Dad: Broomstick used on dancer

[djg21]

Dad: Broomstick used on dancer --
Object cited in TV talk apparently not a focus of past police searches>
MARK JOHNSON
[e-mail]

DURHAM - The father of the accuser in the rape case involving Duke University lacrosse players said his daughter was raped with a broomstick during a party last month, and that explains defense lawyers' claims that no DNA from players was found on her.

The woman's father, appearing on MSNBC's "Rita Cosby Live & Direct" Tuesday night, said his daughter told him that when three team members raped and sodomized her, they also used a broom.

The father said he learned about the broom from others, "and then she told me afterwards because she didn't want me to know that part," he said.

Durham civil rights activist Victoria Peterson told the Observer on Wednesday that an investigator in the case told her the woman had been sodomized "with an object."

(cont'd)

This would appear to raise significant questions about the accuser's credibility. I would think that the DA would NOT have requested DNA samples from the alleged "rapists" if the accuser had initially reported only that she had been "raped" with a broomstick; and apparently, there was no DNA evidence of a rape). The fact that the DA requested DNA samples leads me to question whether the accuser is now changing her story so as to explain away the apparent lack of forensic evidence consistent with allegations of rape. Moreover, had the accuser initially reported being penetrated with a broomstick, the police no doubt would have searched for a broomstick that could be tested for the accuser's DNA while executing search warrants. At least according to media reports (which are inherently unreliable), they did not. This case is bizarre!

[Orrex]

1. Wouldn't a DNA check be standard procedure?

I mean, you wouldn't want to get to the verdict-stage of a trial, only to find out that you'd have convicted the rapist if only you had conducted a DNA test, right?

[djg21]

5. Why?

Why would an expensive DNA test be necessary if the "victim's" allegations indicate that seminal fluid or other such physical evidence would not be recovered. A DNA test would not be "standard procedure" where it would not be expected to lead to the discovery of probative evidence.

[Dora]

10. DNA exists in all tissues/fluids. This does not "weaken" anything.

:eyes:

If she had scratched any of the assailants in self-defense, then she could have had skin tissue underneath her fingernails. DNA can be found in that tissue.

It's my understanding that a DNA test is SOP when anyone comes to a hospital alleging rape. I think it's part of the "rape kit." The test is on fluids/tissue that are present on/in the victim at the hospital.

DNA testing of defendants is another matter: that's where the match comes in, or not.

Why should expense be an issue to you or to anyone? Especially when it's a matter of defending someone's innocence, or prosecuting someone's guilt.

:eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

15. Expense isn't an issue for me but unreasonable search and seizure is.

I don't understand why they ordered all players to submit to DNA tests and then disregard the results for dubious eyewitness I.D. Why wouldn't they do the I.D. and THEN do the DNA tests on the suspects? It seems as thought the prosecutor is casting a wide net. Also, I don't like the fact that the victim was ONLY shown lacrosse player's photos when there were other people at the party.

The identification process seems to be like a game of "eenee meenee minee moe. (sp???)" Keep in mind, there were between 46 and 54 people at this party and only three rapists. I would hate to see some kid get 40 years if he was out eating a burrito when the crime took place.

[Dora]

18. WTBD?

What's the big deal? What's unreasonable search and seizure? There are some very serious allegations of a gang rape that occurred at an unofficial team function. If this was your daughter or sister making these allegations, I suspect you'd want to swab the mouth of everybody at the party to find all DNA matches.

The reliability of the witness isn't an issue. DNA provides a fact when there are few facts to be found.

If a kid was out eating a burrito when the crime took place, then his DNA won't match. SEE? The system works in his favor! Yea!

[Kingshakabobo]

27. The big deal is the fourth amendment to the constitution.

It protects us from wide nets cast by the police.

The witness SUPPOSEDLY was able to ID the perpetrators. If that's the case, why not I.D. the suspects and test THEM for corroborative evidence? Keep in mind, these are supposedly POSITIVE I.D.s. Not, well, maybe he did it type of IDs. These are positive IDs that caused to men to be prosecuted. Why aren't these IDs enough to narrow down the field?

>>>>>If a kid was out eating a burrito when the crime took place, then his DNA won't match. SEE? The system works in his favor!<<<<

I thought his DNA didn't match? Yet he is still being prosecuted??????

If it was my sister, I would want to kill the rapists with my own bare hands so I'll try to approach this issue from the constitution's perspective. I'll try to approach the issue from the perspective that, as harsh as it may seem, this woman was raped and nothing can change that fact. The only thing left is justice and punishment so we should make absolutely certain that we have the right guys because a 40 year sentence for something you didn't do is worse than letting the guilty walk......even if you are a rich jag-off.

[Orrex]

30. We're not talking about DNA-testing every guy at Duke though, are we?

protects us from wide nets cast by the police.

Of course it does! That's why police don't routinely knock people down and swab their mouths. But if there's a sufficient case to indict someone, it seems reasonable to me that a court order could also require a DNA test.

We leave DNA all over the place--it's part of the disgusting joy of being human. If cops can procure a sample from the alleged attacker's razor or from the tissue in which he (and he alone) just blew his nose, would that be okay by you? Or is any and all DNA evidence inadmissable due to the 4th?

edited because I used "their" instead of "there." Good God, what's wrong with me!?!

[Kingshakabobo]

32. You are ignoring the fact that POSITIVE Ids have been alleged.

Ids that are positive enough to indict/prosecute. Ids that were positive enough to get two people perp-walked.

>>>>>But if their is a sufficient case to indict someone, it seems reasonable to me that a court order could also require a DNA test. <<<<<

You are contradicting your self. NO, there wasn't enough evidence to indict when the DNA tests were done. They did it backward. They cast a net over everyone and THEN came up with a face ID after the DNA piece didn't work out. THAT'S what bothers me.

[Orrex]

40. Perhaps I've misread you

It seemed as though you were arguing that DNA testing of a suspect is inherently a violation of the fourth amendment. If that's not your view, then I withdraw that objection.

And perhaps I've misunderstood the sequence of events. Was the DNA testing mandatory, or did the teammembers submit voluntarily?

[Kingshakabobo]

47. Here's my point

If the victim woke up on the floor of the house with a bump on her head or obvious signs of drugging and said: "hey I was raped but I was unconscious and I'm not able to identify my attackers"... I wouldn't have a problem with the mass DNA test. But that's not what the prosecutor is alleging NOW. That's what they seemed to be alleging at first but not now. The prosecution is alleging that she can POSITIVELY identify the rapists. If that's the case, why the mass DNA test? The two don't add up. My problem isn't with a net this wide because testing the whole house wouldn't have been unreasonable in the scenario I mentioned. My problem is with casting a wide net and when that doesn't catch any fish you resort back to POSITIVE eyewitness.

But what do I know. Apparently, I hate women, according to Dora..........oh and I know several policemen and prosecutors. You see, they lie to make a case fit what they ABSOLUTELY KNOW IN THEIR LITTLE HEARTS. Unfortunately, they are wrong from time to time when they twist a case to fit.



Court ordered tests:

http://www.wral.com/news/8532448/detail.html


>>>When a judge ordered 46 members of Duke's lacrosse team to submit DNA samples, each player had his cheek swabbed by forensic specialists<<<

[bettyellen]

42. how many positive IDs? possibly two...

so much we don;t know. so much assuming going on it boggles the mind.

[Dora]

31. Self-delete.

You don't really care what I think, and I don't really care to argue this point with you any farther.

It's too bad that you're not into justice.

[Kingshakabobo]

33. LOL. If you say so.

You forgot to call me pro-rape.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

38. Well, YOU just skidded all over YOUR OWN screen name.

I hope tho mods leave it up so you can wallow in your own.............

[Dora]

43. ?

Is it itchy thinking like you do?

[toopers]

36. You are right on with this issue.

Do you really trust the government to "discard" DNA samples?

[Kingshakabobo]

50. I trust the government less and less every day.

I don't have a problem with DNA samples per se. Just a problem with kooks who will gladly throw out constitutional protections, due process and call people women haters when they try discuss a subject.

[rinsd]

74. "There's nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide"

Now where have I heard that steaming pile of feces masquerading as logic before?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

77. I think you're chanelling Bushco.

Would you like to now tell us it's okay to spy on citizens because of terrorism?

[Orrex]

12. Dora answered this very well, to which I add:

The assailant might also have left hair on the victim's body or at the scene.

The only reason not to perform a DNA test would to guarantee a weak case for the prosecution. You also might forego the DNA test if the victim had been attacked by a robot.

Otherwise, it's standard procedure.

[Dora]

21. And even IF the victim had been attacked by a robot...

there would likely be some sort of testing. What are robots made out of these days?

Surely even a robot would leave a trace... tissue damage, oils, plastic particles.... :shrug:

[Orrex]

25. That's true.

Despite my farcical example, your point is good. Standard procedure always calls for a test for evidence, whether that evidence is DNA or robo-droppings.

[djg21]

26. But not DNA . . .

The question is not whether a rape kit was done, but whether testing was done to determine whether DNA that was recovered during the rape kit was left by any of the alleged assailants. There is no indication that any other tissue samples (i.e., fingernail scrapings) were found, and if no samples of seminal fluid (or other tissue) was recovered while doing the "rape kit", there would be nothing to subject to DNA testing.

That being said, had the accuser initially reported that she had been raped with a broom stick, a sample of her DNA would be taken to compare against any forensic evidence recovered from the brromstick, which would have been sought by the police in their search warrant.

[SmokingJacket]

2. The broomstick thing seems to be the trend.

:puke:

[saigon68]

17. BROOMSTICK UP THE ASS used here

[SodoffBush]

48. Also w/the NYC police dept.

Remember Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant, who was beaten and sodomized by New York's finest, who are mercenaries in Iraq now?

[saigon68]

55. THAT WAS A TOILET BOWL BRUSH HANDLE

That visited the upper reaches of HIS RECTUM up close and personal

It was wielded by a COP as I recall

[Voltaire99]

90. What is it with right wing scum and their foreign objects?

From the sexual predators in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the NYPD and those at Duke...wtf?

The violence of repressed puritans?

[0007]

62. Jeff Gannon uses a rigid steel rod named "Rodney" and is paid by the inch.

Jeff's paid GOP constitutes yell, "more more"

[fishnfla]

3. Dear Mr Nifong:

Please teach your prinicples and the other important witnesses in this case the following words: No comment

Dear Presiding Judge: please impose a gag order on this case

Dear God: please lets get to the truth of this thing and not conduct a trial by media and speculation

over and out

[rpannier]

82. Amen to that

[Gman]

4. There are no credibility issues here

beyond the standard "he said, she said". I'm amazed the way people take bits and pieces from news reports and put them together to form some kind of a case. News on something like this never is straightforward. You don't know when she told them about a broomstick, you don't know if she said she was otherwise raped au naturale.

[djg21]

6. "he said, she said"

Sorry, but that is precisely the issue. Of course this is a credibility issue given the apparent lack of evidence. I agree with you that this matter should be tried before a jury, and I reserve any ultimate judgment, however, media reports (which I note are inherently unreliable), certainly appear to raise questions of the accuser's credibility, notwithstanding the seemingly boorish behavior of the "suspects."

[fishnfla]

9. He said that others said that she said and now the other lady is saying

that she said it wasnt a broomstick.

I am not a legal person, but if the accuser is offering conflicting statements to potential witnesses(?), credibilty becomes an issue. I would think to the defense lawyers especially

[Jacobin]

19. We do know the search warrant didn't list brooms

which would seem to indicate that she didn't tell the prosecutor she was raped with a broom, which would mean either that she was too embarrassed to say so, or made it up later when no dna of the boys was found.

I would say that amounts to a credibility issue.

[AngryAmish]

7. Sick

Those rapists are sick. A broomstick....ugly and hateful.

[LostinVA]

8. Dupe from a post yetserday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1025820

[onenote]

14. better to read the transcript than rely on post describing it

I realize that the purpose of the link was to direct DUers to another thread regarding this same topic, which is fine. However, because the linked post from yesterday is, IMHO, inaccurate in its description of the reaction of the guests on the show to the statements by the accuser's father in the interview with Cosby, a link to the transcript itself also seems appropriate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12496646

onenote

[anotherdrew]

11. they raped her, they'll get away with it. victims now need video evidence?

why would you even doubt her? False rape allegations are rare and very much the exception not the rule.

anyway, this won't be decided in the court of public opinion, but in a court of law. Unfortunately for the victim here ,it seems there may be little to no evidence and so it's her word against their word. Guess who's going to get believed? A black exotic dancer or white rich frat boys?

the treatment of this case disgusts me, all of you hating this rape victim really need to take a long hard look at your shameful selves.

[ECH1969]

13. You are right women never lie when it comes to rape

I can't think of one case ever where a women has lied about rape.

[Orrex]

16. Can you recall many cases in which the rapist happily declared his guilt?

Certainly the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but that's absolutely not an excuse to trash the credibility of any alleged victim.

[djg21]

20. It is absolutely the job of defense counsel . . .

to impeach, or as you put it, to "trash" the accuser's credibility, albeit at trial and not in the media. I don't think anyone here is trashing the accuser's credibility. I certainly am not. Rather, I point out that there is certainly reason to question her credibility. I will leave the task of determining who is being truthful and who is not to the jury. If the accuser is being truthful, her rapists should be imprisoned. On the other hand, if it is proven that the accuser's allegations were fabricated she should be put in prison.

[Dora]

23. It is absolutely the job of defense counsel...

to DEFEND his CLIENT against legal charges.

The automatic "smear the victim" approach smacks of desperation and guilt. It's lazy lawyering, IMO.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Agree 100%. Why smearing has been allowed in the past...

...is a major question for me.

[Orrex]

46. I believe it can be grounds for dismissal or appeal

If Houston went around smearing Ken Lay's "good" name, you can bet that Lay's attorneys would have a field day with it.

[djg21]

56. What are you talking about?

Truth is an absolute defense -- there is this thing called the "First Amendment."

If the statements to the press are false, the remedy may be a civil action for slander/libel.

If a credibility of a witness is impeached at trial, his/her attorney may attempt to rehabilitate the witness on re-direct examination. Perhaps you shouldn't make comments or render legal opinions if you don't have a clue as to how our judicial system --which by design is adversarial -- actually works?

[Orrex]

59. Spare me your sermons on the First Amendment

I'd better reply quickly, before your insulting post is deleted..

If a person is accused of rape, his attorney might repeatedly point out that the accuser is, for example, an exotic dancer. This might not be false, and it isn't illegal, and it certainly isn't relevant, but if it gets sufficient play in the press then it can be wrongfully damaging to the accuser's case.

Do you really think that only false statements are damaging? What about true statements presented out of context?

Here's an excellent piece for you to consider before you presume to school anyone on the ways of the world:

But in the real world, no human being is perfect. We all have flaws. In which case, the above smear campaign actually fulfills a second function: if it throws enough mud, some of it is bound to stick. For example, you might be a relatively honest and moral person, but you subscribe to several adult magazines. Nothing illegal about it, but it is embarrassing. When the reporters show up on your door demanding to know if it’s true, you have three options. You can lie by denying it, look evasive by refusing to answer it, or you can admit to it. In the latter two cases, you become late-night joke fodder for Jay Leno and David Letterman, and your reputation is shot.

From The Long FAQ on Liberalism

See? Do you get it? A statement can be materially true and still be a misleading smear. There is, then, no remedy for slander/libel, even if the truth is damaging and/or embarrassing.

[djg21]

65. I'll spare you my sermons on the First Amendment . . .

if you agree to spare us your uninformed musings on litigation practice and procedure.

[Orrex]

66. Perhaps I'd take your advice

if you gave any evidence that you know what you're talking about.

Take your time--I'm patient.

[djg21]

67. Sorry!

I feel no need to provide you with credentials. And don't change the subject. The issue is the lack of any basis for your opinions, which, though legally and factually baseless, you are nevertheless free to hold.

Good day!

[Orrex]

68. Looks like I get to add another name to my ignore list

No problem--it's not as though I'll be missing any posts of value.

[djg21]

51. you call it smear the victim . . . .

I call it impeachment. BTW, the prosecution is just as interested in impeaching the credibility of the defendants as the defense counsel is in impeaching the credibility of the complaintant and the prosecution witnesses. Whether it need be done in the mediaso as to poison the jury pool is another issue, which the presiding judge may decide to minimize. That being said, unless impeachment is allowed, the adversarial process would not work because juries could never have the ammunition with which to discern whose "truth" is to be believed.

[Lindacooks]

85. Not only is it lazy lawyering, I think it violates victim's rights.

Because they are deliberately, DELIBERATELY trying to intimidate victims and to make others so afraid of this kind of treatment that they will never come forward and report rapes in the first place.

[superconnected]

22. And if you can, does that mean ALL women have lied.

Geesh.

Since there's over a 90% chance the woman is telling the truth, compared to women who have lied about rape cases, why not give her the benefit of the doubt.

[anotherdrew]

29. rarely and never are different words, ever notice that? did I say never?

NO I didn't

maybe, maybe, she's lying, is that for a bunch of people in who have no business in the case to say? In fact, it's more likely she isn't; now think IF, even if you consider it a small chance, IF she's telling the truth...

[Lindacooks]

84. Only about 2% do. Which means 98% DON'T.

Same as for any other crime.

But, in other crimes, the victim isn't asked if she enjoyed it.

[mondo joe]

60. "Why would you even doubt her?"

Why even bother with a trial?

Why not just throw any accused person in prison? We can just expand Guantanamo, right?

[brentspeak]

70. Well, I think that settles it: the accused are obviously guilty

Skip the trial and go straight to the sentencing.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[TheWraith]

72. And suddenly you're psychic now?

You can look at a case, and without ever even seeing the evidence, magically determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? What an interesting superpower you have.

Actually, false rape allegations aren't nearly as rare as you seem to think. And if in your world waiting for all the evidence means that you "hate the victim," I think that you're the one who should feel ashamed for the lynch-mob mockery of justice that you've endorsed.

[superconnected]

24. I don't believe this will get to trial.

I'm sure a quiet payoff will happen.

The most shocking thing here will be if it lands before a jury.

[wakeme2008]

28. Hint to dancer

"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. "

Mark Twain....

[bettyellen]

37. you have first hand knowledge of her statements?

how's that for a hint?

[RawMaterials]

39. You have to remember a lie

the truth is the truth and you just recite it, you don't have to remember what you made up if your telling the truth.

[bettyellen]

44. you're privvy to her statements to the police? or do you also have no clue

what happened?

[Dora]

45. Sometimes the truth is vague and hard to get to.

A personal anecdote: My husband was out one night to see a friend's band playing in a local nightclub. My husband's drink was drugged, we suspect it was probably GBH. He barely made it home, and has very little recall of anything after pulling the truck into our carport.

My point is this:

IF the victim in this case was drugged, I think it would be very hard for her to ID any faces. If that's true, then the truth of the assault isn't made any less true because the victim's memory is affected by un/willing intoxication.

[TheWraith]

73. You're throwing out complete supposition.

There's never been any claim that the accuser was drugged. There's never been any suggestion that she can't remember. And she just specifically IDed three guys who she says positively did it. So there's a total lack of any evidence to suggest any sort of memory problem.

[bettyellen]

75. The stupor that suddenly came upon her, within an hour?

and isn't the rest of your post based on suppositions?
most of this thread, sadly is based on suppositions. some of them really stupid ones.

[Dora]

76. I read a thread on this same topic this week or last

I read in one of these threads earlier this week that the other dancer thought the victim had been drugged, or at the least was drunk. Hearsay, I know, but isn't this all?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Most, if not all, DAs withhold a certain....

...amount of information from the public to include facts about the crime. They are not required to tell anyone outside of the legal system what they know, or do not know, about a particular case.

IMHO, your contention that the victim is "changing her story" is not based on anything more than how you've interpreted a news story.

[Onlooker]

49. For those who think the stripper is lying

What's her motive? How did she prepare a story that fooled the police and DA? Clearly, something bad happened at that house and happened to her. If that was not the case, I don't think the defense would be trying the case in the media, even though it seems to be convincing even a lot of progressive-minded people.

[Kingshakabobo]

52. I don't necessarily think she is lying.

I think she was drugged when the assault happened. That's what it sounds like from the other stripper/witness. IIRC, she said the victim had one drink and started acting really drunk. I think they got her with GHB.

I'm pretty sure I was the victim of someone putting GHB in my drink. I know what it is like.

I think the prosecution figured they would get a DNA match. When that failed, they put 46(there may have been an additional 8 people attending the party) pictures in front of her and told her to "pick two."

[djg21]

64. If she was drugged . . .

There likely will be evidence of that offered at trial. I strongly suspect that a toxicology screening would have been performed at the hospital to determine if she was in fact drugged after she reported being raped. We'll find out when the prosecutor presents his case.

[Kingshakabobo]

69. IIRC, GHB doesn't show up after a few hours.

I could be wrong. Also, I don't think they test victims...do they??????? I dunno..

[djg21]

53. Motive?

I can think of a two possible motives:

(1) retaliation -- the lacrosse players treated her like crap, perhaps called her offensive epithets, etc., and she decided to get even. The fact that they may be boorish asses doesn't necessarily make them rapists.

(2) money -- a pay off not to press charges.

How did she prepare a story that fooled the police and DA? False reports of crimes are not infrequently filed. How much does it take to make an allegation that is untested. The fact that a grand jury returned an indictment is meaningless. Whether the allegations are determined to be true at trial is an entirely different issue.

[superconnected]

54. sickening.

[djg21]

57. within the realm of possibility irrespective.

It does in fact happen.

[Umbram]

91. Possibly, but not outlandish.

While I was in undergrad, a Freshman filed a false rape report and later withdrew it when the police started questioning her heavily because her details kept changing.

Final result - she admitted that she wanted a single dorm room (hard to get unless there were psychological issues or physical handicaps at that University) and lied in order to get one.

[superconnected]

58. how did she get the medical professionals to agree

she looked like she was raped.

I have a feeling those that believe the victim is lying, wouldn't care if she was raped or not. They would still support the lacross team.

Rape is not the same in the eyes of men as in the eyes of women. Too often men feel it is "nothing". Sickening but true. The integrity of anyone that goes out of their way to attack a victim of sexual abuse comes up, when they do that. Statistically it always goes in favor that the victim is not lying, so there's nothing rational there pointing at how the victim should be under instant suspicion and her story dismissed.

The only thing I can think of is a new factor, not introduced in the actual event - hatred of women/men in the eyes of the on lookers, where rationalization is suspended, and it doesn't matter if the victim was victimized.

It certianly looks like that here.

[djg21]

63. pre-existing injuries?

BTW, I do not "support" either side in this. A jury will ultimately decide, and there are rational arguments that can be made on either's behalf.

If the accuser had recent, but nevertheless, pre-existing injuries, the pre-existing injuries could have been consistent with a rape. I recall that there are photos of her entering the house with pre-existing bruises and scrapes. Additionally, depending on the nature of the injuries (which we may only speculate about), they could have been consistent with a fall down the steps, as the defense appears to submit. I just don't know what injuries she sustained, and neither do you.

[bettyellen]

71. if you aren't supporting either side- why are none of your posts about how

the team could be lying or what their motivation for the crime might be?
am i just not seeing the posts where you go after the players' cred? or are ther are none?

[DelawareValleyDem]

87. 'Medical records obtained under subpoena

indicate that the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.' I doubt if a fall down steps could cause that.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/duke/ncduke41806sw4.html

[mondo joe]

61. I don't think she's lying. I don't know what happened.

That's what trials are for.

[Sivafae]

78. Doesn't anybody here watch Crime shows?

DNA evidence is incredibly useful. Not only can it give evidence in the commission of a crime, but it can also place the accused at the scene of a crime. Otherwise a simple,"I wasn't there," would suffice. Proving the accused were at the scene of the crime is one part of building a case. So the information that the victim was allegedly raped with a broomstick in no way lessens the importance DNA evidence. It is even more important for placing the accused at the scene because no evidence was found on or in the victim.
So the assertion that DNA evidence did not need to be collected from the suspects or that this raises significant questions about the accuser's credibility, is dead wrong.
In fact, it strengthens her case because the attorneys for the defendants have already released the information that no DNA evidence was found on or in the victim. And the allegations that a broomstick was used would be an excellent explanation. I'd fire those attorneys.

[chapel hill dem]

79. Just a rumor here in Chapel Hill and Durham, but there is a lot of talk

about the "boyfriend" that took the victim to the hospital. The rumor is that he was her "agent" and was furious that she came back with no cash. He then beat her and assaulted her with a stick, and then took her (left her?) to the hospital. She tried to cover for him and that is what started the whole rape accusation.

Just a rumor, but it seems to fit most of the evidence. Expectations are that the boyfriend will be arrested after the DA primary and the Duke players will have their charges dropped due to the photo line-up mistakes.

Please do not ban me for bringing this up.
Thanks.

[superconnected]

80. why bother dancing when she could just be a hooker and bring

her pimp the money.

Awful waste of her time doing the exotic dancing gigs. Why be a college student when she could just make money without the degree, being a hooker.

Somehow, I doubt most hookers are in college. Somehow I think she was dancing for a real company, not her agent("pssst pimp") boyfriend.

Somehow I doubt the rumour.

what a nice agent("psssst pimp"). He took her to the hospital after beating her up... unlikely.

Announcement - the victim has now been reduced to prostitute. Well, actually she was within minutes of DU getting the news.

[onenote]

81. this sounds like complete BS

According to what has been reported, the police took her to the hospital. Has anyone seen anything to suggest otherwise? We know a cop saw her and thought she was drunk in the Kroger parking lot. What is the "rumor" say about that? That the cop just went home?

I don't know what happened that night, but I seriously doubt this version.

onenote

[LostinVA]

86. Oh yup, I just bet that's it

That just makes so much more sense and is much more likely than a rape.

I especially liked the quotations around "agent" and "boyfriend."

Give me a frigging break. Discussion and controlled heated debate are great on these threads... but this? Whatever.

[Sivafae]

88. Um, that is only a rumor...

And an ugly one at that. "Agent" obviously means, "Pimp" because we all know that a girl in her "situation" must be under the control of a man in order to do what she does.
There is obviously a frame-work you are working in that is incredibly stereotypical. Because most of the women I know that work in the sex-industry are working for themselves. And do you honestly believe that woman who does have a pimp would be able to go to school? I don't think so.
What you heard was a rumor, and in the future, please keep them to yourself.

[pitohui]

83. omg that would be the LAST time i ever confided in my dad

christ can you imagine your dad sharing this information w. rita cosby and all his friends on teevee?

i would never be able to have a heart to heart w. my dad again

everybody's exploiting this girl for fame, apparently the other stripper is already trying to break into teevee and now daddy dearest has to give us a blow-by-blow?

[Sivafae]

89. That is a Dad that cares.

He knows she being smeared, and he took the chance of hurting the case by bringing it to the public's attention. And of course what he heard is not, as we know it factual.