The Hazards of Duke: Predatory Feminism

When the story broke about the Men’s lacrosse team at Duke University raping a black stripper, it reminded me of the many legendary false child abuse cases of the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The story did not ring true to begin with. Rapists sneak around and do things as anonymously as possible. They plan their mark and then police spend a lot of time and resources to figure out who did it. Gang-raping women in busy college party bathrooms while hollering racial epithets is not something that happens even at “Animal House”.

The “suspicious” email sent by one of the alleged rapists did not add up either. Folks do not send emails to friends joking nervously about torturing and killing a stripper unless something very upsetting did indeed take place. As the story unfolds, I predict we will find out that the stripper made a blackmail threat in the bathroom – something like – “you give me a lot of money or I will say you raped me”.

Photographic evidence in the possession of the defense apparently shows that the alleged victim was already “substantially impaired” (a gentlemanly euphemism for “smashed”). Upon arriving, she already had numerous scrapes on her legs and knees from falling down.

The victim claims she left the party early out of fear. But she returned later, with more photos recording “a major grin on her face”. She never mentioned rape to her stripper friend, either.

Does any of this look like a case of rape? No. Does it look like a publicity stunt to make a lot of money in a civil suit and book deal? Yes.

Today, an important piece of news broke that settles the whole issue. We know that there was no DNA evidence anywhere on the stripper’s body. She was swabbed head-to-toe and nothing matched. Now, if a girl was gang-raped, the chance of doing so without somebody leaving even one strand of DNA on her is about zero. In fact, this essentially proves that none of the 46 white members of the team even touched her!

The complete lack of DNA evidence proves the claims in the probable-cause search warrant affidavit are ridiculous. It would be virtually impossible not to have some DNA evidence given the specific physical interactions alleged by our stripper:

“the three males (Adam, Brett, and Matt) forcefully held her legs and arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally, and orally” … “the victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault” … “she claimed she was clawing at one of the suspect’s arms in an attempt to breathe while being strangled.”

The evidence collected indicates that the criminal case will fail. It is not possible to reach a conclusion “beyond reasonable doubt” in a trial where the prosecution’s case rests on anecdotal tea-leaf reading.

District Attorney Mike Nifong said that “medical exams performed on the woman showed injuries consistent with rape and emotional trauma”. The word “consistent” is a catch-phrase often used by abuse validators. It means everything and nothing at the same time. Abuse validators adopted this technique out of necessity: when you are on contract to government, and you do not regularly produce the results it is looking for, it takes the contract elsewhere.

Rape and child abuse trauma centers consistently produce findings consistent with the allegations. For example, in one notorious St. Louis court case, Dr. Montaleone, Director of Cardinal Glennon Hospital’s trauma center testified on cross-examination; “You can never say that a child has not been abused. Never.”

Trauma centers are often magnets for people-savers who believe there is abuse hiding under every rock. It is known that many of these individuals were abused themselves. They are unlikely to approach cases scientifically.

Nifong is risking his political career trying to make milk from manure. He is up for election in May. We have seen shotgun sex and race prosecutions backfire before. Nifong shouldn’t worry about losing. His qualifications as a trash collector make him a shoo-in for a job driving a city garbage truck.

My prediction: The case will be quietly dismissed and quickly replaced with a tremendous civil suit against the University (buffered by Duke-educated “experts” from the local women’s abuse center).

This is exactly what the University deserves for allowing feminists to run the campus in the first place, while stifling the healthy political and social views of heterosexual men. Organized feminism is about women and trial lawyers using sex to make money from a pedestal of feigned Victorian purity. And, Duke has about as much money as the state of North Carolina has.

The classic false child abuse cases of the 1970’s and 1980’s such as McMartin and Little Rascals had two things in common: the stories did not remotely match the realities, and the litigants were highly motivated by the foreknown scent of huge civil suit settlements. Feminists discovered that these cases often backfired because it is difficult to brainwash children. In the late-1980’s, feminists decided that false rape and spousal abuse allegations are much safer and more productive methods to take over marriages, hit the civil jackpot, and wipe out religion and sports teams. It worked very well until new DNA science methodology came along to ruin the ruse. Now states have thousands of falsely-incarcerated men and a lot of cases to retry at tremendous expense to taxpayers.

Our stripper is a student at a North Carolina Central University. Colleges are famous for mandatory hyper-feminist coursework featuring lawyers and feminist activists that teach women how to use sex to take advantage of men and any institution that involves men.

NCCU has a chapter of the National Organization for Women on campus. One of its major “missions” is fostering the agitprop on which the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is based – to keep $4-billion in sexist VAWA federal funding flowing. As many of us know, VAWA is a dangerous program using vivid sexual allegory to distract from the fact that women cause just as much domestic violence as men do. Campus feminists love VAWA because it provides lots of play money for misuse pushing the full scope of feminist initiatives, including lesbian marriage, abortion, and generic hate of men. Why Congress funds these deeply sexist political initiatives with our tax dollars is a serious question for the upcoming elections.

NCCU is an extension of Duke, which has an extensive women’s studies department tentacled deeply into core curricula via its funded interdisciplinary studies program. Duke has a fully-integrated SASS chapter (that screams out all sorts of social statistics debunked long ago) and a Center for LGBT Life (complete with their own “lavender graduation ceremonies”).

The mission statement of Duke’s women’s studies program is nothing short of an end-stage fascist manifesto expressing full intent to turn all core curricula into subdivisions of feminist dicta:

“In the field’s first decades, feminist scholarship reoriented traditional disciplines toward the study of women and gender and developed new methodologies and critical vocabularies that have made interdisciplinarity a key feature of Women’s Studies as an autonomous field. Today, scholars continue to explore the meaning and impact of identity as a primary – though by no means transhistorical or universal – way of organizing social life by pursuing an intersectional analysis of gender, race, sexuality, class, and nationality. In the classroom, as in our research, our goal is to transform the university’s organization of knowledge by reaching across the epistemological and methodological divisions of historical, political, economic, representational, technological and scientific analysis. In our Program’s dual emphasis on interdisciplinarity and intersectionality, we offer students new knowledge about identity while equipping them with a wide range of analytical and methodological skill.”

But UNC and Duke, like most universities, do not have men’s studies programs. This is because “professional” feminism dictates that men are not allowed to have views on social issues, marriage, family, divorce, childbearing, or childrearing. The feminist idea of equality: women must have equal rights to be in the workplace, but men should not have any right to be in the family or to even think about it. Such is the situation of men at Duke.

But don’t take my word for this. A 1965 graduate of Duke noticed a feminist problem there too:

“When this is all over, the team should demand and receive apologies from Duke’s president and the local ‘activists’ who naturally assumed the worst, although no formal charges had or have been made. Further, the team should receive compensation for damages to individual and team reputations. Finally, the University should mandate a refresher course in constitutional rights for its faculty and students. That said, having observed the decided tilt to the left at Duke over the last three decades, I’d encourage the team not to hold its collective breath.” — Daniel (Duke ‘65)

My recommendation to Duke: When they file the civil suit, do not back down. File a countersuit against the woman and the local abuse center for double the amount they are asking. You cannot stop the Pink Mafia by paying it off.

My message to men and real women on college campuses everywhere: Stay away from feminists and strippers. The last thing you want to date is a girl who studies feminism. Be sure she believes in equal rights for men to be in the family. Make certain she rejects feminism before even asking her out on a date. Get to know her previous boyfriend to find out why they broke up. If she says he is a jerk but he isn’t, you probably have a feminist on your hands.

Start a men’s rights group on your campus. Insist on equal rights for normal heterosexual men to be politically organized and to have their views on social equality heard. Demand the creation of a men’s studies program that operates completely independently of the women’s studies department. Real women will support you in this. Be sure to include them in your work.

The Duke board of directors should be more than happy to have you restore balance on campus to prevent feminists from manufacturing future assaults on Duke’s finances and reputation.

All social change starts on college campuses. This is precisely why feminists have entrenched themselves into powerful positions controlling all campus social thought. This will not be an easy task, but it will be the best education that any man can possibly get in politics.

It is far better to deal with feminism at the political level now and change your future than it is to wait for your own social and economic destruction later.

Feminism has already destroyed over half the husbands and fathers in America. What you fail to do now is what you will get later.

David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Addenda to Article: I will be tracking this case over time to add more details.

04/17/06: The security guard who helped the women at a grocery store after the rape says that no rape or assault was mentioned by either stripper. He says the driver was drunk and the alleged rape victim did not smell of alcohol but was “out of it”, perhaps high on drugs. The driver wanted help from the guard to get the other girl out of the car because she refused to get out. “There ain’t no way she was raped — ain’t no way, no way that happened“.

04/17/06: Prosecutorial grandstanding: Instead of issuing public indictments, Nifong gets sealed indictments against two players from a jury that has rubber-stamped 99% of the indictments presented to it over the past two months. The individuals indicted can now be grabbed right out of class and paraded around in public.

04/17/06: Wild goose chase: Not one of the men identified as assailants in the search warrant affidavit were among those indicted. Nifong is throwing ping pong balls at the wall hoping that one of them will stick. This is starting to look like a civil suit for prosecutorial misconduct….

04/17/06: Drudge Report cheers the “New WKKK” lynch mob. Matt Drudge put up a huge headliner titled “Two Duke Devils Indicted”, with graphics of two nasty-looking Duke Devils. Matt, the batteries in your conservative crystal ball are installed backwards.

04/18/06: Photo timeline and descriptions: Photos taken during the dancing show bruises on the alleged victim’s legs and thighs. Immediately after the 20-minute time period in question, the alleged victim is on the back porch, clothes intact, with a smile on her face. A few minutes later, she fell down passed out on the porch, with additional cuts and bruises apparently from hitting the screen door. Pink splotches on the back porch are said to be undried nail polish (from falling down). She was apparently doing her nails in the bathroom during the period in question.

04/19/06: The stripper apparently identified the indicted men based on scratches on their body, not by recognizance. Seligmann has fairly good evidence to prove he was not at the party for most of the time of the alleged incident.

04/19/06: Conclusion: no amount of Botox can make this case look good. Mr. Nifong: drop this case and take your lumps now. Putting these boys through a senseless trial in the Durham Coliseum will destroy your career.

04/20/06: The feminist response demonstrates the thinking and methodology of the “New WKKK”. The three commonalities: An unquestioning assumption that it happened, lot of race and sex baiting, name calling, and absolutely no attention to fact.

04/21/06: The second stripper, who at first doubted that the rape occured, now says she didn’t see the rape but is sure they are “guilty”. She is presently under arrest for a probation violation stemming from her 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company. This change of position has a selfish purpose: she emailed a New York PR firm to asking them “how to spin this to my advantage.”

04/21/06: Wendy McElroy says that politics is driving this case. I concur. She points out that Nifong’s handling of the case constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Wendy is right: the duty of a prosecutor is to be a servant of justice, and nothing else.

04/22/06: The police lineup methodology is questioned as “pin the tail on the donkey justice”, where there are no wrong answers. The lineup consisted solely of players on the Duke lacrosse team. Normally a lineup consists of the individual(s) accused and a number of unrelated individuals. “Without fillers as a control, the process has no internal credibility check”.

04/24/06: It now seems that the real issue that lead to the rape charges was over payment. She was obviously too loaded to perform. It appears she did her fingernails in the bathroom instead of performing, and then demanded payment anyway. She passed out on the back porch, leaving wet fingernail polish on the porch. Remember we are dealing with a woman who previously stole the car of a “customer”, and then nearly ran down a police officer trying to avoid capture. She plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to three consecutive weekends in jail and two years’ probation.

04/26/06: Finnerty is up for trial on an assault charge for punching a former high-school lacrosse player classmate after he objected to them calling him “gay”. The prosecutor had TUA’d the case, which means it probably was not a very good case. He reinstated it solely because of the Duke charge. This is now a situation of prosecutorial gangsterism.

04/27/06: Stripper #1 filed a previous rape allegation against three men when she was 18, saying they raped her and beat her for “a continual time” when she was 14. The context under which this delayed claim was made is not known yet (was she arrested for something else brought this up in interrogation to make them feel sorry for her)? The men were never charged because she apparently declined to prosecute out of “fear for her safety”. Interestingly, he is also reticent about taking the stand in the Duke case, because she feels overwhelmed by the scrutiny she is recieving. Of course, the facts coming out in advance of trial suggest she will get clobbered on cross-examination…

04/27/06: The proof of predatory feminism: “campus counselors have been swamped with calls from sexual assault victims whose own painful memories have been stirred up, according to the director of the university women’s center. “Recovered memory” is one illusion used by feminists to generate a choking cloud of anecdotal Freudian tear gas, in the style of Valerie Solanis, making it appear as if every woman on campus is somehow a victim of the issue-du-jours. Organized feminist classroom teaching is used to mobilize cultish student propagation of these false pandemics. This is the standard methodology of campus feminist gangs, who in this case plan to intimidate everyone in their path to do whatever they want simply by wielding the queen-of-rape card (read: implementation of “women’s empowerment” in the idiom of the “Vagina Monologues”). You can safely bet a good steak dinner that feminists on other campuses will be soon be hollering mass rape too. Do you remember the feminist slogan “We’re fierce, we’re feminists, and we’re in your face?” Its about an inch away from your nose, folks. Notably, Nifong says there has been no increase in rapes reported to him since the Lacrosse issue went public.

05/06/06: Three days after the elections, the new DNA evidence that Nifong said he was holding until after the election has not been released. Perhaps it doesn’t say what Nifong wants.

05/06/06: A reader sent in a good point: where was the body guard that usually accompanies strippers to their jobs? Isn’t this mandatory? Was it S.O.P. for strippers from this agency to run around unprotected? Was this job a set-up? Or were these gals working on their own?

05/10/06: Duke police overheard city police discussing credibility of the accuser: “kept changing her story.”

05/11/06: Nifong’s delayed and much ballyhooed additional DNA evidence comes up very short. DNA was found on a fake fingernail in the bathroom trash can, but not enough was there for a conclusive match. This suggests contamination by contact, not gouging of somebody’s arm as alleged.

05/11/06: The taxi driver who provided evidence that Seligman was at a bank ATM at the time of the alleged incident, was arrested on a 2-1/2 year old alleged shoplifting charge (a misdemeanor). This is extremely unusual. It is ad motem litem intimidation of the witness — and an attempt by Nifong to render his testimony questionable. It is a waste of taxpayer resources, because physical video and ATM evidence proves the facts without any testimony from the cab driver. If anything, Nifong is trying to make his pending loss in court appear less than a complete rout. Nifong is asking for yet another civil suit for malicious prosecution!

05/12/06: A second round of DNA testing matches none of the lacrosse players. The accuser had sex with somebody, but nobody on the team.

05/12/06 Summary to date: There is not enough evidence to try a civil case on, much less a criminal one. Nifong has four insurmountable hurdles: there is no DNA evidence of a rape. The accuser’s DNA is not on a “smoking broomhandle”. Physical evidence proves that at least one of the alleged perpetrators was not there at the time of the alleged assault, which punctures the rest of accuser’s story full of holes. It is quite clear that the accuser’s two allegations are without foundation in fact. Last, the line-up was a turkey-shoot in a barn. By pursuing prosecution, Nifong is putting himself and the City of Durham at risk of a tremendous civil suit for what is clearly a malicious prosecution — a suit that could have the entire lacrosse team and perhaps one taxi driver collecting a tremendous sum in compensation for permanent damage done to their lives. The next question: Is Nifong going to pursue a case against the allegor with the same zeal he has pursued the false charges? Or is he a barnyard political chauvenist?

05/14/06: The “mystery man” responsible for the sex DNA found on the alleged victim is her boyfriend, who was not at the Lacrosse party, and is not a subject of the investigation. Nifong has said he would be undeterred by a lack of conclusive DNA evidence. Nifong is insane. If one is unable to understand the rules of “best evidence”, one has no business being a prosecuting attorney. One cannot prosecute by pretending that an already-disproved fairy tale is somehow fact.

05/15/06 Nifong’s new strategy: As I said above, Nifong is throwing ping-pong balls at the wall hoping one of them will stick. This has become his strategy to get himself off the hook for prosecuting an obviously false case. His plan: pursue all the charges to convince the jury that “something must have happened”, and use this attitude to foster an illegitimate conviction on the lesser “attack” charge so he can get out of this mess without being sued out of the legal profession. This is the same strategy applied in many famous false child abuse cases — which worked at time of trial but later resulted in reversals and exhoneration of the alleged perpetrators. The Defense would be wise to introduce historical evidence showing the parallels between this case and “Little Rascals” and other infamous false child abuse cases.

05/15/06: There is no blood or semen on the fake fingernail in the trash can. This nail was not involved in an altercation as described by the accusing stripper. This nail went to a strip party and fell off or was cracked, and ended up in a trash can with a lot of miscellaneous DNA in it. After replacing the nail, the stripper put nail polish on the new nail, and a minute or so later fell down on the back porch as she left the party, leaving a wet fingernail polish smear on the porch. Conclusion: the nail was the last thing she did before leaving the party. Strippers don’t do their nails after being raped or abused with broom handles or “attacked”. They run like hell and do their nails later. This fingernail is the key piece of evidence: it proves beyond reasonable doubt that nothing happened. End of fairy tale….

05/15/06: Nifong has turned into a terrorist-at-law, brandishing a fake nuclear weapon in a large crowd. He plans to make the case appear more ominous by seeking another Grand Jury indictment against a 3rd player today. This is now an exercise in critical mass …. a prosecutorial bluff by smokescreen …. the simulation of jurisprudence to save the prosecutor’s neck at the expense of boys who were merely foolish. Nifong is counting on feminist chauvenists on the jury to help him out of his quagmire. My prediction: the jury might buy the indictment (this county indicts almost everything presented to a grand jury), but at trial it will all fall apart, and Nifong will be in even deeper legal trouble.

05/15/06: David Evans, captain of the lacrosse team is indicted despite a complete lack of evidence, and misidentification in the unconstutional police lineup. The accuser said she would be 100% positive about him if Evans had his mustache back. The clincher for the defense: Evans never had a mustache.

05/15/06: I now believe that Nifong may have tried to secretly negotiate with the Defense to drop the case, in return for a secret quitclaim agreement, which the Defense is not about to give (it is “too late, baby”). Thirty-seven families and one taxi driver want the case heard so they can sue the prosecutor and the City of Durham, and possibly the universities involved for a tremendous sum in damages (which they legitimately deserve). The prosecutor will become the hunted. There is no way out for Nifong and the City of Durham now. These people will pay a steep price for institutionalizing campus feminism throughout their sexist city. There is little doubt in my mind that this case will become the lightning rod that causes reform of rape laws, and calls attention to widespread abuses of men, where between 20% and 40% of sex allegations against men are false (depending on the study considered, and whether or not you include false rape charges filed by women in married relationships).

05/31/06: The second stripper issued a “derogatory salute” towards a WRAL TV camera, stuck out her tongue, and refused to interview with them. She was in court on an previous embezzlement charge for stealing $25,000 from a company she worked for as a payroll specialist. We have two strippers involved in serious criminal activities, who would like us to believe an unbelievably convenient rape story.

06/09/06: Notes made public by the police today record that the second stripper originally stated that the “allegations of rape were a ‘crock’ and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes”. This information was originally covered up. The extreme lengths police went to in searching and pursuing the investigation as if it were real were an abuse of police authority. This case is a dead parrot. It is the forthcoming civil lawsuits against the prosecutor, the police, the City, and perhaps the colleges that are going to be very interesting. The only thing Nifong can do now to cut his losses is to drop the rape case immediately and prosecute the “raped” stripper for everything he can with as much vigor as he pursued the Lacrosse team.

6/10/06: The defense finds out that it took the accuser at least six lineup sessions to identify her “abusers” [Court Documents].

06/10/06: The Duke Case Collapses Entirely: We find out that the alleged victim had sex with four men and a “sexual device” before the party. This explains the strange rape clinic report. From this point forward, Nifong, the Durham Police, and others are looking at lawsuits and perhaps criminal prosecution for abuse of legal authority. The take away: It is quite clear that VAWA and VCA federal funding was driving this case all along. Federal funding flows automatically, and in large amounts, for these sorts of prosecutions. But, there is not one dime of funding to investigate the possibility that it did not happen. The VCA and VAWA must be reformed. We cannot tolerate conspiratorial abuses of citizens driven by federal funds that pretend that only females deserve protections while males deserve to be buried alive under the heavy hand of government. We find out that the . This explains the strange rape clinic report. From this point forward, Nifong, the Durham Police, and others are looking at lawsuits and perhaps criminal prosecution for abuse of legal authority. The take away: It is quite clear that VAWA and VCA federal funding was driving this case all along. Federal funding flows automatically, and in large amounts, for these sorts of prosecutions. We cannot tolerate conspiratorial abuses of citizens driven by federal funds that pretend that only females deserve protections while males are procedurally buried alive under the heavy hand of government.

06/23/06: An original 1-page police report dated March 14th (the day after the alleged rape), was finally released to the defense yesterday. This report reveals that the alleged victim was “nervous” and changed her story several times. This is material evidence that, had it been presented to the court and defense as required by law, it is unlikely there would have been grounds for search and substantially reduces the chance that the grand jury would have issued an indictment in the first place. The intentional withholding of this important exculpatory material evidence demonstrates why Nifong should be disbarred.

08/06/06: Today’s article by the News-Observer reports that Nifong was forced to release approximately 1800 pages of documents under a new state law requiring full disclosure of prosecutor files. The high-level description of the documents leaves no doubt that the case was bogus from the start — that Nifong had to have known it, and went out of his way to invent a case while breaking many fundamental rules of evidence, identification, and questioning. It appears that Nifong’s behavior may have crossed the line of criminality. If anyone ever claims that prosecutors do not lie, just cite this case.

10/15/06: A 60 Minutes segment documents Nifong’s most outrageous actions. In addition to what I knew, we also find out that Nifong refused to interview the accused players or recognize contraverting evidence. Professor James Coleman, appointed by Duke’s new president to head up a commission to investigate the Lacrosse team, says that Nifong committed prosecutorial misconduct, for which any conviction would result in reversal: “I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty”.

10/28/06: Outrage: Nifong admits he is trying a case despite never even interviewing the allegor to see if her story holds together.  One of the first things first-year law school students learn is never to try a case unless you know that the witness is credible and won’t fall apart on the stand.  The second rule he violated: never try a case unless you have the witness deposed, so you know you have a case worth trying, and so you have something to fall back on to protect yourself.  if the witness changes his/her mind at trial.  Where this case is clearly false to begin with, Nifon has malpracticed by failing to verify facts before destroying innocent men in the feminist Colosseum. Nifong is not trying this case because he should … but because he can.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 12th, 2006 at 12:16 am and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 1 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from David R. Usher