About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Mike Nifong is a Rapist, Part II

By Scott Tibbs, January 9, 2007

The events surrounding the clearly fabricated charges of "rape" against several Duke University students just gets more and more strange. Duke University President Richard Brodhead said last week that two of the three men accused of gang-raping a stripper would be allowed to return to classes.

Wow, what a show of grace by Brodhead the Blockhead. After banning them from the university based on absolutely nothing, does he now expect people to see him as magnanimous? Please. "President" Brodhead caved in to political pressure from radical feminists and race-baiters, helping to convict innocent men in the media without the benefit of a trial by jury. "President" Brodhead urinated and defecated on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". He should be ashamed of himself.

As I have said before, Mike Nifong is a rapist and should be behind bars. Even far-Left feminists Susan Estrich have taken Nifong's head off. But Nifong had accomplices to his crimes, and one of his accomplices was Richard Brodhead. Allowing the falsely accused students to come back is not nearly enough; a public apology followed by Brodhead's resignation would be appropriate. If Brodhead the Blockhead is not enough of a man to resign, he should be fired.

Meanwhile, Mike Nifong's case continues to crumble around him, as the North Carolina bar filed ethics charges against the corrupt prosecutor. A excerpt from the article:

Nifong also is charged with breaking a rule against "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation." The bar said that when DNA testing failed to find any evidence a lacrosse player raped the accuser, Nifong told a reporter the players might have used condoms.

According to the bar, Nifong knew that assertion was misleading, because he had received a report from an emergency room nurse in which the accuser said her attackers did not use condoms.

Unbelievable. Nifong also said. "One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong." Oh, gee, Mike, I wonder why that could be? Could it be because they saw the lynch mob forming? Could it be because they knew a jury in Durham might convict them no matter how weak the evidence is? Could it be because an overzealous, corrupt "prosecutor" was determined to use them as a stepping stone to greater political power?

In her New Year's Day column, Estrich argues that the woman who falsely accused these men of rape is also a victim of Nifong's overzealous and politically-motivated "prosecution". While Estrich has a point, shed no tears for this woman, who for no good reason still has not been named in the mainstream media. (This blog and Wikipedia have outed her, though.) Whatever her motivations were, she knew exactly what she was doing and deserves all the scorn heaped upon her.

None of this is to say that the Duke lacrosse players were shining beacons of morality. It is clear that these men, while not guilty of rape, have engaged in unsavory behavior. Ann Coulter said it best several months ago when she wrote: "You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money."

For an enlightening take on this travesty of justice, see Thomas Sowell's columns from January 2 and January 3.