Presumption of innocence

I guess I should not have been surprised that, as soon as the charges were dropped against the three Duke University students, their accuser would become the accused, even if she was not formally charged. Based on what I have read, the investigation conducted by Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, and his investigators was fair and thorough, and the three accused students should be considered innocent and fully exonerated.

But how does one logically conclude that, because those three young men are innocent, their accuser must be lying? Furthermore, why should she be subjected to having her identity revealed and her safety compromised if she has not been charged with a crime? Hathor had included a link to a blog that called the alleged victim a "criminal" and displayed her photo and her name. Ironically, the blog's theme is "personal freedom," so I had to ask the following question:

Since the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the U.S. judicial system, why not set a good example and grant that right to Ms. Mangum? The Attorney General of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, stated that Mangum contradicted herself, but decided not to prosecute her because she

..continues to insist she was attacked at a team party on March 13, 2006, and asked him to go forward with the case. Mr. Cooper said his investigators had told him that the woman "may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling." He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman's mental health history.

The quote is from the NYT article which is linked here.

It should be noted that there was evidence of blunt force trauma documented in a report by the sexual assault nurse who examined Mangum after the alleged attack. According to the same NYT article, that evidence was "undermined due to other accounts of her [Mangum's] activities as a stripper the weekend before the lacrosse party."

Just as the weak circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to press charges against the three Duke University students, weak evidence should not be used to accuse Mangum of willful wrongdoing. The state's investigation stated that Mangum was not assaulted by the three accused players, and based on the reputation of Roy Cooper, both the local NAACP and the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network have accepted the results of the state's investigation without question.

Is it possible that in her troubled condition, on the night of March 13, 2006 Mangum recalled, as rape survivors often will, a past assault, prompted by the sights, sounds at that ill-fated party? I have no way of ascertaining whether that is what happened and, neither do you. But I do know that posting a picture of that troubled young woman in a public venue is unjustified. If Attorney General Cooper did not find her culpable, why should you be allowed to unlawfully prosecute her outside of the judicial system? The fact that the accused players were subjected to such treatment does not justify the same treatment of Crystal Mangum.

If you truly seek defend to personal freedom, then remove Ms. Mangum's photo and consider her innocent until proven guilty.

By the time I finished writing this comment and posting it on that site, it really did feel like a Friday the 13th.