Gerald Poindexter, the Virginia prosecutor who could file dog fighting charges against Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, said he's moving slowly in the Vick case because he's chastened by the three innocent Duke lacrosse players who were accused of raping a stripper at a team party:Poindexter said he is reminded every day of Durham, North Carolina Prosecutor Mike Nyfong who went public with accusations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players that turned out to be untrue.
"I go back to that. He was pushed by politics. I'm not going to be driven by that," explained Poindexter.
Restraint is certainly a quality the Durham prosecutor lacked, but let's make one thing absolutely clear: Michael Vick is nothing like Duke lacrosse defendants Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans (pictured). In fact, it would be hard to come up with two cases more different.
In the Duke lacrosse case, the only evidence was the eyewitness testimony of one accuser, who turned out to be lying. There was no physical evidence whatsoever against the three Duke defendants. In the Vick case, investigators have mounds of physical evidence: bloodstained carpets, treadmills, rape stands, restraints and the dogs themselves. The only thing we don't know yet is whether an accuser can provide eyewitness testimony against Vick.
Furthermore, in the Vick case, the defense strategy has been to keep completely silent: Vick won't say anything, even whether he'll be exonerated. (And that's fine, he's entitled to keep silent.) In the Duke lacrosse case, the defendants said they were innocent.
Finally, no one who knows Vick is coming forward to say, unequivocally, that there's no way he's involved in dog fighting. Some friends of Vick are saying privately that he's involved in dog fighting. In the Duke case, dozens of people who personally knew the defendants came forward to say there was no way they were rapists. That included friends, family, and the entire women's lacrosse team at Duke.
Is Vick still innocent until proven guilty? By law, of course he is. But don't mistake him for the demonstrably innocent Duke lacrosse players.
(Photo: Getty Images)
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Come on now..Good Ol Clinton Portis defended him..
ATL is going to regret trading their back-up QB.
Poindexter is in so far over his head it's pathetic. His last case was a J-Walking caper that he drug on for 17 months, which by the way he lost.
Jim
the analogy is not vick to whichever 3 players were picked off a photo BUT nifong vs. poindexter
2 corrupt and elected da or prosecutors, both of whom should be disbarred and thrown in jail themselves
Damn. Where is Jack McCoy when you need a good DA!?!?!
Why isn't Vicks case like the Duke Lacrosse case?...the only difference I can see is that in the Duke case the defendants were all "white" and most Whites tends to believe their own kind before they would believe a "Black" defendent. Those Duke players weren't "entirely" innoncent of "everything" and that is a fact that most whites chose to ignore that. Vick may or may not be guilty of dog fighting, but he is still entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. The court of public opinion has already, tried and hung the guy. I am not proclaiming Vicks innocence in this issues, however, he most certainly doesn't (at this point), deserve the public lynching that he is getting no matter how much you might "dispise" the guy, when not all of the facts and evidence is actually known to te factual.
"Those Duke players weren't "entirely" innoncent of "everything" and that is a fact that most whites chose to ignore that."
will50 - that is a strong assertion - you care to back it up with ANY evidence?
Underage drinking is illegal, and also typical of every campus.
Hiring strippers is low class, but not illegal.
Using ugly racial language is pathetic and sad, but not illegal - and was made in the context of a heated argument over $800 for a non-performance after a racial taunt by Kim Roberts.
None of those are worth 30 years in jail, much less having your face on every newspaper in America, especially since the worst of the sins by current American Puritan standards - racial language - was not committed by any of the three indicted players - and that is a fact.
So either put up what you know, or shut your pie hole about "not entirely innocent". Unfounded allegations is what got us here.
Regarding black - white issues in America, you may be right on the money, and I tend to believe you are. But don't advance your pet political causes on the backs of people called "demonstrably innocent" by the highest attorney general in the state.
Jack Straw
Smell those railroad crossties!
"6. "Those Duke players weren't "entirely" innoncent of "everything" and that is a fact that most whites chose to ignore that."
will50 - that is a strong assertion - you care to back it up with ANY evidence?
Underage drinking is illegal, and also typical of every campus.
Hiring strippers is low class, but not illegal.
Using ugly racial language is pathetic and sad, but not illegal - and was made in the context of a heated argument over $800 for a non-performance after a racial taunt by Kim Roberts.
None of those are worth 30 years in jail, much less having your face on every newspaper in America, especially since the worst of the sins by current American Puritan standards - racial language - was not committed by any of the three indicted players - and that is a fact.
So either put up what you know, or shut your pie hole about "not entirely innocent". Unfounded allegations is what got us here.
Regarding black - white issues in America, you may be right on the money, and I tend to believe you are. But don't advance your pet political causes on the backs of people called "demonstrably innocent" by the highest attorney general in the state.
Jack Straw"
--------------------------------
I expected such an attempt to be logical and you backed me up with your comments.
Everything is not always "black and white"...They may not have been entirely guilty in a criminal sense, but in a "moral" sense they are just as guilty. Just becaue "underage" drinking is "acceptable" doesn't make it legal does it? As a society, we grow to accept actions by those who we admire and look the other way, even though what they do may be "wrong". If it is someone that we dislike, we are not so forgiving and therefore, spare no corner in our attempts to denigrade, outcast or hang them out to dry. If those Lacrosse players were "black" there would not have been the outpouring of empathy, sympathy and disgust, especially if the so called victim was "white", and that is a fact. Now Vick may or may not be guilty of dog fighting, but even without "positive" proof, he is the victim of a "public lynching". If he is guilty that is one thing, but what if he is found not guilty or did not sponsor this alledge dog fighting, what then?...can he get his reputation back or can he be "un-lynched" in the court of public opinion...I think not. In this country, we are to quick to jump to conclusions about guilty or innocence in the name of "logic" and in the end, some innocent victims are ruined forever, whether they be the Duke Lacrosse players or Mike Vick