OK. About the Georgia murder of the toddler.

[RZM]

34. Skepticism when the facts are still coming out is fair. But this taps into something a lot deeper

It's not unusual for the media and blogosphere to jump to conclusions in a case, especially early on. Often many people are shown to be wrong.

I assumed Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Amanda Knox were guilty from day one. I'm not saying both are totally innocent, but in both cases the American and Italian legal systems seem to have problems producing credible evidence that proves their guilt. Clearly my initial impressions were not entirely correct.

But it's telling to contrast the reaction to this case and the Elephant Man thread from February 2012:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002264953

On that thread a DUer (who is on this thread too) mentioned that the charges were greeted with skepticism in Jamaica, where the alleged rape took place. IMO that was just the kind of information that could and should be posted on a thread about the case. But they were (unfairly, IMO) taken to the woodshed over that. Why? Because the crime was rape and the accused is a known homophobe. From a progressive perspective that's two strikes against him right away. It means he's a bad guy and doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

The real telling difference is the Susan Smith references. Can you imagine if anybody had brought up Duke Lacrosse in regards to Elephant Man?

'There's a long tradition of false rape accusations in this country. After Duke Lacrosse it's fair to be skeptical.'

Holy shit. That would have been considered beyond outrageous. And to be fair, some people are not happy with the skepticism here, so it's not entirely different. But few of the non-skeptical seem to be taking issue with the Susan Smith reference, which is also telling. I would agree that the fact that some woman at some point in time made a false rape accusation isn't all that relevant to Elephant Man. But the fact that some woman at some point in time (19 years ago) falsely accused black men of a crime she committed isn't any more relevant to this case either.

Are we condemned to automatic skepticism when a white child is killed because of what one woman said in one sensational case (throw in Stuart and anybody else here too)? If the bar is that low, you'd see nothing but skepticism in every case. I'm sure you could dig up a false accusation for every crime under the sun, including those that generate a lot of interest and condemnation on the left, such as white collar fraud and hate crimes.

The fact that it's ok to do so here but not in a rape case speaks less to the facts of either case and more to the set of beliefs and assumptions that accompanies one's ideology.