Stupid Blog of the Week

There has been a lot of crap forthcoming from the looney left about the Duke rape hoax, but this post from Marcella Chester on her blog abyss2hope takes the cake:

Those who talk about "innocent until proven guilty" acknowledge that concern for the defendant shouldn't end because the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming or because the defendant is repugnant. So why do most of these people expect that concern for alleged rape victims should end because the evidence for the defendant's innocence is overwhelming or the alleged victim is repugnant?
Why aren't those who scream, "Throw her to the wolves!" viewed as endangering our legal system and due process rights? And why are those who refuse to abandon the rights of alleged victims called man haters when those who refuse to abandon the rights of convicted rapists say they don't deserve the label of women haters or rape lovers?

Because Crystal Mangum is not a victim, nor even an alleged victim. She has been exposed as a liar and the perpetrator of a hoax. Because of her lies, three innocent men had their lives disrupted, they were threatened with murder by the "New Black Panthers" and they were nearly sent to prison for thirty years.

And furthermore, Crystal Mangum has not done the victims of genuine rape cases any favors. Her actions contradict the feminist mythology that women don't lie about rape.

Many of those who kept saying, "innocent until proven guilty" hated the fact that this woman's claim was being investigated at all. They decided this based simply on who she was and because of who the alleged rapists were. Look at the number of people who said they knew the truth about this lying **** the day the story broke. They don't have ESP. They decided that women like her can't be raped, especially not by upstanding white college men. Case closed.

Name one person who claimed to know this on the day the story broke. It wasn't until the facts started coming out and Nifong's bizarre behavior alerted thinking people to the probability that this was a frame-up.

The defendants weren't demonstrably innocent when the allegations were made and they weren't demonstrably innocent even when the DNA test results came back. They weren't demonstrably innocent when the case was turned over to the state attorney general's office which had to go through all the evidence in this case before the AG could state his belief that the defendants were demonstrably innocent.

Oh really, Marcella? When the other stripper at the party said the rape allegation was a lie, when the DNA lab found the DNA of four men but none of the accused on Crystal's private parts, or when Reade Seligmann established an air-tight alibi that proved that he was NOT at the party when the non-rape was supposed to have happened, that didn't make them demonstrably innocent?

I've started seeing people using Bible passages in relation to this case such as Proverbs 21:28 "A false witness will perish, and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever." The way these passages are being used makes me shudder at the implied violence. I doubt these people trotting out this passage are thinking about men who lie and say, "she consented" and all those who believe those men.

It's clear that you're not thinking about women who lie and say "he raped me" and all those who believe those women.

If people can't imagine why Nifong would want this case fully investigated for any reason other than political gain, that tells us more about their ethics than it does about Nifong's. But then squashing a rape investigation before it is complete is considered by many to be perfectly ethical and never driven by ambition or bigotry.
When people say the outcome of this case should stop all similar allegations from being investigated that's not a system that has anything to do with justice. That's a system which holds a "don't ask, don't tell" position about most rapes.

It is clear that Nifong did not want this case fully investigated. Had he been willing to do so, then he would have listened to Reade Seligmann's attorneys when they tried to show him the evidence that their client was not at the house at the time the non-rape happened. Nifong would have immediately turned over the exculpatory DNA evidence to the defense attorneys and then tried to learn who the four men were whose DNA was found on Crystal's private parts. But he didn't do those things.

I have never heard anyone claim that this case should stop all investigations of alleged rape. You are putting words into other peoples' mouths.

Update: I tried to post a comment on Marcella's post at her blog and included a link to this post on my blog. She has her comments moderated and did not approve my comment! What's the matter, Marcella? Are you afraid that you ideas might not stand some fresh air and sunlight? Feel free to comment here if you like. I do not moderate comments.