from office.  The voters in Colorado seem to be wiser than the ones in Durham County, North Carolina.  There never should have been a Duke case, much less a conviction.

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.