Justice is getting lost in Duke lacrosse case.

[NaturalHigh]

From the Kansas City Star...

If the Duke lacrosse players were black and the accuser were white, everyone would easily see the similarities between this case and the alleged crimes that often left black men hanging from trees in the early 1900s.

That is not written to exonerate the lacrosse players of the rape allegations they face. I don't know what happened inside that house.

But I do know that the investigation, the posturing by black activists and the political gains by the district attorney - Mike Nifong won his democratic re-election bid on Tuesday - make me uncomfortable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The accuser's story is pretty weak. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't heard much on this case since the DA won his re-election.

[xchrom]

1. excuse me, pardon me -- just passing through

:yoiks:

[Missy M]

2. I believe it was the defense who were putting out all the....

various stories, not the DA. It will be decided in a courtroom, as it should be.

[NaturalHigh]

3. No, the DA came out and rattled his saber again...

last week to get in a few last-minute digs before the election. He didn't say anything of substance, just more of "I'm gonna prosecute these rapists, blah, blah, blah."

I saw a site that will let you wager on the outcome of this case. It gives pretty decent odds that this case never makes it to trial, even better odds that all defendants are acquitted.

[TorchTheWitch]

60. What are you disagreeing with?

"I believe it was the defense who were putting out all the various stories, not the DA."

Your response: No, the DA came out and rattled his saber again. He didn't say anything of substance, just more of "I'm gonna prosecute these rapists, blah, blah, blah."

In other words, you agree with the poster you responded to. They said it was the defense putting out the various stories, and you're saying that the prosecutor was out again last week saying nothing of substance. So... um... what are you disagreeing with?

[chookie]

6. Afraid not

The DA -- weeks before anyone was fingered as the assailants -- had a lot to say about the case, pretty strong statements about the obvious guilt of the LaCrosse players and their "hooliganism." He gave dozens of hours of press conferences before the indictments were made. The defense began to refute his claims after specific men had been indicted.

A few days ago he shared his evidence with the New Black Panthers, a group that is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a racist hate group -- men who are walking around Durham with knives in their belts and attempting to get onto the Duke campus. I do not believe these was an appropriate action for a DA to take in such an inflammatory situation.

I do agree with you that the case must be decided in a courtroom -- hopefully based on evidence and not politics.

[NaturalHigh]

8. This case is all about politics, IMO.

If the DA hadn't been in a tight race against a black candidate and a female candidate, he never would have filed charges.

[struggle4progress]

33. ... "There were bruises that were consistent with a sexual assault,"

said Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong. "There was also behavior that was consistent with having gone through a traumatic experience." Nifong said he does not expect to file charges any earlier than next week ...

Protest march draws hundreds
BY AMES ALEXANDER AND MARK JOHNSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Thu, Mar. 30, 2006
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14218452.htm

[chookie]

34. Important evidence

I am merely following this story. I have no "conclusion."

I would agree with you that the examination by a nurse trained to deal with sexual assault and its psychological effects as well as collecting evidence is very important evidence.

[TorchTheWitch]

61. He would have had to file charges

If there's evidence that a rape occurred and the accuser can identify her assailant(s) he has to proceed unless the accuser doesn't want to. Although he would have the option to try to talk her out of proceeding if he didn't think the case had much merit since prosecutors don't like to try cases they don't think they have a good chance of winning.

I don't think this has to do much with politics at all unless at this point (now that he's won the election) he THEN tries to talk her out of proceeding... that would be a pretty clear signal that he wouldn't have wanted to try the case in the first place, and used her as a way to help his campaign. Although if she does drop the case, we'll never know if she decided that on her own or if he convinced her to.

Thankfully, it's not up to the prosecutor what cases he tries and which he doesn't. If the law worked that way, no prosecutor would ever try a case that wasn't a slam dunk. It's bizarre that people think he wants to try this case and lose.

I notice that all of your opinions on this case exactly match that of the defense and for the reasons that the defense puts out. I also find it interesting that your timing on these opinions is immediately after the defenses'. It would save you a lot of time if you just said that you agree with everything the defense has said in the past, everything they say now and everything they will say in the future and be done with it.

[BrownOak]

78. Political Motivations & Timing

In my mind, I don't see any doubt that Nifong's handling of the case was influenced by the election. That's not to say that the charges wouldn't have been filed if there had been no election, but I think he rushed this thing to a grand jury because of the political situation. The compelling point for me is that right now he's still waiting for the second round of the DNA tests to come back and those tests are now under a deadline for that May 15 preliminary hearing because he took the case to the grand jury when he did. If you have all the solid evidence you need, why do you need the second round of DNA testing? If you need the second round of DNA testing, why impose the artificial deadline by going to the grand jury? Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until the second round of testing is returned before going to the grand jury?

Now, that's very speculative as indeed anything would be when you're trying to determine someone's motives. But when you look at the fact that they did not seek an indictment against the third suspect, despite the fact that the AV stated she was 90% certain in her identification, you have to question what other evidence the DA had in hand when he went to the grand jury. If a 90% ID makes you nervous then it has to be very critical to the process. Since the threshold for getting an indictment is notoriously low could Nifong have proceeded with simply the ID and the SANE report?

I look at the other actions from the DA in this investigation and while I can respect the hardball approach he's taking there's also an underlying current of desperation to some of those actions that would make me question just how much evidence he has in hand at this point.

*He started out by unequivocally stating that the first DNA tests would "identify the guilty and clear the innocent." But when it appeared likely that those tests would come back inconclusive he immediately launched into the condom theory. It would appear that the results of the tests were not what he was expecting when he made his first statements. He was also very vocal after the DNA tests came back about the number of cases that have no DNA evidence. Did he learn those figures after he made his initial statements about identifying the guilty and clearing the innocent? It's also interesting that he (just as the defense is doing on other issues) skewed the perception of the DNA results by stating that 70-80% of rape cases do not have DNA evidence. While that stat is overall true, it does not appear to be the case when you're dealing with evidence collected by a SANE within 72 hours of the alleged attack.

*It will be very telling to see the initial interviews that Kim Roberts gave to the police and to the defense investigators. Because here's what we know. She initially did not believe a rape had occurred (as per her statements to the press). The defense made public statements along those lines - they were either spinning what she told their investigators or she had legitimately said that - likely a combination of the two. She gave her interview to the police and was arrested on a probation violation immediately thereafter and released on a secured bond. Her next public statements were that she "now believed a rape occurred" but that she couldn't say with certainty. The next thing you know, while being represented by one of the DA's political supporters within the Black community, her bond status is changed to unsecured, thereby saving her the bondsman fees.

*The Friday before the grand jury, as they are about to go for those two indictments, the police visit several of the players who they know are represented by attorneys. They interview them without their attorneys present which enters a gray area depending upon if they were considered custodial or non-custodial interviews. It was a questionable move, but the real notable part is that they were asking the players who was in attendance at the party. Remember this is three days prior to the indictments. How sure of the case was Nifong at that time if he was using questionable interviewing methods to verify those ID's?

*That previous day, several of the players received an email from one team member who said he "was going to tell the police a crime occurred and implicate key players." The player never sent the email and his computer was in police custody at the time. Where did that originate?

*The lineup used by the police, at the instruction of Nifong, was in direct violation of the stated policy for photo lineups on two accounts. Again, if you have such certainty about the case, why risk having the ID's thrown out with a flawed lineup?


All those things lead me to believe (with a certain measure of personal certainty ;) ) that at the time Nifong took this case to the grand jury he didn't have a strong enough case to go to a full trial. So why would he do that instead of taking his time to complete his investigation? That pending primary had to have been a factor in his decision and it appears that Nifong's support in the black community was pivotal in the outcome.

According to a recently released study of the election completed by Christian Grose, a Poli Sci professor at Vanderbilt, Nifong took 44% of the Black vote in the election. His closest opponent took just 25% of the vote. Even more telling according to Grose, "whenever there is a black candidate who receives the endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, then they get a majority of the black vote." But in this election, black candidate Keith Bishop (who to be fair, was a weak candidate) received just 30% of the black vote despite getting the endorsement.

[TorchTheWitch]

85. We sure are a couple of long winded folks

As for Nifong's handling of the case and political motivation, it may be that being the first to make it so public had something to do with his campaign. This is nothing new with DA's but it is pretty off the beaten path for a rape case in particular and one with racial overtones. However, the defense would have publically trashed the accuser anyway. I do fault him for being the FIRST to start the media circus, but it would have happened anyway.

As for solid evidence when going to the grand jury, all that would be needed is the accuser identifying her alleged attackers, her motivation to not drop that case and SOME evidence that she was indeed raped. Therefore, ALL Nifong needed to go to the grand jury was the SANE report and the identities of the accused. I highly suspect that he rushed the DNA testing for two reasons: 1) positive DNA testing would have made his case before the grand jury a slam dunk, and 2) it would have stopped a great deal if not all of the smearing of the accuser which would have endangered his case because she may have decided to drop it based on her treatment (which is why the defense will always smear the accuser as much as they can). Positive DNA evidence early on would have stopped much of that in it's tracks. Remember, this woman is a stripper and because of that is in the high risk catagory of those women willing to drop their case... us strippers aren't so dumb that we wouldn't know that we'd have precious little credibility before a jury based on our job.

You're assuming that the DA would have known before round one of the DNA testing that a round two would be necessary. Had the results of round one given him the results he wanted with positive ID there would obviously be no need for round two. Since he wanted the DNA results fast, they were more than likely done only on sperm cells assuming there would have been enough or any at all. If this woman was raped and the attackers didn't ejaculate there may have not been either enough or any sperm cells to give a positive ID regarding a DNA test for sperm cells, or they could have worn condoms which would give no positive ID for sperm cells.

Nifong never said the results of the DNA testing in round one would produce positive results... he said the results of the DNA testing, period (which would include round one and round two). Round two is most likely DNA testing for Y chromosomes which is almost always done ONLY when the sperm cell DNA testing gives no positive result...

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html
Y chromosome STR testing.

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.

This would jive with his saying that the negative DNA testing in round one could merely mean that the alleged accused either didn't ejaculate or they used condoms. However, it is still entirely possible that round two of the DNA testing doesn't return a positive ID either, but as we know, DNA testing doesn't always give any positive results in many cases. It may be that he thought both types of DNA testing would be done at the same time or even that two different types may be required. We don't know if he's ever tried a rape case with such a complicated issue over the DNA. It may be that in the other rape cases he's tried involving DNA, positive ID's always resulted because there was sufficient sperm present. Personally, I think him saying that the DNA testing (both sperm and Y chromosome) WOULD give a positive ID was a bad move, but I'm not a prosecutor, so I don't really know what his motivation was for saying that. Counsel on both sides can stretch the truth in front of the cameras, but DA's are generally somewhat silent or evasive as it helps their case to not reveal too much information.

Kim Roberts didn't make any statements to the press until AFTER that attorney she spoke to revealed to the press what she told him. It was THAT specifically that motivated her to go to the press herself. She was quite pissed off.

As for credibility, personally I find her credible as I can easily see how at first she would not have suspected that the accuser was raped but after thinking about things later determined that she probably was, but as for a jury finding her credible, we'll just have to wait and see. Kim is also more credible as she freely states she doesn't know whether or not a rape occurred despite what she may have first told the attorney she spoke to. I also imagine she would have a case against the attorney she spoke to as he revealed what she told him with the understanding of attorney/client privilege. No, she wasn't a client of his as she hadn't retained him, but when lawyer shopping and in telling a lawyer you are contemplating hiring your story, it's assumed that that information will be held in confidence whether you hire that attorney or not. I think this lawyer committed a serious ethical breach by revealing what she told him. That I'm not sure about since I've never been involved in ethics issues like this.

Also, since Kim isn't being used as a witness to the alleged rape, but to the circumstances surrounding it (since she didn't witness a rape) she may come off very credible on the stand. Juries can easily find someone credible no matter who they are (even if they're a prisoner incarcerated for a violent crime) depending on how they perform on the stand.

As for the police questioning the players about who attended the party, they were originally told by the players that no other people who weren't lacrosse players were at the party, but the defense later revealed that there were three other people at the party who were not lacrosse players and hadn't been tested for DNA.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8694922/detail.html
But attorneys also noted that three people at the party aren't on the lacrosse team, and none of them have submitted DNA samples to authorities for testing.

So, which is it? Did the players lie when they told police that there were no people at the party who were not on the team, or is the defense lying by saying that there were?

I can see in this circumstance a need to for the police to do some requestioning. We also don't know if all of the players at that time were represented by counsel. It's entirely possible that not all of them were at that time as many may not have seen a need for counsel at that time, or were in the process of obtaining counsel. The prosecutor is only going to know who has counsel at what time when the attorneys of those people let him know and he then tells the police. More important, this bit about the questioning comes from the defense, so automatically how truthful it is would be in question. It is possible that all the questioning they did was to ask who was who and were they or were they not represented by counsel and then only further questioned those who were not if any of them in fact were not represented by counsel. Remember, this information is coming from the defense. The only thing that is known to not be coming from the defense is that the school reported the presense of the police officers ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/14/national/main1499617.shtml?source=RSS&attr=U.S._1499617
Two police officers went to Duke University’s dorm rooms last night, spending about an hour and a half apparently trying to interview members of the lacrosse team.

The school confirmed that a pair of Durham police detectives were on campus Thursday night for an hour and 15 minutes, but said they did not execute any search warrants. The school's statement corrected comments made Friday morning by Duke President Richard Brodhead, who told reporters police attempted to enter the rooms, but then added he had few details.

So all we know is that the police where there for a period of time. We don't know who they talked to or what they asked as all the rest of the information comes from the defense.

As for the email alleging that someone was going to squeel...

The computer of whoever it was alleged to be that sent the email being in police custody doesn't mean doodly poo. Other than Ryan McFadyn (the player that sent that gross email an hour after the party) and the two accused players, all of these guys were still in school at the time, and exam time was just around the corner. Further, these guys are from privileged backgounds, and they're folks would just make sure that a new computer was purchased for them. All that needs to be done for the player who allegedly wrote the email was to get a new computer and load up his software... his email account would still be available. He could then send the email from the new computer.

There is a possibility that the police sent it from the confiscated computer, but would they have access to that player's email address? If that player is hooked up to his email account on his new compuer, how would the police using the confiscated computer be able to get into and use that email account? What if the account had a password? If the police sent it intending to try to suggest that someone was going to talk in hopes that other people would come forward, how would they know that the person who's email account they used (and pretending to be that person) wasn't with one or more of the players at the time the email was sent so they would know the police tried to set them up? It would be very risky. If the players had any evidence that it didn't come from the player alleging to have sent it (he was with one or more of the players and not on his new computer at the time it was sent), all the players would forever be very suspicious of the police and may band more tightly together.

Besides, there's that mystery player that secretly contacted the police to give them the email that Ryan sent an hour after the party, so there IS someone who wants to talk and may have been talking all along, and may even have agreed to playing the spy and is flipping whatever he finds out from unsuspecting players that he's talking to the police.

It may indeed have been the police trying to set them up. However, it would be a damned risky thing to do. But the player may indeed have sent it himself and because of either the fear of retaliation or being threatened by the other players or possibly covering for being a "spy" already working with the police, he may have claimed it wasn't him.

I'm kind of in the middle on this... could have been a player and could have been the police. If it was indeed an email from one of the confiscated computers it would have to have been one of the three players who lived in the house or Ryan. However, Ryan was dismissed from the school after sending the gross email, so he wouldn't have access to his school email account anymore (assuming they all used the school email accounts).

The three guys that live in the house may be more volunerable to a possible future accomplice charge since it was their party... Dan Flannery who was one of the guys that lived at the house and admitted to being the one who used a false name in booking the strippers would seem to be the most vulnerable of the three. If a rape is proven to have occurred, these guys may be very vulnerable to accomplice charges especially since they aren't talking. If that is the case, and you were the attorney or one of the attorneys for these guys, you would be telling your client(s) that if they weren't involved in the rape but are vulnerable to accomplice charges, they should seriously consider coming forward with what he/they know... a deal could be set with the prosecutor that in exchange for their testimony, accomplice charges would be dropped... and if all three are vulnerable, it will be a race to be the first one to talk because the first one is almost always the only one that gets a deal. Keep in mind that for those players who may be vulnerable to other charges by keeping silent on what they may know, their attorneys would be telling them that it may be in their best interest to tell what they know.

With all that said, it could very well be the police that sent the email or it could have been the player. Like I said, I go back and forth on this one.

As for the photo ID...

To have had the photo ID done the way the defense alleges it was would be just about the most stupid move the DA or ANY DA could make. There would be a very good chance that the if this is true, the ID would be thrown out which puts the case on incredibly shakey ground. The accuser would have a valid case against not only the prosecutor if the case got thrown out but also against the officers who allegedly conducted the photo ID in this way, and a lot of peoples' careers would be on the line.

It makes no sense for the prosecutor to jeopardize not only himself but the police who supposedly conducted the ID in this way. If now that he won the election he would want the case to go away (which is the only possible reason for doing such a poor job of the ID that I can imagine) it would be far easier to just convince the accuser to drop the case. That's all. No need to jeopardize himself but somehow convince the police to geopardize themselves as well.

There is only one reason that I can imagine why ALL of them were willing to do it this way if that is what they did... they have evidence that is so strong they don't NEED her ID of the attackers. However, without positive DNA evidence or testimony from one or more of the players on their side, I don't know what evidence that could be so strong as to conduct the ID in this way. I just simply can't believe that the DA AND the police would go so far in ignoring standard procedure unless her ID was a formality.

However, it could be that the defense's story about the ID being conducted this way is just more bunk. The attorney for Seligmann filed a motion trying to get the photo ID thrown out (I'm not seeing one for Finnerty yet). That motion was given to the press before it was even filed, and there are no exhibits attached to it. The exhibits would be the "proof" necessary to show the judge that what they say in the motion is true and that the judge should rule in their favor by throwing out the ID. The motion is based on documents regarding how the ID was conducted including a transcript and a video, yet the defense isn't showing anyone what the ACTUAL documents say, or what the video shows, and they passed out a copy of the motion to the press leaving off the documents that would make up the exhibits... why? Giving those exhibits to the press is even more important to show that what they claim about how the ID was conducted is true, yet they only passed out a copy of their motion.

We know that the defense is desperately trying to make it appear to the general public that the DA is a complete dingbat unfit to tie his own shoes much less bring this case to trial because they have also filed a motion trying to get him thrown off the case. But guess what? If they REALLY believed that the DA should be thrown off the case, why did they file a motion that was couched improperly? If they really wanted the DA thrown off the case, they would have filed a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. The remedy for prosecutorial misconduct is not throwing a DA off a case but is a motion of dismissal of a charge (or charges) and/or collusion of evidence. What will happen with this motion is the judge will rule against it and invite the attorney to refile it properly. These defense attorneys aren't dumb, and they know damn well what the proper procedures are (crap, even I knew that), so why did they file a motion they would have known they wouldn't be granted and then pass a copy of that motion to the press?. This motion to throw the DA off the case is just more grandstanding by the defense. And naturally, the defense handed out copies of this stupid motion for the press to salivate over.

With allllllllllllll that said, I REALLY need to pee! ;)

[struggle4progress]

32. Got any links to support these assertions?

[LostinVA]

149. Nope, I didn't think so either....

[struggle4progress]

35. No links? Your claim Nifong "shared .. evidence with New Black Panthers"

apparently originates in a vague blog summary of a supposed Fox News interview with Shabazz, which bounced around a few rightwing sites before landing in Freepertown.

Certainly, if Nifong gave "dozens of hours of press conferences," you should be able to provide some evidence of that -- but, then, such evidence doesn't seem to exist ...

[chookie]

39. Not sure which assertions you are referring to, but

Regarding "dozens" of press conferences: "Though the rape prosecution is in its early stages and police are still investigating, Nifong's performance has become a key issue in the political fight for his job. Freda Black, one of two candidates challenging the district attorney in the May 2 Democratic primary, said Friday that it wasn't proper or ethical for Nifong to give more than 70 media interviews before the trial."
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/431568.html

Regarding Nifong sharing evidence with NBPP: Two sources: "In a telephone interview Thursday, Shabazz said he and several local black leaders will meet with Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong about the case Monday. Nifong did not return a message late Thursday seeking to confirm that a meeting is planned."
http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/433625.html

The other source is the interview by Shabazz on Fox News last Tuesday, an interview conducted by Brian Kilmeade and Juliet Huddy, in which Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney with the New Black Panthers, told Fox News Channel Tuesday that the prosecutor in the Duke rape case shared information and evidence with the Panthers during a meeting. A written transcript does not appear to be available, and sorry, I do not routinely tape Fox News broadcasts. The claim was made by Shabazz -- Nifong has not confirmed that it occurred.

Regarding NBPP as a hate group: A good place to start is The Southern Poverty Law Center "Snarling at the White Man"
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=214
Excerpts: (Founder Khalid Muhammed): "He has blamed slavery and even the Holocaust on the "hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, perpetrating-a-fraud, so-called Jew."

(Founder Khalid Muhammed): "Muhammad had clear ideas for dealing with whites who did not leave immediately: "We kill the women. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the cripples. We kill them all. We kill the faggot. We kill the lesbian. ... When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and dig up the grave and kill them a-goddamn-gain, because they didn't die hard enough" the first time.

Just this fall, Muhammad made similar comments in a Detroit speech. "There's only two kinds of white folks, there's only two kinds, " he said, "bad white folks and worse white folks. ... said if you find one good, kill him first, before he turns bad. Because he's only faking."
--
(Shabazz):At the event, he warmed-up for Muhammad by leading the audience in an anti-Semitic call-and-response. He asked, "Who is it that caught and killed Nat Turner?" The audience responded, "Jews!" He then asked, "Who is that controls the Federal Reserve? Again the audience responded with, "Jews!" Shabazz: "Who is it that controls the media and Hollywood?" Audience: "Jews! Jews!"
--
(Shabazz):Shabazz spoke more boldly during an April 20, 2002, NBPP demonstration in front of the B'nai B'rith building in Washington, D.C. Protestors held large posters that read: "The American Israeli White Man is the Devil" and "The State of Israel Has No Right to Exist." Shabazz led chants of "death to Israel," "the white man is the devil," and "Jihad." He also said, "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!"
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Black_Panther.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther

[struggle4progress]

40. No links supporting your claim: "dozens of hours of press conferences"?

It would be also be interesting to know exactly what Nifong's primary opponent (FB) meant by her claim Nifong gave "70 interviews" on the case: as far as I have been able to tell, her assertion was misleading and deliberately inflammatory ...

[chookie]

44. That's your opinion

Can you back it up with links? >crickets chirping<

[struggle4progress]

46. No links supporting your claim: "dozens of hours of press conferences"?

[BrownOak]

75. Here are some

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/431568.html
Nifong made what appear to be his first public comments about the case to a reporter from The News & Observer on March 27, four days after the paper reported that 46 lacrosse players were ordered to submit DNA as part of a rape investigation. In the following weeks, Nifong granted dozens of media interviews, including several that were nationally televised.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page/6/
After giving about 70 interviews when the case first broke in the press a month ago, Nifong is no longer saying much to reporters. Nor, it appears, is he doing much talking to lawyers for the defense.

[struggle4progress]

79. Ya ain't documented an hour of press conference, let alone a "dozen hours"

[BrownOak]

81. Dozens of hours no, but certainly excessive

The original point to this whole thing was that Missy stated the defense were the ones who took this thing to the media. So while Chookie's comments about "dozens of hours of press conferences" may be hyperbole, the intent of the statement remains true; at the onset of this case the DA was very aggressive in the media.

So, if your point is that the DA's conduct is acceptable because he failed to reach the dozens of hours standard then fine. But if you're disagreeing with the premise that the DA took a very aggressive approach in the press, then you're wrong.

[struggle4progress]

82. Nifong would have lost the primary, had he behaved as you claim.

The Triangle's not a stupid place: this area has one of the highest Ph.D. per capita in the nation. Had Nifong done anything unethical, it wouldn't be hush-hush: we would all know about it by now.

Nifong has been criticized for "granting interviews," but "granting interviews" usually means returning phone calls, a natural reaction from a public employee and small city elected official. Without much experience, Nifong got in over his depth, realized it, groused he'd been played for a fool, and shut up.

The post you're defending contains more than one patently untrue claim, including some nonsense about Nifong sharing evidence with the New Black Panthers. Perhaps you would like to defend the whole collection of nonsensical assertions ...?

[BrownOak]

171. Depends on how you define ethics

I'm sure you've seen the N&O's column where several DA's and defense lawyers around the state talk about the possible ethics violations from Nifong. As for the "returning phone calls" theory, you can return a phone call and say you don't have any comments on the case. But Nifong didn't do that, he commented and commented often until others pointed out how unethical it was. He also went on several TV programs.

As for your assertion that aggressive pursuit of the case would hurt him in the election because of the high number of PhD's in the area, couldn't you say that had George Bush done anything unethical he would not have been elected? You have to really put your head in a hole to not see the impact that Nifong's actions had with the voters. Nifong won by less than 1000 votes and carried the black vote by 2-1 over Freda Black. He took more black votes than Keith Bishop, the black candidate who had the powerful endorsement of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. If you live in the Triangle then you know how rare that is.

You state that the "post you're defending contains more than one patently untrue claim, including some nonsense about Nifong sharing evidence with the New Black Panthers." First, I'm not defending anything, other than point out that I think it's absurd to believe that because Nifong didn't grant "dozens of hours of interviews" he didn't mishandle this case for political gain. As for the rest, the New BP Party has claimed that Nifong shared evidence - or at least there are reports that they have claimed - but I have no interested in debating that because there's nothing to support the premise.

[LostinVA]

150. SFF doesn't have to prove a negative -- YOU do

That's the way it works -- Debating 101.

[chookie]

48. I am not a investigator of this case

I don't have fact checkers at my disposal to confront Nifong's opponent's claim that 70 interviews took place.

I would be most grateful if you could provide evidence that she fabricated this assertion.

[LostinVA]

151. Proving a negative...

[struggle4progress]

41. Establishing that the wacko Shabazz claims to have scheduled a ..

.. meeting with Nifong to go over the evidence in the case, isn't the same as establishing that Shabazz scheduled such a meeting or met with Nifong to go over the evidence in the case.

Have you got any evidence whatsoever that Shabazz's claims are anything except wacko babble?

[chookie]

47. Nope

Shabazz's claims on Fox News last Tuesday that he had an audience with the DA who shared evidence with him may very well be a fabrication or misrepresentation of what occurred at the meeting, if indeed even he had one with Nifong. (Nifong has not verified this claim.) In any case, I don't think the conclusions that Shabazz has made, and his activism in Durham, will have any bearing on the case. His involvement is a sideshow.

The fact that the accuser and her family have not gone on the NBPP bandwagon and embraced the political agenda of the NBPP, to me anyway, speaks volumes about their integrity and character and veracity. The accuser -- in spite of all the BS and vitriol that has been heaped upon her by idiots -- has trust that her account and the evidence the DA will prevail at trial. That's pretty darn powerful stuff that, to me at least, support her claim that a sexual assault took place. Someone with an agenda, political or economic -- as the creeps you cited claim -- would have welcomed their involvement. Her rejection of buying into their agenda suggests to me that she has sound judgement and credibility as an intelligent and fair person.

God bless her and sustain her through this ordeal. The worst is yet to come, because years ago she consulted a psychiatrist -- I predict that the defence will make hay with this. Even a history of a single episode of depression is distorted into conclusions that one's testimony is suspect. It stinks.

[struggle4progress]

49. Your claim #6: Nifong "shared .. evidence with the New Black Panthers"

Still can't provide any evidence?

[chookie]

51. Have another look at post #39. n/t

[struggle4progress]

53. In #47, you just disclaimed the relevance of most of your #39. eom

[chookie]

Please explain eom

[struggle4progress]

84. #39 cites but #47 dismisses Shabazz. No net response to #35 / #41.

[LostinVA]

148. When did he show the Panthers the evidence? And why? Links?

This would be all over the news, because this would be illegal.

Links?

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

4. I think there is a hearing on this case on May 15

I don't know where the truth lies, because I do not have any evidence that has come from unbiased sources.

Obviously, I am a great supporter of Duke athletics and its men's basketball team in particular. I hope this matter will be resolved soon. Most of the Duke athletes are nice people who work hard to balance academic life and sports at an institution (Duke) which consistently ranks among the top 5-10 schools in the nation. Even though the school is in Durham (NC), Duke itself attracts students from all over, with many from the northeastern states. Just as in other campuses across the nation, Duke has its mix of party people, snobs, nerds, etc.

If the rape occurred, then the perpetrators should pay harshly for it, regardless of the color of anyone's skin. If it didn't happen, I hope that the reputation of the lacrosse team members can be somehow restored and that the woman, who is a victim regardless of where the truth lies, gets psychological help.

[MadHound]

5. Geez people, it's been a month already

Let this bone drop, at least until it goes to trial. Nobody knows all the facts in this case, everybody currently has positions on this, none of which are going to make a damn bit of difference in court, and there are much more important things going on. Can we drop this and move on until something substantial starts with this case, like the trial?

Day in, day out, Duke, Duke, Duke, it's really getting old.

[NaturalHigh]

7. It's still making headlines...

and the lacrosse players are still getting slandered daily. The accused have been suspended from school, even though evidence points to their innocence.

[MadHound]

9. And meanwhile people are dying daily worldwide,

It has become official, mankinds' action have indeed precipitated the global climate change we're experiencing, Bushco is moving ever closer to opening a war with Iran, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Just because the media puts shit out there to divert your attention doesn't mean that you have to take the bait.

And frankly any evidence one way or the other is at this point suspect. Both sides are being slandered, both sides are leaking evidence like sieves in order to try this case in the media, and guess what, FOOLS ARE FALLING FOR IT!

You don't know the guilt or innocence in this case, neither do I or the media. Why not stop being suckered in by this diversion tactic and wait for the court's verdict:shrug:

[NaturalHigh]

10. I guess I think that the case is a little more important than you do.

No, false allegations of rape and destroying peoples' lives are no big deal so long as bad things are going on elsewhere. Let the bastards rot in jail - we have global warming to worry about. :sarcasm:

[MadHound]

11. No, you're just more willing to try the case without all of the evidence

Bad way to decide matter of guilt or innocence, that's why we have courts in the first place, so that there is a full presentation of all evidence, unlike trial by media where the evidence is incomplete, and you have to deal with competing spin.

And frankly while you're moaning and whining about the poor innocent frat boys having their reputation dragged through the mud, you're ignoring the fact that the same is happening in equal if not greater measure to the victim. Both sides are smearing the other, gee, another fine byproduct of media circuses:eyes:

So, are you going to be satisfied that justice was served when they do find the players guilty, or will you, with your incomplete knowledge of the case, be utterly convinced that they were somehow railroaded.

Hell, why don't we just dispense with the costs of courts, trials, prosecutions, defense and try each and every case in the media, we know what a fine brand of justice comes from the mob:eyes:

[NaturalHigh]

14. If the accusation is false...

then the woman who made the accusation (name withheld, of course) is NOT a victim. She is a criminal, but we all know SHE will never be prosecuted for her crimes. The players should seek remedy in civil court.

[MadHound]

17. And if the accusation is true?

Will you be convinced that justice has been served, or will you, with your incomplete knowledge of the case, still thing the players got railroaded?

Also, are you actually in favor of publishing victims' names? Your little snark seems to indicate that to be the case, I just want to make sure.

[NaturalHigh]

18. Yes, I'm in favor of publishing the ALLEGED victim's name.

She gets to be (mostly) anonymous while the players, who have not been proven guilty of anything, have their names have been published everywhere in the country. That's wrong. It's not like it serves any purpose anyway. Anyone with a computer and internet access can do a quick google and find her name.

If, after a trial, twelve jurors unanimously find them guilty, then yes, I will be convinced they are guilty, so long as the jurors get to hear all the evidence and not have it blocked by a judge.

[MadHound]

19. Can't agree with you on that one.

And not just because of this case, but because of all rape cases, including the ones that have effected me personally. Victim anonimity was put in place for a good reason, because historically rape victims who were already traumitized were even more traumitized when the death threats, insults, mudslinging etc. etc. ad nauseum started, both on the streets and in the papers. Many victims, even though their attacker was found guilty, lost their life and liveliehood, being driven out of town by the sheer hate that people demonstrate. Others were murdered in order to secure the release of their attacker, others committed suicide due to the stress and hate directed their way.

Sorry, just can't agree with you on that one.

And I'm sure that if the judge blocks evidence, which is quite rare, will be for a good reason.

[chookie]

57. Nope nope!

I think it sucks to reveal the identity of the accuser -- it serves no purpose. It also sucks to be dragged through mud because you have been accused. My opinion would be that gag orders would keep this information private.

It is a pity that our legal system and much of our press is so adversarial. Political bullshit doesn't wash with me -- I put my faith in science and effective police investigation -- I think those are the best tools we have to obtain justice in a criminal proceeding.

[TorchTheWitch]

64. What are you saying?

Are you saying there is no legitimate reason for rape shield laws???

[LostinVA]

152. Yup, that's pretty much exactly what they're saying

But, 99.0% of all rape claims are false remember, so.... Or wait, is it 60%? I haven't read the swami's page in a few days...

[FredScuttle]

174. Swami sez

it's 50% today. Stay tuned....same Swami time, same Swami channel for more exciting revelations!

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html

[KingFlorez]

13. What evidence points to their innocence?

Only the defense is putting out stories and we haven't actually seen any real evidence. Let the evidence come out before declaring that these people are innocent of everything.

[NaturalHigh]

15. Lack of a DNA match to begin with.

Timeline, pictures, shaky credibility of the accuser, lack of corroboration from the other stripper, lots of other witnesses in the house who say it never happened...

[KingFlorez]

16. Alot of cases don't have DNA evidence at all

It's no indication that something didn't happen. The timeline the defense has and the pictureS don't exactly add up.

[Moosepoop]

21. Lack of DNA matches... so far.

The results from the more extensive testing, done at a different lab, are expected back by May 15. I think the defense is scared shitless of what may be in them. That's why they've been trying so hard to get the case dismissed first, get the DA off the case first, or get the AV to drop the charges first.

As for shaky, that describes the defense's timeline, the photos, and the defense witnesses just as much as it describes the prosecution's evidence, some of which we more than likely don't even know about. But the defense does, and they're worried. The other dancer can't corroborate that rape occurred, as she didn't see it. But she's corroborated a lot of other things for the prosecution.

[NaturalHigh]

26. Of course the defense is scared.

They're afraid of jurors who will automatically assume that any claim of rape is valid, just as many people here do. They're also afraid that jurors will not understand that just because the defendants were assholes at a party (like that's uncommon), they are not guilty of rape.

As for the new DNA tests, we'll just have to wait and see.

[TorchTheWitch]

67. Oh rubbish

They're afraid of jurors who will automatically assume that any claim of rape is valid, just as many people here do.

Balony. I worked in defense litigation for years. They haven't got the time to bother with worries about picking a favorable jury until the time of trial nears. They're worried NOW, and it doesn't have diddly poo to do with the jury... they aren't even thinking about the jury at this point.

I can tell you from personal experience what they're worried about NOW just on the information they've given the general public...

1. They're worried she won't decide to drop the case
2. They're REALLY worried that the photos end up helping the prosecution as it now shows that the timeline was probably deliberately tampered with
3. They're worried about the cabbie as a credible witness
4. They're worried that the cabbie may actually help the prosecution if he's found to be credible
5. They're worried they can't explain why her street clothes, that one shoe, her wallet and purse "disappeared" from the scene but her other stuff didn't
6. They're REALLY REALLY REALLY worried that those new DNA tests will come back identifying their clients
7. They're REALLY REALLY REALLY worried that someone is talking as there is clear evidence someone wants to and has already provided information to one of the police officers investigating the case

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. They have a HELL of a lot more to worry about than the jury at this point.

And why is it unreasonable that people think that any claim of rape is valid? If someone tells you that they were raped at some time in their life what possible reason would you have for disbelieving them? Where is your compassion? Where is your humanity? Why in the world would anyone automatically question someone who says they are a victim of a violent crime ESPECIALLY when there is evidence that says it is probably so? Are you so paranoid that you automatically think that anyone who claims that they've been raped are lying? If your mother told you that when she was a teenager she was raped would you ask her to show you the evidence first so you could determine whether or not her claim had merit? What about your friend? Your neighbor? Someone you met at the mall? A total stranger? Do you have this same automatic reaction regarding any violent crime or just rape? What about non-violent crime? Do you automatically believe that anyone claiming to be a victim of any crime (be it violent or non-violent) to be undeserving of the benefit of the doubt until ALL the evidence is laid out at trial ESPECIALLY when there is evidence that says they probably were a victim?

I really want to know why you are so hell bent on believing this woman is a liar and should actually be prosecuted when you CANNOT rely on ANYTHING about this case ESPECIALLY what is put out by the defense other than the fact that this woman made a claim of rape, and the SANE says she probably was raped. You really seem to have some mysterious personal reason to want to condemn this woman, and I and many others here would like to know what it is.

[NaturalHigh]

88. Are you the official spokesperson for the...

"SHE WAS RAPED!" crowd? I don't believe the woman. Her credibility is suspect. She made a previous unsubstantiated claim of rape. There is no DNA evidence from what she claims was a brutal gang rape during which she scratched one of the rapists. The DA had a political motivation to bring this case when he was in a tight re-election race. The SANE exam does not prove that she was raped, only that she had "injuries consistent with rape."

If you and your buddies want to know what my motivation in this case is, it's that so here seemed to automatically assume guilt from the beginning. After the DNA tests came back, the same people just made excuses about how it didn't mean anything that the players' DNA was not found. Nothing will satisfy that crowd except a guilty verdict, evidence of guilt or not. Any questioning of the alleged victims veracity or motivation is labeled as "smearing the victim." A good many of you would feel right at home in the middle of a lynch mob.

[TorchTheWitch]

100. Absolutely not, and I never said ANYTHING

that one could reasonably infer that I was. I have said many times that WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. For the time being I give the accuser the benefit of the doubt based on the SANE report as anyone should who doesn't have some kind of personal agenda. In one thread you'll say you're "sceptical" and in another beat the drum for the accuser to be prosecuted for being a liar. You're really displaying some pretty irrational behavior on this issue... what gives?

You're a fine one to make any comment about what "crowd" they're in. It's perfectly obvious that you are a member of the "she's a liar" crowd and base your conclusion on biased information most of which comes from the defense and ignore any actual FACTS that would throw doubt on your conclusions.

And look! Here’s an example right on this thread of your tendency to ignore facts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1109808#1129568

TorchTheWitch (1000+ posts) Mon May-08-06 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #89
96. Was there some part of this you didn't understand?

NaturalHigh (1000+ posts) Mon May-08-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. So what will be the excuse if the next round of testing...
reveals no DNA match to any of the players? Oh that's right:

"Why is it that people still assume that no DNA evidence means anything? This isn't a tv show like CSI where physical evidence is ALWAYS discovered. It's a simple fact that there is no DNA evidence in a large percentage of cases. What the hell is the big deal?"

Okay, fine, DNA is irrelevant. Tell that to all the people who have been freed from prison (including many convicted of rape) because DNA testing proved they were innocent. I would imagine people like you, who were hell-bent to send somebody to prison with or without evidence, were responsible for many of those cases.

ONE MORE TIME:

Besides, DNA testing for sperm cells is a separate test then testing for Y chromosome cells. If there was no sperm, and no Y chomosome test done on the first round of testing then it stands to reason that no DNA evidence was found. The further DNA testing the prosecution is doing is probably the Y chromosome testing.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/rile ...

Y chromosome STR testing.

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.
</snip>

What about her claim that she was raped 10 years ago when she was 14 years old? SO WHAT? The court doesn't find it enlightening, so why should you or anyone else? The only people who do find it enlightening is the defense (gee, like that's surprising). And why would you seem to believe that her previous claim was suspect? Seems perfectly obvious that you find it suspect simply because you WANT to. Never mind that women who have been raped particularly at a young age have a fairly high probability of later becoming involved in so called "deviant" behavior particularly associated with sex (becoming a stripper, prostitute, slut, whatever). Believe it or not many women have been raped more than once in their lives particularly those in high risk environments. Working as a stripper is a VERY high risk environment. Technically, I'm sexually assaulted almost every single night I work. I don't think of it that way since to me my boobs and ass are like my elbows and knees... but there is almost always some customer that thinks he can grope me without my consent just because of my job, so yes, technically, I’m sexually assaulted on a regular bases. It's hardly surprising that a stripper going to perform at a drunken brat party of 40+ men without security is extremely high risk. Why in the world should it surprise anyone that a stripper may have been raped in such a situation?

But no, you're just determined to believe she's a lying, thieving ho for your own personal reasons since there is nothing we KNOW about this case that points to that. You just want to condemn her now without a trial and move right on to prosecution (which will never happen) and grab yourself a front row seat with popcorn to watch the show... hell, you'd probably be willing to buy tickets and petition the powers that be to let you snap the handcuffs on yourself.

I have NEVER ONCE assumed the accused are guilty. Find one single statement from me that I assumed they were, and I will happily eat my own undies on the steps of the court house at high noon and let the entire defense team take photos. In fact, I have repeatedly gone out of my way to point out that WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING (gee... think maybe after all the times I've said it it may sink in at some point?).

You are just about the very last person to have any right to make accusations about lynch mobs on this issue... as if it even needs to be said. Wow... pot, meet kettle.

There were no "excuses" for the lack of DNA evidence. The lack of DNA evidence not meaning the alleged victim was raped is based on documented FACT. And here's a little more fact for you which you will proceed to ignore just have you have ignored other FACTS and just jump to irrational conclusions (not that I would expect you to actually read up on information about forensic DNA testing since we all know how you feel about anything getting in the way of your agenda on this issue)...

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Y chromosome STR testing:

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.

Now, since we all know you aren't going to make any attempt to learn something about information that gets in the way of your agenda, I will explain it to you...

The first round of DNA testing would have been done for sperm cells. If the accuser was indeed raped and her attackers either didn't ejaculate or wore condoms, there would either not be enough material for a positive ID or no material at all for a positive ID. Therefore, the first round of DNA testing would have come up as negative. OMG! A logical and reasonable explanation for a negative DNA test!!! Horrors! Round two of the testing which as it says above (twice actually since you seem to keep missing this fact) is normally only done when the sperm cell DNA test fails is the Y chromosome test which may or may not yield positive results since as has been pointed out numerous times and documented there is a disturbingly high percentage of DNA testing that simply doesn't yield a positive result.

Now either go learn something about DNA testing or stop harping on something you aren't willing to accept because it doesn't fit in neatly with your agenda. Of course, we all know that probably isn't going to happen, and we'll just keep seeing you bringing up the non-issue of the DNA testing in this case since it seems to give you warm fuzzies, so go right ahead.

Now, this is just funny...

Nothing will satisfy that crowd except a guilty verdict, evidence of guilt or not. Any questioning of the alleged victims veracity or motivation is labeled as "smearing the victim."

Are you sure you wanted to say that? Because I could link to many of your posts where you claim that this smearing of the alleged victim is part of the defense counsel's job. Are you trying to say that the defense counsel you obviously value so highly (since you take every word of theirs as gospel) is falling down on the job? WOW! You mean that all this time that you've been worshiping at the feet of defense counsel for their brilliance in every word they utter they've actually been doing a terrible job in refusing to smear the victim? Well, that MUST be what you mean since you stated in another very recent post right in this thread that it was only the accused who were being smeared...

NaturalHigh (1000+ posts) Sat May-06-06 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Defense attorneys SHOULD try the alleged victim in the press.
The defense attorneys are obligated to zealously defend their clients and do their best to get them acquitted. If that means bringing out her unsavory past and pointing out inconsistencies in her story, that's part of it.

The accused are also being tried in the press. Their names have been all over the media for weeks now, while the accuser (mostly) gets to be anonymous. The DA has had plenty of press conferences of his own to get the spin on his side. He fired the first shots, not the defense attorneys.

What a gem that one was.

Most other DUers seem to be capable of discussing this case rationally, reasonably and with an open mind which shouldn't be surprising since being rational, reasonable and having an open mind would be progressive ideals. Based on your slew of postings on this issue I'm seriously wondering with all due respect what it is you're doing here. You've said a few times that it's just THIS case in particular that is at issue with you, but you've been posting the same things about an entirely new and different rape case that apparently happened at Duke... so again, what gives?

[NaturalHigh]

101. Yes, I've read (and read and read)...

all your postings about DNA. Seriously, you must have a lot of time to spend to post the epistles you do.

In your mind, and the minds of many others, anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view on this is irrational. Fine, Torch, call me irrational. I believe the players are innocent. I believe the accuser is lying. I believe the DA fired the opening salvos in the press and the defense attorneys properly responded in kind. Of course, in another thread, I was accused of causing some people "trauma" by questioning the veracity and motivation of the accuser, so I apologize in advance if anyone reading this is "traumatized."

One thing you are undoubtedly right about - the accuser in this case will never be prosecuted for lying, even if it is proved beyond a doubt. The DA's office would never think of it since it would make Nifong look like an ass.

[TorchTheWitch]

66. I have a feeling that the DNA

testing done first was only done for sperm cells, and there may not have been enough or any sperm cells available. It could be that the additional testing the prosecutor is doing is for Y chromosome cells which may not have been done on the first round. Apparently, they're two different tests. Since the testing was rushed due to the backlog of other DNA testing needing to be done, they may have just done the DNA testing for sperm cells.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html
Y chromosome STR testing.

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.

[TorchTheWitch]

65. Holy cow

Timeline: put out by the defense who now whine that they should never have been released

Pictures: some of which actually help the prosecution

Shaky credibility of the Accuser: You don't know her, or what she has to say, so you either base this on the fact that she's a stripper or has alcohol problems or past non-violent criminality or some combination of these or some other mystery reason. I don't see you mentioning anything about the credibility of Finnerty with his past violent assault.

Lack of Corroboration from Stripper #2: If the other stripper can't say she knew it happened it helps her credibility, and if she wasn't aware of it happening it doesn't mean anything... how many people at a party that size know what may have happened in a closed bathroom if they weren't meant to know about it?

Other Player Witnesses: You must be joking. Somehow you don't see that the other players in the house would have a deep reason to deny it? Say... like maybe future accomplice charges? We already know one player believes something happened and told one of the police officers investigating the case... somehow that doesn't register for you.

[LostinVA]

153. I hadn't heard that about one of the other players

Very interesting...

[BrownOak]

20. The second round of DNA tests are due back soon

According to a Fox News interview last night, the DA has told the alleged victim's family there will be some "good news" when the results come back. There's speculation that it may be hair, but that's about it for now.

[chookie]

58. Also blood tests

These will prove if a date rape drug -- which has been reasonably suggested in this case as a reason that the accuser was so impaired that night -- was used and an approximation of what timeframe they were injested. They can also determine the amount of alcohol -- if any -- the accuser consumed and suggest a timeline as to when and how much intoxicating substances were voluntarily or involuntarily consumed. This physical evidence will be compared to the account of the attack as reported to investigators by the accused.

Foreign hairs found during the examination of the accuser will corroborate her claim fingering specific individuals. Thankfully forensic science has evolved to such a degree that DNA, and therefore a precise identification of culprits, can be identified on the basis on a single foreign hair, thread or saliva (in the absence of semen).

[jberryhill]

93. Foreign hairs will not prove anything

We already know that at least one point during the evening, she had her clothes off and was on the floor of the house. It would be surprising if she didn't pick up hair that was on that floor.

Hair is useful when you have someone denying any presence in a place where an individual has been. But when their joint or successive presence in a place is not in dispute, then the fact that you find someone's hair on another person is not very surprising.

[greyl]

23. The DA said that no DNA was found under her nails

because "what if they were wearing long sleeve shirts?".
The photos show they had short sleeves.
The DA isn't credible.

[KingFlorez]

24. Whatever you want to believe

I choose to wait for all the facts, instead of being anxious to say the accused are not guilty

[greyl]

25. I'm not anxious about anything.

I simply presented you with one fact.

[TorchTheWitch]

69. Except for the fact

that it isn't a fact. DNA WAS indeed found under her nails.

I would think it would be important that if one claims something as fact that it actually is.

[chookie]

52. Agreed

Unless someone has an ideological axe to grind one way or another, I think we all agree that we must wait for the actual trial to unfold evidence that will corroborate, or not, the accuser's and accused's version of events. Despite our differing opinions about interpreting the small bits of evidence that are available through the press, hopefully the reasonable among us will not take it upon ourselves to reach premature conclusions.

[TorchTheWitch]

68. There was DNA found under her nails

The DA said that no DNA was found under her nails

There was a small amount of DNA found under her nails but the test came back inconclusive as to identity... in other words, it was someone else's DNA other than her own but they couldn't figure out who's it was.

These tested nails are presumably the ones found on the floor of the bathroom, not the ones still attached to her fingers. Recall that the defense was specific in stating that no DNA evidence was found "on her body".

If the DA made this remark you claim it would have been before the photos were released and before further testing was done on the nails thereby making it a perfectly legitimate remark at the time is was allegedly said.

[jberryhill]

94. That quote was broken in several articles...

...and the full quote hardly ever gets repeated, because the defense was less specific that you suggest:


http://www.wral.com/news/8600601/detail.html
"No DNA material from any young man tested was present on the body of this complaining woman, not present within her body, not present on the surface of her body and not present on any of her belongings," Smith said in a prepared statement.

[TorchTheWitch]

97. You believe the defense?

Really? You being an attorney?

Is there some reason that even when knowing that part of the job of the defense is to publically smear the accuser and report outright lies, distortions and spin to the press in order to sway public opinion for some mysterious and inexplicable reason we are to automatically believe this one statement by the defense is actually true?

Well, if it's really true why aren't they distributing copies of the reports to the press? Surely seeing the actual DNA testing reports with our own two eyes would be far more compelling then just a mere statement. Damn, that Wade Smith should be fired immediately! All this time he could have been passing out copies of those reports to all and sundry so no one could question his mere statement! What kind of a boob of a defense attorney is this!

But WAIT! He may just be able to save his job since he didn't mention that the tips of the broken off fingernails found in the bathroom don't qualify as being on or in her body or her "belongings". He didn't even mention that a lot of her belongings like her purse, wallet, shoe and street clothes have yet to be recovered in order to test! WHEWWW! Thank God, he's still full of shit!

[jberryhill]

99. Why don't you read what you wrote, and then read what I wrote?

Okay?

You partially quoted the defense attorney (whose defense attorney, I have no idea, since it was before the two indictments), and said his statement was "limited".

I was merely pointed out that the attorney said more than the "limited" portion that you quoted.

In several newspapers, the quote was broken after the word "body", and then continued with the more comprehensive recitation after a "Smith said", but the statement is constantly being parsed without the rest of the quote.

Whether to believe it or not is up to you, since you were the one who introduced that quote into this thread.

I would personally expect various of her belongings to have hair, dander, shed cells, and all sorts of material picked up from being in the house and disrobing therein, and I would be suspicious of the testing if NOTHING were found on her belongings.

I guarantee that, for example, nobody enters and leaves my house without taking some dog hair on them.

So, please don't confuse your cartoon caricature of what you want me to believe with the actual point at hand.

I neither believe nor disbelieve what the attorney said, not having any reason to believe or not believe it. You apparently have taken a position by which you believe anything the defense attorney didn't say, so you are putting more faith in his utterances than I am.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. There's a hell of a lot more slander against

the accuser. What juicy tidbits are there about the accused that don't have to do with the fact they were arrested and that Finnerty apparently violently assaulted someone in DC? Do tell. I'm dying to know where to find all this gossiping slander against the accused.

[TorchTheWitch]

62. Then don't read it

There is that little option of hiding threads, ya know. I sure don't go around telling people what's appropriate to discuss and what isn't. Didn't hear a peep out of me when I hid three pages of Colbert, Colbert, Colbert and his balls.

It's an interesting case to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. This case has brought to the forefront how badly our justice systems deals with rape victims, and that there is something terribly wrong when an enormous percentage of people who are raped don't attempt to seek justice. One in three women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. If you think that isn't an important issue, then I hope I don't run into you here again.

[Beelzebud]

12. Let the case go to court, and let a jury decide it. I'm tired of media

hyped bullshit!

A woman was raped in my hometown 2 days ago. Why is that no national news? Because it's a local story, just like this should have been.

[Mandate My Ass]

22. The accused are enjoying the presumption of innocence

They will get their day in court. They will get to face the accuser and vigorously defend their innocence while the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor. Justice is being served exactly as it should.

What does the prosecutor's re-election have to do with anything? If he shows up in that courtroom without good, solid evidence he will have alienated a lot of people and his job could be in jeopardy. Maybe he's convinced something happened based on the evidence he's seen so far which we know nothing about yet.

The defense seems to be trying the alleged victim in the press, they are getting their money's worth as all potential jurors will have heard allegations about the victim's credibility or lack thereof.

[NaturalHigh]

27. Defense attorneys SHOULD try the alleged victim in the press.

The defense attorneys are obligated to zealously defend their clients and do their best to get them acquitted. If that means bringing out her unsavory past and pointing out inconsistencies in her story, that's part of it.

The accused are also being tried in the press. Their names have been all over the media for weeks now, while the accuser (mostly) gets to be anonymous. The DA has had plenty of press conferences of his own to get the spin on his side. He fired the first shots, not the defense attorneys.

[Lars39]

37. Let's just hope none of the females in your family are raped.

I wonder if you would blame them or not believe them at all.

on edit: some of the females in your family probably have been raped.

[NaturalHigh]

43. Let's hope none of the males in your family are ever accused

of rape. I wonder if you would believe them if they claimed they were innocent or if you would automatically assume they are guilty.

[chookie]

54. I gotta agree here

There have been postings that we must be sensitive to the cultural and historical background of this alleged crime -- but gee -- a lot of black men got lynched by insane mobs because they accepted the testimony of a white woman alleging rape be infallible. Judging cases on cultural and historical assumptions is not good and do not aid in determining guilt or lack of it.

Me -- I hope that forensic science and good detective work will be an aid in cases of rape or indeed any violent crime. Statistic probability and historic/cultural only go so far. IMHO science is the best tool we've got. Techniques are being developed that can identify perps or exonerate the wrongfully accused. Relying on science is the only axe I have to grind.

[struggle4progress]

80. Comparing treatment of Duke students to lynching is historically dishonest

Such comparisons, like much other discussion of this topic, exhibit an ignorance of conditions under which many people, still living, were forced to survive in their early years, and many people who did not directly experience the violence associated with Jim Crow have heard ugly first-hand from elders who did.

I consider such comparisons ahistorical and insensitive.

[NaturalHigh]

90. Well, now, we mustn't be "insensitive."

I guess the sensitive thing to do would be to go ahead and lock up these lacrosse players.

[struggle4progress]

92. Yer idea of wedge issues ain't sophisticated enuf to win Durham elections

Yer attacks on Nifong is primitive Swiftboating and just won't play here.

That kinda rightwing noise machine approach and yer lynchmob imagery might could rouse up a few rightwing extremists, but meanwhile yer ugly bullhorn style would just turn off lots of my neighbors -- and them lacrosse team kids is gonna git a fair trial, assumin the case even goes to trial, cuz Durham wouldn't want it no other way

[chookie]

124. Lynch them!

That's what happened to black men who were accused of sexually assaulting white women in our tragic past -- the lynch mobs thought their guilt was OBVIOUS based on cultural and historical facts. After all, false accusations of rape are statistically only 2%. I guess logically we should support the accusers. (I don't. I am very sentimental about evidence and due process, however unpopular it makes me in certain circles.)

[Lars39]

74. I would hope that they were innocent,

wait for the court case and all of the evidence to be presented.

[chookie]

125. Hear hear!

We're on the same page.

This is a complex case with -- at least so far, ambiguous evidence -- let us hope that solid, fair case is made one way or another.

[TorchTheWitch]

71. We have rape shield laws

Rape shield laws protect a rape victim from being identified before trial for obviously legitimate reasons or it wouldn't be a law.

The accused don't get the protection of public identification because NO ONE accused of a crime does.

The accused also get to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The accused also get protection at trial for any unsavory element in their past not directly related to the crime at issue because the law says their past has no relevance and revealing it a trial would taint the jury, yet we also have a law that says a rape victim SPECIFICALLY can have her entire past raked over in front of a jury including personal details about her sex life or medical/emotional history ALL of which could taint the jury, but apparantly, that's ok. We know that a woman's sexual history or whether she does drugs or drinks or whatever has no baring on whether or not she can be raped, but we still have this ridiculous law. No other victims of violent crime other than rape can have their past presented to the jury as that of rape victim unless it is somehow directly related to the case. The man who Finnerty and his buddies beat up won't have his past raked over the coals at trial which may taint the jury, but this alleged rape victim will.

And here you whine about the accused having their names revealed publically when you should be jumping for joy at all the benefits they get at trial that the alleged victim doesn't get.

[dsc]

28. There are no Republicans running

He is the new DA and will be for four years no matter the outcome of this case.

[TorchTheWitch]

70. Good point

What does the prosecutor's re-election have to do with anything? If he shows up in that courtroom without good, solid evidence he will have alienated a lot of people and his job could be in jeopardy.

Not only that, as long as there is SOME evidence indicating a crime was committed, the accuser can identify her attacker(s) and she wants to go forward with the case, the DA HAS to. DA's can't just pick and choose which cases they feel like trying... thank goodness, or they'd never try a case that wasn't a slam dunk.

[struggle4progress]

29. As a Durhamite who voted for Nifong on Tuesday, I must disagree:

his conduct has been quite professional, including a general avoidance of inflammatory comments to the press.

When Nifong says there's evidence the woman was sexually assaulted, I believe him.

It is, of course, an entirely separate question whether she has identified her assailants correctly, eyewitness testimony being sometimes quite unreliable.

It is a third (and unrelated) question whether the Duke lacrosse team has been, as a group, out of control: reports from the neighbors suggest some real community problems associated with lacrosse team house parties.

It is a fourth (and unrelated) question whether this case has shed light on race/class issues: it has; not only were the original responses from Duke's administration unbelievably insensitive, but the rightwing noise-makers have followed with vicious characterizations of a raped woman.

Whether the people charged with the assault are guilty is a question of fact for a jury. I don't see much to be gained by further attacks on the woman in question. And as a local citizen here, I would add that Nifong's opponents (either in the primary or on the Republican side of the fence) are the ones who seem to have attempted to politicize the case.

[NaturalHigh]

30. I'm not from the area, but I've followed the case.

I have to disagree with you. Nifong was rattling his saber for at least two weeks before his opponents responded to it, from what I've read. Again, I'm not in the area, but that's been my impression from what I've read.

If a sexual assault did occur (and again, I'm skeptical), the lack of DNA evidence from an alleged violent rape by three men during which the alleged victim says she scratched one of them indicates to me that none of the players in the house were involved.

As for the lacrosse players, I don't doubt that they acted like assholes at the party and have done so out in the community in the past. That doesn't make them rapists.

As for race issues, you're correct, light has been shed. One of the most appalling things I've read about is the Black Panthers meeting with the DA, demonstrating at the campus, and (from what I've read) threatening the players. As for vicious characterizations, if the woman made up this story (as I believe she did), they are well-earned.

[struggle4progress]

31. Nifong "rattling his saber" is nonsense: he's hardly said anything.

Of course, mere mortals such as I are naturally awe-stricken, if you have powers enabling you to discern at distance whether an assault occurred.

I am afraid we mere mortals also need concrete evidence before entertaining an accusation that our District Attorney had been meeting with individuals who have threatened potential defendents and witnesses in an active case.

I suspect you overlook important cultural and historical issues.

But perhaps you want to share your remarkable insights by explaining to several of my neighbors, face to face, exactly how the woman earned Limbaugh and Savage calling her a "ho" and "slut" on national radio?

[NaturalHigh]

36. Well, I don't plan to come to North Carolina to meet your neighbors.

Perhaps you've noticed that I've never referred to the alleged victim as a ho or a slut. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used one of those words to describe anyone. If you live in a neighborhood that is willing to take the accuser's dubious claims at face value, though, then I most likely would not be welcome there.

I, too, am a mere mortal, human and fallible, and I require evidence before I will believe that a rape took place. Unfortunately, that is not the case with many here. The cultural and historical issues do not concern me. I don't think we should send innocent people to prison to right some sort of perceived cultural wrong.

As for what Nifong has or hasn't done, he was the first one to take this to the press. The defense attorneys are doing their jobs, which is to get their clients acquitted.

[struggle4progress]

38. Your assertion ".. vicious characterizations .. are well-earned" ..

.. (as a response to my remark "rightwing noise-makers have followed with vicious characterizations of a raped woman") suggests you approve of the vicious characterizations heard from Limbaugh and Savage.

If you have in mind other vicious characterizations from rightwingers, which you prefer to approve, you are welcome to clarify this point.

I believe you when you say, "The cultural and historical issues do not concern me."

My neighbors and other people of goodwill, however, will understand the vicious characterizations and related rightwing noise in a cultural and historical context.

[NaturalHigh]

42. I don't listen to Limbaugh or Savage.

I don't listen to talk radio at all, so I don't know what "vicious characterizations from rightwingers" you are referring to.

Congratulations on living in such a politically correct neighborhood. I'm glad you all view this case "in a cultural and historical context." :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

45. Mallard Fillmore fan, then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=160&topic_id=12791&mesg_id=12794

[NaturalHigh]

86. Yep.

I love that duck.

[struggle4progress]

56. So which ".. vicious characterizations .. are well-earned"?

[TorchTheWitch]

76. There IS evidence that a rape took place

I, too, am a mere mortal, human and fallible, and I require evidence before I will believe that a rape took place.

You systematically IGNORE the evidence that doesn't fit with your conclusion on this case however many times it's pointed out to you. There IS evidence that a rape took place and evidence that it did take place at this party.

The SANE said she was most probably raped.

Someone who received the email that Ryan Fadyen (player #41, whose dorm room is coincidentally located next door to Finnerty's dorm room) wrote an hour after the party which as it is written was presumably sent to the party goers (i.e., the players) contacted one of the police officers investigating the case and gave them the email which was how the police found out about it. If that certain someone did not know or suspect that a rape took place at the party, what reason was there for contacting one of the officers investigating the case and giving it to them?

[NaturalHigh]

87. That e-mail...

however, disgusting it may be, indicates to me that there was a dispute between the strippers and the players, and the players were not happy with how it came out. One of the players said that there was a dispute over money, but that no rape took place.

Again, I've never disputed that the players acted like assholes, but that still doesn't make them rapists.

[TorchTheWitch]

98. Oh sure

Of course that email would be someone just pissed off about a dipute over money when it mentions extreme violence and sex all at the same time. No question that the average person would assume that excrement had something to do with money.

Absolutely. Mentioning killing and skinning strippers while cumming in your Duke shorts and finding it sexually gratifying is certainly inferred to be something about a dispute over a few hundred dollars.

:eyes:

[NaturalHigh]

102. You can read whatever you want into that e-mail.

It's vile and disgusting, and the sender has already been punished for it (kicked out of Duke). It seems to me, though, that if you read the e-mail, the tone of it is that the guy (Ryan?) thinks they didn't get what they thought they were supposed to and is pissed about it. I can't see how it proves a rape took place, but it seems to verify that there was some sort of dispute with the strippers.

[chookie]

50. Links?

Do you have evidence that the claim that the DA did 70 interviews is false?

No one is defending the vicious slander of the accuser by Limbaugh and Savage or any other right wing wacko with an ideological agenda (who are legion) -- at least not here on DU.

But I beg to differ that the evidence in this case should be interpreted on the basis of "important cultural and historical issues." Such background can only be suggestive. It makes for interesting political interpretations and opinion pieces, but it does not aid in establishing credible evidence to back the claims of the accuser. My hope is that forensic science and good police work will prove this case, one way or another, with a strong degree of certainty.

[struggle4progress]

55. See #35 / #40. The misrepresentations are becoming tiresome.

[chookie]

59. But no links?

Your claims are only obvious to yourself. Tiresome is a two way street. I tried to provide links that showed where I was getting my information from -- and was eagerly looking forward to links that would support your position.

Bye bye -- you're wasting my time with your unsupported assertions.

Now, where's that ignore button....

[struggle4progress]

83. See #35 / #40. The misrepresentations are becoming tiresome.

[TorchTheWitch]

73. what is this about DNA evidence???

Why is it that people still assume that no DNA evidence means anything? This isn't a tv show like CSI where physical evidence is ALWAYS discovered. It's a simple fact that there is no DNA evidence in a large percentage of cases. What the hell is the big deal?

Besides, DNA testing for sperm cells is a separate test then testing for Y chromosome cells. If there was no sperm, and no Y chomosome test done on the first round of testing then it stands to reason that no DNA evidence was found. The further DNA testing the prosecution is doing is probably the Y chromosome testing.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Y chromosome STR testing.

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.

As for vicious characterizations, if the woman made up this story (as I believe she did), they are well-earned.

So you're jumping ahead and vilifying her because for some mysterious reason you believe she made up the story despite the evidence to the contrary. Seriously, do you work for the defense? I ask because you believe every single thing the defense says when they say it despite evidence to the contrary and ignore the evidence to the contrary just as the defense does.

[NaturalHigh]

89. So what will be the excuse if the next round of testing...

reveals no DNA match to any of the players? Oh that's right:

Why is it that people still assume that no DNA evidence means anything? This isn't a tv show like CSI where physical evidence is ALWAYS discovered. It's a simple fact that there is no DNA evidence in a large percentage of cases. What the hell is the big deal?

Okay, fine, DNA is irrelevant. Tell that to all the people who have been freed from prison (including many convicted of rape) because DNA testing proved they were innocent. I would imagine people like you, who were hell-bent to send somebody to prison with or without evidence, were responsible for many of those cases.

[TorchTheWitch]

96. Was there some part of this you didn't understand?

NaturalHigh (1000+ posts) Mon May-08-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. So what will be the excuse if the next round of testing...
reveals no DNA match to any of the players? Oh that's right:

"Why is it that people still assume that no DNA evidence means anything? This isn't a tv show like CSI where physical evidence is ALWAYS discovered. It's a simple fact that there is no DNA evidence in a large percentage of cases. What the hell is the big deal?"

Okay, fine, DNA is irrelevant. Tell that to all the people who have been freed from prison (including many convicted of rape) because DNA testing proved they were innocent. I would imagine people like you, who were hell-bent to send somebody to prison with or without evidence, were responsible for many of those cases.

ONE MORE TIME:

Besides, DNA testing for sperm cells is a separate test then testing for Y chromosome cells. If there was no sperm, and no Y chomosome test done on the first round of testing then it stands to reason that no DNA evidence was found. The further DNA testing the prosecution is doing is probably the Y chromosome testing.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/rile...

Y chromosome STR testing.

Another way of getting information on a male contributor is to use PCR to target STRs on the Y chromosome. Since females have two X chromosomes, instead of an X and a Y, the male DNA can sometimes be distinguished even if there is more female than male DNA present. Such Y-chromosome STR tests are in use, but they tend to be used only after the other tests have failed to give clear results.

</snip>

I could sing it to to you. I understand that some things are easier to remember if a tune is created to go with the words. Of course, then you'd have to put up with the fact that I'm tone deaf, so maybe you should just read it over again, and again, and again until it sticks.

Does that help? Do you now understand why IN THIS CASE the DNA results are irrelevant?

[NaturalHigh]

103. I think the results will be relevant in court.

Now that they are testing for the Y chromosome in the second round of testing, will you be convinced if nothing comes back this time, or will you stick with "DNA is irrelevant"?

[chookie]

126. Makes you wonder...

...why rape kits are collected at all -- if they are so useless generally. :sarcasm:

I am not challenging anyone -- but when people make claims that "DNA is usually not present" -- when was the study and its conclusion conducted?

Thankfully, forensic science and the art of criminal investigation have made major advances in the last 10 years. Perps, these days, can be definitely identified by small amounts of semen -- even years old-- saliva, and hairs. Thankfully, even when the creep of a perp tries to erase the evidence he left behind, forensic tests can be made upon degarded samples. Hallelejah.

Again, I am not dissing anyone, but is the claim that DNA evidence is usually lacking in rape cases based on the conduct of rape investigations in the last 10 years?

[Thtwudbeme]

72. You can't just wait for the court proceedings to begin, can you

?

I don't believe I have ever seen a member as obsessed with a story as you are over this one.

[TorchTheWitch]

77. Nah, he doesn't need a trial

He's already certain that the accuser is a liar, made up the whole thing for some mysterious pot of gold and he'd prefer to move directly on to prosecuting her. I think the lase thing he wants is a fair trial.

[NaturalHigh]

91. Yes, I am anxious for the trial to begin...

so that the truth can come out. Of course, many will continue to believe that the players are guilty even if they are acquitted.

[TorchTheWitch]

95. Show me one

Just one. Show me just one person here who blindly believes the accused are guilty.

[timber84]

104. really according to one poster all you need is the SANE

testimony to prove a rape happened. I don't need to tell you which one you've seen about as many of those posts as I have.

[NaturalHigh]

105. You're on IGNORE...

for that poster, as is anybody who posts anything that resembles common sense.

[timber84]

106. hey what's the secret you seem to be able to avoid the ingnorers

and i've been holding my tongue mostly?

[NaturalHigh]

113. No, I'm pretty sure I'm on ignore for most of them.

One of them was clear to point out to another poster that I'm on ignore. I think that's supposed to make me feel guilty or something.

[Jigarotta]

111. there is a 20% + - chance that

females in your life may be raped.

who are you going to accuse of lieing, ... your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your niece, your aunt...

get a god damn grip on reality. Reality is rape is Real, it is Real and in many peoples faces.

[NaturalHigh]

115. Yes, it is real.

False allegations, of rape and other crimes, are also real. I believe that's the case here.

[Jigarotta]

117. i believe there are more real cases of rape than false allegations.

again.
would you believe your mother, your wife, your sister, your niece, your aunt, if she told you she was raped?

[NaturalHigh]

119. You are right.

There are more real cases of rape than false rape accusations. I never doubted that. As for your question, yes, I would believe them. I trust all of them.

[sendero]

107. I find your....

... pre-emptive wishing for one side or the other to "win" nothing less than "disgusting".

All a sane person would want is justice, and you have no fucking clue as to what actually happened, none whatsoever.

Why don't you let the justice system work this out, instead of waiting for your armchair preconceptions to be validated or trashed?

[chookie]

108. If so --

why aren't you complaining about the conclusions that persons make who are absolutely certain the woman was attacked? Shouldn't they shut up too and let the justice system work it out, instead of waiting for their armchair preconceptions to be validated or trashed? Why do they get off the hook, whereas anyone who is skeptical of the case so far is intimidated and bullied into being silent?

[FredScuttle]

110. uh, because we believe rape victims?

The SANE's report makes it pretty clear...this woman did not lie.

Whereas you and your bunch lap up every piece of bullshit the defense vomits up like it was the Gospels.

[FredScuttle]

109. Because he can't wait to get out his "accuser is a liar" meme

Like all his fellow thigh-rubbers, the words "Duke lacrosse" and "gang-rape" make him jump to attention like Pavlov's dog.

Responding to this garbage is like playing whack-a-mole.

[NaturalHigh]

112. Thigh-rubbers?

Wow, I've never been called that before. I'm not even sure what it means. Does it make me a misogynist?

[chookie]

121. Here we go again

Apparently it's okay for a group embracing a PC view of this case to insult anyone who dares to dissent "the OBVIOUS" (no doubt from the gut which has more nerve endings than the brain).

Natural High and myself, and others of open yet skeptical minds (annoying factinistas) have not responded in kind to these insults and ad hominem attacks.

None of us have demeaned the accuser; we skeptics concern ourselves with minor items of evidence and do not indulge in broad sweeping generalizations about the case based on "cultural and historical issues" that are "obvious". There has been a lot of hideous vitriol -- also emanating from broad sweeping generalizations based on (perceived) cultural and historical issues spewing out of right wing blogs from an absolutist right wing perspective , but we few have no part in this extremist idiocy, and yet any suggestion that we make that certain evidence will or will not stand up during the trial, we are assumed to be woman-hating, pro-rape, Frat-boy defending, Limbaugh listening, Bush ass kissing, slavery condoning racist Nazi shits.

Sorry to disappoint y'all, but this negative characterization of we few skeptics is false. We share the same goals regarding the access of victims to legal procedure, and join you in the condemnation of convicted rapists. We are appalled at how accusers' characters are dragged through the mud. We applaud the major advances in forensic science and investigative procedures by law enforcement to deal with this violent crime, and we are glad that nursing schools are training SANE experts and hope that this program will expand throughout the country. We also call for more funding for the processing of rape kits, as they are critical sources of evidence.

I know you are used to "liberals" fainting and peeing submissively when faced with false accusations of racism, sexism, etc -- but some of us do not buy this bullshit and will stand our ground -- however unpopular we may become among the ideologically pure and absolutely certain. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but some of us are not in lockstep with your political assumptions of this case.

I have been following this case because it is so interesting, and I truly read each perspective on how the evidence should be interpreted with interest. I don't discount any perspective that is suggested. I have endeavored to educate myself in rape victim advocacy and modern methods of rape investigation and procedures. I have no quarrel with those who generously lend their support to those who may be the victim of a vicious attack.

My focus is very narrow -- merely details of the alleged incident that will or will not support allegations by the accuser -- or the accused --in court. I have no advocacy issues, or ideological axe to grind -- which makes me feel kinda lonely in the discussions of this case....

I am not the enemy. I'm just not a "certainista."

[timber84]

128. Yes Natural didn't you realize that if you don't follow certain

posters line of reasoning that you are a rape sympathizer and definitely a male chauvinist pig! No there no free discourse allowed on this subject it's their way or the highway! Now one more word out of you and I'm going to put you on ignore!

[NaturalHigh]

131. Please don't put me on IGNORE.

I'm sorry if I'm a thigh-rubber.

[timber84]

135. LOL

OK I'll give you a pass thigh-rubber!

[NaturalHigh]

114. Have you read the latest?

She initially claimed she had been raped by twenty white men. The police said they didn't believe her because she kept changing her story.

[Lex]

116. I haven't read that yet. Link?

I'd like to read the article.

[NaturalHigh]

118. Here you go.

This one is from MSNBC. I read another one on Yahoo yesterday, but I can't find it right now.

The day after the March 13 team party where a 27-year-old black woman claimed she was raped, Durham police told campus officers that “this will blow over,” the report said. The woman initially told police she was raped by 20 white men, then said she was attacked by three, the report said.

Police told Duke officers that if any charges were filed, “they would be no more than misdemeanors,” the report said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend sent this one to me. There are more out there. You can do a search of Google News using the words Duke Lacrosse.

[Lex]

120. Thanks for the link.

This looks like the report where the City Manager of Durham says no Durham police officer was actually interviewed for the report.


----------

"The day after the March 13 team party where the accuser said she was raped, Durham police told Duke officers that "this will blow over," the report said. It said that the woman initially told police she was raped by 20 white men, then said she was attacked by three.

Police told the Duke officers that if any charges were filed, "they would be no more than misdemeanors," the report said.

On Tuesday, Durham Mayor Bill Bell said the information, which was released Monday, was the first he had heard about the accuser switching her story since the allegations surfaced. All the briefings he had been given about the case, he said, never included that information.

City Manager Patrick Baker said he was disappointed that no one at the Durham Police Department was interviewed for the report, and that, in his opinion, there is no way to know if the report is credible.

He said it contradicts the actions of the police department, and how the investigators proceeded with the case proves the rape allegation was taken seriously."

http://www.wral.com/news/9184432/detail.html

[jberryhill]

122. The Original Police Report Is Here

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf

This is the Duke Police report taken from the Durham Police at 3 AM on the night of the incident, at which point there would have been no reason to "spin" the information received from the Durham Police.

[Lex]

129. Yeah, but that report apparently has problems. Check this:

http://www.wral.com/news/9189103/detail.html

DURHAM, N.C. -- Duke University administrators say their cautious response to a rape claim involving members of the university lacrosse team was based on information from campus police.

City leaders are disappointed no one from the Durham police department was asked by campus officials about that information and its accuracy. Now, new information suggests that a Duke police report may not have been based in fact after all.

WRAL has learned an officer's information about the case may not have been gleaned from direct knowledge of the case, but resulted from overhearing a phone conversation made by a Durham police sergeant.


-------


Something is very odd about the way this was all handled, imho.

[LostinVA]

154. The Durham paper makes the point even better

The Duke officer eavesdropped on a cop talking on his cell phone about the case... the woman had JUST been brought to the hospital, was incoherent, and this Durham cop WASN'T EVEN WORKING ON THE CASE. He was just there.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-733473.html

[chookie]

123. Regarding the police role in this:

When the accuser reported that she was the victim of a violent assault, she was immediately taken by police to the ER as a matter of procedure, where she was examined by a SANE nurse, someone who has special training in collecting evidence as well as dealing with the physical and emotional aftermath of a sexual assault. IMHO, this, at least, seems to suggest she was taken seriously by police and given access to appropriate care and examination in very timely fashion.

Like it or not, when police investigate a crime, they interview the subject to obtain as much detail of the attack as is possible, which cast much light on the specific nature of the crime -- this is classic detective work, and until proven otherwise, I will assume this interview was carried out fairly. The accuser will be interviewed a number of times, in order to establish consistency of facts in her testimony. Police will attempt to collect further forensic evidence based on the details of the attack as provided by the accused.

Like it or not -- red flags are raised when the accuser gives inconsistent accounts of the crime. Red flags are also raised when the accused gives differing accounts of where they were and what they did at the time of the crime. These inconsistencies will suggest ways that the investigation will proceed.

[FredScuttle]

140. Congratulations

you've just outlined the pathetic attitude cops have displayed towards rape victims for a century.

"classic detective work" = "suspect the rape victim"

Disgraceful.

[NaturalHigh]

159. Don't you think some skepticism is healthy?

If not, why bother with a jury?

[FredScuttle]

163. I do hope

the investigating officer who arrives after you've been worked over by three guys twice your size displays a healthy dose of skepticism while you're picking up your teeth.

[NaturalHigh]

170. If I initially claimed to have been beaten by twenty guys...

and misidentified someone who was somewhere else and had an alibi, he would have a pretty good reason to wonder what was going on.

[sendero]

127. All of this is...

... folks with an agenda issuing comments to bolster their side of the story. They are not under oath, nothing they say has the force of law, and guess what, sometimes they LIE.

Why are you so naive?

I feel the same way about folks who have reached a conclusion either way, all you are hearing right now is lies and spin, and even under oath witnesses are not that reliable.

Once there is a trial, we can at least understand that we've achieved justice consisitent with our legal system, which is flawed but is probably as good as any system that depends on human beings can be.

Until then, all this speculation merely shows the biases that many people carry around.

[NaturalHigh]

130. You're absolutely right.

We should never, ever speculate about a criminal case until it has been tried in court. Nobody should ever do that. We are all naive, and we thank you for pointing that out. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Not sure if that's a :eyes: or a :sarcasm: . Take your pick.

[sendero]

132. Ok..

... excuse the imprecision of my words. Speculate all you want, but keep your stupid-assed ill-founded conclusions to yourself. You make yourself look like an idiot when you assume the bullshit you are hearing is "true".

[NaturalHigh]

133. Sure thing, Sendero.

Never mind that pesky free speech thing. The PC Thought police have spoken. I notice you never post these warnings to anybody in the pro-accuser crowd.

[sendero]

134. I'm posting them right now..

... both sides are fools if they believe the spin coming from the prosecution or the defense.

[FredScuttle]

136. "pro-accuser crowd"

try "those who take a rape victim at her word"

As opposed to "those who would apologize for rapists"

[AllieB]

137. More like

"those that have masculinity issues or hate women"

I suggest a reputable psychotherapist for those who have such anger issues toward women.

[FredScuttle]

138. You really have to wonder

those who spend so much energy and time on discrediting a rape victim....spreading misinformation, attacking her credibility, asserting she's to blame because of her vocation...it's absolutely vomit-inducing.

[AllieB]

139. And you don't expect it from so-called progressives

But you never know how someone was raised, what damage was done to them, and why they need to obsessively put down women.

[FredScuttle]

141. No progressive near me

would dare attack a rape victim.

Especially a man...what kind of craven coward would attack a rape victim? I'm surprised on a daily basis....

[AllieB]

142. Makes you wonder if there's an agenda

on the part of some people here, or it is a reflection of some deep-seated psychological disturbance.

[NaturalHigh]

144. Didn't "innocent until proven guilty"...

used to be a progressive value? I didn't get the memo telling us that one was obsolete.

[FredScuttle]

146. Did I say something about "guilty"?

My point was that I take a rape victim at her word. You don't.

[NaturalHigh]

158. Which story do you believe?

Do you believe the first one she told about being raped by twenty white guys? That one seems to kind of get lost in the shuffle.

[FredScuttle]

164. Why do you keep spreading misinformation on the victim?

That bullshit was debunked in this article, which was already posted in this thread:

"Duke Police Officer Christopher Day filed the report, saying Durham police charges would not exceed misdemeanor status in the rape allegations, made by a 27-year-old woman who said she was attacked by three members of the Duke lacrosse team at an off-campus party in March.

The police report said the alleged victim changed her story several times and saod she told Durham police the attack involved 20 men.

City Manager Patrick Baker said Day based his report on a phone conversation he overheard being made by a Durham police sergeant.

"That they put that (report) on the Web site suggests that this officer is the source of the information, I'm telling you that the officer got the information by overhearing the conversation, not even a direct conversation with any of our police officers," Baker said.

Baker said Day did not actually talk to the alleged victim in the case. He and Durham Mayor Bill Bell have asked Police Chief Steve Chalmers to investigate and determine exactly what was said and by whom."

http://www.wral.com/news/9189103/detail.html

Why do you feel the need to spread lies to discredit a rape victim?

[Spike from MN]

165. Fred, you really crack me up! !

You asked "Why do you feel the need to spread lies to discredit a rape victim?"

Bwahahaha! Good one! After all, it's standard defense tactic in a rape case. Hell, everyone knows that.
Then again, what POSSIBLE motivation could some people in this forum have for wanting to use that same tactic...think dammit think...:think:

[NaturalHigh]

169. You can't overhear something that is true?

:shrug:

[FredScuttle]

175. Let me repeat myself...

"Baker said Day did not actually talk to the alleged victim in the case. He and Durham Mayor Bill Bell have asked Police Chief Steve Chalmers to investigate and determine exactly what was said and by whom."

Why do you feel the need to throw out a ridiculous accusation against a rape victim without a shred of evidence?

[LostinVA]

156. Even my very conservative dad thinks this is disgusting...

I mean smearing the vivtim...

[LostinVA]

155. I really, really wonder about that, too

I showed a therapist friend of mine some of the threads -- you can guess what she said...

[BrownOak]

173. Anger and Hatred

There's a lot of anger and hatred on both sides of this coin. From my perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with examining the events surrounding the case and questioning exactly what happened. Yet I'm certain that people would say that I've been duped by the defense, have attacked the victim's credibility, have placed her at blame because of her profession, or the most offensive of all, labeled me someone who would apologize for rape. Those would seem like the kinds of words of someone who has anger issues of their own and could use a little couch time too.

The irony here is that I've never said the alleged victim was lying; either here, on any other forum, or in personal conversations. But I have said that the suspects were guilty - a position that I realized was a premature assumption on my part. There's a difference between questioning the events around the case and not believing the alleged victim. There's that area between belief and disbelief and I'm of a mind that's it's a pretty reasonable place to reside. I'm also of a mind that you should be able to do so without being called a rape apologist.

Torchie said something the other day that I found particularly interesting. Her point was that "a woman has claimed to have been raped and was diagnosed as probably having been raped, and the ONLY response at this juncture is the humane and compassionate one of giving that woman the benefit of the doubt until such time as any further information may reveal that she probably was not." I may disagree with her on the premise of "being diagnosed as probably having been raped" and that giving her the benefit of the doubt is the only humane and compassionate course, but the underlying sentiment is the important. Regardless of what may have happened and whether you believe her unequivocally or are questioning what happened, treating her with compassion is the only humane approach. If her claims are substantiated then she's undergone a traumatic event. If they are not substantiated, then she's still gone through something traumatic to get her to this point.

[NaturalHigh]

145. Not believing the accuser in this case...

is not an apology for rapists.

[FredScuttle]

147. So she made the whole thing up, then?

Is that your contention? She rigged the whole thing and got a SANE in the ER and a district attorney to hop on her wagon o'lies just to fuck over some college kids? :sarcasm:

[NaturalHigh]

157. Pretty much, that's my opinion.

The SANE said she had "injuries consistent with sexual assault," not that she had conclusively been raped. The DA jumped on this case to gain political point in a tight race.

[FredScuttle]

162. The DA "jumped on this case"?

That's like saying the rooster jumps on the sun rising to make a little noise.

A sexual assault was reported. The DA investigated and decided to bring charges. End of goddamn story. What we call doing your job you would like to call playing politics. Fine...I like my DAs to investigate and prosecute sexual assaults.

And do go on parsing the SANE's examination to convince yourself that this woman wasn't sexually assaulted. It's so charming to see people who will go to such lengths to attack a rape victim.

[NaturalHigh]

168. *sigh* You grow tiresome, Fred.

Again, I don't believe this woman was raped, so I am not "attacking a rape victim." As for the SANE examination, how many of those are discredited in court leading to an acquittal?

[FredScuttle]

176. I'm just as tiresome as your attacks on a rape victim

SANE testimony is expert. And, an acquittal in a rape trial does not mean automatically that a rape didn't occur...it means that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hey, as long as you want to go to these lengths to spread lies about a rape victim and find excuses for rapists, I'll be here.

[Spike from MN]

143. On achieving justice...

Here are some stats that show what the odds are of achieving justice in a rape case. I've posted these stats before on other threads so for those that have already seen them, please forgive the repeat posting. I just think the stats are eye-opening enough that they bear repitition for those that may not have seen them yet.

72% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison. <1999 NCVS>

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in those 28% of rapes that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5%—one out of twenty— of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free.

http://hcs.harvard.edu/~casv/stats.htm

In a previous thread, BrownOak did a rather interesting analysis of the stats, part of which I will paraphrase here. Let's start by making a few ridiculous assumptions. Let's say that the 72% of rapes that weren't reported were all "false allegations" and that the only "real" rapes that actually occurred were the 28% that were reported. From the above stats, of 100% of legit rapes, there was only a 16.3% chance that the rapist would end up in prison. If you factor in the unreported rapes as "legit" rapes and subtract out a certain percentage of "false allegations" (pick your number here but I believe the stats I have seen are somewhere between 2-8%), the conviction rate is even more appalling. No matter how you crunch the numbers, it just doesn't look good.

So sendero, just thought I'd throw those stats out there in case you haven't seen them. And while I most certainly agree with you that (ideally) the legal system would allow everyone involved to achieve justice, unfortunately the stats don't seem to bear that out.

[marions ghost]

161. thanx for posting

I was wondering what the actual percentage is, tho I knew it would be low. How does this compare to other violent crime statistics, say for murder. Or is rape down there with fraud and other white collar crimes, rarely prosecuted?

[Spike from MN]

166. No problem.

I haven't really been able to find any stats that compare conviction rates for various crimes. However, I did find one for felony convictions in general that showed that 31% of convicted felons did no jail time. That corresponds exactly with the same figure for rapists. Now WHY a person convicted of a felony would be able to skate by with no jail time is another matter entirely but it appears that the 31% are sentenced to probation only. Here's a link. It's the third item in the Summary Findings list.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm

If you look around on that site you might be able to find the stats you're looking for.

[BrownOak]

172. The 72% false allegations assumptions

Yeah, just to be clear about this, the "pool" of rapes came from a self-reported study that the DOJ does and then extrapolates to reflect the general population. So on one hand, there's no verification for the veracity of those reports. But on the other hand, it's self-reported and also annonmyous.... so what would be anyone's motivation to lie? I have difficulty assigning a false allegation rate to a blind, self-reported study of anything more than 20%, and even that's likely terribly high.

Even if you take the Swami's numbers and assume that 60% of reported rapes are false allegations, and then assign that to all rapes in the study, the results are still sickening. You end up with just 11% of all rapists seeing jail time. How does that happen?

Of course, the problem is that you also can't just blindly assume that because the incarceration rate is so abysmal that you've already weeded out the false allegations by the time you come to trial. So you can't simply handcuff the defense to make it better. You would hope that the DNA technology would help, but apparently it's not making that much of a difference.

I do like the question raised of how the incarceration rate of rape compares to other crimes. That would make for an interesting study and would also open up the door to other questions. If the rate is similar to other crimes, then why is it so hard to get a conviction in anything? If the rate is different, then what is it about rape? How much can be attributed to the nature of the crime where there are usually no witnesses. How much can be attributed to the uniqueness of a crime that could also have been a consensual act? (Nobody ever wants to be mugged so if you make a claim of being mugged there's no questions with credibility. But with a rape, there's the question of if it was a consensual act. From a prosecution perspective, it's better to have a murder than a raped because nobody questions the credibility of the accuser.)

Finally there's the more disturbing stuff to examine - if society is predisposed to disbelieve a rape claim more than other reported crimes, then what are the forces that shape that?

So, anyone writing a thesis for criminal justice, sociology, or psychology, you now have a great topic. Please get back to us by tomorrow on this.

[wicket]

160. Oh man

:popcorn:

[ComerPerro]

167. I gotta say, this is all about two things: money and race.

Suppose that a mostly or all black athletic team were accused of raping a white stripper.

Same details as this case, just the colors and the financial situations were reversed.

And suppose the black athletes didn't have the money that the accused did in this case, and therefore couldn't post $300,000 bond (or whatever it was).

We would have a white college student (I assure you, we wouldn't be constantly reminded that she was a stripper or that she had been drinking) and her parents complaining about how these "animals" raped her, and the defendants (who would still be in jail) wouldn't have any recourse and probably couldn't get the same legal representation.

I imagine that every correspondant on Faux News channel, and Nancy Grace on CNN, would be giving the victim the face time she needed, and she would probably have a book deal by now.


Money and race. Thats what this is about.