The Duke Lacrosse Saga, Nine Months Later
As Mike Cernovich posts here at Crime and Federalism, William Anderson is an economist -- and yet he's been writing about the 2006 Duke lacrosse team scandal for nine months now, with 21 articles on the topic. When asked why, Anderson responds:
How could anyone of good conscience remain silent whenthe Duke case is nearly nine months old, Nifong’s "evidence" has been shredded by attorneys and the blogs, yet the case continues toward trial because government courts are not about truth or justice, but rather are a plaything for prosecutors. It is obvious that truth does not matter either to the prosecutors or the judges, but I also know that truth serves as sunlight. I think of what I am doing as shining a light on cockroaches, something that makes them scatter.
And whether due to Anderson's articles, the lacrosse players' attorneys or the impact of the blogosphere, a North Carolina congressman is now taking notice. According to this news report (12/12/06), Jones has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether Nifong has violated the civil rights of the three lacrosse players charged in the case and to determine whether Nifong's actions constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
The players were indicted by a grand jury and insist they are innocent; a trial isn't expected to start until spring.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on December 13, 2006 at 03:29 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)