As the lacrosse situation further unfolds, the known facts in the case make
it increasingly difficult not to be skeptical. In Slate.com, Stuart Taylor
takes on the recent New York Times article about the case and has
a number of salient points and one bombshell: despite D.A. Mike Nifong's
earlier comment that he was not aware of a toxicology test, there in fact was
one, according to defense attorney Joseph Cheshire: "A toxicology
report that the defense was informed of last week was negative for any date rape
drug in the accuser's system."
The mind boggles.
Much like the prosecutor's comments about the possible use of condoms, which
the AV (alleged victim) denied in her hospital report, much like Nifong's
assertion that the defendant's choked the victim, which the medical report
suggests didn't happen, and much like his patently false suggestion that the
team had stonewalled him when the facts clearly show otherwise, this is
something which the prosecution should have known and yet denied.
Given these facts, and this pattern of behavior, what are we to
believe? That Mike Nifong is merely (consider the word choice carefully)
incompetent? Or that he's a liar who is doing enormous damage to the very
concept of justice?
In the Chronicle, Stephen
Miller urges a more militant reaction from students. And K.C.
Johnson's most recent post is
definitely worth reading, as in fact is his whole blog.
In other news, Moezeldin Ahmed Elmostafa was found not guilty. Elmostafa is the cabdriver who picked Reade Seligmann up from the party. He had an outstanding warrant for supposedly aiding a shoplifter.
A document in the case suggests that Mike Nifong may have personally ordered the warrant served.