Prosecuting people based on skin color and socioconomic status...
As the Duke rape case begins to heat up, it appears that the prosecution is in need of a "special prosecutor" so that the case can be "fair". This is the opinion of Susan Estrich. She goes on to say that, in regards to the current prosecutor, "The result is that in the court of public opinion, he has been totally outmaneuvered by the high-priced defense lawyers who the student defendants and their wealthy supporters have been able to retain." So, it appears that, as she accuses that the trial has already been decided because of the defendents representation, that the decision has already been completed. Because the Defense could afford good lawyers, they will already win. Seems to me she's already made up her mind about their guilt. In her eyes, being able to afford good attorneys makes them guilty. Re-read that quote of hers above again. She refers to the socioecononmic class of the defense and their lawyers more than once when she says "high priced defense lawyers" and "wealthy supporters have been able to retain." Typical Liberal, turning everything into class war fare. The lawyers, apparently, MUST be equal in every possible way. Otherwise, it's just not fair! So, apparently, lawyers are not allowed to have their own personal edge in their skills and abilities. All lawyers should graduate the EXACT same in their skill level. We must NOT allow one lawyer to be better than another! Perish the thought!
If the county chooses to hire a special prosecutor, that's their choice, but many counties may not have those kinds of funds available. Keep in mind, this is the same prosecutor, however, that despite having any DNA evidence, believed he could win the case. Despite the fact that the friend of the victim said she was making it up to get money, then lied and said that that wasn't true after all, and the victim herself who picked out three suspects and then said that it wasn't those three. Further, the same thing happened to her something like 10 years earlier and she never went through with that case because allegedly her "family was threatened." Despite all these flaws, the prosecutor still thought he could win the case. Why is the prosecutor getting blamed here? Sounds like the victim is the one who's screwed the case up. She has friends of hers telling the media about why she really wants to prosecute for the purpose of getting money, then saying that that really wasn't true (so, which time did they lie?) and then the victim picking out people saying they did it, then it turns out they didn't, and not having any DNA evidence, sounds like the victim is the one who's messing the case up. Why should the defense be blamed for hiring a good lawyer when a case that seems as flawed as this is going to trial? Good lawyers are expensive, they need one to defend themselves against someone who's changed the story and has no DNA to back up the claim. If this woman was raped, that is a terrible thing. I'm very sorry to hear about the trauma she went through. But at the same time, if she has made this stuff up (note, her changing of the story, he picking people out that didn't really do it, her friends lying for her, the fact that this has happened before), she needs to be prosecuted for defamation of character. Further, wouldn't her parents know about her being raped? Certainly, they would have noticed her being traumatized or upset wouldn't they? They initially claimed they knew nothing about it.
So, it sounds like Susan Estrich has already made up her mind. The victim's black, the alledged perps are white, they're rich, so therefore, they must be guilty. Of course, they have to be. Being Liberal, Sue wants to continue to perpetuate the class war fare struggle that faces minorities and those less well to do. Note to Susan, if there's no DNA evidence, which seems to me to be tantamount to any case like this, how could any prosecuting attorney win? All the defendents have alibies, none of their DNA has been found, so, how can a prosecutor prove not only that they were there, but did the crime? Or, are we going to start prosecuting people based on the color of their skin and socioeconomic status now?
If the county chooses to hire a special prosecutor, that's their choice, but many counties may not have those kinds of funds available. Keep in mind, this is the same prosecutor, however, that despite having any DNA evidence, believed he could win the case. Despite the fact that the friend of the victim said she was making it up to get money, then lied and said that that wasn't true after all, and the victim herself who picked out three suspects and then said that it wasn't those three. Further, the same thing happened to her something like 10 years earlier and she never went through with that case because allegedly her "family was threatened." Despite all these flaws, the prosecutor still thought he could win the case. Why is the prosecutor getting blamed here? Sounds like the victim is the one who's screwed the case up. She has friends of hers telling the media about why she really wants to prosecute for the purpose of getting money, then saying that that really wasn't true (so, which time did they lie?) and then the victim picking out people saying they did it, then it turns out they didn't, and not having any DNA evidence, sounds like the victim is the one who's messing the case up. Why should the defense be blamed for hiring a good lawyer when a case that seems as flawed as this is going to trial? Good lawyers are expensive, they need one to defend themselves against someone who's changed the story and has no DNA to back up the claim. If this woman was raped, that is a terrible thing. I'm very sorry to hear about the trauma she went through. But at the same time, if she has made this stuff up (note, her changing of the story, he picking people out that didn't really do it, her friends lying for her, the fact that this has happened before), she needs to be prosecuted for defamation of character. Further, wouldn't her parents know about her being raped? Certainly, they would have noticed her being traumatized or upset wouldn't they? They initially claimed they knew nothing about it.
So, it sounds like Susan Estrich has already made up her mind. The victim's black, the alledged perps are white, they're rich, so therefore, they must be guilty. Of course, they have to be. Being Liberal, Sue wants to continue to perpetuate the class war fare struggle that faces minorities and those less well to do. Note to Susan, if there's no DNA evidence, which seems to me to be tantamount to any case like this, how could any prosecuting attorney win? All the defendents have alibies, none of their DNA has been found, so, how can a prosecutor prove not only that they were there, but did the crime? Or, are we going to start prosecuting people based on the color of their skin and socioeconomic status now?
posted by nonfreak at 11:26 AM
0 comments
