Don’t Fuck with the Pink Mafia

bitch

Because we will cut you.

Amanda is getting all kinds of shit around the blogosphere for having the audacity to (a) be an adult woman, (b) use adult language, and (c) accept a job with the Edwards campaign. They’ve called her a “liability” and accused her of deleting and hiding posts (some of the missing posts are easily searchable in the Pandagon archives; others were eaten by the internets, as Ezra explains). So Amanda has a potty mouth and a handful of mouth-breathing wingnuts don’t agree with some of her opinions. This, apparently, is a huge indictment of the Edwards campaign. To borrow from Norbizness:

Shorter reactionaryosphere: I’ve seen the Constitution shredded, internment camps being proposed, and nuking Mecca bandied about as a serious policy initiative, and I can say without fear of hyperbole that occasionally using the F-word is a billion times worse than all of those things put together.

Now, Amanda’s detractors are not above posting pictures of her and calling her ugly (does there remain a feminist blogger who hasn’t had some faceless internet fuck use her appearance against her?). He’s up in arms at the fact that Amanda would have the audacity to compare herself to Shannon Elizabeth, whose image he regularly jerks to (and then cries himself to sleep for being such a naughty, naughty boy). After all, Amanda is a real person who writes things that make Dan angry, unlike Elizabeth, who is but a mindless spank-worthy sexbot, and if there’s anything that’ll make a wingnut’s little soldier abandon his post, it’s the idea of an actual, real-live human woman who can speak and who has a mind of her own (also, what is it with conservative bloggers and the Shannon Elizabeth thing?). Of course, if he had bothered to actually read Amanda’s blog instead of using one sticky hand to browse her Flickr photos, he would have seen that the Shanon Elizabeth thing was tongue-in-cheek, and came immediately after facial recognition software also compared Amanda to Hugh Grant and Rupert Everett. In other words, it wasn’t exactly a case of Amanda pimping herself out for the patriarchy. But I suppose when you’re a pathetically uncreative misogynist — pulling the But She’s Ugly! card? Really? You can’t do better than that? — who is also dumb enough to not understand why liberals just might call Bush & Co “war-mongers” (hint to Slow Dan: They monger wars), you can’t be expected to grasp the idea that women might post pictures of themselves for reasons other than to titillate/be evaluated by you.

But as Dan surely knows, bitches is crazy, always doing unpredictable shit like not suiting his exact physical ideal and writing smart-alecky blog posts that interrupt his lively afternoon of conservative circle-jerking, checking out hotconservativebabes.com, and Google-imaging Shannon Elizabeth.

Now, Dan Riehl ain’t no spring chicken himself (nor is he in the running for any sort of IQ-related prize, although he does brave carpal tunnel syndrome and raging hemorrhoids as he tirelessly toils for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders). Let’s be honest, most of us don’t look like we belong on a runway during Fashion Week. Which is why we call people out for being tremendous assholes, unwaivering morons, and general embarrassments to the human race. Not for their position on our personal attractiveness scale. Because it’s not a particularly compelling argument, and it’s too easy to turn it back around.

Although it’s certainly worth noting that your mom was right: It’s what’s on the inside that counts. And Dan Riehl is one ugly motherfucker.

Amanda, on the other hand, raises conservative ire for a reason: She is damn good. She’s a compelling writer, a brilliant thinker, and a hilarious critic. As sharp-tongued (sharp-fingered?) as she can be, she is a persistent advocate for universal human rights, and so she avoids being unnecessarily cruel or petty, even when she’s eviscerating those who would like to restrict the rights of people who are not like them. She is, without question, one of the best bloggers out there. She’s thoughtful, and more intelligent and eloquent than 99 percent of the right-wing-blogging Big Boys. Which is exactly why she’s terrifying. And why, in order to discredit her, they have to resort to bottom-feeding lies and attacks on her appearance.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

110 comments for “Don’t Fuck with the Pink Mafia

  1. Earl
    February 5, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Um, if your standard for compelling writer and brilliant thinker include

    [quote]
    I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
    [/quote]

    you can count me as one of her detractors then. I’ve only vaguely followed the Duke thing but it does seem like there is some substantial likelihood the three boys charged didn’t do what they’re charged with. To characterize everyone who things the Duke boys might be innocent as a ‘firebreathing wingnut’ is a rather broad brush.

    ps — there are plenty of detractors (see overlawyered) that didn’t call her ugly, post a picture, or mention her sex in any way.

    earl

  2. February 5, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    I’ve kindly asked Amanda to use her magical powers of scrubbing to make this picture go away; if my looks were ever impugned by the Chippendales in the reactionary basement, I don’t know what I’d do.

  3. Radalan
    February 5, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    I’m not surprised. To Nice Guys like One-hand Dan, all women are naturally fugly until they doll themselves up with a trowel-full of makeup. That way the Nice Guys don’t have to see the real woman underneath.

    The problem for ol’ One-hand is that women aren’t born with makeup for some reason. If he ever wanted to be near a Real Live Woman for very long, he’d have to suffer seeing her go without at least part of the time. As that won’t happen (his continued proximity to a Real Woman, that is), I’m afraid he’ll have to keep fap-fap-fapping his way through the wankosphere.

  4. MikeEss
    February 5, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    norbizness, it’s precisely that potential for mockery that has stopped me from putting pictures on Flickr before. I just don’t need that…

    However, I do have a lot of nice picture not including me that I’m thinking of posting up to share with distant family…

    Earl, can you explain your problems with the statement you quote from Amanda?…

  5. February 5, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Word to your entire concluding paragraph, Jill. I can’t find my Pink Mafia membership ring, but count me in anyway.

  6. mds
    February 5, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    To characterize everyone who things the Duke boys might be innocent as a ‘firebreathing wingnut’ is a rather broad brush.

    Yo, Earl, Dorothy and Toto said to tell the Strawman hello.

  7. February 5, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    and if there’s anything that’ll make a wingnut’s little soldier abandon his post

    Brilliant.

  8. chuck
    February 5, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    He’s up in arms at the fact that Amanda would have the audacity to compare herself to Shannon Elizabeth

    Making Dan Reihl especially idiotic is that she wasn’t even comparing herself to Shannon Elizabeth, she was posting the results of a face matching website, and the other photos in that flikr page are results for other people including Ezra Klein

  9. February 5, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Now, I don’t like Edwards for various reasons, but that’s neither here nor there. To this:

    She’s thoughtful, and more intelligent and eloquent than 99 percent of the right-wing-blogging Big Boys.

    I say, what? 99%?! There’s a one-percent out there that could hold a candle to Amanda?! In the Stainedpantsosphere?!

  10. chuck
    February 5, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    opps.. making me especially idiotic is somehow passing over the rest of that paragraph when i was scrolling down the page and not seeing Jill make the exact same point

  11. February 5, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    Jill you make me blush

  12. February 5, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    I realize the title of this article was antagonistic, but why was a logical question/comment raised by Earl confronted with irrational responses. Edward’s selection of Amanda is being questioned by a group who do not agree with her views. The Earls of this country far out number the Amandas.

    It isn’t politically wise for Edwards to poke a finger in the middle’s
    eyes. He will eventually need their votes. Can’t afford to throw them away this early.

  13. zuzu
    February 5, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    The Earls of America aren’t going to vote Democrat, anyhow.

    In any event, what’s wrong with asking him to make a point when he throws out a quote?

    Come to think of it, CoRev, you haven’t responded to the smackdown your bullshit assertion received in the other thread. Perhaps you should just toddle on over there and respond.

  14. Lorelei
    February 5, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    *facepalm*

  15. Sniper
    February 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    The Earls of this country far out number the Amandas.

    It isn’t politically wise for Edwards to poke a finger in the middle’s
    eyes.

    If Earl represents the middle, then the United States is completely fucked and you might as well give up now – just break up into a bunch of smaller countries and fight each other.

  16. February 5, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    The Earls of this country are rather obnoxiously louder than the Amandas – or those of us who largely agree with her and/or think she’s got it all over him. Doesn’t make them more numerous.

  17. February 5, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    i like that this dan character includes a link to “google image,” as if people can’t find their way to google’s homepage themselves

  18. February 5, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    He’s gotta keep his readers in mind, obviously.

  19. blondie
    February 5, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Reading the main post, I was all up in arms, but then as I clicked through the links, I became disgusted and then just sad about the level of hatred out there.

    aaah, but ain’t that America … little pink houses for you ‘n me. (with all kudos to JCM)

  20. February 5, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    what is it with conservative bloggers and the Shannon Elizabeth thing?

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t presume to speak for all conservative bloggers (after all, some of them may even be straight women), but for me, it is just amusing to have someone known for being “a mindless spank-worthy sexbot” (I had no idea you knew her, by the way. Think she can get me tickets to Scary Movie 7?) making pointed comments that aren’t as dumb as they first appear.

    Same reason I use Leif Garrett, in fact.

    As for Amanda’s briliance, well, you and I are just going to have to disagree, Jill. Unlike you, she has never once tried to seriously engage any “conservative” on an issue that I’ve seen — and when she instead vomits out piles of demagoguery (oftentimes taking potshots at various conservatives for crimes unrelated to their opinions in the process), then deletes dissenting views from the comments, this is not what I’d call the sign of a particularly confident thinker.

    Begin “Pasty is a filthy asshole fucktard closet homo who hates women” comments…NOW!

  21. February 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Okay, Jill. Take a bow!

  22. Pingback: protein wisdom
  23. Melissa
    February 5, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    Forgive me if Earl is a regular poster and is accustomed to say worse than he does above, but if commenters are saying things like “the Earls of America aren’t voting Democratic” based on the comment above, I think they’re off base.

    I’m a Bush-hating socialist lesbian Vassar alumna who can’t remember ever voting anything but democratic. I read Pandagon and agree with Amanda more often than not, but I think that the text Earl quoted is in poor taste, misrepresentative of the facts of the Duke case, and inconsistent with the quality of most of Amanda’s writing at Pandagon.

  24. February 5, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    But as Dan surely knows, bitches is crazy, always doing unpredictable shit like not suiting his exact physical ideal and writing smart-alecky blog posts that interrupt his lively afternoon of conservative circle-jerking, checking out hotconservativebabes.com, and Google-imaging Shannon Elizabeth.

    Ouch.

    I think the Edwards campaign is aware of who they were getting when they hired Amanda and Melissa. I don’t think the Edwards people were expecting to bring Sam Brownbeck supporters.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hugh Hewitt on one of the cable talk fests misrepresenting Amanda and Shakes. We can just point out Hugh blogrolls Little Green Footballs.

  25. zuzu
    February 5, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    I’m a Bush-hating socialist lesbian Vassar alumna who can’t remember ever voting anything but democratic. I read Pandagon and agree with Amanda more often than not, but I think that the text Earl quoted is in poor taste, misrepresentative of the facts of the Duke case, and inconsistent with the quality of most of Amanda’s writing at Pandagon.

    I suppose you noticed that Earl didn’t provide a link to a post so we could all read the whole thing?

    Take the concern trolling elsewhere.

  26. February 5, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    It isn’t politically wise for Edwards to poke a finger in the middle’s
    eyes.

    Wait, is this one of them there “You poke it, you own it” strategies?

  27. Radalan
    February 5, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    I’m a Bush-hating socialist lesbian Vassar alumna

    Jill, you need to borrow Twisty’s Blame-u-lator once she gets it working. Sample question :”You’re making sexual advances on a woman. She tells you no. Does she mean 1) Yes, 2)No”.

    That might cut down a bit on your “Bush-hating socialist lesbian Vassar alumni”.

  28. James
    February 6, 2007 at 12:12 am

    As a ‘real woman’ or simply real person for that matter Amanda’s looks certainly aren’t important – her fierce and unwavering prejudice and blatant disregard for justice, however, are certainly traits that deserve scrutiny. it’s unfortunate as a whole that a group that demands ‘social justice’ and inclusiveness is so absolutely willing to deny those admirable ideals to any group other than themselves. Which of these is a stereotype?

    1) Blacks are lazy

    2) Women are weak
    3) White men are lying rapists

    Amanda is a generally compelling writer, which makes her sad denial of reality all the more tragic.

    Want to be a real human being Amanda? Learn to honestly apologize for your mistakes. While some of your biggest supporters no doubt would see that as a sign of weakness, humility is in fact one of the more admirable traits that progressive thinkers can aspire to.

  29. geoduck2
    February 6, 2007 at 12:36 am

    It isn’t politically wise for Edwards to poke a finger in the middle’s
    eyes.

    these people are so freaking ignorant about primary politics.

  30. February 6, 2007 at 1:17 am

    Andrea, I read that thread and I can’t remember exactly what it was about, but I think it might have originally started out as something other than the Duke case. There were a bunch of trolls who started screaming about Amanda and the other woman there not having denounced the victim as being a lying slut who wanted to persecute some dear boys, and that started a discussion of some of the facts of the case that haven’t made it into the media script. If I remember correctly, the trolls weren’t too keen on any discussion that didn’t involve “that bitch’s a lying slut like y’all,” but discussed, for example, the woman’s injuries and how she might have incurred them. What’s quoted there is Amanda’s reply to some of these trolls. You should consider reading the whole thread to determine what was in poor taste and misrepresentative. So shoudl you, Earl, because like you I don’t know much of anything about it but there’s a lot of information in there.

  31. February 6, 2007 at 1:21 am

    I read Pandagon and agree with Amanda more often than not, but I think that the text Earl quoted is in poor taste, misrepresentative of the facts of the Duke case, and inconsistent with the quality of most of Amanda’s writing at Pandagon.

    Funny thing about that: I’d agree with a kinder, gentler version of that assessment, and yet it never once occurred to me to try to harass Amanda out of a job for speaking her mind; nor do I think her disagreeing with me about the case has any effect on her ability to do the job for which she was hired (that was blogmaster, remember, not press secretary, campaign manager, political strategist, or speech writer).

    But then, I’m not a posturing propagator of faux outrage, so I guess that figures, huh?

    Jill, nice work. You’ve got Dan “Making Fun of Women Somehow Proves I Don’t Hate Women” Collins all in a lather.

    It’s kind of gross, come to think of it.

  32. February 6, 2007 at 1:22 am

    Curse you, moderation queue! [shakes frail feminine fist futilely]

  33. JM
    February 6, 2007 at 1:58 am

    CoRev, you have a highly paid career in Democratic consulting ahead of you if you think the American people are so stupid that when they look around at shrinking economic power, a pointless war without end, and the shredding of the Constitution and feel like some politician hiring a blogger is what’s shoving a finger in their eyes.
    I would agree, though that the best strategy Edwards can employ is to try and alienate the largest groups who are most likely to vote for him while pursuing the votes of those who would never consider him. That’s going to start working one of these days.

    There’s a thread about Amanda front paged at kos, and someone’s complaining that he’ll never vote for Edwards because she was mean to him once. He links a two year old thread where he comes off as a complete asshole, the kind of guy who makes up strawfeminists and can’t understand why if they actually care they haven’t managed to solve the problems of late twentieth century industrial policy with their hammerlock over national policy, and Amanda is much more patient with him than he deserves considering how condescending and rude he is. Basically, he’s upset because us girls will stick to our petty concerns instead of allowing him to tell us what’s important. All this time later not only is he not embarassed, he’s still pissed. Comedy gold.

  34. bluefish A
    February 6, 2007 at 2:05 am

    ha! “the pink mafia” gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “sleeping with the fishes.”
    (i’m not being derogatory b/c i’m proud to be fishy)

  35. February 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

    Five things

    1) Riehl is jealous because Marcotte has a job and managed to move out of her parents’ basement.

    2) Who in her fucking right mind would listen to what a right-wing perv has to say about a Democratic blogging strategy hire? Do I listen to Fidel Castro talk about stock trends on Wall Street? Do you let a vegetarian recommend a steak house to you?

    3) Other bloggers say highly provocative and controversial things, including comments that get challenged on the basis of taste, and survive to play major roles in the political process. Kos said “fuck them” re: the deaths of the mercs in Iraq, got pilloried and apologized. I don’t think he just filed bankruptcy. I do think his house has a big-screen TV. Kos used to be just one more fucking boring law student who did not know what he wanted to do with his life. So the death penalty for Marcotte for some rough commentary about the Duke business is misplaced.

    4) It matters not whether Marcotte fits anybody’s definition of a good-looking woman, other than I guess her own definition if any. It isn’t even a job qualification; her job is to promote Edwards and inflict painful ruin on Edwards’ opponents, not work as a makeup model for Lancome.

    5) Notwithstanding 4), Marcotte is definitely a very good-looking woman, so Riehl is (for yet another reason) a tasteless turd whom serious-minded people need never notice.

  36. February 6, 2007 at 3:46 am

    I’m with Earl on this one. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican: I’m registered Independent, and I intend to stay that way. I’ve never voted a straight-party ticket in my life. If John Edwards – who is from North Carolina, and really ought to know something about the Duke situation – thinks this sort of commentary is just what he needs from a blogmistress…

    that, to me, shows very poor judgment. That Amanda would yank the post and substitute one in which she claims the prosecutor “fumbled the ball” shows even worse judgment. Why not simply admit that she assumed the Duke lacrosse team was guilty, that the actual evidence of the case overwhelmingly suggests they are innocent, and move on? I don’t care what she looks like, nor how many dirty words she uses. I care a great deal about libelous statements based on simple prejudice.

  37. Em
    February 6, 2007 at 5:29 am

    It isn’t politically wise for Edwards to poke a finger in the middle’s eyes.
    Every election cycle the middle gets its dick out and shakes it at the rest of us poor saps. Suck it if you want your candidate in, the middle says. Seriously, fuck the middle and its preachers. If the only candidate available ends up being truly liberal, then the middle is going to (1) vote for someone not in the middle, or (2) not vote. They can whine all they want about getting appeased, but I for one would like to see them with an actual dilemma come voting time, as opposed to, “Oh, shall I go with Slightly Conservative Candidate Number One or Slightly Conservative Candidate Number Two?”

  38. February 6, 2007 at 10:08 am

    The post Earl quoted? Was Amanda bitching about having to sit in an airport lounge during numerous delays and listen to CNN coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape/assault/NOTHINGHAPPENED case. I can understand a little frustration and lowering of quality in a situation like that. I can also understand being frustrated with the program as she reports it: biased towards these poor little rich white male scions of the upper class. (I didn’t see said program, I’m just going off her take on it.)

  39. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Yeah, it really sucks when news programs are biased towards innocent people, and against corrupt politicians who violate people’s rights for the sake of winning an election. Gotta hate that.

  40. February 6, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Nice site.

    Great subject !

    just kidding !!!
    It’s good to see guidelines considering what you have to contend with.
    Amanda is CUTE. Does she have a mirror at home? She should pay more attention to that than to any random conservative half blind idjit.

    Let the games begin …………..

  41. mds
    February 6, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    God bless America. Where objecting to a bunch of self-entitled conservative fuckheads shrieking, “The slut’s lying!” as a default position is exactly equivalent to denying the possibility of innocence until guilt is proven. The media and the right-wing bloggers were prejudging the case by immediately presuming that the filthy tramp was lying about the whole thing, but why should that get anyone upset? No one in this country, let alone a rape survivor, would be the least bit touchy about “She was asking for it!” and privileged white boys getting every possible, and even impossible, benefit of the doubt. Oh, dear me, no.

    Now, it does still upset me that Ms. Marcotte made a mockery of our justice system by calling for the indefinite internment without trial of the accused, just because they were Muslim. Oh, no, sorry, that’s the position of all the little conservatarian shits that are self-righteously squealing about this.

  42. Robert M.
    February 6, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    The overall media narrative that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the Duke accusation presented the alleged victim as the outsider, and a degraded one at that, and the alleged perpetrators as otherwise upstanding citizens having a little harmless boyish fun.

    It was evident to anyone who witnessed any media coverage of the situation that the sex worker had already been condemned by the public and the press, long before the problems with evidence became clear. The fact that the rape charge was later withdrawn has no bearing whatsoever on the one-sidedness of, and Amanda’s boiling frustration with, the coverage she couldn’t get away from.

    In my personal and worthless opinion, it was a mistake to take the post down. I would much rather have seen an admission of error and a paragraph along the lines of what I just wrote, than Amanda simply yanking the post.

    But, on the other hand, there may be no point in engaging the right wing on this. When dealing with the misogynist perspective in which women who refuse to be fuckable objects must actually be shrill “neo-castrati”; when dealing with pearl-clutching concern trolls who believe profanity to be a greater evil than pre-emptive nuclear strikes; and when dealing with people who tar journalists as enemy conspirators for reporting “destroyed” instead of “firebombed and burned out”… well, there may simply be no margin in trying to explain the obvious to the willfully ignorant.

  43. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    I hope it’s not heretical to point out that everyone is entitled to the due process of law, even if they make the mistake of being white males. This shouldn’t be a right-wing position.

  44. MikeEss
    February 6, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    Rob, having read most of what Amanda wrote about the Duke case at the time, and having read Amanda for years, I can assure you she does not want to deprive anyone of their due process, whether they are white males or not.

    However that doesn’t eliminate Amanda’s or anyone else’s right to have and express opinions about that case (or non-case) or any other.

    Even through the Bush/Cheney people have tried to make the US into a kingdom and eliminate all freedoms not expressly granted by Lord Bush, don’t mean it’s happened yet…

  45. February 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    I hope it’s not heretical to point out that everyone is entitled to the due process of law, even if they make the mistake of being white males.

    You mean how it’s apparently heretical to point out that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, even if they make the mistake of being black women?

  46. MartinG
    February 6, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    Jill:

    Amanda, on the other hand, raises conservative ire for a reason: She is damn good. She’s a compelling writer, a brilliant thinker, and a hilarious critic.

    Well, in response to her compelling, brilliant and hilarious post I left the following comment, since then deleted (still to be found via Google Cache):

    Amanda,

    you are parroting Nifong’s spin from early the investigation here.

    There is no evidence that the woman had sex with any of the Lacrosse players, consensual or not. She had some other gigs the very same night, and not just as a dancer, but also as a prostitute. The physical symptoms that originally were interpreted as injuries from rape also later proved to be signs that could very well be the result of consensual sex.

    The result of the DNA test also was that there was semend from at least five men inside her, none of which are memebrs of the Lacrosse team. Additionally Nifong is now facing censure, and maybe disbarrment and criminal prosecution for having the lab withholding exculpatory evidence.

    Also, don’t forget that Seligman has an alibi, he was at a ATM machine at the time the sexual assault had taken place. There are time-stamped photos from the ATM machine, and tesimony from the Taxi driver who had driven Seligman there. Interestingly, this taxi driver was arrested by the chief investigator of the Duke case, even though he had been a witness and not the defendant in an unrelated shoplifting case. This is a despicable attempt at witness intimidation, and Nifong and the chief investigator will very likely be prosecuted for it.

    There also is the lineup violating all official procedures. Any valid lineup has to include some people who aren’t in any way involned in the case, but the accuser only had Lacrosse players to chose from, ensuring that team members would be indicted no matter what.

    Even so, I have to say thank you. Thank you for your honest adimission that you don’t care at all about due process and principles like ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

    The ‘…’ indicates a quote from her original post which I’m leaving out here.

  47. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    I don’t think anyone’s disputing her right to say whatever she wants (or if they are, they certainly shouldn’t be).

    What I object to – and I’ll put my liberal credentials up against anyone else’s – is that she appears to be doing so without having any idea what she’s talking about, at least in this case. And from her tone – and perhaps I’m misinterpreting it – she appears to be assuming the accused’s guilt based on who they are, not the facts of the case as we now know them (indeed, the facts as we now know them seem to preclude the possibility that any of the accuser’s myriad mutually contradictory accounts even possibly *could* be true).

    That kind of illogical leaping to conclusions is typical of what I would expect from right-wing nutjobs. I’d prefer that people on our side be able to back up their arguments based on logic and reason, not assumptions and ignorance. The fact that she proceeded to delete responses disagreeing with her, even if they were respectful and reasonable, does not speak well of her.

  48. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Hard to see how the accuser is being denied any sort of protection under the law. Care to elaborate?

  49. Rhiannon
    February 6, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    blogmistress…

    Very telling Molyuk. The term is Blogger. Gender Neutral. Duh.

  50. February 6, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    MartinG, read the Ezra link. Amanda didn’t delete selective posts; the entire second half of the month of October, for example, got eaten during a server change. It happens. Some of the Feministe archives are missing also, and not because they were purposely deleted.

  51. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Jill, go look at her 1/21 post. The text that is there now even says that she deleted what was there previously. Scroll down through the comments and you’ll see that a number of them have been deleted as well.

  52. zuzu
    February 6, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    I hope it’s not heretical to point out that everyone is entitled to the due process of law, even if they make the mistake of being white males. This shouldn’t be a right-wing position.

    Just speakin’ truth to power here, aren’t ya, Rob? So braaaave and contrarian you are!

    This would make a damn bit of difference if Amanda were, say, the prosecutor. Or in any position to affect the outcome of the trial.

    And please? It’s the right-wing position that everyone is entitled to due process? I think John Yoo might disagree with you. Or Pentagon officials who make threats against US law firms representing Gitmo detainees.

    Or, for that matter, the detainees themselves. Oh, but they’re not citizens, so they don’t count, right?

    Tell that to Jose Padilla, US citizen.

  53. zuzu
    February 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    The ‘…’ indicates a quote from her original post which I’m leaving out here.

    Why would you leave out her words if it’s her words you want to hang her with?

  54. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    zuzu, my friend, I see irony escapes you. My point was that we shouldn’t be letting the only people who are sticking up for the wrongly accused here be right-wingers.

    Your links confirm my feeling that when push comes to shove they don’t give a crap about due process of law. We *do* give a crap about that, so why is it that don’t we don’t seem to give a crap about it here? Because, WE are the ones who should be screaming about the fact that these guys are getting railroaded. Not the wingnuts.

  55. zuzu
    February 6, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Your links confirm my feeling that when push comes to shove they don’t give a crap about due process of law. We *do* give a crap about that, so why is it that don’t we don’t seem to give a crap about it here? Because, WE are the ones who should be screaming about the fact that these guys are getting railroaded. Not the wingnuts.

    Who is this “we” you’re talking about?

    Certainly not me. I’ve never said these guys shouldn’t get a fair trial. In fact, I presumed they would, given that they’re rich, white and well-connected. My concern all along has been that the accuser shouldn’t be automatically disbelieved because she’s a) female; b) black; c) a sex worker; and d) not rich or well-connected.

    Believe it or not, you can both believe a woman’s assertions that she’s been raped and want to ensure that the suspects get a fair trial. You can even hold the opinion that they’re guilty as sin and still want to ensure that they get a fair trial.

    Against that, you present one intemperate and not-very-well-thought-out post by Amanda (actually, YOU haven’t presented it at all; you don’t cite or link or quote anything) in support of some crackpot theory that The Left doesn’t really care about due process.

  56. tara
    February 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    To Earl, Robert, and the rest, the language you use in discussing the alleged victim and the defendants is very telling. You see, the “accuser” is actually an “alleged victim.” You wouldn’t know that from the media coverage and statements of misogynistic defense lawyers, who play on rape myths and racism at every turn to make the case that the charges shouldn’t even be investigatd. She’s an alleged victim, who bravely came forward with charges of rape and sexual victimization and then was herself put on trial, villified in the press and the court of law. Those “three boys” never suffered anything…though, with an ever-so biased (sexist, racist, classist) media and justice system telling us otherwise (and privileging a white male p.o.v. and negating that of women, especially poor and minority ones), many come to believe that ‘justice’ was served, and furthermore that it is the three players who were victimized and not the woman. There never was any investigation or serious consideration of the possiblity that this might have occurred. From the beginning, the only voices were heard were those speaking for the three accused “boys,” and the goal (not just for the defense but for complicit media and legal systems) was to get back to the status quo and preserve the myth of white male innocence and honor (and black female trampery)…all the while thinking that they were neutral and honorable. Ugh. Awful beyond words.

  57. Karolena
    February 6, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Even though zuzu and many others already said it, I want to repeat that NOBODY DOESN’T WANT THERE TO BE A FAIR TRIAL. Jesus christ, you guys are like the “you hate freedom of speech” morons.

  58. February 6, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    My concern all along has been that the accuser shouldn’t be automatically disbelieved because she’s a) female; b) black; c) a sex worker; and d) not rich or well-connected.

    Exactly. Funny how the Robs and the Earls leave out who started smearing who first when they get all up in arms about this. Because all black women who report being raped are assumed Tawana Brawley until proven otherwise.

    But, right: It’s Amanda who’s bringing down American politics. Whatever.

  59. February 6, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Hm… I disagree with Amanda on the Duke case… It wouldn’t occure to me to call her a “bitch” because of this… Or because of anything else, for that matter.

    This entire thing is a classic example of why I’d like to stay out of politics altogether.

    I wouldn’t be able to handle the stuff that Amanda has had to handle – it’s too much.

  60. Lorelei
    February 6, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    MartinG,

    fucking prove the woman’s a prostitute. come on.

  61. Earl
    February 6, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    From the bottom:

    Ilyka: The fact you’re making it into a who-smeared-who-first contest is in no way relevant to what I said. My comment was solely re: Amanda.

    tara: For the love of god, try some reading comprehension on for size. The only mention I made of the victim was “her”. And the idea that the three boys never suffered is, well, patently stupid. They’e been villified on campus, forced out of school for the semester, and will be remembered by the rest of the world — regardless of the verdict in the court — as having been associated with a rape. Obviously not the first thing you would prefer strangers to think of when they hear your name / see your face. And obviously, if they’re guilty, I hope they end up in prison for a long time. It’s a stretch to say they’re having a jolly time right now.

    zuzu: My apologies for not posting a link, but I think that Amanda deleted the post. I assumed that everyone was familiar with it since it seemed apropos to Jill’s post.

    Where I saw this: overlawyered and Pandagon

    MAres: I just saw the top post and moved on — I’m not in the habit of reading comments on most sites.

    mds: Well, Jill said “handful of mouth-breathing wingnuts don’t agree with some of her opinions” as her characterization of people who dislike Amanda’s post. So I think my post was fair.

    zuzu (again): Why do you assume that I don’t vote D? Because I dislike Amanda’s post? If you want to play little credibility games, I voted a D ticket last election and have worked (briefly) on Russ Feingold’s campaign. I’m unaware how my post makes me a republican. And my point was, based on a sample of her work including this post, I find Amanda neither brilliant or insightful.

    In any case, if you are restricting good Democrats to those who believe as Amanda does here, I’d imagine you’d leave out most of the party.

    Cheers,

    earl

  62. Mnemosyne
    February 6, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the lacrosse players were bragging that they’d raped the woman before they were arrested. It’s a stupid thing to do when you’re guilty, but I can’t even comprehend the level of stupidity it would take to do that when you’re not guilty.

  63. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    Huh??? Bragging? WTF are you talking about?

  64. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Incidentally, I’m pretty sure most people would agree that Mike Nifong (you know, the soon-to-be-disbarred DA) started the smearing.

  65. Lorelei
    February 6, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Yes, Nifong was a fucking idiot and both attorneys should have had gag orders or at least shut the fuck up on their own.

    I’m still trying to figure out how the fact that she had a bad attorney is a reason she’s lying.

  66. February 6, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    (Hopefully I’m well enough known around these parts to not be mistaken for a concern troll, so here goes…)

    I think the Duke case has put the left in an untenable position: we have to defend an oft-denied truth in the face of evidence that this is the 1 percent of the time it’s not. This case is a fantasy for race-baiting, anti-feminist apologists because it “confirms” that on rare occasions the world conforms to their vision of it–you know, the one in which women “cry rape” for financial gain (the alleged victim “targeted” wealthy, white kids); in which blacks will do whatever they can to not do honest work (be a stripper, a prostitute, or obscenely litigious); in which academics have undue influence over popular culture (the Duke 88); in which activists game the legal system to do their bidding (even if it’s a prosecutor instead of a judge); &c.

    Even better, they get to turn some of the egghead’s own tactics against them: you see, that letter, it was from a work of literature (Ellis’ American Psycho), so you have to interpret it within its context. (Granted, that context is “wealthy, white male who fails to see the satirical framework of Ellis’ novel,” but they’re not that concerned with literary polemic here.)

    All of which is only to say, until the facts come out at trial, the left ought to stay quiet on this particular case; the last thing we want is for it to become the exception which proves the “rules” (about women and minorities listed above). I mean, you can already see it becoming a rallying cry, this year’s “Al Gore invented the internet.” And just as that cry overpowered the more pernicious lies of the 2000 campaign–Bush telling Tucker Carlson that Karla Faye Tucker begged Larry King for her life (she didn’t) springs to mind–so might this one overpower the majority of cases in which women don’t “cry rape,” blacks are willing to work (and are being denied equal opportunity), &c.

    Damn, I sound like a cad for saying this, I know; especially as the facts of the case have yet to be adjudicated in a court of law, but…

    (Feel free to delete this if it’s off-topic or otherwise unsuitable.)

  67. Rob
    February 6, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Lorelei, give me a scenario where she’s telling the truth, and I’ll quote one of her versions of the events that directly contradicts it. The fact of the matter is that there’s zero evidence to back up any of her claims, and contradictory evidence for each and every version of the events that she’s put forward.

    For example, her most recent version of the events has the “attack” occurring before the time-stamped photographs that show her dancing with Kim Roberts for the partygoers, and during the time that she was supposedly being “attacked”, her own cell phone records show that she was making a phone call, and one of the “attackers” was on the phone with his girlfriend.

    I really can’t come up with any scenario where her story possibly *could* be true. Even allowing for her to be confused about details, the evidence doesn’t seem to allow for her story to be true. Perhaps you can come up with some way that explains it other than that she made the whole thing up to keep from being hauled off to jail, but I really can’t.

  68. February 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    What everyone forgets is that the Shannon Elizabeth thing was a joke in the first place, funny because Amanda got these results during a regular love/hate fest with Jeff Goldstein, who happened to write lots of conceptual pieces about Shannon Elizabeth at the time.

  69. February 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm

    Except Amanda isn’t funny, she’s shrill. Haven’t you been paying attention?

  70. zuzu
    February 6, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    zuzu (again): Why do you assume that I don’t vote D? Because I dislike Amanda’s post? If you want to play little credibility games, I voted a D ticket last election and have worked (briefly) on Russ Feingold’s campaign. I’m unaware how my post makes me a republican. And my point was, based on a sample of her work including this post, I find Amanda neither brilliant or insightful.

    In any case, if you are restricting good Democrats to those who believe as Amanda does here, I’d imagine you’d leave out most of the party.

    Earl, do you understand how primaries work?

    Scott, other than this one post of Amanda’s, do you have any links backing up the feeding of the right-wing fantasists? Because I’ve been going through our archives here, and I can honestly say that not only have we not (“we” meaning the bloggers; the commenters don’t represent the views of this blog) made any definitive statements regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused in this case, we have in fact stated multiple times that the evidence isn’t all in.

    Not, though, that any of that makes a shit’s bit of difference in the long run. Because even in response to posts where it was clearly and unequivocally stated that we did not know all the facts or evidence, and nobody was calling for a denial of due process, we were accused of those very things.

    Shorter me: it doesn’t matter what you actually say, the right’s going to twist it.

  71. geoduck2
    February 7, 2007 at 12:34 am

    Earl, do you understand how primaries work?

    seriously! (most frustrating part of this whole non-controversy. “eek it won’t play in Peoria to “swing voters” who don’t give a crap who runs Edwards’s blog.)

    And the Duke case. Clearly this case is not an issue in presidential politics.

    But, kind of OT – I agree w/ what Scott said about it being a fantasy:

    This case is a fantasy for race-baiting, anti-feminist apologists because it “confirms” that on rare occasions the world conforms to their vision of it–

    The wingnuts have responded to this case with such interest for the above reason. It’s fascinating that they think people wouldn’t vote for Edwards because of something one of his employees wrote about the Duke case prior to her employment.

    And, in general, the obsessive national attention on this case tells us a lot about issues of gender, race, class and sexuality.

  72. Phoenician in a time of Romans
    February 7, 2007 at 3:37 am

    Jeff Goldstein, JEFF FUCKING GOLDSTEIN, writes:

    she instead vomits out piles of demagoguery (oftentimes taking potshots at various conservatives for crimes unrelated to their opinions in the process), then deletes dissenting views from the comments, this is not what I’d call the sign of a particularly confident thinker.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
    [Inhale]Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
    [Inhale]Bwahahahaah – oh shit, I think I just herniated something.

  73. MartinG
    February 7, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Jill,

    MartinG, read the Ezra link. Amanda didn’t delete selective posts; the entire second half of the month of October, for example, got eaten during a server change. It happens. Some of the Feministe archives are missing also, and not because they were purposely deleted

    I didn’t say that the post was deleted, but rather one of my comments in the thread.

  74. MartinG
    February 7, 2007 at 10:50 am

    Mnemosyne

    I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the lacrosse players were bragging that they’d raped the woman before they were arrested. It’s a stupid thing to do when you’re guilty, but I can’t even comprehend the level of stupidity it would take to do that when you’re not guilty

    There was no bragging, certainly not by those three.

  75. MartinG
    February 7, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Good stuff here:

    WHAT DOES A SOCIAL DISASTER SOUND LIKE?

    On April 6th of last year a full page ad ran in The Chronicle signed by 88 professors and 16 academic programs and departments at Duke University. Weeks before any indictment was issued, in disregard for due process, our own professors projected guilt onto our peers on the lacrosse team. In the ad they not only tacitly supported the accusations of the now utterly discredited accuser, but praised protestors who similarly rushed to judgment, while levying baseless accusations of racism against our student body.

    In a time of intense emotions and enormous stakes, when our community dearly needed a call for calm, for patience, for rational and careful thinking, these professors instead took a course of action which escalated tensions, spurred divisions along race and class and brought our community into greater turmoil. Their actions also further undermined the legal process and most likely emboldened a rogue district attorney.

    WE, THE STUDENTS OF DUKE UNIVERSITY, DEMAND AN APOLOGY FROM THE GROUP OF 88

  76. MartinG
    February 7, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    You see, before the accuser was ‘defamed’, as some here claim, a lot of other stuff happened.

  77. Pingback: Feministe »
  78. Lorelei
    February 7, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Rob, maybe you forgot how to read a fucking sentence, but I asked specifically how does HAVING A BAD ATTORNEY add up to a reason that she is lying? I DID NOT ASK FOR YOUR WORTHLESS OPINIONS ABOUT WHY YOU THINK SHE IS LYING. I was asking you how you figure that specifically HAVING A BAD ATTORNEY means you’re lying, seeing that you stupidly LISTED IT AS ONE.

    Oh my God. Someone put me in contact with intelligence.

  79. Lorelei
    February 7, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Yeah, overreacted a bit there by saying ‘worthless opinions,’ seeing that we’re all special snowflakes, but I’m kind of getting really tired of this shit, especially men mouthing off shit acting like they don’t have to back it up because their penises act as default proof of veracity.

  80. Lorelei
    February 7, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    And before anyone starts their shit of ‘WELL YOU’RE SAYING STUFF WITHOUT BACKING IT UP,’ I will point out that I’m not. I haven’t claimed a goddamn thing. I have been demanding that these boys actually back up what they’re saying with someone. For example, I’m waiting for MartinG to prove somehow that the Duke accuser was a prostitute (which he hasn’t. I guess by his mere existance!, the statement is made true without proof!).

  81. Rob
    February 7, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Lorelei, how does having a bad attorney make any difference to the fact that her multiple, mutually contradictory stories cannot possibly all be true without violating the laws of physics?

    Give me one reason why you think they ARE true (and for extra credit, which version?) other than “because she said so.”

  82. February 7, 2007 at 9:42 pm

    (Woo hoo, I can comment again!)

    zuzu:

    Scott, other than this one post of Amanda’s, do you have any links backing up the feeding of the right-wing fantasists?

    I don’t mean that you, personally, or anyone here has, only that the situation itself has. (Also, the “we” in my initial post wasn’t directed at you or the commenters here, but a wider leftist alliance formed of, um, people with sound leftist views? You know what I mean.)

    it doesn’t matter what you actually say, the right’s going to twist it.

    This is what I was getting at. Take Rob, for example, who says:

    how does having a bad attorney make any difference to the fact that her multiple, mutually contradictory stories cannot possibly all be true without violating the laws of physics?

    He doesn’t understand how memory works–it never occurred to him that witnesses almost always tell contradictory stories, and that if they don’t, they’re looked at suspiciously because it sounds like they’ve “gotten their story straight.” (Note to Rob: check out the works of Elizabeth Loftus, or this discussion of memory formation here. The world is not a Sherlock Holmes story.)

    He also can’t imagine why a victim might change her story as she runs through the emotional spectrum after having been raped. Overcome by guilt one minute, the ext she’ll fear she brought it upon herself somehow, that if a short skirt is “asking for it,” being a stripper might as well be a formal invitation, &c.

    These are things the majority of commenters here understand without having to think about, but to someone like Rob, the Rationality Train has left the station and all this emotional nonsense is, well, nonsense. Of course, had the victim been a gay pastor, that’d be another story entirely…

  83. zuzu
    February 7, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    Hello, kids.

    All this talk about the accuser’s “bad attorney?” Missing the point.

    Nifong is the DA, and represents the people, not the accuser. She’s the complaining witness.

  84. evil fizz
    February 7, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    Give me one reason why you think they ARE true (and for extra credit, which version?) other than “because she said so.”

    Well, it would appear that the alternative is conceding that the accuser is a conniving, manipulative bitch supported by an unethical prosecutor who is really just out to ruin the lives of some pretty little lacrosse-playing frat boys. False dichotomy, much?

    Rob, seriously, just take your ball and go home. This thread is not about Duke and it’s not about you.

  85. February 7, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    …he’s on two threads demeaning sex workers and woc? *feels offended*

  86. February 7, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    If WOC didn’t want to be demeaned, they shouldn’t have been born WOC. I mean, really…

  87. Rob
    February 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

    Scott, thanks for the gratuitous insults. Much appreciated.

    In any case, fine, I’ll go so far as to throw out all her mutually contradictory stories, and even the fact that her descriptions of her “attackers” don’t match any of the guys that she eventually picked in the rigged “line-up” (the third one, no less – after failing to pick any of them in the first two attempts). Hey, we’ll even ignore the fact that she claimed to have been raped by 20 men at one point. We’ll ignore the fact that the only lacrosse player she consistently identified with “100% certainty” as having been at the party in all three line-ups can prove that he wasn’t even in town that night (he’s not one of the three people charged). We’ll throw out everything she says other than that she was raped, by someone(s) at sometime.

    The other dancer says that she was with the “victim” for all but about five minutes while they were there. That pretty much precludes a 30-minute rape, wouldn’t you agree? And even after that five-minute period, the accuser wanted to go back into the house to try to make more money when the other dancer was ready to leave. Is that the behavior of someone who was viciously beaten and raped? Of someone who “was fine” according to the other dancer (who also described the rape claim as “a crock”?)

    Even if it was possible to find a few minutes where (a) the accuser was not accompanied by the other dancer and (b) the accuser wasn’t making cell phone calls, you’d have to believe that she was raped by someone(s) who could do so without leaving a shred of evidence of any sort, after which she didn’t say anything about it to anyone until she was in danger of getting thrown into the drunk tank at the county jail, at which point she suddenly remembered being assaulted by some undefined number of people and various other events that demonstrably did not occur (the three people forcibly separating her from the other dancer, which the other dancer states definitely never happened, for instance).

    Maybe you can figure out some timeline that allows her claims to be true without violating the laws of physics. (Good luck with that.) Or maybe, just maybe, this is exactly what it looks like – a disturbed individual making up a story in an attempt to stay out of jail, and that story being ruthlessly exploited by a DA desperate to win an election he was well on his way to losing.

    Or maybe the “Rationality Train has left the station”?

    (Where did I demean sex workers, by the way? If so, it was unintentional.)

  88. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 5:18 am

    Lorelei:

    I’m waiting for MartinG to prove somehow that the Duke accuser was a prostitute (which he hasn’t. I guess by his mere existance!, the statement is made true without proof!).

    Here you go:

    Dr. Brian Meehan, lab director at DNA Security Inc., said he and Nifong agreed to include only DNA matches in the report on his testing results. The report released in May omitted information about people the DNA tests excluded, including the fact that no genetic material from any member of the lacrosse team was among that from several males found in the accuser’s underwear and body.

    (Bolded by myself).

    So she had sex with several men that very night, none of them a Lacrosse player.

  89. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 5:25 am

    Scott Eric:

    He also can’t imagine why a victim might change her story as she runs through the emotional spectrum after having been raped. Overcome by guilt one minute, the ext she’ll fear she brought it upon herself somehow, that if a short skirt is “asking for it,” being a stripper might as well be a formal invitation, &c.

    Two points:

    1) The constant changes to her story aren’t made erratically, as they would be if we were talking about an actual victim ‘running through the emotional spectrum’. Rather, the changes are made in attempts to invalidate exculpatory evidence brought forth by the defense.

    2) Even if you ignore 1), which of the multiple stories are you going to believe, given the complete absence of evidence, and also given the fact that Kim Roberts, the other dances, calls the rape allegation a crock?

  90. zuzu
    February 8, 2007 at 8:23 am

    So she had sex with several men that very night, none of them a Lacrosse player.

    Martin, you do remember that she says she was gang-raped, right? And that there were more men at this party than the three accused lacrosse players.

    In any event, you still haven’t shown that she’s a prostitute. Because a prostitute engages in sex for money. Leaving aside the allegation that she was raped, even if she actually had consensual sex with five men that very night (a tenuous claim, given that some of the material was found in her underwear, meaning that it was not necessarily deposited there at the same time the DNA (which is not specified in the article as seminal fluid, incidentally, could be skin or hair or what have you)), if she didn’t receive money for the sex, she’s not a prostitute. And you have proven nothing.

  91. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 9:18 am

    zuzu,

    the DNA didn’t fit that of any of the players in the team. Remember, DNA was taken from all white members of the Lacrosse team, and none of their DNA fit any of the DNA found in or on the the alleged victim. And even if somebody on the party who wasn’t a member of the team had indeed raped her, why did she pick those three players from the line-up instead of saying that none of the perps were included in the line-up?. That suggests that she picked any three men among the line-up, not caring whom she picked. Even given the most favorable interpretation, thatt doesn’t enhance her credibility.

  92. Karolena
    February 8, 2007 at 9:43 am

    MartinG:

    Off the top of my head, I know that the “she even claimed 20 men raped her” claim is bullshit and has been widely disproven as a communications error among police.

    So yeah, you’re parrotting a widely discredited fact which Team Duke has latched onto and repeated long after the media reported otherwise. Why should we believe any of your other “facts” about the case?

  93. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 9:47 am

    In any event, you still haven’t shown that she’s a prostitute.

    I’ll provide you with the evidence later, there is so much stuff about the case out there that I can’t quickly find the article again.

    In meantime you can find a lot of interesting stuff about the case here:

    Durham-in-Wonderland

    The important part is that she had sevaral dancing gigs after the party at the Lacrosse house, and that she had consensual sex that night, for the physical symptoms that the SANE nurse had interpreted as signs for rape were actually consistant with symptoms a woman will show after consensual intercourse, rather than violent rape.

  94. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Karolena:

    MartinG:

    Off the top of my head, I know that the “she even claimed 20 men raped her” claim is bullshit and has been widely disproven as a communications error among police.

    So yeah, you’re parrotting a widely discredited fact which Team Duke has latched onto and repeated long after the media reported otherwise. Why should we believe any of your other “facts” about the case?

    I’m not talking about the “she even claimed 20 men raped her” issue, which I never even heard about. Fact is that she supplied multiple versions of what happened.

    Read ‘Durham-in-Wonderland’, you you’ll find out in detail.

  95. Karolena
    February 8, 2007 at 10:01 am

    oh, sorry, that was Rob. my fault.

    (“Hey, we’ll even ignore the fact that she claimed to have been raped by 20 men at one point.”)

  96. ako
    February 8, 2007 at 10:19 am

    That suggests that she picked any three men among the line-up, not caring whom she picked.

    Or that she had a bad memory for faces. Or that they were the last guys she got a good look at and she was confused. Or that she was afraid of how the cops would react if she didn’t pick anybody (how nice are the cops there to poor black strippers, usually?). Or, you know, any number of things.

    The only options aren’t that she was gang-raped by those particular guys or that she’s the incarnation of every man’s nightmare of the lying, vindictive slut. Mistakes in line-ups happen a lot, not necessarily out of malice or indifference to human welfare.

  97. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 10:21 am

    oh, sorry, that was Rob

    Alright :)

  98. Rob
    February 8, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Link disproving it?

    Even if you can successfully nitpick it, the larger point still stands unrefuted.

  99. zuzu
    February 8, 2007 at 10:27 am

    I’ll provide you with the evidence later, there is so much stuff about the case out there that I can’t quickly find the article again.

    Suuuuuure you will.

    BTW, you are aware that only the rape charges have been dropped (likely as a tactical move), but the charges for sexual offense are going forward?

    Days after the judge allowed the “other men’s” DNA to be released, the prosecutor withdrew the “rape” charge, which under North Carolina law consists ONLY of penile/vaginal penetration. Other penetration crimes are covered by the remaining equally serious “sexual offense” indictment. This may have been a brilliant move because with no rape charge, the victim’s sexual past and the “other men’s” DNA is irrelevant – and the cause of justice is spared a salacious and distracting sideshow.

    Broomsticks don’t have DNA.

    There’s no indication where the samples came from of other men’s DNA, or how old they are. DNA can survive laundering, so they could be months old. But of course folks like you eagerly hop on board the “She’s a dirty whore!” train regardless of the actual facts.

    In any event, she could have had sex with 20 men that night, but it still doesn’t make her a prostitute, and it doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have been raped. Welcome to the 21st century.

  100. Rob
    February 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

    WHEN? The timeline as established by cell-phone records, ATM videos, time-stamped photographs, the statements of the neighbor, the other dancer, the cab driver, the police – when the hell was she supposed to have time to get raped?

    I do find it pretty funny that you’re hanging on for dear life to the state of the case left by Nifong before he had to recuse himself. I thought even those who have some irrational need to believe this zero-credibility false accuser were ready to admit that he completely screwed this case up.

    I’m also not sure why it matters whether or not she’s a prostitute – the circumstances strongly suggest that she was, but so what? I don’t see what her vocation has to do with her claims nor her complete and utter lack of credibility.

  101. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Suuuuuure you will.

    Suuuuuure I shall. I had to mail somebody for the link – I know that I read it but don`t remember where.

    There’s no indication where the samples came from of other men’s DNA, or how old they are. DNA can survive laundering, so they could be months old. But of course folks like you eagerly hop on board the “She’s a dirty whore!” train regardless of the actual facts.

    In any event, she could have had sex with 20 men that night, but it still doesn’t make her a prostitute, and it doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have been raped. Welcome to the 21st century.

    The DNA mostly was in her. The prostitution angle per se is irrelevant anyway. I don`t think that it is dirty being a prostitute and forcing a prostitute to have sex is rapee just like with anybod else. My point was that she had consensual sex, paid for or not, that night with at least one man that very night, for she had some gigs after the Lacrosse party. The physical symptoms the SANE nurse in training originally had interpreted as signs as rape could very well have been, and very likely were, caused by consensual sex.

    About that broomstick: The accuser originally had claimed to have been raped with penises by several men whio didn`t wear condoms. Only wwhen no DNA from Lacrosse players was found some theories turned up, that the players had either worn condomss or used some instruments rather than uncovered penises.

    That`s what I`m referring to when I`m mentioning the accusers multiple accounts of the alleged events: She changed her accounts many times over the months since the night of thee party. It hasn`t got anything to do with mixed-up claims reported during and immediately after that night.

  102. MartinG
    February 8, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    As to Wendy Murphy:

    You might want to read The Wendy Murphy File. It might give you a bit of perspective.

  103. Lorelei
    February 9, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Lorelei, how does having a bad attorney make any difference to the fact that her multiple, mutually contradictory stories cannot possibly all be true without violating the laws of physics?

    Give me one reason why you think they ARE true (and for extra credit, which version?) other than “because she said so.”

    OK ROB. LET’S TRY THIS AGAIN.

    *YOU* and yr buddies were the one who started rambling about the fact that she has a bad attorney as if it was relevant to whether she was lying or not.

  104. zuzu
    February 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    The prostitution angle per se is irrelevant anyway. I don`t think that it is dirty being a prostitute and forcing a prostitute to have sex is rapee just like with anybod else. My point was that she had consensual sex, paid for or not, that night with at least one man that very night, for she had some gigs after the Lacrosse party. The physical symptoms the SANE nurse in training originally had interpreted as signs as rape could very well have been, and very likely were, caused by consensual sex.

    So, prostitution is irrelevant, but you’re going to continue to assert that she’s a prostitute without actually backing up your claim. Gotcha.

  105. Rhiannon
    February 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    I just gotta ask. Rob are you that nurse’s personal psychiatrist? If not, then you really have no grounds to judge whether or not she was SANE (and putting it in caps like that makes you seem really insane). Also, by saying she’s was the only SANE one on duty, you are implying that all the other personnel were INSANE… and unless you’re THEIR personal psychiatrist as well, you really have no leg to stand on.

  106. MartinG
    February 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    So, prostitution is irrelevant, but you’re going to continue to assert that she’s a prostitute without actually backing up your claim. Gotcha.

    Gotcha? You got nothin´. :)

  107. zuzu
    February 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Actually, what I got nothin’ of is your proof that this woman is or was on the night in question, a prostitute.

  108. Paul
    February 10, 2007 at 8:29 am

    It seems we are to believe the accuser regardless of any other evidence to the contrary because she is a member of an under class. No statement of hers is to be contested. All are to be believed. No utterance of anyone else as to the whereabouts of the people accused of the crime is to be believed because of the skin color and class of the accuser. It would seem that Dr. King’s dream of people being judged by the “content of their character and not the color of their skin” (or gender or class) is now totally dead.

Comments are closed.