Posted on April 12, 2007
On Wednesday, the three Duke lacrosse players that were indicted for sexually assaulting a stripper last year breathed a sigh of relief as their charges, including kidnapping and rape, were dropped.
North Carolina District Attorney Roy Cooper said the students were innocent because of “significant inconsistencies” of the various pieces of evidence they received for the case, including the assaulted’s statement and DNA test results, according to an article from USA Today. Cooper even admitted that the charges were rushed and didn’t include conclusive evidence that warranted such an extensive investigation.
From the start, the evidence gathered in this case was quite faulty. The entire lacrosse team got sucked into the investigation when asked to give DNA samples, and the team’s season was canceled until the rape allegations were answered.
Even though every player was cleared from the investigation with the results of the DNA tests, District Attorney Mike Nifong did not wave his white flag on the case, saying the investigation wasn’t relying on mere DNA sampling. He then tried to grapple with misdemeanors against some of the team’s acts of underage drinking, and even an allegation of kidnapping the hired stripper.
After all other evidence had been dismissed, it seemed that the investigation was solely riding on the woman’s accusations against the three lacrosse players. But alas, the woman had cried wolf. Last March, the woman, an employee of an escort service, claimed she had been gang-raped and beaten; however, she later renounced her testimony and said none of the athletes had committed any kind of sexual act toward her.
All heads turned toward Nifong in wonder as to why the investigation still lingered on for more than a year. Even the town of Durham where Duke is located became perturbed at the attorney general for his failure to get a good foothold in the defense of the case.
Now, the overzealous Nifong is facing dismissal from the North Carolina State Bar on the grounds of ethics violations. These violations include withholding evidence from and blatantly lying to investigators.
One can only wonder if Nifong has any personal problem with the university itself. Nifong was not an impartial representative in this case, and instead played the part of a biased antagonist of the university and the case itself. A few things are certain: Nifong’s questionable actions caused Duke to lose three valuable althetes and caused Durham to completely disregard his authority.
