Duke Rape Accuser Got 160 News Stories on Accusation, 3 on Murder Conviction

[Origanalist]

Duke Rape Accuser Got 160 TV News Stories on Accusation, 3 on Murder Conviction
November 27, 2013 - 2:22 PM

(CNSNews.com) – When Crystal Mangum falsely accused several Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, there were 160 major television news stories in the first five days after the players were arrested, but in 2013, when Mangum was convicted of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison, there were only 3 major television news stories, a difference in coverage of 5,233%.

When the Duke lacrosse-rape story broke in March/April 2006, it was huge news, garnering massive, widespread coverage by the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as by FOX, CNN and MSNBC, and the print press, such as USA Today, New York Times and Washington Post.

Basically, the story was that members of the Duke lacrosse team had a party on March 13, 2006 at an off-campus house where two strippers had been hired to perform – one of them was Crystal Mangum, then 27 years old. At some point there were some verbal exchanges between Mangum and some persons at the party. Mangum left with the other stripper and later that evening/early morning Mangum told police she had been raped.

http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/ncaa_a_nifong_195.jpg
Former North Carolina District Attorney prosecutor Mike Nifong, a Democrat, who was disbarred for his conduct in prosecuting the Duke lacrosse players and was later convicted of criminal contempt of court. (AP)

The story was explosive and politically correct: privileged white lacrosse players at a prestigious college rape underprivileged young black woman. As events developed, three lacrosse players were eventually arrested and charged; the Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, received threatening phone calls and was forced by Duke to resign; the president of Duke University, Richard Brodhead, suspended the entire lacrosse team for the season; liberal Duke faculty members, the “Group of 88,” signed an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle that reportedly suggested the rape claims were true; the initial prosecutor, Mike Nifong, was disbarred for his misconduct and convicted of criminal contempt; all charges against the 3 players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were dropped.

Although the rape claims by Mangum were totally false, she was not charged with a crime.
cont.....http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/duke-rape-accuser-got-160-tv-news-stories-accusation-3-murder

[Anti Federalist]

That's racist.

[angelatc]

Liberalism is a mental disease. These things will happen.

But this is why we will never win playing by their rules. They have no interest in learning, or even intellectual honesty. They want to win, and they will lie, distort, ignore, steal and cheat to do it.

[tod evans]

Propaganda arm.....

The 4th branch of government. :mad:

[heavenlyboy34]

Propaganda arm.....

The 4th branch of government. :mad:
This^^

[jmdrake]

I was called up for jury duty once and kicked off. The case was a man (black) accused of especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated assault against a woman (white). During jury selection, the prosecutor kept saying crazy crap like "Do you believe that it would be really hard for a woman to make up a serious charge like rape?" and "Are you willing to convict someone if you believe the testimony of the victim even if there is no physical evidence? After all there's usually no physical evidence in child molestation cases. Do you believe that child molestation should be legal?" and "You realize that a pen can be a deadly weapon right?" (Especially aggravated kidnapping and assault requires there to be a deadly weapon involved or for there to be serious physica damage.) Oh yeah, and he added "Should a woman be able to file charges against a man that for something that happened before she went back to him?"

So...without ever having the privilige of hearing the case I knew that:

1) The prosecution had no phyical evidence or any evidence other than the word of the victim.
2) The prosecution had nothing that any sane person would consider to be a "deadly weapon." (Just because you can kill someone with a shoestring doesn't make the shoestring a deadly weapon).
3) The woman went back to this man even after he supposedly put kidnapped her and put her in fear of her life because of his "deadly weapon".
4) What we basically had was a glorified, overcharged domestic assault.

I got kicked off the jury after the prosecution asked my profession and I replied "attorney". (I had put "student" on my jury questionaire which is why I didn't get thrown off before even getting picked.) After regaining his composure, the prosecution asked if I disagreed with anything he said. I said "Sure. A child could be coached." He acted shocked. "What? No that never happens!" Well I got kicked of the jury. The man in the case got 40 years! Was it "racism"? Was it overzealous prosecution? Was it stupid people being kept on the jury and everyone with half a brain being kicked off? (The prosecutor kicked a scientific research off the jury after asking a bunch of "Are you going to require phyical evidence and/or actual solid proof" type questions). I wish I had had the presence of mind to bring up the Duke Lacross case, though I don't know if that would have made a difference with the jurors he had left. I'm pissed that the defense, who were supposedly two of the best defense attorneys in the city, didn't fight back during the jury selection process and point out the trip the prosecutor was peddling.

So my point? Other than obvious fact that we all get screwed by the "just us" system which is an equal opportunity exploiter? I dunno. Maybe it's this. I'm glad the Duke Lacross case got so much press. Now maybe some people who followed it won't always be inclied to believe a well prepped victim and an overzealous prosecutor. I know the media wasn't looking for that result. But it's a good result. Sadly it didn't help that poor chap that got 40 years.