Stuart Benjamin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, points out just how unusual the statement made by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper yesterday really was. By declaring that the three accused Duke lacrosse players were, in fact, innocent of any crime, he essentially gave them complete vindication.
He could have said that there was insufficient evidence, and that he would not go beyond that characterization because no further statement about the strength of the evidence was necessary for his decision. And I imagine that his political advisors probably told him that this would be the politically safe route to take (I can see counter-arguments, but my guess is that would have been their advice).
I find it remarkable, then, that he went so much further, saying that the accused players were in fact innocent, that there was no credible evidence against them, that the accuser's many different statements could not be rectified and that she contradicted herself, etc. This was not a garden-variety statement about insufficient evidence but instead was about as complete a vindication as the defendants could have imagined. Indeed, I think that Cooper said just about everything that the defendants could have wanted. Cooper must have really been convinced.
Prediction: Nifong will be disbarred very shortly. He'll be lucky to escape criminal charges over his conduct. But the lawsuits will be devastating against him. He literally has no defense whatsoever at this point. Cooper saw to that pretty thoroughly.
But, one wonders, when will Jessie and “Sharpie” apologize for crucifying those guys?
“Bueller? .. Bueller?…”
I’ve been wondering what’s sparked such particular handwringing among conservatives about this particular case. Rather than leave a lengthy comment, I’ll just direct you to my take on it:
http://rhetoricgarage.blogspot.com/2007/04/duke-lacrosse-case-idelogical-critique.html
ted
Well, Ted, generally, I’m fairly tolerant of folks wanting to get some traffic by linking, so no problem. One big thing I think your analysis misses – rather completely – is that while you are worry about power structures and use of language, you missed something rather obvious.
“And really, there it becomes clear. The media as judge, jury and ultimately, executioner. They are controlling this story and dictating what gets told when to whom. The term “court of public opinion” is a fancy way of of saying “the court of media opinion”. They will decide how to shape and mold the story. They will ultimately decide who’s right or wrong. Whether or not it’s good for the people involved, or the justice system, they will decide. Oh, the lawyers are playing the media, certainly. But the media is playing all of us, too.”
Somebody I know wrote that. Perhaps a search of the word “lacrosse” on the site might illuminate what I have written about all of this from the beginning.
Oh, and just a tip, using terms meant to disparage isn’t really polite or a particularly useful strategy when link-whoring. But, gotta go wring hands or something.
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
I think that the appeasement of Duke's faculty is going to be a bit expensive…they are going to pay a lot for that muffler.Justice would require that Durhan DA Mike Nifong be led away in handcuffs after he is indicted for his willful and criminal actions in this tragic case,
ted g