home

Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credibility

The Herald Sun reports on a new round of attacks on the Duke lacrosse accuser's credibility in the alleged rape case.

For example, three defense sources, who asked not to be identified, said a forensic examination of the alleged victim found no tearing, bleeding or other injury associated with a sexual assault. Instead, the exam detected only swelling in the accuser's vagina and tenderness in her breasts and lower right body, the sources said.

The defense sources also said Tuesday that, according to the records Nifong handed over last week, the woman at one point said that a second dancer also was in the bathroom where the incident allegedly occurred. But the sources said that when asked about this, the second dancer replied, "That's a crock."

In other new information, the accuser told police her alleged attackers did not use condoms, the defense sources said.

DA Nifong has declined to comment on the new information.

< Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Law Rejected by MA House | ACLU Files Complaints Over NSA Surveillance in 20 States >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    Sadly this case is slowly disapearing from the radar way before we find out that most likely this was a sham. Fortunately most people have assumed that this was a sham and have moved on. If the victim was hurt then she will have her chance to proove it when the case is played out. If this was a false accusation I feel bad for the real victims the players who've had their season cancled and their names dragged through the mud. I hope, but won't count on, the media will report the story with as much vigor and gusto when we find out either way.

    Yale Galanter Criminal defense attorney, in her own words: GALANTER: Oh, they`re ecstatic. I mean this was a treasure trove of defense material. And it really -- as weak as we thought Mike Nifong`s case was before he turned over this 1,300 pages, the two tapes, and the one disk scan last Thursday, today, it`s even worse than we could have ever imagined. Look at what we have here. We know that these -- that she told the police different stories, inconsistent stories, people were in the bathroom with her. But let`s just look at what the bottom line story was that we believe Mike Nifong indicted these boys on. They forcibly raped her for 30 minutes in the bathroom. They used no condoms at all. We now know that there are no abrasions, tears, bleeding in the vaginal area. What I`ve been told the report says, Dan, is that there was swelling only. There was tenderness in her breasts and other areas. There may have been a little redness, but the only abnormality in the vaginal cavity or the vaginal area was swelling. We know that there was no DNA. We now know that there was no toxicology done. If these three boys actually had intercourse with this woman anally and vaginally, some of their cells would have been there, there were not... Those of you still believing this fantasy tale, given the nails were left in the trashcan, what do you think the boys did with the used condoms? Not in the trashcan. Put them in their pockets?

    This case is getting sadder and sadder.

    I was honestly expecting that the medical report would prove extremely compelling from the standpoint of the prosecution. What other explanation could there be for the DA's aggressive approach in prosecuting the case, I figured. Obviously, I have some doubts now, but before I give up the ghost, let me ask a question to the group. Given that we haven't seen the medical report and that the defense is obviously spinning here, is it possible that the medical report contains evidence (pictures?) that a jury would find compelling on its face or is this what we get - physical evidence that requires the interpretation of a professional? Given the AV's credibility problems and other known facts about the case, I can't imagine a person being convinced that a sexual assault occurred without overwhelming physical evidence.

    There are people here who still cling to political correctness in labeling the "sex worker/AV" and take great umbrage at the use of the vernacular in reference to the AV's night job. Political correctness is a great place to hide when the case goes south. The Lynne Duke article is precisely what's wrong with the coverage of this case. It was published today. Surely Ms. Duke might have been reading about developments in this case before handing the column to her editor. Love this line: "But whatever actually happened that March 13 night at Duke University..." If what appears to have happened is prosecuted the AV won't have to worry about bad names. She'll be referred to by a number given to her by the prison system. Are there cruel stereotypes of black women in America? You bet. There are even crueler stereotypes of black men. There are cruel stereotypes of lots of people and they all hurt. But by tying your thesis to an ex-felon with mental illness problems who is a sex worker apparently performing sex acts over the weekend prior to the Buchanan engagement and then apparently falsely charging innocent men of a very serious crime for some benefit accruing to her, well, it doesn't do your argument much good. Surely you few who still cling to defending the AV understand the precariousness of your rhetoric in the current circumstances. Don't you?

    For example, chew 2 wrote: Calling the victim a Ho, whore or prostitute is symbolic villification. It's meant to label her, to degrade her, and to shame her. You ignore her other humanity, struggling mother and honor student trying to better her life. I think that chew2 and other defenders are ignoring the humanness of all the people involved. The problem here is that it's becoming apparent the the real victims are the three men charged with rape. If she had taken her children with her to the job and tucked them into bed before dancing, maybe her motherhood would have entered the discussion, although there is other work besides sex work that the AV could have been doing. If she had shown up at the Buchanan house in the roll of honor student to help lacrosse players with her studies and was raped for her troubles, well, then maybe her scholarship would have something to do with the case. Maybe the AV bakes cookies for wounded vets and pushes wheelchairs around the local VA hospital. Maybe she's on the verge of discovering how to get cold fusion to solve all the world's energy problems. On the night in question the AV was apparently a drunken stripper who lied about a gangrape and allowed evidence of previous consenual liasons to be used to construct a prosecution against three innocent humans. She should be prosecuted and sent to jail. Good mothers don't commit stupid felonies that will separate them from their kids for years. I don't know what higher education opportunities are available in the NC penal system, but I hope she takes advantage of them.

    Sharon, You wrote:
    "Nothing to worry about, even if guilty"?
    Yes. I don't think Nifong will be able to cross the "reasonable doubt" threshhold.
    How about the threat of being found guilty, even if innocent, and spending 40+ years enjoying the hospitality of the North Carolina prison system?
    In my estimation the risk of that happening is lower than the risk that a mile wide meteor will hit the earth in the next ten years, creating a nuclear winter that kills us all off. After all, that's soething has actually happened before.
    How about having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys' fees?
    Court is free. If you choose to be represented by an attorney, that's voluntary. This case, as I have said countless times, didn't require any attorneys. They are "churning."
    How about being out $400,000 for the duration of the case?
    It's a loan not a gift. If it doesn't get reduced, well, they've got the wrong judge.
    How about having your and your family's personal information, pictures, home addresses available for every and any crackpot racist out there to target?
    You seem not to be concerned with the accuser's name being released. I view such things as a consequence of the first amendment. Trials should be open and public.
    If you are open to the possibility that the accused are innocent, how can you be so callous?
    Because being brought to trial simply means the raising of a question. It doesn't mean that the question has been answered. That's what juries do. I'm in favor of the process, because it represents the advance of civilization.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#8)
    by james on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    I'd imagine, to address an earlier comment, that they are not releasing the report (leaking it) to prevent an immediate gag order. That would not be good for their case (they are trying to convince 'on the face' durham residents (read: potential jury pool of middle class blacks) that the woman is full of it. What, would you like them to release photos of her breasts and vagina? Seriously? Do you know how much outrage there would be over that? Releasing the copies of the report would be a problem from a gag order point of view and isn't necessary if Nifong refuses to deny their assertions. In fact, with Nifong's history, he is confirming it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#9)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    Women get raped. It's crap like this which makes it increasingly difficult to convince a jury. Not only is the AV guilty in this, so is Nifong, so is the media who jumped all over this as a sensational slam dunk of a metatheme (plantation owner screwing slave women), and so did all the lefties who presumed the laxers were guilty--and who cling to the belief, at least publicly, despite evidence against them. Future rapists have a lot to be grateful for in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#10)
    by james on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    Court is free. If you choose to be represented by an attorney, that's voluntary. This case, as I have said countless times, didn't require any attorneys. They are "churning."
    This court did require attorneys who are above and beyond what the public defenders can offer. It required people who would dedicate their time to publicize the case, not a public defender who has many, many cases to deal with. It also required investigators that the public defenders office cannot provide, which is sad for all the other indigent defendants.
    It's a loan not a gift. If it doesn't get reduced, well, they've got the wrong judge.
    Would you like to 'loan' Durham 400k on a flimsy charge? 400k is a good deal of money for any person - the accused parents are not super rich. I'd imagine they need the money for legal fees. There's always a balancing act between the fees and the bond. If they have a need for the cash they will either have to take out a loan (HELOC on their house) or secure the bond on their house and pay the security fee. Both are not fair because you don't get it back.
    Because being brought to trial simply means the raising of a question. It doesn't mean that the question has been answered. That's what juries do. I'm in favor of the process, because it represents the advance of civilization.
    Juries can be wrong. Judges also have a duty to ensure that nothing goes to trial that is not supported by evidence. The natural conclusion to a case is not a jury trial in all instances.

    What nobody wants to take me up and come up with the "maybe" ( you were so good with the tox report/daterape drug and the broom ) about where the used condoms ended up?

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    But by tying your thesis to an ex-felon...
    There you go again... Do you even care that you post erroneous information?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    What is worse, public urination or grand theft auto and fleeing and eluding police?

    gmax posted:
    What nobody wants to take me up and come up with the "maybe" ( you were so good with the tox report/daterape drug and the broom ) about where the used condoms ended up?
    It's not EC, but people do flush them down the toilet.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    What is worse, public urination or grand theft auto and fleeing and eluding police?
    Who was convicted of grand theft auto?

    a "boyfriend", two "drivers", five or more "clients" two Duke lacross "players"

    january posted:
    PB, does this mean you would vote to acquit?
    PB posted:
    I'm in favor of the process, because it represents the advance of civilization.
    I'd guess by "the process" he meant evidence produced at an actual trial, not the research, analysis and specultion of blog commenters. I'd think people would want a little more information than we are all going on before casting a vote even on just a blog.

    Orinoco posted:
    She and her "boyfriends" are trash.
    The boys are not.
    Orinoco, Keep talking like that and you'll get yourself thown off the jury.

    imho posted:
    She would have been less than three hours pregnant
    ding777 posted:
    Why?
    Well, she got to the house around 11:45 and the S.A.N.E. exam was less than three hours later.

    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 24, 2006 02:00 PM
    Jlvngstn posted: What is worse, public urination or grand theft auto and fleeing and eluding police?
    Who was convicted of grand theft auto?
    IMHO: This is pedantry and distortion on your part. Jlvngstn did not say "convicted" and you know perfectly well the GTA charge was plea bargained down to a series of misdemeanors. It is sophistry to allege that she did not steal the car. She did. You are simply taunting people with this sort of thing -- and I suspect "reveling" in it too. Touché.

    IMHO, Tying your thesis to a woman who was charged with felonies and then plea-bargained them to misdemeanors.

    Car thief?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    I think TalkLeft said she will provide this site for us to discuss the case but not to trash the accuser or the players. Can't we lay off the attacks on her character and just discuss the facts?

    imho: re a possible pregnancy: those symptoms (tenderness and abdominal discomfort) can last from the moment of conception until delivery. Most common is in the first trimester when the hormones kick it up a notch and the body prepares for the blessed event.She could have been impregnated days or weeks before that evening. I've heard "experts" saying that the lack of vaginal bleeding, tearing, cuts or abrasions is not unusual when a rape has occurred. I wish one of the questioners would say, "I'll accept that about the vag*nal penetration, but what about in the case of an an*l rape by two men? Given those facts would you not expect to find bleeding, tears and abrasions?" Even consensual an*l intercourse will produce that in most cases. Maybe that's a part of the SANE report that the defense did not reveal. Vagin*l area only swollen, an*l area more trauma visible. Still the problem of: was it the lax players or the boyfriend, or the drivers.?

    Oh yeah, or the 5 weekend dates.

    If proven in a court of law that the AV in fact lied could Bunny Hole be sued? What's it called? Respondiat superior?

    She wasn't actually charged with grand theft auto, but I'll play along... If she was charged with it, and plead to a lesser charge, she must have done it? Ever heard of overcharging a defendant? If the players have to plead to anything less than rape can we all assume they were charged with rape, and plead down, so we know they are rapists? SLOphoto
    You are simply taunting people with this sort of thing --
    "This sort of thing" being: correcting false/misleading information?
    and I suspect "reveling" in it too.
    Reveling? I couldn't revel loud enough to be heard over those taking delight in trashing the accuser. It's been an eye-opener.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#33)
    by chew2 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    Washington Post legal commentator, Andrew Cohen on the media insanity and defense spin:
    Don't blame defense attorneys. Their continuous dog-and-pony shows, which culminated Monday with the unseemly sight of a rape suspect brash-talking before live television cameras, are precisely what many zealous attorneys would do in the course of their represenation of a high-profile client. The ceaseless "official" announcements by these attorneys, who by definition do not have access to all of the facts of the case, are designed for one reason only. And that is to sell to potential jurors their narrative of the case -- that this is a story of sweet, innocent boys getting their lives ruined by a "nut and a slut", to use the obnoxious phrase .... If you read more into what the defense lawyers are saying now, you are fooling yourself...... But don't blame the prosecutor, either. After an early case blunder in which he promised more than he could deliver, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has generally resisted the temptation to ride the whirlwind of media coverage and duel it out with defense attorneys via the media.... Whom to blame? This case needs a judge like a hungry wolf needs a pork chop. It needs a judge to quickly issue a gag order that will end until trial the silliness we've seen over the past few weeks.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    But of course I am. In a society that purports to have concern over facts and innocence that has nightly blasted the players faces on the boob tube without any regard as to their guilt or innocence, I cannot help to think that the system is broke. Those willing to gossip without any knowledge of what happened that night as they were not there, who continue to act as if they know whether or not this woman is being truthful, should have something to agitate them and I for one am happy to oblige. I make no apolgies for saying the woman is a criminal, not GTA mind you but she was given a reduction in the charges which demonstrates the fairness of the CJ system. In turn, we are given nightly reviews of the "rapists" photos and their public urination complaints as evidence of their criminal tendencies. She stole a car. She went on a joy ride evading police. She is a hooker. She was intoxicated. She may have made up the entire story. I for one do not know what happened in the house that night, were you there? Isn't the size of the Johnson material if their was bruising and shouldn't those men be scrutinized as well? I think so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#35)
    by january on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    From IMHO
    I'd guess by "the process" he meant evidence produced at an actual trial, not the research, analysis and specultion of blog commenters. I'd think people would want a little more information than we are all going on before casting a vote even on just a blog.
    No argument, IMHO - I was addressing PB's pronouncement that the lacrosse players would not be convicted. I wondered why he is so (bitterly? sarcastically? resignedly?) certain of it. From Orinoco
    Well, a "working mother of two" of course. Oh, and don't forget "3.0 GPA student". And she "served" in the Navy! Good work ethics too, five dates! on a weekend no less.
    Of course! What WAS I thinking?

    Posted by Teresa May 24, 2006 02:51 PM
    I think TalkLeft said she will provide this site for us to discuss the case but not to trash the accuser or the players.
    Trashing yes, but the title of today's forum is "More Attacks on Accuser's Credibility." In terms of credibility, within just a few weeks of discussion on this blog, I have watched this case go from a Probable rape case, to a Plausible rape case, to a Possible rape case, to a Not-impossible rape case, to a Not-completely impossible rape case To an almost certain hoax, false-allegation case. Yet I still see the same old tired, completely irrelevant, misleading, taken-out-of-context, petty aspersions being cast on the character of the lax players -- they got mad and said some bad, nasty words -- as if any of it had any bearing at all on their credibility in any genuine rape allegation. It doesn't. It only has bearing on the sham "trial" of their political guilt. There is no need to establish objective guilt if we are free to substitute political guilt. The lax players don't need to be shown guilty because it is true, only because it is necessary. Kafka, The Trial (paraphrased) It is not necessary to accept everything as true, only to accept it as necessary, said the priest. But, said Kafka, then the world is based on lies.

    Wait I thought it was a blue wall of silence, now its a unseemly sight, a player calmly and rationally telling his story. And Nifong did not poison the jury pool, wasnt there comments about thuggish behavior and sureness of a rape and hinting at tox reports of date rape and Sheesh Andrew Cohen has rectal cranial inversion. You know why there is not a gag order in this trial. Nifong. His own behavior was so offensive that any request for such an order would be met by the Defense loudly telling the judge that setting the record straight that the prosecutor bent, is their ethical requirement and any gag order would be extremely detrimental to their clients. And they would be right.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#38)
    by chew2 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    January,
    What should one call a prostitute if one wishes to avoid symbolic villification?
    What I was really objecting to was Bob's use of the epithet "whore" to vilify the victim. Read my original post: Here's what Bob said:
    It's one thing to be a whore making money, another thing to be a drunken whore whose audience finds her unattractive.
    Here's what I said:
    Calling the victim a Ho, whore or prostitute is symbolic villification. It's meant to label her, to degrade her, and to shame her. You ignore her other humanity, struggling mother and honor student trying to better her life.
    "Prostitute" is not as loaded as "whore", but most of those calling the AV a "prostitute" have used it as an epithet also, to demean her. Whether she had sex prior to the party is a relevant issue. (Note the defense is not claiming consensual sex here.) It's not necessary to name call in order to discuss that relevant issue. Bob said:
    My bigger point here is the inflation of whatever happened there into a symbology when the point should have been whether or not a crime had been committed.
    I said he was being a hypocrite.
    You're being a hypocrite in two ways. First, your use of labels like "whore" show you use that same symbology yourself. Second if it wasn't for the symbology no one would care about this case, not even you. The Duke defenders wouldn't be out here if this was an alleged gang rape by a bunch of homeless bums, and neither would you. No one would care if the defendants weren't privileged white athletes. Why do you think the conservative press is so solidly on the side of the lacrosse team? It's not surprising that black female opinion makers feel similarly protective of the AV.


    I repeat: It is sophistry to allege that she did not steal the car. She did.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    And they were kind enough to reduce the charges so as not to take a mother from her children. Sounds like the CJ system was quite fair to her..........

    SLOphoto posted:
    I repeat: It is sophistry to allege that she did not steal the car. She did.
    Did I allege she didn't steal a car?

    And they were kind enough to reduce the charges so as not to take a mother from her children. Sounds like the CJ system was quite fair to her..........
    I think they gave her the weekend sentence because she had a job at a factory and was going to school at the time. Her attorney said he had her bring in her pay stubs and school records. I think that's why she got a break, she didn't have the M.O. of the usual suspects prosecutors deal with or that appear before a judge.

    deleted

    deleted

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    deleted

    rank speculation deleted

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#17)
    by january on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    PB said
    In my estimation the risk of that (lax players being convicted) happening is lower than the risk that a mile wide meteor will hit the earth in the next ten years, creating a nuclear winter that kills us all off. After all, that's soething has actually happened before.
    PB, does this mean you would vote to acquit?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#43)
    by wumhenry on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    the unseemly sight of a rape suspect brash-talking before live television cameras
    Yeah, the nerve of that guy. Proclaiming his innocence even though he was indicted -- does he have no respect for authority?!

    January, You wrote:
    PB, does this mean you would vote to acquit?
    If I were a juror and closing arguments had just ended today, of course I would acquit. But its a silly question, since I haven't heard Nifong's case. If I was asked on the basis of what I know today to convict the accuser of filing false charges, I'd acquit her to. If I was asked in a Civil suit today whether to award the accused damages for defammatory statements made against her by Orinoco and Bob in Pacifica (among others) I would award her the judgment. If I were asked to award judgment against anyone at this site for making defammatory statements about the Duke Lacrosse players, I would not. Any questions?

    PB wrote:
    If I were a juror and closing arguments had just ended today, of course I would acquit. But its a silly question, since I haven't heard Nifong's case.
    In 70+ interviews, and in various court filings, we've heard a good deal of Nifong's case. It's not as if he's been busy since his media barrage uncovering new evidence. He hasn't even found the time to check the accuser's cellphone.

    Ori, adios muchacho, although it would appear that this case is on its last legs and you really won't be missing much...

    Del, You wrote:
    It's just that an ugly little part of me, no doubt put there by some white ancestor, thinks that taking off your clothes and shaking your parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys is somewhere well past center on the consent continuum.
    When you live in a nice place where people are genuinely decent to one another, you forget the kind of attitudes that still persist in crueler sectors of the memepool. Your variant on the "she was dressed for it" defense is pretty close to Teddy Roosevelt's conception of women's rights. As I understand it, he considered the idea of a woman abstaining from sex within marriage "race suicide." My own belief is that a woman has every right to turn down sex even when in the midst of it. But then, I am an unrepentant feminist. Elizabeth Cady Stanton for President!

    chew2 Except for the part about the unseemly sight of Evans publicly defending himself, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Andrew Cohen wrote. If only the defense is presenting their case publicly, they'd have to be incompetent if they didn't leave the impression that the evidence on their side is absolutely overwhelming. The defense lawyers here are very competent. But the story we're getting from them is spun like a top. (The same thing applies to a prosecutor going before a grand jury.) To take it in as the whole story is naive. That doesn't mean I think Nifong is going to get a conviction, but I don't think he's going to get laughed out of court. And I do think that Nifong is trying to stay out of the public eye now. His initial interview blitz was a horrible idea. We got some info from him then, but it was from a time when his strategy was likely completely different (i.e. when he thought he'd get DNA evidence). He's obviously going to present things very differently at trial.

    PB
    My own belief is that a woman has every right to turn down sex even when in the midst of it.
    I couldn't agree more. A man and woman can be naked in bed, but if the woman says no to sex and the man forces her that's rape in my book.

    Khartoum, You wrote:
    In 70+ interviews, and in various court filings, we've heard a good deal of Nifong's case. It's not as if he's been busy since his media barrage uncovering new evidence. He hasn't even found the time to check the accuser's cellphone.
    The number "70" gets bandied about as if the number of interviews Nifong gave is some measure of the amount of information he has released to the public. Obviously it's not. Most of the interviews must have been redundant, don't you think? I personally can think of very few "facts" about the case that I have culled from those 70 interviews. Most of what I have learned about the prosecution's case has come from the search warrants and the stuff dished by the defense. Do you disagree?

    ugly woman, unmarried, no sex since the Johnson administration
    translation: (chewing on fingers to keep from translating)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#52)
    by weezie on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    There is another thread concerning post conviction DNA on this site. I'm sittin' here wonderin' if the players are convicted, will they be able to summon that DNA (from the FA's dream date boyfriend/pimp) evidence and then get their case reversed on appeal? I also posted this there because I am a slow thinker.

    Nifong gets no credit for being "silent" now, and claiming unfair spin by the defense. How do you explain his "well there may be no DNA if condoms were used" comment. The reports say the AV said NO condoms were used. He knew that, and he knew there would be no players DNA found. The tortured reasoning that some are using that these players are not innocent must make their heads swell worse than Barry Bonds. To Leonardo da Orinoco: !epiws eeknay taht was I

    Orinoco has been banned after replying to my warning with personal insults. All of his comments on all TalkLeft threads have been deleted. He says he doesn't care, but he took the time to post more than 400 of them. And no, he doesn't get to answer because he has been banned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    Thank you.

    PB posted:
    Most of what I have learned about the prosecution's case has come from the search warrants and the stuff dished by the defense.
    In his interviews, he described how the attack allegedly occurred (and even demonstrated it himself!)--critical for understanding this case. He assaulted the character of the team members--critical in a case like this, with so little evidence of a crime, since a jury would decide on the basis of credibility. The search warrants, the arrest warrant (giving the date of the crime as March 14, not March 13 or March 13-14), as well as the court motion he filed, are part of the prosecution's case. So too, critically, is the 15-page transcript of the photo ID. These are all his documents, and we've seen all of them. So the idea that we haven't seen the basics of the prosecution's case seems to me hard to defend. As we now know Nifong has no toxicology report and no DNA evidence, it's not as if there's medical evidence he didn't share publicly. And all of us can, I suspect, imagine the spin that he'll put on the SANE nurse's report and the police report, just as we can imagine how the defense will spin both of these documents. I suspect that some of the posters on this board could do a better job of spinning these documents than Nifong could. Compare this to another high-profile case--the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. I have no idea what Fitzgerald has. But in this case, we have a very good sense of what Nifong has. What's so bizarre about this case to me is that we seem to have moved toward a situation of guilty-until-proved-innocent, and an argument that we should just ignore all the procedural violations in the compilation of evidence, and then the case should move forward if there's a 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 chance that a jury might believe the accuser and ignore everything else. It seems to me our system isn't designed to work that way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:31:03 PM EST
    khartoum, could you explain to me why the March 14 day is important. I haven't heard any theories that take place before midnight. Have I missed one? Are you just referring to the DA's timeline and that he can't move it back?

    Hi Rogan, You wrote:
    All this lecturing about it being rape if the woman doesn't consent and invoking Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a subtle version of the race/gender card: If you don't agree with me, you are sexist/racist etc.
    Well, first of all, what does rape and Elizabeth Cady Stanton have to do with "race?" And second of all, what is "subtle" about the argument that the way one dresses does not constitute consent for sex? I don't think the opposite of feminist is "sexist," by the way. I think it's "mysogenist."

    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 24, 2006 02:31 PM deleted
    IMHO, did someone rile you up and you lost your temper? I'm in disbelief!

    Rogan, Did you read the post that got this started? Del wrote:
    It's just that an ugly little part of me, no doubt put there by some white ancestor, thinks that taking off your clothes and shaking your parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys is somewhere well past center on the consent continuum.
    I think it's fair to respond a statement like that, don't you? PB and I both argued that working as a stripper doesn't mean you automatically consent to whatever a customer feels like doing to you. Maybe that strikes you as a *crazy* argument, but I don't think we're on extreme feminist fringe here.

    I have to tell you what I find perhaps the most reprehensible: Nifong's arrest of the Sudanese cabbie. But more so, the total lack of outrage by any of the AV supporters here, the local community, the opportunist activists. Quite the opposite. It was silence. He is obviously not a rich elitist, and he doesn't carry the baggage of the AV. He was treated like a speedbump by Nifong. But as I said before, he is helping the wrong horse in this race, so he is expendable. This may be a risky hypothetical in today's times: In a reversal of races by the AV and the players, he would have been the poster child for a malicious racist prosecution run amok. It would have been the last straw. The public outcry, and from every end of the media, from mainstream to conservative, would have been enough to end this case and oust Nifong.

    I think the point of this case isn't "Can a stripper be a victim of rape" but "Is THIS stripper the victim of rape (or was there even any sex at all between her and the Duke boys?)"
    I think it should be. Unfortunately, even just from observing this blog one can see people making it out to be exactly that. Snickering comments on her sexual prowess, the original ones on how "maybe her pimp beat her up", it is getting pretty ugly. You can't ask people to not ask the questions even when there is an elephant in the living room.
    All this lecturing about it being rape if the woman doesn't consent and invoking Elizabeth Cady Stanton is a subtle version of the race/gender card: If you don't agree with me, you are sexist/racist etc.
    If I recall correctly, somebody actually suggested a woman removing her clothes in front of a man should expect so much (or something like that). The thing I noticed about the reactions to this case is that, yes, there have been sexist comments about her, there have been racist/prejudiced comments about her both to chip away at her credibility ... from the beginning. Now I don't know if she was raped or not, or if these men (and, please everybody, they're men) did it (I do believe one can be true without the other being false), but the sad thing is that if she filed a false accusation, we don't need her to "set women back" as we call it. Obviously, we haven't come too far considering these types of sterotypes. These are the kind of comments that are always present no matter what the circumstances of the case, no matter the outcome. Of course if this doesn't end in the AV's favor, they will be seen as justified. Aaaall because people want to hide behind the talking point of "stop your political correctness" (that is, unless it can be used to cover for the LAX players, then it is basically, "don't make this about race cause it isn't ... except how these poor, innocent, upstanding boys are being oppressed for being WHITE!" Which is it?). Sorry, if somebody makes a racist comment then somebody will say, "hey, you made a racist comment". If somebody makes a sexist comment, somebody will say, "hey, you made a sexist comment". Don't ask somebody not to play the race/sex card if somebody else already laid out the deck. And that goes for the Duke Men, too. Yes, they said sexist and demeaning things. Yes, they said racist things. Yes, they showed consistent disregard for the people around them even if the crimes weren't of large caliber. It doesn't mean they are rapists, but they will be called on it and deserve to be. Sorry for the verbal explosion, I just haven't been able to say anything since I've been reading this from the beginning. :D

    Khartoum, You wrote:
    In his interviews, he described how the attack allegedly occurred (and even demonstrated it himself!)--critical for understanding this case. He assaulted the character of the team members--critical in a case like this, with so little evidence of a crime, since a jury would decide on the basis of credibility.
    That's not a very long list, Khartoum, for 70 interviews. The description of how the assault could have occurred isn't meaningful at all. If anything it helps the defense prepare. As for comments on the "character" of the players, could you furnish a source? I just want to know what quote you're referring to.

    gmax wrote:
    What nobody wants to take me up and come up with the "maybe" ( you were so good with the tox report/daterape drug and the broom ) about where the used condoms ended up?
    With the fake mustache, Howard Hughes' will and Jimmy Hoffa. Just kidding...they ate them. OK...that was a little sick.... fortunately she told the police there were no condoms, so no latex diet, but may explain why Nifong was so confident there would be DNA from a player.

    Yet Nifong publicly stated that "if a condom were used" there might not be any DNA. This was after the police report noted the AV said no condoms were used. He lied to perpetuate the story.

    Khartoum
    He assaulted the character of the team members--critical in a case like this, with so little evidence of a crime
    I don't know. At the time he was giving the interviews he had pretty decent evidence of a crime. He had the victim's statement, he had the SANE report finding symptoms consistent with the AV's statement, he had the AV's fingernails and money sitting at the "scene of the crime," and he had a team with a documented record of drunken rowdiness. Seasoned DA's might be able to correct me, but I imagine that's as good a case as a prosecutor ever has a week and a half into an investigation. Now a lot of exculpatory evidence has come to the surface since Nifong gave all those interviews, but at the time I don't think he was totally crazy to think he had a stronger case than he seems to now. He should have stayed out of the spotlight, but I don't think his behavior was that abnormal given the context.

    Kalidoggie posted:
    IMHO, did someone rile you up and you lost your temper?
    I'm in disbelief!
    You should be, because it didn't happen. Nothing posted here has ever gotten me mad, quite the contrary. I guffaw over this stuff. I'll miss Orinoco. His posts were hilarious. I saved my deleted post if you want it e-mailed to you. This post of Jlvngstn's was so digusting, that my post had to also be deleted because I quoted him:
    Posted by Jlvngstn May 24, 2006 01:45 PM
    deleted


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:18:47 PM EST
    Durga, good post. I've found the comments here to be very tame, though, compared to some blogs I've visited. (Orinoco and Bean excluded) Kali, I read an article yesterday that quoted a defense lawyer who said that many victims of rape don't know if there were condoms or not. I would assume she would have noticed if Reade S. had one though. I'm not a man so I can't say, but if a rape such as this happened (not specific to this case) wouldn't a guy have trouble completing the act with other guys participating right there? If she was setting them up, I can't figure out how poorly she planned this. She could have easily said yes to the condom question and then the DNA wouldn't be such a big deal.

    lightenup
    Yet Nifong publicly stated that "if a condom were used" there might not be any DNA. This was after the police report noted the AV said no condoms were used. He lied to perpetuate the story.
    I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I'm genuinely asking - has that police report been released yet? Do we have a quote saying "no condoms?" Or did she say "I don't think they used condoms" or "I don't know." Or did she simply not mention it? If I was a defense attorney, I could spin any of those statements into "the AV never said her attackers wore condoms."

    huesofblue, I believe the "no condom" quote is from something the AV told the SANE nurse.

    chew2, if you keep calling me a hypocrite, I'm going to ask that you be banned.

    Hues, My source is what I heard yesterday on TV, that the police report said twice that she said no condoms were used. Watching and reading so much; it was Hannity as my best guess. Not very good, and a defense spin could be argued. So I will open it up for better confirmation.

    Teresa
    I would assume she would have noticed if Reade S. had one though.
    You'd think so. Of course that also strikes me as the area where they were probably least likely to find DNA. Assuming she had a swig or two of water between being falling down drunk/drugged and showing up at the hospital hours later, I can see how this evidence might get washed away. And if R.S. only did what he's being accused of, I don't think there's any way he'd finish, condom or no. There would just be too many teeth and not enough pressure.
    I'm not a man so I can't say, but if a rape such as this happened (not specific to this case) wouldn't a guy have trouble completing the act with other guys participating right there?
    For maost people, probably. But if you're the kind the guy that's into gang rape, who knows?

    Ori, I'll miss you. Don't be afraid to drop me a line through my blog.

    BIP and lightenup Thanks for the info. This case really is a mess. I've got to wonder how Nifong feels about actually having to argue it in court. He can't like his own chances.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#76)
    by weezie on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    Justice4twosisters blog is saying that ABC news, Chris Cuomo reported that the judge refused the release of the found cell phone info to the defense. Can't find anything else on this, did I read that wrong?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    Bob, I hope Orinoco doesn't attack you like he did TalkLeft. Not nice. You okay?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#78)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:41:12 PM EST
    Wow weezie. There must be some important people called from or to that phone. I can't believe that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#79)
    by january on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    PB said
    If I were a juror and closing arguments had just ended today, of course I would acquit. But its a silly question, since I haven't heard Nifong's case.
    And yet, you made that crack about how unlikely it was that the lax players would be convicted. Despite not having heard Nifong's case. I just wondered whether you were being cynical, or sarcastic, or whether you actually think the defense has a case. Chew 2 said
    What I was really objecting to was Bob's use of the epithet "whore" to vilify the victim. Read my original post:
    I did read your original post, and that isn't what you said. That's why I deliberately used the word prostitute instead of Ho or whore when I asked my question. Did you answer it?

    weezie I don't think this is a new development. The defense asked the judge to order Nifong to turn over the phone and the judge refused, saying he wanted Nifong to have his experts get whatever data they could off the phone and submit it to the judge for review. I don't think this is the post-review denial. I could be wrong, but the story is dated as of yesterday. I feel like that kind of development would make a bigger splash.

    weezie, I read the ABC Nightline story Justice4TwoSisters was citing. The ABC article was poorly written, but I think it meant that attorney Osborn was asking for Nifong to provide the phone info since May 1st, but that Nifong had denied the evidence. The article also raises the problem with Nifong allowing the phone battery to die and then losing all text messaging, etc. With the all the stuff piling up on Nifong, the question is whether this guy isn't going to face charges. This really smells like a malicious prosecution.

    Sharon, miss you. Watching Idol?

    The only thing that can be said at this point is IF these charges are false, then she has not only made victims of the LaCrosse players, she has also done irreparable damage to future rape victims. And, IF these charges are false, then Nifong should be tared and feathered and run outa town on a rail.

    Teresa wrote:
    I'm not a man so I can't say, but if a rape such as this happened (not specific to this case) wouldn't a guy have trouble completing the act with other guys participating right there?
    Personally I can't imagine raping a woman, let alone doing it in front of others, so I have no idea. Knowing that you bring joy and climax to a woman is as gratifying as one's own satisfaction. Speaking of sex...dare I throw out a theory that some have thought but dared not to express...I dare! I dare! Here it goes with some foundation.... She had sex with her BF, 2 drivers and 5+ guys named "John" in 24-48 hours..... Does the saying "like a hotdog thrown down the hallway" mean anything here? In other words, can we really expect anything more than swelling from the alleged rapists. See IMHO, I can make an argument for the AV/FA. Good one, eh?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#85)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    Kali, regarding one of your comments, all men don't feel the same way. You can trust me on that one. :)

    A most excellent post, Durga_is_my_homey. I wish you had commented sooner. You are correct about Del's post. While she did say the accuser did not consent to being strangled, what did say is the accuser's story, as described in the search warrant, is not rape. The women consented by showing up, taking off their clothes and shaking their "parts." That has to be the most disturbing comment I have read here.

    January, You wrote:
    And yet, you made that crack about how unlikely it was that the lax players would be convicted. Despite not having heard Nifong's case. I just wondered whether you were being cynical, or sarcastic, or whether you actually think the defense has a case.
    Show me an example of a case where someone "like" this particular complainent won a trial against a trio of individuals "like" this particular trio and I'll believe this case is winnable. I think this is true not because the complaint cannot be true. I think it is the case
    whether or not
    the complaint is true. I think if there was any lesson to the OJ case it was that money transcends race.

    yeah it is speculation there has been no trial.

    Kalidoggie posted:
    See IMHO, I can make an argument for the AV/FA. Good one, eh?
    Ha! Yes and such sublime imagery, too. Stop calling her a FA and you might start liking yourself again.

    PB wrote:
    Trials should be open and public.
    Why? Originally it was as a watchman over government abuse. What do you think the reason usually is now? I think the media more and more is almost indistinguishable from the government. One could argue they won't be falsely convicted because of the publicity, but most likely they had good enough lawyers to cover that.

    Spyderman wrote:
    And, IF these charges are false, then Nifong should be tared and feathered and run outa town on a rail.
    If they're true, can we tar and feather the defense attorneys and run them out of town on a rail? I'm just trying to understand your ethical universe.

    Teresa, I'm just fine. I've been hiking a lot. Feel free to contact me through my blog if you feel the need to chitchat. Things are kind of running out of steam here. Some of the sidebars are getting silly. Is it really so bad to put three defendants through a trial? Is it proper to use the word "wh*r*" to describe the AV if she is turning tricks? What could Nifong still have that will win the day? I check in to see if there's something new.

    Rogan,
    Prosecutors, I believe, are ethically obliged to work in the interests of justice-i.e. not prosecute those they know are not guilty.
    All this chatter about malicious prosecution doesn't amount to much until Nifong actually presents his case. There'll be plenty of time to stink up the air then, if it turns out that all the stuff the defense ISN'T publishing turns out to vindicate the players as well.

    lightenup: no, not watching Idol. I proudly say that I have never watched a single episode. Tonight it was Stanley Cup and now NBA. Sometimes, though, I have to sit back and simply read the posts here. It's interesting how many of our buttons this case has pushed, on both sides of the aisle. It seems that many, if not most, of us (myself definitely included) are feeling personally invested in the impact and the outcome. As I've said before, sometimes I am conflicted by this case. I don't want the Duke guys (I try not to call them boys, but with a son who will be 19 in a couple months, it is difficult for me to think of a 19 or 20 year old as a "man.") to have committed the crimes with which they are charged, for all sorts of reasons. But at the same time I do not want the accuser to be lying, to be making things up, to be "telling stories." Nor do I want to think that a prosecutor would abuse the power of his office. But it's looking like it's got to be one of the other, and that's going to be a lose-lose situation for everyone. And I believe that if the investigation of this case had been allowed to run its proper course, in its proper time, it would have been better all around. If only Nifong had given that standard, responsible response when first confronted by the media: "This is an ongoing investigation which, in light of the severity of the charges, we are taking with the utmost seriousness, pursuing with the utmost diligence. I cannot comment on the case now, but I will keep you updated on our progress."

    The women consented by showing up, taking off their clothes and shaking their "parts."
    Okay, I will try to explain, if this is truly the most disturbing thing you've read so far. I did not say they consented. If they dragged her into the bathroom and did what she says they did, it's rape. But I did say the act of stripping is off-center on the consent continuum. I realize that could be seen as, what, sophistry? but I thought it was worth mentioning because: I was responding to someone, hues of blue I think, who said that taking off one's clothes and dancing provocatively was not an invitation to penetration. Sorry, but I think that has pretty much been an invitation to penetration since the dawn of civilization. That's exactly why guys want to look at it. And exactly why women performing such acts for money usually have protection, to make sure nothing happens. But if you seriously believe that a woman is entitled to stop in the midst of sex and decide one more thrust constitutes rape, then further argument is pointless. BTW, I'm the one who thought that the guys hiring a stripper in the first place was reprehensible and they should all be expelled for showing up at the party. It was explained to me that hiring strippers is the going thing these days. Well, that's a shame. I think sex belongs in the bedroom between consenting (there's that word) adults, not as a party game. Women have fought hard for freedom, sexual and otherwise, and abuse of that freedom jeopardizes it, imo.

    Del, sounds reasonable to me.

    Thank you, rogan1313. I'm trying to understand PB's ethical universe where false prosecutions are okay. Right now there are a lot of poor black men (poor people generally) in prison for no better reason than they were charged for a crime and couldn't afford a decent lawyer. That's okay because it all gets sorted out in the end, I guess.

    Well said, Del.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Del, sounds reasonable to me.
    Bob, are you serious?

    Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    Is it really so bad to put three defendants through a trial?
    No.
    Is it proper to use the word "wh*r*" to describe the AV if she is turning tricks?
    No.
    What could Nifong still have that will win the day?
    I don't imply that it will "win the day," but a credible story from the accuser, incriminating statements from the three captains, corroborative testimony from Kim Roberts, and a timeline that doesn't conflict with the any of the alibis provided by the defense would make it interesting.

    SharonInJax posted:
    Well said, Del.
    SharonInJax, are you serious?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    I agree Bob about the poor people that are innocent sitting in prison. Even though my brain tells me that she made this up, I still have a few doubts. Why make up a case with so many problems? I don't think she planned it in advance so what are her reasons for lying? Was it to avoid some kind of arrest for public drunkenness? Does a drunk person in a car, not driving, actually get in trouble or are they just taken somewhere to sober up? Why in the world would she choose three men when the same result would happen if it was just one? In fact, it would be more believable then. Was she having flashbacks to a prior assault? She's had plenty of time to get out of this mess without digging herself in deeper. Why doesn't she? Is someone pushing her to continue this claim? Why did she have such a reaction to the photo of Collin Finnerty? Why did she wait until very near the end to choose him? She was almost out of options at that point. How could a person nearly passed out drunk be able to plan all of this? As time has passed, why doesn't she bail now when she can just blame it on the stress and nerves due to the public attacks (true or not) on her character? How do we know all of Nifong's evidence? Would we want all cases where most of the known facts come from the defense to be dropped? Do we know that Durham County hasn't given her a lie detector test as some NC counties do on many of the women who claim rape? How did she get so lucky to choose the only player to have any DNA connection to her? Is the DNA on her fingernail or under it? I've read both by people who claim to have read the report. Was it tissue or skin cells? I've heard both. What evidence, if any, is on the computers and cameras taken from the house? What in the world were the police checking so thoroughly outside that window at the house? Who was supposed to pick the accuser up after the party? What happened when they showed up? Off the top of my head, these are issues I still have. Is there no preliminary hearing in NC where both sides can present evidence so that a judge can determine the merits, if any, in this case? Should we always take defense attorneys' word for it the way a grand jury does a prosecutor's?

    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    I'm trying to understand PB's ethical universe where false prosecutions are okay.
    It's impossible to imagine that you are actually "trying" to understand me when your characterization of my opinion is so flagrantly mis-stated. You wrote:
    Right now there are a lot of poor black men (poor people generally) in prison for no better reason than they were charged for a crime and couldn't afford a decent lawyer.
    If you're trying to coax me into argument lite here, Bob, I'm afraid I can't go there. I can see my future clearly, and it does not involve fencing in your imagination in any way. I understand what it means to talk with you, and I'm content to resist that. But thanks for the offer.

    Sorry, but I think that has pretty much been an invitation to penetration since the dawn of civilization.
    ... According to the works of professors Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson, and Dr. Butt-Head? Come on now.
    That's exactly why guys want to look at it. And exactly why women performing such acts for money usually have protection, to make sure nothing happens.
    !!! Gee, I hope these men never travel to a country where clothes are less that optional and native everyday dances happen to get their jollies up. Then again, what? Will they just blame her for not "having protection"? I'd like to give men a wee bit more credit and sense of responsibility than that...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#105)
    by Lora on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    Del, I'm glad to see that you would consider forcing a stripper to have sex to be rape. I'm confused, though. Are you saying that a man might try to have sex with a stripper and that's to be expected, given the type of dancing and human nature? But that the stripper reserves the right to say no? That I can agree with, if that's what you mean. For me, the disturbing part is at what point you believe a woman no longer has the right to say "no." I agree with PB who posted (May 24 5:28):
    My own belief is that a woman has every right to turn down sex even when in the midst of it.
    This can happen, and there are men who respect this right.

    Durga_is_my_homey posted:
    Gee, I hope these men never travel to a country where clothes are less that optional and native everyday dances happen to get their jollies up. Then again, what? Will they just blame her for not "having protection"?
    I'd like to give men a wee bit more credit and sense of responsibility than that...
    Del has a husband, so I am assuming Del is a woman. I could be wrong.

    Hi Theresa, You wrote:
    Does a drunk person in a car, not driving, actually get in trouble or are they just taken somewhere to sober up?
    Kim may have told the police that she picked her up off the street, and was unable to get her out of her car. I would think a story such as that might have had the potential to lead to some sort of public drunkenness charge. You wrote:
    Why did she wait until very near the end to choose [Finnerty]? She was almost out of options at that point.
    She had no idea how many pictures she was to be shown. The police gave no indication. You wrote:
    Was it tissue or skin cells?
    A friend of mine who knows more than I about such things has suggested that the sample could not have been of any significant size or it would not have been simply "consistent." This suggests strongly that it was not a significant scraping. You wrote:
    Should we always take defense attorneys' word for it the way a grand jury does a prosecutor's?
    No.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    PB, when she came to view the lineup pictures, didn't the police tell her that she would be looking at pictures of players believed to be at the party? She had to know she was near the end at least. Your friend is probably right about the tissue/skin cells. Have any of the people who have talked to the defense told us how consistent it was? Some of the experts said it could be anywhere from 1 in hundreds to one in millions depending on the markers(?). The defense doesn't seem to be claiming it isn't his but rather that it got there innocently. I guess it won't be an issue unless it was skin and maybe just masked by other DNA mixed in.

    Del has a husband, so I am assuming Del is a woman. I could be wrong.
    I was referring to the men to whom the beliefs/characteristics were being attributed. Sorry if I wasn't clear, though I do still say men can - and do and should - know better than to think the aforementioned scenario is absolute invitation for penetration.

    Durga_is_my_homey, you did a very thoughtful post, with a lot of good points, especially about stereotypes. But stereotypes also raises an issue of clarification about the term "a woman." Something needs to be clarified about what is and is not being asserted here with Del, Bob and Sharon. Outcall escort service is not the same thing as being a professional stripper performing in a legitimate dancing lounge, where bouncers are always present. Dancing naked in front of any group of men is inherently risky. Sexual strip "teasing" of young men who are already under the influence of alcohol, but expecting each and every one of them to behave like a perfect, self-controlled little gentleman is not very realistic. That's why all legitimate lounges have bouncers. You went on to say,
    If I recall correctly, somebody actually suggested a woman removing her clothes in front of a man should expect so much (or something like that).
    That is a loaded statement, and it contains a stereotype about "a woman" with which no reasonable person could disagree. Cleared of the stereotype, however, it becomes a statement of pretty simple common sense. "A woman" removing her clothes for money in front of a group of men and dancing in the seclusion of their private residence with the specific intent of sexually arousing them as much as she possibly can, without also having a bouncer present to keep them all in line should expect ... should expect that she is asking for trouble -- plain and simple. I think that is essentially what Del, Bob and Sharon were in accord about, and that's just pretty simple common sense. And that has nothing silly to do with traveling to
    a country where clothes are less that optional and native everyday dances happen to get their jollies up.
    We are not talking about "natives" in Durham, we're talking about a professional outcall stripper, sex-worker in Durham. I think the reaction to THAT would be pretty "universal" in ANY country. In spite of all that, it is looking more and more likely that nothing DID happen to her, except for a bad hangover and the legacy of having asserted some dubious charges that have now blown up in her face.

    FROM THE LAST THREAD: Posted by huesofblue May 24, 2006 08:02 AM Del posted
    Taking your clothes off and dancing provocatively is not an invitation to be sexually assaulted.
    It really isn't. Posted by Del May 24, 2006 08:20 AM
    Well, it sort of is. Not strangled certainly, but---let me think of a word that will pass the censors---penetrated. Which is why strippers doing "outcalls" bring along a bodyguard. I still haven't heard a reason for why neither agency saw fit to send protection for their exotic dancers. There's the "they said there would only be five guys at the party" explanation, but after all, it allegedly only took three to rape the AV. My cynical husband suggested that the girls passed on the bodyguards because it would mean giving up part of the fee to them.
    Posted by huesofblue May 24, 2006 08:36 AM Del posted:
    Well, it sort of is. Not strangled certainly, but---let me think of a word that will pass the censors---penetrated.
    If it's against the woman's will, I think the word your looking for is --raped. There's no question that her line of work is dangerous, but if what she's alleging actually happened (which at this point is a substantial if), I don't think that excuses it in any way. Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 24, 2006 09:17 AM Del posted:
    Well, it sort of is. Not strangled certainly, but---let me think of a word that will pass the censors---penetrated.
    Del, You are confusing penetration with sexual assault. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - consent being the deciding factor. Posted by Del May 24, 2006 09:30 AM
    I know the difference between penetration and sexual assault. It's just that an ugly little part of me, no doubt put there by some white ancestor, thinks that taking off your clothes and shaking your parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys is somewhere well past center on the consent continuum.


    Gee, I hope these men never travel to a country where clothes are less that optional and native everyday dances happen to get their jollies up.
    Bunny Hole Entertainment is not producing National Geographic specials. I can distinguish an "everyday native dance" from one that is intended purely for sexual stimulation, and I think you could too. The word "invitation" is used figuratively here, by the way. We are not talking about an engraved invitation.
    Are you saying that a man might try to have sex with a stripper and that's to be expected, given the type of dancing and human nature? But that the stripper reserves the right to say no? That I can agree with, if that's what you mean.
    Yes, Lora, that's pretty much it. You are disturbed because I don't agree with PB's statement: "My own belief is that a woman has every right to turn down sex even when in the midst of it." Yes, there are men that respect this right. Should the ones who do not serve jail time for rape? Theoretically speaking, should a woman who can prove that she turned down sex in the midst of it be able to claim rape and send the rapist to prison?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#113)
    by Lora on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    I will add some some more reasons why I feel the case is not yet settled. I really don't feel I know the answer either. The bits we've heard about her injuries from the SANE report don't contradict anything we heard in the past. We've already heard about vagin*l pain and swelling. That's what we're told now. I don't recall hearing about any tears or scratches before, only on her legs in the pictures. "No condoms" could be consistent if her alleged attackers did not ejaculate inside her. I think it highly likely that only sperm DNA was tested for, except for the bodly tissue found under the fingernail. (BTW, by the time they recovered the fingernail, could the tissue have been so degraded as to make indentification difficult?) If solid alibis really exist for the accused for most of the time the dancers were at the party (to cover all possible timelines, not just the defense version), wouldn't they have been leaked, and wouldn't the defense have found a way to make sure Nifong's nose was rubbed in it? Where are ANY pictures from the missing time? Why is the defense being so cagey with their pictures?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#114)
    by Lora on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:13:08 PM EST
    Del, Re: women who turn down sex in the middle of the act and men who respect their decision:
    Should the ones who do not serve jail time for rape? Theoretically speaking, should a woman who can prove that she turned down sex in the midst of it be able to claim rape and send the rapist to prison?
    That is an extreme example, and in that situation I would be hard pressed to find a man guilty of rape as it's currently defined, and send him to jail for it, even if it could be proved, which I highly doubt. So...if my back's to the wall on this one, no. I think it's more the attitude of respect that's important. I don't know what it would be equivalent to, maybe being frightening or threatening, intimidating, pushing/shoving/slapping? Depends on the situation. It isn't quite as hypothetical as it sounds. Picture if you will, first-time sex that's considerably more painful and frightening than expected, and the woman requests her partner to stop. In my opinion a decent man would stop. If he continues, is it rape? Maybe, technically. Is it a heinous crime? No. Was it wrong of him to continue? Yes. Should he go to prison? No. Is he a jerk? Probably. That's the best I can do with it.

    Del posted: Bunny Hole Entertainment is not producing National Geographic specials.
    Exactly. We are not talking about traditional dances of the "natives" of Durham.

    The bits we've heard about her injuries from the SANE report don't contradict anything we heard in the past.
    I think there was an idea that when the SANE report came out, it would reveal more serious injuries, and that was one of the reasons Nifong was sure she was raped.
    "No condoms" could be consistent if her alleged attackers did not ejaculate inside her. I think it highly likely that only sperm DNA was tested for, except for the bodly tissue found under the fingernail.
    I would have thought the second lab was testing for more than sperm, but maybe they did only bother with the fingernail. If they were extremely drunk, they might not have been able to ejaculate inside her.
    If solid alibis really exist for the accused for most of the time the dancers were at the party (to cover all possible timelines, not just the defense version)...
    What would constitute a solid alibi, though? The other drunk partiers saying, "Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure he was in the kitchen from 11:55 to 12:27"? Lacking an array of time-stamped restaurant receipts, I don't see how anybody can prove they weren't in the bathroom at a particular time.
    Where are ANY pictures from the missing time? Why is the defense being so cagey with their pictures?
    I've wondered about that too. If the girls disappeared into the bathroom for a prolonged period to paint their nails or whatever, I can see that everyone's enthusiasm for capturing the event on film might flag. Also, they'd have had even more to drink by then, which might also make them blow off taking pictures. But there were so awfully many pictures before the "missing time."
    Picture if you will, first-time sex that's considerably more painful and frightening than expected, and the woman requests her partner to stop. In my opinion a decent man would stop. If he continues, is it rape? Maybe, technically. Is it a heinous crime? No. Was it wrong of him to continue? Yes. Should he go to prison? No. Is he a jerk? Probably.
    I agree with all of this except the last word. I would say "positively."

    SLO, thanks for your long post. If I could control my hyperbole and write as articulately, dispassionately, and thoughtfully as you, maybe I wouldn't have irritated imho so much.

    Lora posted:
    If solid alibis really exist for the accused for most of the time the dancers were at the party (to cover all possible timelines, not just the defense version), wouldn't they have been leaked, and wouldn't the defense have found a way to make sure Nifong's nose was rubbed in it?
    Seligmann's attorney did this, and all it got him was an announcement from Nifong that he planned to change the timeline (from his arrest warrant, which listed the crime occurring on March 14) to his still-unrevealed "my timeline" (which, of course, he'll have to reconcile with the photos and the neighbor's testimony, but he can worry about that next spring when a trial occurs). What incentive would the attorneys for either Evans or Finnerty have for following the same course? At this stage, only Nifong can drop the charges, which he clearly won't do, so it would seem foolhardy for the defense to give him evidence he doesn't currently possess so he can alter his perspective yet again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#119)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    CHESHIRE: Well, I have been told who the indictments are against. I'm -- I'm not at liberty to mention those names. And, of course, the fact that I have been told that did not come directly from the prosecutor or any member of the grand jury or any member of -- of those staff. So, it's not a guaranty that it's the case. But I'm -- I'm pretty sure it is. ZAHN: What can you tell us about those two men? CHESHIRE: Well, they were two of the young men that were at the party. And, from what I understand it, the likelihood that these two men, with the facts that I understand, could have committed the crimes that this young woman has said that they committed, it would be almost impossible.
    This is a comment from Cheshire about the two guys indicted on the night before their names were released. So Finnerty was there at some point. Margeret said last night:
    Finnerty has the best alibi of all. He did not go to the party at all.
    Pat said he heard the same thing and was going to check with his source. At least according to Mr. Cheshire he was there for some portion of it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#120)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    Remember the discussions we had before discovery about whether the accuser's personal history would be admitted? Now that we know that she did in fact have sex with her boyfriend and her drivers or clients, I assume that this is admissable?

    Teresa posted:
    Now that we know that she did in fact have sex with her boyfriend and her drivers or clients, I assume that this is admissable?
    It is hard to see why not. How she could have sex with several clients willingly, claim "but with the ones at the party it was not voluntary," and not have to be questioned on why it was "voluntary" with some of her professional clients but not with others? Does she have a particular criteria for choosing her paying sex clients as opposed to her dance-routine only clients? It would make for an interesting cross examination.

    Teresa, what is your opinion of how well a typical woman could withstand cross examination on a false rape charge she knew she had invented? What kind of determined woman personality do you think it would take to pull it off convincingly to a jury?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:28:33 PM EST
    To be lying and still convincing? Only a truly crazy person or an award winning actress could do it SLO. I couldn't withstand what's being said now much less in front of a jury. The only way I would continue if I were her would be if I were telling the truth. Then when the defense came after me I'd pitch such a hissy fit the judge would have to put me in jail. :) I would not give up under any circumstances if it's true. I really don't expect her to hold out much longer. If she's lying she probably has someone trying to convince her to hold out to make a future civil suit look better. I really wish she would talk to a good lawyer who isn't wanting to represent her in a civil suit who could advise her the best way to get out of this if she's lying or how to survive it if she isn't. She seems to have run away from her problems in the past so I'm kind of surprised she is sticking it out this far.

    Thank you for your perspective. Going to sign off for tonight now. Take care and best wishes as always.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#125)
    by Teresa on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    Thanks SLO. Goodnight.

    SLO: Thanks for your response to PB on Del's comment and Bob and my agreement with what was said, especially about the difference between dancers at a club v. private parties. (Apologies to Tina Turner) A private dancer, according to some men I know, are not averse to supplementing their dancing pay with other activities: they don't have to share that portion of the proceeds with the "escort service" who sends them on the "date." Teresa: I guarantee you that if the DA had a lie detector test result supporting the AV it would have been disclosed by now. And I would have no problem with Nifong releasing that info: it wouldn't be improperly leaking info that should be kept secret until trial because it is not evidence in a criminal court. But it would be powerful evidence in the court of public opinion.

    Del posted:
    SLO, thanks for your long post. If I could control my hyperbole and write as articulately, dispassionately, and thoughtfully as you, maybe I wouldn't have irritated imho so much.
    Del, When I said your post was the most disturbing thing I've read here, I didn't mean it was of the irritating or annoying brand - those types of posts I find amusing. I found nothing amusing in your posts on the subject of consent and sexual assault. I thought your views on what constitutes consent to be disturbing in the sense that they were stunning. SLOphoto's version, which you seem to endorse, doesn't address the issue of consent:
    "A woman" removing her clothes for money in front of a group of men and dancing in the seclusion of their private residence with the specific intent of sexually arousing them as much as she possibly can, without also having a bouncer present to keep them all in line should expect ...
    should expect that she is asking for trouble -- plain and simple.
    By "asking for trouble" in the above scenario, I don't think SLOphoto meant they could not be raped since by "taking off [their] clothes and shaking [their] parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys," they had consented to be penetrated, which is what you stated when I said penetration becomes sexual assault when it takes place without consent. Del posted:
    I know the difference between penetration and sexual assault. It's just that an ugly little part of me, no doubt put there by some white ancestor, thinks that taking off your clothes and shaking your parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys is somewhere well past center on the consent continuum.
    On this consent continuum, I'm assuming dead center is where YES (consensual penetration) meets NO (nonconsenual penetration). Slightly to the side of NO could be, "no, not now, maybe another time," well past center on the NO continuum - "No, dont' even think about it, chump." Slightly to the side of Yes on the consent continuum, "I guess it would be OK, " well past center on the consent continuum: " I took off my clothes and shook my "parts" for a roomful of you drunken frat boys" I therefore have consented to penetration, but not strangulation? You then changed the issue from giving constent to penetration to sending an invitation to penetration: Del posted:
    I did not say they consented. If they dragged her into the bathroom and did what she says they did, it's rape. But I did say the act of stripping is off-center on the consent continuum. I realize that could be seen as, what, sophistry? but I thought it was worth mentioning because:
    I was responding to someone, hues of blue I think, who said that taking off one's clothes and dancing provocatively was not an invitation to penetration. Sorry, but I think that has pretty much been an invitation to penetration since the dawn of civilization. That's exactly why guys want to look at it. And exactly why women performing such acts for money usually have protection, to make sure nothing happens.
    We all know you can send someone an invitation (even an engraved invitation) and then shut the door in their face when they show up. Here's hoping a violent struggle does not ensue when you try to keep them out of your house. Lora posted:
    Are you saying that a man might try to have sex with a stripper and that's to be expected, given the type of dancing and human nature? But that the stripper reserves the right to say no? That I can agree with, if that's what you mean.
    Del posted:
    Yes, Lora, that's pretty much it.
    I see the stripper reserving the right to say no as not landing the stripper "somewhere well past center on the consent continuum," which is where you had placed her. You now seem to be saying,"OK, giving consent was hyperbole, I meant sending an invitation that could be revoked."

    How she could have sex with several clients willingly, claim "but with the ones at the party it was not voluntary," and not have to be questioned on why it was "voluntary" with some of her professional clients but not with others?
    Is this really admissable? I thought rape shield laws prevented the woman's sexual history from being revealed in court, ever. Is it different if she's a sex worker? Just as a point of interest, would it be different somewhere where prostitution is legal? Teresa, I don't think you'd have to be completely, as in non-functioning, crazy to tell a very convincing lie. I know a guy who actually passed a polygraph by telling himself an alternate version of events, over and over again, in the days leading up to the polygraph. When the questions were asked, he "switched" to his fantasy version mentally. (This was many years ago, maybe they've gotten more reliable since then? oh and it was about cash skimming at his job, not rape) I would think a person with even a mild degree of mental illness could very easily come to truly believe a fantasy version, whether they'd deliberately made it up, pieced it together dream-style from former traumatic events, had it suggested by someone else or whatever.

    Finnerty brought more beer to the party and then left for dinner w/plans to come back....Maybe she saw him when he re-arrived and she was falling down the steps in a stupor?

    Imho, since we are discussing the act of stripping (not this particular stripper), the continuum I so unfortunately mentioned is non-verbal. So, the NO end would be a nun dressed in full habit, telling her beads in her lonely cell behind a twelve-foot convent wall. The YES end would be a woman alone in a bedroom with a man, wearing nothing but a garter belt and high heels, sprawled in a Penthouse-style pose, licking her upper lip with her pretty pink tongue. I see performing an "exotic dance" in a private residence as closer to the latter than the former. According to some posters here, and to the law, either one of these theoretically depicted women has the right to refuse sex.

    Thanks Guys, looks like an extra 125 of the "best and brightest" said, "Thanks, but, no thanks, Duke."
    At the same time, I don't think it will come as a surprise that the consistent news coverage related to the men's lacrosse team seems to have had some effect on the number of students accepting our offer of admission. The recent controversy unfolded just as applicants were deciding where to attend college next year. By the time the admissions process concludes I expect our yield -- the percentage of students accepting our offer of admission -- to decrease somewhat from last year's 43 percent, to between 40 and 41 percent. We have seen a decrease of about 5 percent among both white and African-American students, but no decrease in yield among Latino and Asian students. ... We have seen no significant difference in yield among our top 300 applicants compared to last year. The enrollment model we've been using for the last several years consistently assumes that we will be able to enroll roughly 50 students from the waiting list; this year we expect to enroll an additional 125 students from the waiting list.


    Whew, glad I stayed away most of last night. Bubble bubble, toil and trouble. Teresa, we did a lot of speculating on the, dare I say it, timeline for a long time. People here have pointed out that the indictments say that the rape occurred on March 14, or after midnight that night. Some questions come to mind: If the indictment says the 14th, could Nifong change his timeline at trial to say the 13th? Would there be some kind of written theory of the prosecution's case in the discovery documents? I keep wondering how Nifong continues against Seligmann with a theory that the rape happened sometime between midnight and 12:40.

    Another thing: I remember all the uproar around here because early on there was word from the attendees' camp that the two strippers both locked themselves into the bathroom for some time. Remember the suspiciousness that there were no pictures of the attendees sliding bills under the door? Now it turns out that the AV at some point claimed that Roberts was in the bathroom with her while she was being raped. Roberts, who admittedly has her own honesty problems, says that that didn't happen. So were the two women in the bathroom together for an extended period of time? I presume that if a gangrape involving four other people occurred while Roberts was in there she would have noticed.

    Teresa: I talked briefly with my "source," - and the source indicated that non-Duke lacrosse players were having dinner at a Mexican restaurant and may be called to testify. He wouldn't elaborate - other than to say he knew them well - The notion that both Finnerty and Seligmann is not inconsistent with their alibis or the attorney's comments - the party lasted for a lengthy period of time, while the incident is alleged to have happened within the 12:00 - 12:30 time period (roughly speaking).

    Some of the sidebars are getting silly. Is it really so bad to put three defendants through a trial? Is it proper to use the word "wh*r*" to describe the AV if she is turning tricks? What could Nifong still have that will win the day? This is so true it bears repeating. If not dead horses being whipped it wilder and wilder conjecture. And a man must ask if each next thrust is permissable? WTF. I am out, too but may be back to say I told you so at some point.

    A number of us who have come to believe that a rape did not occur have wondered why Nifong is slogging on. If there is no more secret evidence that Nifong has tucked away somewhere, at some point one would think that an honest DA would review the case and try to shut down the sideshow. We've had theories of Nifong going forward for political reasons, in order to prevent another candidate from running independently against him in the fall, in order not to alienate black voters, etc. Just let it all run its course and then shrug and walk away from the smoldering mess. But if one of you posters here was an honest DA and you determined that there no case, what evidence would you now offer the public to conclude that the charges aren't backed up by the facts? That is, I'm asking posters to design a concise argument about why the charges should be dismissed.

    According to some posters here, and to the law, either one of these theoretically depicted women has the right to refuse sex.
    They should have that right!! What if the guy starts to get rough? A woman can't change her mind? What if he's into the sort of dirty talk that leaves her repulsed, she can't kick the guy out of her bedroom because she already stripped out of her clothes? What if she notices a mysterious "bump" that she wants no part of? I could spend the rest of the day coming up with reasons why even a woman at the furthest edge of your continuum might withold consent - and why she should have that right.

    even a woman at the furthest edge of your continuum might withold consent - and why she should have that right.
    I agree that she should have that right. What I am interested in debating is if she should have the full weight of the country's justice system behind her refusal.

    I'm finding the current debate about what constitutes rape a bit tedious. There are any number of conditions where hormones flow and communications stop, and the people involved with or without the help of law enforcement and the courts determine the line between consensual sex and rape. In the instant case there is no doubt that if you believe the AV then there was a rape. If you believe the attendees, there was no sex. I had presumed that the defense would have a fallback position that there was consensual sex, but there isn't fallback position. The defense says there was no sex at all. Isn't there a "definition of rape" chatroom where you folks could take this discussion?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#140)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 07:39:09 AM EST
    Del, Your comments are a little confusing to me, but you seem to say that because the AV agreed to perform at a "private" strip party she was consenting to being "penetrated", which I will take as having consensual sex (but not rape) with the team members. You blame her for not having a bouncer, although I'm not sure whether you're saying that the presence or absence of a bouncer is evidence of that consent. A couple of comments: 1. There is no claim by the defense of consensual sex in this case. 2. Many strippers, if not the great majority, perform at large group "private" parties with no expectation of sex. Go read stripperweb.com. Some of their parties sound pretty tame. This certainly seems to be the case at these large fraternity/team parties. 3. Escorts are much more likely to provide sexual services, but when they dance at large parties they often put on their "stripper" hat. I.e. no sex. Although in bachelor parties, the honored guest may get "extras". 4. The AV was inexperienced as an escort and this was her first stripper party. I don't think she can be said to be consenting to anything by showing up to a strip engagement, especially when she only expected 5 people, but saw 30 drunken revelers. I've blamed her for not bringing a bouncer, but really the blame if any is due here is all on her agency. 5. What did the team members expect? Were they expecting sex services or just titilation. You seem to be saying that its only natural that they wanted sex, and condemned them as immoral libertines at one time. Others are claiming that college strip parties are just harmless fun. What are we to make of Ryan McFayden's sick email then. I don't know what they expected. There's a lot we don't know. But if anyone is going to morally condemn the AV for possibly offering sex here, then they should condemn the team members also as wannabe drunken whoremongers. I haven't heard any such condemnation, despite all the "whore" and "hooker" name calling. 6. Is there any evidence that her agency was Bunnyhole Entertainment or is this just an unsourced rumor based on the fact that BH is the only area agency with a website? The news reported that Kim's agency was named Allure, which has reportedly disconnnected its phone.

    Sexual strip "teasing" of young men who are already under the influence of alcohol, but expecting each and every one of them to behave like a perfect, self-controlled little gentleman is not very realistic.
    Can we expect them not to try and penetrate her without asking? Especially if they lie and say that there are only 5 men? But seriously, we should expect it, it just doesn't happen. And now I can see why...
    That's why all legitimate lounges have bouncers.
    Do you at least concede that they made the choice to go to the place where you know this is the woman's job and get drunk is the man's fault, or does the wily woman responsible for that too?
    That is a loaded statement, and it contains a stereotype about "a woman" with which no reasonable person could disagree.
    That isn't a stereotype, it was just non-specific.
    Cleared of the stereotype, however, it becomes a statement of pretty simple common sense. "A woman" removing her clothes for money in front of a group of men and dancing in the seclusion of their private residence with the specific intent of sexually arousing them as much as she possibly can, without also having a bouncer present to keep them all in line should expect ... should expect that she is asking for trouble -- plain and simple."
    Please don't frame this as "common sense". We live in a society where there are such "common sense" as "you can't tell a book but it's cover" and "the clothes make the man", "home is where the heart is" and "the grass is always greener", and "women are unpredictable" and "isn't that just like a woman?". The men made a decision to call a place where they know people come to strip off clothes for money. They're old enough and smart enough to do that then they clearly know the deal. They made a decision to get drunk. They're responsible for their own actions.
    We are not talking about "natives" in Durham, we're talking about a professional outcall stripper, sex-worker in Durham.
    Ahh, so they do know better, don't they? I said if the dance got their jollies up. If they're smart enough to understand that whole situation, they're smart enough to know that they called a service, they knew what was going to happen, they drank the alcohol, they are responsible for their own actions. No wonder rapes still happen, we teach people they aren't responsible for their own actions and others that not only are they responsible for theirs, but others'.

    Isn't there a "definition of rape" chatroom where you folks could take this discussion?
    For God's sake, let's drop it. I've been wondering when TL was going to tell us to stop anyway. Chew, SLO's post (5/24 10:47)expressed what I am think about the AV, the nonexistent bouncer, the "beautiful boys," and the whole mess perfectly. Maybe it would be more on-topic (but probably no less tedious) to discuss how prosecution of this case or others like it is likely to affect not only rape shield laws but government-in-the-bedroom laws in general. I do not know of my own knowledge, thank God, that her agency was Bunny Hole. I am guilty of repeating unsubstantiated information.

    Feminists have always wanted to blur the definitions of what is considered "consentual sex", in order to increase the amount amount of sexual assualts (ie rape). This is now start to backfire on them, because our justice system seems to concentrated on maintaining "innocent until proven guilty". This case is going to hurt this feminist agenda, because it goes right to the heart of the matter regarding rape. That some women do lie about rape. That most dont, but surely some do. And that accusing someone of rape is very serious business. Falsely accusing someone of rape can ruin a person life. This whole date rape thing, I never goot on board with it in the first place. It gave too much leeway to women who had consented to sex initially but then changed their mind the next morning. No one in our country should have that kind of power to just accuse someone, and we consider whatever comes out of there mouth is pure truth. And even if its a lie, the accusation in itself is enough to ruin a persons life.

    Del, What good is freedom if you can't abuse it?

    I'm in favor of totally banning date rape drugs. Let us start with alcohol.

    Del and supamike and I are on the same page. The ultimate victim in this case will be the current array of rape shield laws. And maybe some of them should be tossed. Someone a while back stated that an alleged victim could refuse a toxicology test because evidence of her being drunk or high on drugs might negatively affect a jury's opinion of what else she said during a SANE exam. If, as it appears, there is no toxicology report because the AV had refused to take one, does anyone here actually think that justice has been better served? What if symptoms consistent with rape are also consistent with being a prostitute working a number of jobs over the weekend?

    Simon, you snarky guy, you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#148)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:16:57 AM EST
    Durga_is_my_homey, SLO & Bob, are all reprising some of the typical "nuts and sluts" responses to a rape allegation. Basically all they are saying here, or to be more generous to them "implying", is that "she asked for it". Never mind that this was her first strip party and she was only expecting 5 people.

    chew2 said:
    Never mind that this was her first strip party and she was only expecting 5 people.
    I have seen this said several times, and forget the original source for this comment. Is it from the AV herself? If so, isn't she the same person who was also said that she wasn't a prostitute? If the comment about prostitution is wrong, can we really beleive her comment that this was her first time at dancing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#150)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:25:01 AM EST
    Are the Duke Lacrosse Photos Legit? Can the time stamps on the photos be faked? Yes.
    [T]he time stamps are only as accurate as the clock in your camera; if you forgot to set it an hour ahead for daylight savings, your metadata would be an hour off. You can also modify any of the metadata with a simple computer command if you have the right software.
    That doesn't mean it takes a serious computer hacker to adjust the numbers. Within a span of about 20 minutes, the Explainer was able to download a utility called ExifTool from the Web and edit the time stamps on all his photos: Each and every one now appears to have been taken at 12:30 a.m. on the night of the Duke lacrosse team party.
    If a lawyer wants to use time-stamp metadata in court, he'll be much better off if the police seized the digital camera that took the pictures. That way he can argue that the pictures on the camera couldn't have been modified, and he can also demonstrate that the clock inside the camera wasn't improperly set.


    When I think of certain strains of feminism that are so in lockstep with the most reactionary political forces in the U.S., I am reminded of this, from a book review at www.namebase.org: The Education of a Woman: The Life of Gloria Steinem. New York: Dial Press, 1995. 451 pages. In this adoring biography of Gloria Steinem, the author proves that feminists are not qualified to write about other feminists. Too much is excused: Steinem's "feminism in a miniskirt" (using her good looks to advantage); her jet-set affairs with the rich and famous (such as Mortimer Zuckerman, or the Ford Foundation's Franklin Thomas); her self-esteem drivel (the 1992 tome, "Revolution from Within"). And despite a chapter on the 1975 Redstockings controversy, in which Steinem's early years as a paid CIA agent were raised as an issue by other feminists, one looks in vain for any hint that this CIA association deserves repudiation. Steinem's only known regret was expressed in 1967: "The CIA's big mistake was not supplanting itself with private funds fast enough," she told the New York Times (1967-02-21). In the 60s the FBI saw feminism as a tool to divide the anti-war movement. Why not use feminism as a cudgel to divide social justice advocates?

    BIP
    The ultimate victim in this case will be the current array of rape shield laws. And maybe some of them should be tossed.
    I feel like rape shield laws should come out of this just fine. They don't prevent anyone from using the victim's name in the papers or anything like that. They're strictly evidentiary laws. The main point is not to put the victim's sexual history on trial when it comes to issues of consent. Basically, you can't use evidence that the victim consented after 3 dates with Alex and Bob to prove that she consented after 3 dates with Carl. This isn't a new concept in evidence law. Prior acts have long been excluded as evidence that a defendant had a certain propensity to behave one way or another during the incident in question. Rape shield laws just extend the same protection to victims of a sexual assault. But that's not to say they exclude all sorts of exculpatory evidence. There's an exception for sexual history evidence that goes toward explaining the physical evidence of rape - accordingly evidence about the 3-5 guys in the preceding weekend will come into this case. The evidence from the boyfriend will be admissible under the same theory. Grilling the AV on how many men she's slept with over the course of her her life will not - it's highly prejudicial without being terribly probative.

    chew:
    Are the Duke Lacrosse Photos Legit? Can the time stamps on the photos be faked? Yes.
    This has already been discussed before. Yes, it is technically possible to change the timestamps, but from what we have heard, the timestamps also agreed with the watches of those in the room. To believe the story that the timestamps were changed later (or that the cameras were intentionally set to the wrong time), you would also have to believe that the rape was premeditated and that everyone set their watches to a different time while the pictures were being taken. And while it is definitely possible the camera times are wrong, or not completely in sync, they can be synchronized by a common event - same watch on two cameras, or same picture on two cameras, etc.

    chew2, I'm not saying she asked for it, because she didn't get it, not at the Buchanan house. The "all women who claim rape are nuts and sluts" issue is your bloody flag. There are women who are mentally ill. This woman was hospitalized for mental illness for a week last year. If you want to call that "nuts" then that's your term. At least when I described the woman with the "w" word, I was suggesting that as an occupation. I find your use of the word "slut" to be rude. If you continue to use such language I am going to ask TL to ban you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#155)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:34:25 AM EST
    Statistics 101,
    If so, isn't she the same person who was also said that she wasn't a prostitute?
    Are you making this up? What's your source for this. I've never heard this before. The team members lied about their names and who they were. This doesn't mean we should disbelieve everything they said.

    chew2, On what do you base this as being the AV's first strip party? Her word? Her sworn statement?

    chew:
    If so, isn't she the same person who was also said that she wasn't a prostitute?
    Are you making this up? What's your source for this. I've never heard this before.
    No, I am not intentionally making anything up, and I don't really have the energy to look back to find my source for this, but I thought it was common knowledge. If I am wrong, I apologize.

    Bob wrote -
    What if symptoms consistent with rape are also consistent with being a prostitute working a number of jobs over the weekend?
    I think Bob has asked a good question here, and one that is related to the most recent "facts" to come out - that the defense is suggesting to the press that the medical exam does not indicate vagin*l or an*l tearing. As one who believed that the medical exam would provide compelling evidence, I am wondering how to take this. I suppose it's possible that the defense is badly mischaracterizing (or misinterpreting) the report and that the results might ultimately prove compelling. At the other extreme, it seems possible that the AV's condition is not uncommon given certain consensual sexual practices and that the medical staff is instructed to label the medical evidence as consistent with rape whenever possible. I suppose that it's always a matter of judgment, but how clear is the physical evidence to a trained professional? Does anyone know?

    DO in SM
    I suppose that it's always a matter of judgment, but how clear is the physical evidence to a trained professional? Does anyone know?
    Something to consider is that her allegations include certain acts that she might not have performed with the other men. While swelling up front might be explained away by her consenual activities, swelling in the back might not be. That might be how Nifong and the SANE nurse get around this issue.

    as to the timestamps, I highly doubt they were changed. None of these defense attorneys are going risk being disbarred and thrown in prison for tampering with evidence or presenting evidence that they know has been tampered with. They have no reason to be that desperate or stupid.

    DO said:
    it seems possible that the AV's condition is not uncommon given certain consensual sexual practices and that the medical staff is instructed to label the medical evidence as consistent with rape whenever possible.
    We don't know if the accuser told the SANE nurse of her recent sexual activity, although it seems unlikely, since Nifong didn't initially ask for DNA from the three men. Likewise, we don't know (but it seems doubtful) if the accuser told the SANE nurse of having fallen or bumped into things at the lacrosse house, as we've already seen from the photos. Not knowing that information would quite reasonably have led the SANE nurse to have assumed that whatever condition the accuser was in resulted from the event that she was alleging (though, I suppose, we also don't know which of the accuser's stories she was using by the time she got to see the SANE nurse).

    Cabbie cleared in 'rape' that never was If we can believe the media and the police in this case, then here is another example, and for the most trivial of reasons: Wanting to avoid a $20 cab fare.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#163)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    SLO etc
    Outcall escort service is not the same thing as being a professional stripper performing in a legitimate dancing lounge, where bouncers are always present.
    Bouncers are present to protect the dancer from unwanted actions. In the minority of lounges where strippers offer extras, (hand jobs, or hard contact lap dances) the bouncers make sure things don't get out of hand. Bouncers serve the same function at outcall stripper functions whether or not extra services are provided. Bouncers don't attend private one on one engagements. The AV in the present case was inexperienced and this was reportedly her first stripper engagement with supposedly only 5 clients to be present. If there was an error of judgement here in not providing a bouncer, it was primarily the agency's. Or maybe the blame is on those drunken debauched team members who called 2 separate agencies and may have lied on purpose about how many people would be there. If they'd been honest the agency's involved might have provided a bouncer.

    Would the fee increase for a larger party? Maybe they were just trying to scam the system. Like when you lie about how many people are going to be sharing the beach condo at spring break.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#165)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:09:37 AM EST
    Bob,
    chew2, On what do you base this as being the AV's first strip party? Her word? Her sworn statement?
    Is that a serious and honest question?

    Would the fee increase for a larger party? Maybe they were just trying to scam the system. Like when you lie about how many people are going to be sharing the beach condo at spring break.
    No idea. Maybe they only planned to have 5 or 6 people there and things blew up? I suspect plenty of teens throwing parties when their parent are out of town have experienced that phenomena first hand.

    If they hired 2 strippers at $400 apiece when they were planning a party for only 5 guys, that's the best evidence I've heard yet that they expected extra services. I think they just lied. Aren't there emails inviting the whole team to the party? Or am I thinking of McFayden's Bret Easton Ellis riff?

    Del Good point. $800 for five guys is a little steep, even for college students.

    This woman was hospitalized for mental illness for a week last year.
    A week? Gee, hell of a mental illness.
    None of these defense attorneys are going risk being disbarred and thrown in prison for tampering with evidence or presenting evidence that they know has been tampered with. They have no reason to be that desperate or stupid.
    Like they wouldn't risk saying the DNA came back negative when in fact it came back inconclusive? Like they wouldn't label somebody who wasn't even accused of a crime a "false accuser"? Like they wouldn't write a note to an article-writer that basically says, "hey, you shouldn't use the race-card. It isn't good!" and then, speaking out of the other side of their mouth, doing exactly that when referring to the OJ case?
    The team members lied about their names and who they were. This doesn't mean we should disbelieve everything they said.
    Oh, come on. They were shy. I mean, not shy enough not to suggest shoving a broom-handle up the women's a*s or making racist comments but ... shy.

    fwiw, I'm not sure if her "1st strip party" comment meant that it was her actual first strip party, or that is was her first strip party via Bunny Hole. Not that it really is all that important, I suppose...

    Given the murky state of the evidence, is there any legal reason why Nifong can't dismiss the charges against one or all of the three, reconvene a grand jury, and then indict anyone whose case moves beyond the ham sandwich level?

    Durga
    Like they wouldn't risk saying the DNA came back negative when in fact it came back inconclusive? Like they wouldn't label somebody who wasn't even accused of a crime a "false accuser"? Like they wouldn't write a note to an article-writer that basically says, "hey, you shouldn't use the race-card. It isn't good!" and then, speaking out of the other side of their mouth, doing exactly that when referring to the OJ case?
    Spinning the evidence is what lawyers do. When the test results come back inconclusive, an attorney's job is to say that the tests didn't establish a single match. And if their whole premise is that the defendants aren't guilty, how is that any different than calling her a false accuser? That's the entire basis of their case! It's the defense's job to try and cast doubt on the accuser's credibility. Tampering with evidence on the other hand is a very serious crime. If caught, they would be arrested and run out of the legal profession in disgrace. I'm not saying it never happens, it's just really unlikely that a whole team of the best defense attorneys in North Carolina would decide to engage in a criminal conspiracy during a case that's under intense public scrutiny. Especially when there's plenty of other evidence in their favor.

    rogan1313
    Given the murky state of the evidence, is there any legal reason why Nifong can't dismiss the charges against one or all of the three, reconvene a grand jury, and then indict anyone whose case moves beyond the ham sandwich level?
    No legal reason, but some pretty substantial practical ones. Any further indictment would have the same lack of physical evidence and also three contrary IDs to overcome. I think dismissing the current charges would be the end of things.

    When the test results come back inconclusive, an attorney's job is to say that the tests didn't establish a single match.
    The point is that people who find out it in fact was inconclusive (which, the fact that it came back inconclusive was open to anybody, yet the media and public who supposedly are "deciding the guilt of these boys before the trial!" [yeah, right!] largely ignored that) would see it not reflecting well on them. They know that. The risked it anyway.
    And if their whole premise is that the defendants aren't guilty, how is that any different than calling her a false accuser? That's the entire basis of their case!
    No, it is to show their client didn't do it. He called somebody not even charged with a crime a "false accuser" ... not a mistaken accuser, not a wrong accuser, not a mixed up accuser, but a false accuser. It isn't their job to show something didn't happen, it is to exonerate their client. Sorry, but that guy makes himself come off as an unhinged jack-a*s.
    Tampering with evidence on the other hand is a very serious crime. If caught, they would be arrested and run out of the legal profession in disgrace.
    Who says it is limited to tampering by the representation? Defendants are capable of tampering.

    Durga_is_my_homey posted:
    No, it is to show their client didn't do it. He called somebody not even charged with a crime a "false accuser" ... not a mistaken accuser, not a wrong accuser, not a mixed up accuser, but a false accuser. It isn't their job to show something didn't happen, it is to exonerate their client. Sorry, but that guy makes himself come off as an unhinged jack-a*s.
    Durga_is_my_homey, where have you been all of my Talk Left life? A few posters here have hitched their yokes to that JA by calling the accuser a FA, themselves.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#176)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    Hues, Re: changing the camera time stamps. I don't think the lawyers would even know how to do it. They're too old. The students would be much more likely to know. It's apparently pretty easy and the young poli sci prof at the lordsutch blog claimed he knew how. The Slate article doesn't tell us whether a changed time stamp could be detected later. I think it's low probablity that they were chnged. The students wouldn't know what time line to set up. I do think the camera's time clock could be off though. As to the ethics of the defense attys. I agree they wouldn't likely risk knowingly using evidence falsified by the students. But attys often don't ask their clients certain questions, so as not to foreclose potential defenses. I agree it seems unlikely in this case.

    huesofblue posted: Spinning the evidence is what lawyers do. ....Tampering with evidence on the other hand is a very serious crime. If caught, they would be arrested and run out of the legal profession in disgrace.
    Exactly. There is no comparison between the two. Durga gave a list of things which are either civil offenses or else not even against the law at all -- and compared that to felony tampering with evidence. It is not comparable and it is simply not plausible that the defense lawyers would risk 20 years in prison for tampering with evidence in a felony case, one of hundreds that each of them have worked. Nor, by BTW, is there any comparison between aphorisms (old sayings) and common sense. Many old sayings also have their opposite and prove nothing about common sense. Common sense usually refers to physical danger such as my statement that under those combined circumstances (please read the post -- May 24, 2006 10:47 PM -- I'm not going to repeat it again) any woman in the AV's position "should expect that she [was] asking for trouble -- plain and simple." And NO! That is not the same thing as "she asked for it! -- i.e. consented to rape." It is saying that she was asking for trouble, meaning she put herself in a high risk situation without the proper safety precautions by not having a bouncer present, and no, that does not show good, common sense. Just like you're asking for trouble if you flash around a lot of money in public, walk into a Hell's Angels bar and talk sh*t about bikers or show up at a PETA convention wearing an NRA jacket. You are legally within your rights to do any of those things, but if you got assaulted, nobody would feel sorry for you and everybody would call you a d*amned fool for trying it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#178)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    Chew, I'm still reading the thread so SLO may have already spoken for himself. I think he was saying that stripping at a party such as she did could be "risky" but is not implied consent in anyway. No consent equals rape to him. He was just rephrasing Del's statements.

    The point is that people who find out it in fact was inconclusive (which, the fact that it came back inconclusive was open to anybody, yet the media and public who supposedly are "deciding the guilt of these boys before the trial!" [yeah, right!] largely ignored that) would see it not reflecting well on them. They know that. The risked it anyway.
    It's definitely a judgment call. And you're right in saying there's a appreciable amount of risk. I think a defense attorney has to remind people that you can't draw conclusions that a defendant is guilty when the test results are, by definition, inconclusive. Now the opposite is true too - these test results aren't proof of innocence any more that they're proof of guilt. Emphasizing the positive implications for your client while downplaying the negatives is a very tricky balance. I may be wrong, but at least in the new conferences I've seen the defense has chosen their words very carefully in describing the test results. But it doesn't seem that the attorneys got the balance totally right - at least based on your reaction. But again, these are the sorts of calculated risks that a defense attorney is paid to be take. It's often unseemly, but that's their role in the justice process.
    No, it is to show their client didn't do it . . . It isn't their job to show something didn't happen, it is to exonerate their client. Sorry, but that guy makes himself come off as an unhinged jack-a*s.
    At least in theory, the defense has no burden to show their client is innocent. Legally, that innocence should be presumed. Their burden is only to create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecutor's case. The majority of the prosecutor's case rests on the AV's testimony and on the AVs credibility. The defense has been relentless in trying to destroy that credibility. It's difficult to watch at times, and it does make the attorney look like a jackas*. But it's also effective. After the attorney started referring to her as the "false accuser" so did all the pro-defense people on this site. The talking heads followed suit. For whatever reason, it's the sort of neat label that resonates with just the sort of people that the defense needs on the jury. I can't fault them for throwing it out there, even if I find its implications annoying too. Going back to the time stamp on the pictures, I don't know whether they were doctored. But absent some evidence of doctoring, it seems like grasping at straws. It's an issue where the prosecutor has to take the risk of looking like the jackas*.

    The phrase "consistent with rape" is basically meaningless as some rapes cause no physical injuries at all. On a checklist this will always be checked unless the patient has an intact hymen or something like that. It is naive or disengenous to cite this phrase as evidence that a rape took place.

    Durga_is_my_homey wrote:
    ...I mean, not shy enough not to suggest shoving a broom-handle up the women's a*s or making racist comments but ... shy.
    You are over the top on this... 1. The comment was said it the context of sex toys and there has been no statement or suggestion by anyone they said "shoving" or that the broom would enter the "a*s". You are purposely inflaming the facts. 2. No one knows and no one has said who threw the first salvo of racist insults. Kim supposedly made derogatory comments about their white manhood...why is that not racist? Why is one insult OK and the other not? Black people call each other n*gg*r all the time, especially in publicly broadcast and available rap music. PLease explain to me and all why this is acceptable and not racist? Does this mean that if they sang their insults it wouldn't be racism? I know several black folks that consider this racist and derogatory to them!! If you are going to throw the race card why don't you start with your abhorance of this.

    Were her accusations true? or were they false? Cannot believe you are quibbling over that. No, wait. Sure I can.

    IMHO wrote:
    A few posters here have hitched their yokes to that JA by calling the accuser a FA, themselves.
    Why does FA bother you? It is an opinion. Many people have the opposite opinion. Why is there a difference? If you think the defendants are alleged rapists/guilty players then call them "AR/GP" or "AR" or "GP" or whatever makes you feel better. It is your OPINION. As you know my opinion is that she is an AV/FA. The only reason I write both is that I am open to her being an AV, and not solely a FA. She cannot be a "V" (not a virgin obviously) until a verdict....then she will be a "VVV"...a verdict verified victim....until then she is a AV/FA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#184)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    SLO
    And NO! That is not the same thing as "she asked for it! -- i.e. consented to rape." It is saying that she was asking for trouble, meaning she put herself in a high risk situation without the proper safety precautions by not having a bouncer present, and no, that does not show good, common sense.
    Fine no implied consent. But if you were blaming the AV for putting herself at risk because of no bouncer, then I think you've hyped and exagerated that point. She reportedly had never stripped at a party before and the agency was probably told only 5 people, not 30 drunken sots would be there. It's the agency and probably the team who bear most of the blame for the absent bouncer. Working in the erotic entertainment industry has its risks, but there are all sorts of activities that bear some risk to a greater or lesser degree. Getting wasted with a 30 of of your buddies and inviting over some young woman, whether strippers or not, might be one of them. The date rape research seems to bear that out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jo on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    .. not a mistaken accuser, not a wrong accuser, not a mixed up accuser, but a false accuser.
    If the AV had said, "I think they raped me", then I would expect her to be called a "mistaken accuser". If the AV had said, "I believe they raped me", then I would expect her to be called a "wrong accuser". If the AV had said, "I really don't know, it could have been those Duke Lacrosse players, and I can almost remember telling them to stop", then I would expect her to be called a "mixed-up accuser". But she is charging, without question, that she was raped by these fellows. If her accusation is "false", then the title seems appropriate.

    IMHO:
    Durga_is_my_homey, where have you been all of my Talk Left life?
    Durga has been hanging around feministing.com for awhile now commenting on various things including the Duke case.

    Durga - Nice to see you made it over here.

    I dont think people have yet put themselves in the shoes of these boys. I see many people who can demonstrate good empathy skills when it comes to the FA, but I have yet to see people think about what it feels like to have your face on TV some 40,000 times a week, and you name dragged through the mud for the rest of your life. I mean even if these guys have a discrepancy or issues with their wives of GF, this case can be used as evidence of their behavior, evn if they are falsely accused.... I get the feeling from the women on this very website that they feel men are suppose to be able to take this kind of stuff, and they seem to not have any respect when it comes mens reputations...that to me bothers me... If this is true we got some real issues in our society.

    Huesofblue, Your words on rape shields laws relating to this case were considered. That doesn't mean that state legislatures or propositions will be. In 1994 California passed the "3 Strikes Law," and the poster boy to sell it was Richard Allen Davis, the man who was accused of and eventually convicted of killing Polly Klaas. The theory behind it was that if 3 Strikes had been law Davis wouldn't be on the streets. Good people argued that 3 Strikes wouldn't put away career criminals as much as fill our prisons with the flotsam of our society. When the Bundy murders happened in June 1994 the anti-crime anger was whipped up. Cal's Secretary of State asked Judge Ito not to have court hearings on election day because it would diminish voter turnout. We got 3 Strikes and now California is safe from homeless people who steal slices of pizza. Big cases make bad law, in many ways we can't predict.

    Well said Jo.

    Kali quoted Durga_is_my_homey:
    ...I mean, not shy enough not to suggest shoving a broom-handle up the women's a*s or making racist comments but ... shy.
    And Kali responded
    You are over the top on this...
    1. The comment was said it the context of sex toys and there has been no statement or suggestion by anyone they said "shoving" or that the broom would enter the "a*s". You are purposely inflaming the facts.
    Kali, It's from the line up procedure transcript:
    Victim: The guy bfore this one. he made the comment about the broomstick.
    Sgt: #34 was the gentleman that made the broomstick comment.
    Victim: Um hum.
    Sgt: What was the comment about?
    Victim: He said um he was going to stick broomsticks up your asses.
    What is interesting about her telling of the incident is if what he said was "use this" or "I'm gonna shove this up you," where does the "up your asses" come from? A man might assume he was going to shove it up their ass, but a woman would have to decide where he planned to shove it unless he specified which orafice. Too me, this version rings true. When I heard the "I'm gonna shove this up you" version, anal sodomy is not what came to mind. The search warrant says "I'm gonna shove this up you." We don't know if that came from the accuser or Kim or both of them.

    noname posted:
    Durga has been hanging around feministing.com for awhile now commenting on various things including the Duke case.
    Thanks. Good to have her/him posting here, too.

    It's interesting how little compassion the core of pro-AVs here seem to have towards other posters. There is always a presumption of evil against people who may not be as strident as they are in their belief that the AV was raped. If someone writes anything that they can get their little claws into, they rip rip rip. At some point their desperation is fatiguing. We have a case here where a woman with a criminal past and a hospitalization for mental illness claims she was raped. So far there is no evidence of a rape other than her good word. Even the SANE report, which some here claimed would prove a rape, only opens more questions about the AV's credibility. Should all people of goodwill refrain from racial epithets? Yes. Does a remark about a cotton shirt equal a rape having occurred? No. Do women get raped? Yes. Does that mean a rape occurred here? No. The more the Pro-AVs speak in rhetorical generalities, the less of a case the AV seems to have. The AV shouldn't be an icon for the feminism unless you're planning on crashing feminism, in which case I'm sure the reactionaries will thank you for all your hard work.

    Kalidoggie posted:
    If you think the defendants are alleged rapists/guilty players then call them "AR/GP" or "AR" or "GP" or whatever makes you feel better.
    I don't need to feel better. In the words of James Brown, "I feel good!"

    Del posted:
    Imho, since we are discussing the act of stripping (not this particular stripper), the continuum I so unfortunately mentioned is non-verbal. So, the NO end would be a nun dressed in full habit, telling her beads in her lonely cell behind a twelve-foot convent wall. The YES end would be a woman alone in a bedroom with a man, wearing nothing but a garter belt and high heels, sprawled in a Penthouse-style pose, licking her upper lip with her pretty pink tongue. I see performing an "exotic dance" in a private residence as closer to the latter than the former.
    According to some posters here, and to the law, either one of these theoretically depicted women has the right to refuse sex.
    Other than the clarification that the consent continuum is non-verbal, and going from "well past center on the consent continuum" to closer to YES than NO, you don't seem to have budged from this statement: Del posted:
    I know the difference between penetration and sexual assault. It's just that an ugly little part of me, no doubt put there by some white ancestor, thinks that taking off your clothes and shaking your parts for a roomful of drunken frat boys is somewhere well past center on the consent continuum.
    If on your non-verbal "consent continuum," Dead Center is the non-consent/consent divide, you are placing exotic dancers performing "exotic dance" in a private residence on the side of consent, albeit, non-verbal. You are saying, by performing their routine, under the circumstances you have described,they are consenting to penetration, therefore can not be victims of sexual assault. In the statement below are you saying they have non-verbally consented, but have the right to change their minds and not be penetrated? Del posted?
    According to some posters here, and to the law, either one of these theoretically depicted women has the right to refuse sex.
    If a dancer fell asleep at the party and awoke to someone having sex with her, would that not be rape because before she fell asleep she had not changed her mind and withdrawn the consent she gave by showing up to perform her dance routine? Yet another scary thought from Del: Del quoted huesofblue:
    ...even a woman at the furthest edge of your continuum might withold consent - and why she should have that right.
    Del responded:
    I agree that she should have that right. What I am interested in debating is if she should have the full weight of the country's justice system behind her refusal.
    Even after consent is no longer an issue, some rape victims are more deserving than others? WOW. I'm beginning to miss Orinoco.

    statistics101 posted to chew:
    No, I am not intentionally making anything up, and I don't really have the energy to look back to find my source for this, but I thought it was common knowledge. If I am wrong, I apologize.
    Hi statistics101, An apology goes a long way with me, and you are not even sure you were mistaken. I'm still waiting for an apology from Pat.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    It's interesting how little compassion the core of pro-AVs here seem to have towards other posters. There is always a presumption of evil against people who may not be as strident as they are in their belief that the AV was raped. If someone writes anything that they can get their little claws into, they rip rip rip.
    Can you give us some examples?

    Bob, imho, must be a sloooow news day...

    Hey, here's a question. As is seems she is a prostitute via Bunny Hole, is the possibility that she has a pimp back on the table? There was some wild-a$$ speculation (I think I may even had been a part of it) some time ago, that if she was battered about the face and neck, that it could have come from her pimp - during that mysterious time after the party and before the parking lot - because she didn't get the money.

    Or...is the "boyfriend" her pimp, or one of her pimps? I keep wondering why "boyfriend" was often in quotes when the dna turned out to be his...

    Oh Bob, if we've agreed to stop discussing whether someone who falls asleep in a biker bar after yelling "H*ll's Angels can suck my big one!" was "asking for it" when he wakes up in the hospital...can we also agree to stop discussing imho's tendency to scan through 48 or more hours of postings to find precisely the scary thoughts he/she wants to showcase?

    Jo posted:
    But she is charging, without question, that she was raped by these fellows. If her accusation is "false", then the title seems appropriate.
    It has not yet been determined that her accusation is "false." Maybe we should get some of those "INNOCENT" headbands from the Duke Women's lacrosse team and pass them out to the FA crowd.

    Del posted:
    ...can we also agree to stop discussing imho's tendency to scan through 48 or more hours of postings to find precisely the scary thoughts he/she wants to showcase?
    Del, You posted that 7 hours ago. Have you changed your mind about it? Posted by Del May 25, 2006 08:37 AM Del quoted huesofblue:
    even a woman at the furthest edge of your continuum might withold consent - and why she should have that right.
    Del replied:
    I agree that she should have that right. What I am interested in debating is if she should have the full weight of the country's justice system behind her refusal.


    Slooooooooooooooooooow news day.

    IMHO, I'd suggest you reread your posts for proof but you wouldn't get it anyway.

    Bob in Pacifica:
    IMHO, I'd suggest you reread your posts for proof but you wouldn't get it anyway.
    So you don't any examples?

    Imho, thank you. You've been the best poster to read from. You win the internet. ;)
    1. The comment was said it the context of sex toys and there has been no statement or suggestion by anyone they said "shoving" or that the broom would enter the "a*s". You are purposely inflaming the facts.
    How disingenuous. Broom-handle = sex toys? Nice, remember that one for the future and try to use it on somebody. It reportedly wasn't done in a jokey, cheeky manner. It was consistently reported as "shoving".
    2. No one knows and no one has said who threw the first salvo of racist insults. Kim supposedly made derogatory comments about their white manhood...why is that not racist? Why is one insult OK and the other not?
    I didn't say one was okay and one wasn't, did I? However, the fact remains corroborating statements suggest somebody actually said, "thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt" yet when it is suggested that saying such a thing reflects badly on the "boys", it's, "oh, the race card! The race card!". Well ... he did say it.
    Black people call each other n*gg*r all the time, especially in publicly broadcast and available rap music. PLease explain to me and all why this is acceptable and not racist? Does this mean that if they sang their insults it wouldn't be racism?
    Oh, take the tu quoque somewhere else. They said that all, is was what they did. People are just trying to make excuses so that somehow they are not responsible for what they said.
    If you are going to throw the race card why don't you start with your abhorance of this.
    Oh, you're just playing the You're Just Play the Race Card card! Seriously, though, the deck is already laid out. They said what they did and yes, they deserve criticism for it. All you're doing is throwing out red-herrings now.
    But she is charging, without question, that she was raped by these fellows. If her accusation is "false", then the title seems appropriate.
    "If". But she isn't even on trial, and Chesycho isn't trying her. It just wasn't appropriate for him to do.
    The AV shouldn't be an icon for the feminism unless you're planning on crashing feminism, in which case I'm sure the reactionaries will thank you for all your hard work.
    I'm not sure if what you're advising against is a reflection of reality or just a pre-emptive hypothetical, but I never wanted to make her a "feminist icon" (?). I made my feelings clear when I came in here and when I posted about this else ware.

    IMHO, I said look at your own posts. You didn't get it. Ask me again. You still won't get it.

    Durga, I wasn't referring to you. I haven't read you for two weeks. Maybe while you're here you have something to say about the Duke rape case?

    Let's try this again. What, besides the AV's good word, is evidence that a rape occurred at the Buchanan house that night?

    IMHO, I said look at your own posts. You didn't get it. Ask me again. You still won't get it.
    I don't get it too. Maybe you should enlighten us giving examples. But while going back to older posts visit your own posts where you try to humiliate AV in every chance you got like by using graphic sexual words. You even got a warning from moderator not to use those words.

    Hi Hicht, I think you were on to something with that photo. It seems Pressler's "no facial hair" rule wasn't that strict. Here is a photo of Matt Zash just after the 2005 championship game ended.

    Durga, You were right about the "broomsticks up your asses."

    Bob in Pacifica, What does "Pro-AVs" mean to you? What label would you adopt for yourself? Anti-AV? Pro-AR (alleged rapists)? Pro-players?

    Earlier today IMHO posted the following:
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 25, 2006 07:53 AM http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/05/admissions.html Thanks Guys, looks like an extra 125 of the "best and brightest" said, "Thanks, but, no thanks, Duke." He then posted a portion of a letter from the admissions officer to the Duke President regarding their success in admissions. At the same time, I don't think it will come as a surprise that the consistent news coverage related to the men's lacrosse team seems to have had some effect on the number of students accepting our offer of admission. The recent controversy unfolded just as applicants were deciding where to attend college next year. By the time the admissions process concludes I expect our yield -- the percentage of students accepting our offer of admission -- to decrease somewhat from last year's 43 percent, to between 40 and 41 percent. We have seen a decrease of about 5 percent among both white and African-American students, but no decrease in yield among Latino and Asian students. ... We have seen no significant difference in yield among our top 300 applicants compared to last year. The enrollment model we've been using for the last several years consistently assumes that we will be able to enroll roughly 50 students from the waiting list; this year we expect to enroll an additional 125 students from the waiting list.
    Once again, IMHO seems incapable of entertaining more than one hypothesis to explain the world. While one can argue that some potential students decided to matriculate at another school because of the Duke Mens Lacrosse team, a more likely alternative hypothesis is that they were unwilling to risk their well-being in the city of Durham, with Mike Nifong as District Attorney. It's easy to explain the world when you only look at it from one perspective, it's takes more effort to be open-minded and actively consider alternative explanations. IMHO - you're obviously bright, articulate, a strong advocate, and have way too much time on your hands -but your training in law is vastly different than mine in scientific method. Thus, for me, your inability to consider alternative explanations limits the effectiveness of your arguments.

    Pat - Given the racial tension in that town, Duke would have to pay me to go to school there. It just sounds like an unpleasant place to be right now.

    Pat, you're exactly right on track. Here's a quote from the Herald Sun article on the subject:
    Lisa Meltzer of Rome, Ga., said the lacrosse case prompted her family to cross Duke off the list for her son Zach, a rising junior at the Darlington School in Rome. Duke's administration hasn't supported lacrosse team members, she said, and it was too quick to cancel the lacrosse season and accept the resignation of its coach. "We were very gung-ho to come to Duke," Meltzer said. But now, she said, "There is no way I would allow my child to come into the city limits of Durham."
    And from the News Observer:
    Even after weeks of relentless media coverage of the Duke men's lacrosse scandal, the university has managed to enroll the most competitive class on record for the fall
    and -
    Still, Duke has attracted more minority students overall, increasing students of color from 37 percent last year to 40 percent this year.
    I don't think Duke is having any difficulty recruiting students with excellent academic credentials.

    BIP
    What, besides the AV's good word, is evidence that a rape occurred at the Buchanan house that night?
    I'll bite. The AV's word is clearly the most important evidence that a rape took place. But there is other evidence. The AV's nails were found in the bathroom, which is may be consistent with the struggle she described to police. The SANE nurse found physical symptoms consistent with rape, including bruises and swelling. An*l swelling might not be easily countered with evidence of recent prior activites. We have the testimony of two witnesses (and possibly more if you include the driver) that the AV appeared sober at the start of the party, but that her condition rapidly deteriorated in a manner consistent with being drugged with a date rape drug. You have a number of witnesses to the AV's hysterical behavior in the hours after the party. I'm sure some expert will testify as to how that behavior is consistent with the trauma the AV alleges. You have a player at the party threatening to sexually assault the AV with a broomstick (though more likely, it was a lacrosse stick) DNA found under one of the AV's nails is consistent with that of one of the defendants, though not conclusive. None of the evidence is a smoking gun, and reasonable doubt can be raised as to most of it. But ultimately, none of it has to be conclusive. It's main value is that it's all consistent with the AV's account of what happened. I think the defense will be successful in raising reasonable doubt in this case. But just because the prosecutor's evidence is weak doesn't mean it's non-existent.

    Pat posted:
    Once again, IMHO seems incapable of entertaining more than one hypothesis to explain the world. While one can argue that some potential students decided to matriculate at another school because of the Duke Mens Lacrosse team, a more likely alternative hypothesis is that they were unwilling to risk their well-being in the city of Durham, with Mike Nifong as District Attorney.
    Is it not obvious the negative media attention this case brought to Duke University, Durham and Mike Nifong was a direct result of the behavior of some of the members of the Duke lacrosse team? Pat posted:
    IMHO - you're obviously bright, articulate, a strong advocate, and have way too much time on your hands -but your training in law is vastly different than mine in scientific method. Thus, for me, your inability to consider alternative explanations limits the effectiveness of your arguments.
    I have never been employed as an attorney. I have been employed as a biochemist. Pat posted:
    It's easy to explain the world when you only look at it from one perspective, it's takes more effort to be open-minded and actively consider alternative explanations.
    Maybe you should have made an effort to be open-minded and maybe you should have actively considered alternative explanations before you accused me of purposely capitalizing Finnerty's position as ATTACK.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#220)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    Pat, IMHO quotes the Duke administration who say this:
    consistent news coverage related to the men's lacrosse team seems to have had some effect on the number of students accepting our offer of admission.
    You say this:
    a more likely alternative hypothesis is that they were unwilling to risk their well-being in the city of Durham, with Mike Nifong as District Attorney.
    Based on what, your own prejudices and dislike of Nifong, a name that hardly any applicant is likely to recognize?
    but your training in law is vastly different than mine in scientific method.
    What does your alleged scientific training have to do with the validity of your alternative hypothesis? Some reasoning would lend your claim some better credibility. I doubt that you can propose a test that would distinguish these two "competing"hypotheses which you have invented on your own. Fact is IMHO simply quoted the language of the report. He proposed no hypothesis. Your own prejudices seem to have impelled you to read some unspoken one in his quote. My own reading of the report is that the Duke lacrosse publicity has had a negligible if any effect on admissions. That at least is a testable hypothesis with past admissions data.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#221)
    by wumhenry on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    Broom-handle = sex toys? Nice, remember that one for the future and try to use it on somebody. It reportedly wasn't done in a jokey, cheeky manner. It was consistently reported as "shoving".
    I'm not sure what's so awful about shoving, but even if it is awful, there's been no confirmation that any of the lacrosse players actually said any such thing, AFAIK.

    Pat
    Once again, IMHO seems incapable of entertaining more than one hypothesis to explain the world. While one can argue that some potential students decided to matriculate at another school because of the Duke Mens Lacrosse team, a more likely alternative hypothesis is that they were unwilling to risk their well-being in the city of Durham, with Mike Nifong as District Attorney.
    But Pat, INMHO didn't offer a hypothesis in his post (at least not in the part you quoted), he just posted the letter that said:
    I don't think it will come as a surprise that the consistent news coverage related to the men's lacrosse team seems to have had some effect on the number of students accepting our offer of admission.
    The letter attributes "some effect" on matriculation to "news coverage related to the men's lacrosse team." That's a long way from saying students turned down the school "because of the Duke Mens Lacrosse team" and entertaining no other explanation. The coverage of tensions in Durham and Nifong's prosecutorial missteps may very well have played a part. That's not inconsistent with what INMHO posted. Here's an explanation that has nothing to do with the players guilt or innocence: 90% of why students pick Duke has to do with the school's reputation. If students think this scandal could hurt that reputation, it's going to influence their decision. If you were 50-50 on Penn and Duke before this scandal broke, maybe this is the tiebreaker?

    Durga wrote:
    I didn't say one was okay and one wasn't, did I? However, the fact remains corroborating statements suggest somebody actually said, "thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt" yet when it is suggested that saying such a thing reflects badly on the "boys", it's, "oh, the race card! The race card!". Well ... he did say it.
    I don't deny it was said, it was wrong and it was racist. I look at the comment in the context that it was said. You do not. There were racial insults going both ways. So why are you so up in arms about only one comment? Moreover, you do not know who threw the first salvo, do you? No. No. Nor do I. I do know, as you and everyone should, that in any fight (verbal and physical) it is always significant (i) who started it and (ii) who escalated it to another level. As such, it would be very significant if Kim threw out the first racial insult, right? I have not read here (or anywhere) or heard a single person deny that the player made a racial comment and it was wrong. What people resent is racial myopia like yours. They resent a comment being taken out of the context of a mutual racial insult-fest and used inappropriately to advance some kind of racial agenda that is inapplicable to the situation. Specifically, people claim "the race card is being played" because the Nifong took an argument where both sides made racial insults and not only made it racially one-sided, but used it further to say that this was a horribly violent, racially motivated crime before even hearing all the facts and finishing his investigation. This was wrong of the Nifong to do! I totally understand that if you believe a rape occurred that you would be disgusted and angry against the defendants (I would too if that were my opinion), but to not have a significant amount of anger against the Nifong is utterly hypocritical. As I have maintained for weeks, where is the anger by the pro-AV/FA crowd against the Nifong for unneccessarily jeopardizing a possibily legitimate rape for his own political gain? But where is the anger against the Nifong for setting back the believability factor for legitimate rape claims by about 50 years? I have sisters and I am furious about the damage he has caused to the unfortunate future legitimate rape victims because he wanted some votes. It is a travesty!!! If he believed a rape had occurred, he should have kept his mouth shut and built a bullet proof case. Where is the anger? Where is the criticism? The Nifong should be villified by every woman in the US!!!
    Oh, take the tu quoque somewhere else. They said that all, is was what they did. People are just trying to make excuses so that somehow they are not responsible for what they said.
    First, I don't understand that one sentence, is a word missing? Second, no excuses are being made at all and no one is avoiding responsibility about racist comments. I am sure that all but a few people in this country believe that all racial comments are wrong. What people want is for the thermo-nuclear critics of racial comments to be consistent in their criticism regardless of the speaker.
    Oh, you're just playing the You're Just Play the Race Card card!
    My point was be consistent in your racial criticism. In the context of a heated argument, both people said racial comments, both were wrong and both should be condemed. Everyone is racist because, as pathetic as it is, it is ultimately means of self-definition against another. Have you seen "Crash"? If not, I suggest you see it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#224)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    Kali, Bissey witnessed this part of the argument. Did he hear Kim yell that comment to the guys? I've only read the comment from her in that National Journal (?) article and on blogs. Do we know it is true? I think what makes the thank your grandfather comment worse than other racial comments (though all are bad) is the reference to their ancestors being slaves. That is a class and racial slur which makes it worse to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#225)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:05:32 PM EST
    From catching up here: Kartoum, (from May 24, 11:28 PM)
    Seligmann's attorney did this, and all it got him was an announcement from Nifong that he planned to change the timeline (from his arrest warrant, which listed the crime occurring on March 14) to his still-unrevealed "my timeline"
    Posters seem to be assuming that the AV's sex with her weekend customers must have been intercourse. Could have been a different kind. I believe Nifong said: they don't know my timeline, not: I plan to change the timeline. I can try look it up if it becomes an issue. I would think they'd have it now. They haven't mentioned it, which makes me think either they don't have it, or they don't have a good rebuttal for it. Teresa, (May 25, 12:28 AM)
    The only way I would continue if I were her would be if I were telling the truth. Then when the defense came after me I'd pitch such a hissy fit the judge would have to put me in jail. :) I would not give up under any circumstances if it's true.
    Teresa, good for you! Many women would not be able to take the pressure, though, and back down not because their story isn't true, but because it is too costly in terms of their safety, well-being, reputation, and family. Bob, (May 25, 8:07 AM)
    Now it turns out that the AV at some point claimed that Roberts was in the bathroom with her while she was being raped.
    I don't know how true this is yet. Like the 3 vs. 15 vs. 20 rapists, there was a lot of confusion about what was said, heard, etc. after the party and before the hospital. I'd like to see what was actually said first, before I'd say that's what she claimed. As for her injuries... We don't know how severe her injuries actually are. Defense claims they are missing a large portion of the SANE report. I would expect them to minimize anything they did read, and they only gave us a little bit. We still have the coordinator of the SANE program at Duke saying:
    "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told," Arico said.
    (herald-sun) She would have had to make up quite a story to make all previous injuries match so well. This is one reason I tend to believe her. Kali, Even the defense team themselves originally said the dancing was stopped due to "offensive remarks." The players never denied it. Now they didn't come out and said the players started it, but it seems extremely unlikely that 2 dancing strippers are going to start hurling "offensive remarks" at their customers. There has been recent scoffing at the supposed attitudes of some "women" posters and some AV "sympathizers." I think this tends to happen when we make good arguments. It's common to attack the speaker when you cannot attack the statements.

    Lora:
    I believe Nifong said: they don't know my timeline, not: I plan to change the timeline.
    I remember him saying that as well, and finding it very problamatic. If the accused are guilty, and Nifong's timeline is correct, one would assume the accused know Nifong's timeline. If they don't know his timeline, how can it be right?!?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#227)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    Sorry, my comment about the AV's presumed sexual activity following Kartoum's quote was in the wrong spot. It wasn't meant to be part of that topic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#228)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    noname, I assume Nifong would have had to give his timeline to the defense as part of his 1200-odd page book, no? I don't know. Question, did Nifong say the defense had everything that could be exculpatory, or everything that he had, period? I thought I remember something about "exculpatory" but I'm not sure. imho, I might have guessed! Former biochemist here.

    Hues of Blues stated that:
    But Pat, INMHO didn't offer a hypothesis in his post (at least not in the part you quoted), he just posted the letter that said:
    If you read IMHO's message, it stated the following:
    Thanks Guys, looks like an extra 125 of the "best and brightest" said, "Thanks, but, no thanks, Duke."
    Thus, given the topics that are discussed on this board, I think it is safe to say that IMHO is attributing the decline in acceptance rate to the Duke Mens Lacrosse team. With regard to Chew's comment
    Based on what, your own prejudices and dislike of Nifong, a name that hardly any applicant is likely to recognize?
    Please - the whole incident began while Duke was hosting students and their families. To argue that the students and their parents were unaware of Nifong's behavior and the town's attitude is not credible.
    What does your alleged scientific training have to do with the validity of your alternative hypothesis? Some reasoning would lend your claim some better credibility. I doubt that you can propose a test that would distinguish these between those two "competing" hypotheses which you have invented on your own.
    Aside from directly asking the students/parents (in which experimental demand would play a large role), there are no easy ways to test the alternative hypotheses. My point was precisely that - that there are alternative hypotheses. As I stated, in my view, the more likely rationale for any decrease in acceptance rate is due to the atmosphere on campus and town. My view is based on discussions with my niece's parents, my niece, several students from our university who were visiting Duke for various reasons, parents of students at our university, and my own reading of the news media. While anecdotal data, for sure, I'm comfortable in stating that it is a better explanation than one which presumes that the Mens Lacrosse team (assuming one even exists) is keeping students away. Thank you for attributing the hypotheses to me - but, I think most people are able to think of these and others. The whole point of science is constant questioning and the development of alterative hypotheses. Finally, IMHO, with regard to capitalizing the ATTACK position for Finnerty, whether you copied it or not is not the issue - you knew, or should have known, that capitalizing would attract attention. If you don't want to be responsible for what you post, then provide proper attribution at the time you post it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#230)
    by Alan on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:04:28 PM EST
    huesofblue posted:
    The AV's nails were found in the bathroom, which is may be consistent with the struggle she described to police.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree. These artificial nails (as opposed to actual nails) fall off quite easily. I'd agree if actual nails had been found that would be real evidence of a struggle.
    The SANE nurse found physical symptoms consistent with rape, including bruises and swelling. An*l swelling might not be easily countered with evidence of recent prior activites.
    There is no report of an*l swelling in the SANE report as provided in discovery. There is, in any case, nothing in anyone's account to preclude an*l sex prior to the party.
    We have the testimony of two witnesses (and possibly more if you include the driver) that the AV appeared sober at the start of the party, but that her condition rapidly deteriorated in a manner consistent with being drugged with a date rape drug.
    There is no toxicology report so the prosecution does not rely on the drugging allegation. The behaviour is also 'consistent with' the self-administration of drugs before the party, a practice not completely unknown among sexworkers.
    You have a number of witnesses to the AV's hysterical behavior in the hours after the party. I'm sure some expert will testify as to how that behavior is consistent with the trauma the AV alleges.
    'consistent with' and 'is' are different concepts. The level of trauma can be accounted for in other ways, such as a history of mental illness exacerbated by some event happening before or after the party.
    You have a player at the party threatening to sexually assault the AV with a broomstick (though more likely, it was a lacrosse stick)
    The only evidence for the broomstick allegation is the AV's word. (I stand open to correction if it is supported by Kim Roberts) The prosecution has not sought the broomstick as physical evidence. The broomstick allegation is not therefore independent of the AV's word.
    DNA found under one of the AV's nails is consistent with that of one of the defendants, though not conclusive.
    How does 'not conclusive' reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? How many out of the total population share the same genetic markers with Evans? How likely is it that the trashcan in Evans' bathroom would not contain his DNA? How likely is that one object in the said trashcan would not touch another object and thereby acquire DNA? Wikipedia is interesting on DNA fingerprinting, although it obviously does not answer these questions. You recite 6 items that you say are independent of the AV's word - the nails, the anal swelling, the drugged behaviour, the traumatic behaviour, the broomstick and the DNA. The anal swelling and the broomstick do not exist. (I stand open to correction when the full SANE report is finally available in evidence) Alternative explanations exist for the artificial nails, the drugged behaviour, and the traumatic behaviour. The DNA is not conclusive. The easiest defence in rape is to say there was consent. If this defence had argued consent then all of the items you recite would be irrelevant and it would be purely word against word. It's really hard to see why competent attorneys would run with a no sex defence when the no consent defence is so much easier to argue, unless they are simply arguing the truth. Now you could say, with some justice, that I'm bringing in second-order arguments and you'd be right. Let us remember that next time we hear that the prosecution 'must' have something more. On a separate issue, I recorded court proceedings for several years. I have listened to several hundred cross-examinations. When a witness's account breaks down under cross-examination it is almost invariably because of prior inconsistent statements. Contrary to opinions stated upthread, it is not at all easy to maintain an untrue story under cross. That includes witnesses who, for various reasons, genuinely believe their accounts. Identification evidence, for example, frequently breaks down simply because the witness is mistaken. A good cross-examiner can usually find these inconsistencies. It's not a pretty thing to watch, especially if the witness believes their own account, but it's surprisingly efficient at getting at the truth. Some of the inconsistencies in the AV's account can be explained by trauma. Describing a number of attackers varying from 20 to 3 probably goes a little beyond a trauma victim's natural difficulties with remembering and describing their experience. Those are the sorts of inconsistencies that cross-examiners will focus on.

    The Defense has filed a motion for more information about the AV's initial descriptions of the accused. http://www.wral.com/news/9276876/detail.html

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#232)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    rogan, are we to assume we only know Nifong's evidence or are we to consider all the defense information that we have now? That would be a tough decision because we don't know for sure what the investigator said to the grand jury.

    Lora - the "offensive remarks" that caused the dancers to stop were about the broomstick. Not racial epithets. From details that Kim Roberts shared with the media:
    The two women danced for a few minutes before Roberts stopped after a player held up a broomstick and suggested a sex act. Through lawyers, the players have said they felt cheated after paying $800 for a few minutes of dancing


    Lora asks:
    Question, did Nifong say the defense had everything that could be exculpatory, or everything that he had, period? I thought I remember something about "exculpatory" but I'm not sure.
    From WRAL:
    "If there was a toxicology report available, it would've been included in the discovery I handed over to the defense," Nifong told WRAL on Monday. Nifong told WRAL he had turned over all the evidence he has to-date and that when any new reports or documents come in, they too, would be handed over to the defense.


    huesofblue wrote: The AV's nails were found in the bathroom, which is may be consistent with the struggle she described to police. Not very. No blood on any of them from a violent struggle, hardly DNA on one of them which would have been there if she'd scratched someone. Actually, the nails with the makeup bag, if that had actually be recovered in the bathroom as had been earlier reported, is consistent with the attendees' story that the AV had locked herself in the bathroom.

    Teresa wrote:
    Kali, Bissey witnessed this part of the argument. Did he hear Kim yell that comment to the guys?
    From what I've heard and read, the player yelled the comment as she started driving away. This leads me to beleive that Kim made her comment first. Don't misunderstand me, I think the comment was made and the comment was wrong. But she made one too and it is my opinion that she instigated it with her own racial insult about their white manhood. The point is that both had the same intent of hurting each other at a racial level. She implied that black men were more manly and superior to white men sexually. They implied that white men were superior to black men economically. I'm sure someone out there will argue that the players' comment was a consolation to Kim's comment. Lora wrote:
    Even the defense team themselves originally said the dancing was stopped due to "offensive remarks."
    I am not sure to which of my comments you are responding. I am speaking about the "grandpa" comment. The "offensive remarks" were about the alleged broomstick, which, like huesofblue, I think was a lacrosse stick (given the nasty condition of the house, I'd question if they ever owned a broomstick). Also, the broomstick comment wasn't so offensive to them since they came back to dance more. If racial comments were made while they were dancing, there is no way they would have come back inside.
    There has been recent scoffing at the supposed attitudes of some "women" posters and some AV "sympathizers." I think this tends to happen when we make good arguments. It's common to attack the speaker when you cannot attack the statements.
    Funny, it seems the opposite to me. The more and more information that comes out from the defense that weakens the Nifong's case, the more personal and testier the comments have been in defense of the AV/FA and against Duke, the players and lacrosse. I can see your perspective as well. Regardless of if one is for or against, very few people here can or like to admit the validity of another's contrary opinion or a portion thereof.(I did change my opinion on an issue because of you, I think). It cuts both ways. I do think the tension on both sides is equally attributable to the incompentence/selfishness of the Nifong. Though, I find it remarkably obtuse when people put down the defense for providing information to the public, when the Nifong started it. (IMHO....of course it ultimately started with the original phone call for the dancers.) Also, IMHO likes to re-test and re-re-test and recycle arguments and stir it up....typical of a chemist.... which probably contributes to the frustration of some.

    Excerpts From Pat's WRAL article...
    "At some point in their interviews and investigations, one or more of these officers asked (the accuser) to describe the men who she claims sexually assaulted her, and (she) provided some answer to that question," the motion filed by lawyers Bill Cotter and Wade Smith said. ... District Attorney Mike Nifong gave defense lawyers nearly 1,300 pages of evidence last week, saying it was his complete case file. ... Smith and Cotter argue in their motion filed in Durham Superior Court that can't be true. They say that there's only one instance in the evidence they've been given when the accuser is asked to describe her attackers. ... The response is contained in what appears to be an investigator's note, they said. ... "I asked her questions trying to follow up on a better description of the suspects, she was unable to remember anything further about the suspects," the note from Durham police investigator B.W. Himan says, according to the motion.


    Durga commented: A week? Gee, hell of a mental illness. Actually, it probably is. Go check on your insurance policy and see how long they'll hospitalize you to kick back and rest. If you're not insured, and I would guess that she wasn't, call your county hospital and give a call to the county hospital. Being hospitalized for a week would indicate being highly suicidal or having a break with reality. Just being kinda wacky doesn't get you hospitalized these days. Just being exhausted doesn't get you hospitalized unless you've got the bucks to go to Betty Ford's. I have never heard that the AV was ever suicidal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#239)
    by chew2 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    Pat
    The whole point of science is constant questioning and the development of alterative hypotheses.
    Science requires testable hypotheses, otherwise you are out in the land of endless and possibly baseless speculation. Thanks though for providing some of the anecdotal evidence behind your hypothesis.

    huesofblue, It's interesting that you suggest the AV's apparent intoxication being proof (well, I asked for proof, but I'll take whatever you have) that someone may have drugged her. Now it turns out that there was no toxicology report. So there is no evidence, apparently, that the woman was intoxicated. The only question is whether or not the AV refused to take the test. If that's the case then lack of a tox test is suggestive that the AV didn't want to admit she was intoxicated, suggestive that she was responsible for her own intoxification. So, like I said this afternoon, the only thing we have right now is the AV's own word that a rape occurred. That and Nifong's reelection.

    At 4:31PM IMHO wrote: What does "Pro-AVs" mean to you? What does it mean to you? Why don't you argue with yourself about it?

    Teresa, last night you wrote: Why did she have such a reaction to the photo of Collin Finnerty? Why did she wait until very near the end to choose him? She was almost out of options at that point. It's all speculation. Maybe she recognized him, right? But maybe, since there was a limited number of pictures in the book, she saw that she was coming to the end and needed to make a third ID.

    rogan: of all the posts that I have read, after THANK GOD being busy enough at work so that I could not keep up, I wanted to start with one of yours.
    If the indictments were to be dismissed because of a technicality and people here were on the Durham Grand Jury, would the posters here indict these three men for rape given the standard of evidence required for an indictment?
    Considering that I would be laboring under the same circumstances that the original grand juries were, of course I would. I would be presented NO exculpatory evidence, because Nifong hasn't yet to see any evidence fits that category. You know what the basis of the indictment would be: testimony from a police officer, or police officers, giving his, her, or their, as the case may be, Regis Philbin "Final Answer?" version of what the AV told me: she was raped by this or these men. Testimony from a SANE nurse, or more likely from someone reading the SANE nurse's report: she had injuries and displayed behavior consistent with having been raped. Testimony from the police officer present at the photo ID saying she identified the accused. End of evidence presentation. Is it more than less likely that she was raped by the accused? Of course. I would hear NO evidence for the defense. And just how far can a grand juror's questions get them when they have to ask a cop what happened to the AV? None of us can or will know how Nifong presented the case to the GJ. But for anyone to think that he could not get the indictments he wants, 10 out of 10 times does not understand the process. I am not objecting to your post, rogan, it is a good question. But for there EVER to be a different result from the GJ, Nifong would have to play fair. Thus far, he has not.

    Shaking my head in amazement at some of the posts. The supporters of the AV cling to the credibility of her and of Kim Roberts? Those two are the star witnesses for the defense?What evidence do we have that either one of them is a reliable witness? I'm sorry, but both of those women make their living in an illegal profession. Take the arguments, both social and legislative, about prostitution: it IS illegal. And if any of you is naive enough to think that a woman working for an escort service in Durham, NC is not offering sex for money, then I've got some low level, swamp land, flood plain property here in FL for sale. Both women have committed chargeable felony acts. One is, in fact, a convicted felon, one committed felonies but was allowed to plead (rightly to my mind) to lesser offenses. The AV had a 1.9 blood alcohol, driving a stolen cab the wrong way on a highway. Kim stole $25,000 from her employer, even though she said she "didn't need it." These are your witnesses? Oh yeah, there's the SANE nurse. If a woman comes to a hospital saying she has been raped, I am curious what the ratio of "consistent with sexual assault" to "inconsistent with sexual assault" is. The nurse did not say the AV was raped. She (sexist of me, I guess, but I'm betting the SANE nurse is a woman) did not say the AV was not raped. Did she know that the AV had possibly had sex with at least three and maybe more men in the 4-5 days prior? She gave her opinion based on the information the AV gave her. And unless the defense is lying through their teeth, chances are the nurse heard one of several versions. My experience has been that when a defense attorney says he, or she, has something specific that will exonerate his, or her, client, they usually have it. Different from a broad, general, didn't do it, and if he did, he had a good reason.

    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Durga commented: A week? Gee, hell of a mental illness.
    Actually, it probably is. Go check on your insurance policy and see how long they'll hospitalize you to kick back and rest. Being hospitalized for a week would indicate being highly suicidal or having a break with reality. Just being kinda wacky .... [or] ... Just being exhausted doesn't get you hospitalized unless you've got the bucks to go to Betty Ford's.
    Bob I had not thought about it until you stated it just now, but yes, that is true. Anybody being kept for "observation" for more than 24 - 48 hours has a pretty serious mental condition -- even if it is just a temporary episode. This is in the category of "being a danger to themselves or to others." The AV was only kept for about 5 hours at the Duke Medical Center, even though she reportedly arrived screaming and hysterical from an alleged violent gang rape. Without some pretty serious insurance, very few people self-admitted to psych wards are not released to the custody of a family member within 24 to 48 hours at most.

    Re: the AV's level of intoxication If she were intoxicated on something, how then can the DA prove that it was not a self-induced high? Kim's credibility is next to nil, so her perceptions are laughable to me. God love her: that email to the PR firm ruined her as a witness, if the embezzlement didn't. No one outraged that she did the crime but has not made restitution? No one outraged that Evans still faces that noise ordinance violation, even though the other player charged in the same incident was exonerated, with the judge basically saying: I wore my robe FOR THIS?!?!?!?

    Durga: I may have missed an explanation by you for this, but whence the
    Chesycho
    reference?

    Teresa: we only have the police officer's statement about the AV's reaction. Maybe she started crying because she realized what a mess she was in, that she couldn't walk away from this one. And there's a fun thought: all of a sudden the integrity of police officers, the absolute belief in their good intentions and honesty, cannot be questioned? They didn't believe her in the beginning, it seems. The new Blue Wall of Silence, more like the original one.

    Pat posted:
    Finally, IMHO, with regard to capitalizing the ATTACK position for Finnerty, whether you copied it or not is not the issue - you knew, or should have known, that capitalizing would attract attention. If you don't want to be responsible for what you post, then provide proper attribution at the time you post it.
    Pat, here is your original post:
    Further, IMHO, in your response, you purposely capitalized Finnerty's position as ATTACK - I for one have grown tired of you constant distortions - get a grip. Would you have capitalized his position if he played defense?
    You accuse me of purposely capitalizing the work "attack.' Use it as an example of my "constant distortions," and when you are proven to be absolutely, no doubt about it, wrong, you can not admit it. You even suggest I should have known enough to remove the capitalization from the text I copied from the team roster so as to prevent the name of Finnerty's position from attracting attention. Pat, there are plenty of posters here that would love to have one more reason to jump down my throat, but I will be very surprised if even ONE of them will agree with you on this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#250)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    What evidence do we have that either one of them is a reliable witness? I'm sorry, but both of those women make their living in an illegal profession.
    Sharon, I have great respect for your posts and I always learn from them. I do have to argue this one point with you. Prostitutes do get raped and even murdered. In my town in Tennessee we have a man in prison (or awaiting re-trial) for raping and then murdering three local prostitutes. I agree with you that the physical evidence of rape must be greater to prove a prostitute was raped if she has recently had sex but that doesn't mean that some prostitutes don't get raped. I would bet that they have higher odds of being raped actually.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#251)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    Sharon, the id lineup was taped so at least that's one thing we won't have to take anyone's word for. (If it gets to trial which I'll be shocked if it does.) There were also several other police investigators there weren't there?

    Now it turns out that there was no toxicology report. So there is no evidence, apparently, that the woman was intoxicated.
    The testimony of multiple witnesses describing the victim as intoxicated is plenty of evidence of intoxication. You don't need a chemistry set to know when someone is really f*cked up. And if it's a level of intoxication that's totally at odds with the amount of alcohol she consumed, it's strong evidence of drugging. A toxicology report would be ideal as evidence, but it's absence doesn't mean they have nothing but the AVs word.

    Damn, just lost a fairly decent, outraged post. Sorry you must sign in? Thought I had, thought I did.

    Re: the broom comment. Both Kim and the AV, despite the horror that they both felt, the degradation, the danger, the disgust WENT BACK IN. How disgusted could they have been, how much danger could they have felt, how degraded did they really feel, if they were BOTH willing to go back in? In a related vein: anyone heard anything about the payment arrangements? Were they given the $800 upon arrival? Half now, half in a couple hours when you finish?

    A week of hospitaliztion is HUGE. Not sure what the Medicaid payment is for mental health hospitalization. And, yes, that is a cheap, Republican (though I am a registered Democrat) comment. Still, a week is an extremely long time to be kept in a hospital for a mental condition. Severe enough to indicate that a scrip is not enough.

    Bob wrote:
    It's interesting that you suggest the AV's apparent intoxication being proof (well, I asked for proof, but I'll take whatever you have) that someone may have drugged her.
    What is likely is that the 1 1/2 drinks she popunded down in a matter of minutes between arrival and dancing contained about 6-9 ounces of alcohol (12 oz cups, hard-partying college strength pours). She looks to be a small girl (5'3", 115 lbs)...this would hit her quickly in about 5 minutes and have her stumbling, passed out drunk in about 20-30 minutes. This would be compounded if she smoked, popped or drank something before she arrived. I saw an interview a few weeks back of a former stripper and a former porn star, who both have set up programs to help women get out of stripping/escort/sex careers. The stripper stated (and the porn star agreed) that 99% of the time women in their formers careers use alcohol or drugs before (for courage), during (to remove inhibitions) and after (to forget) house calls/filming. While, it is always possible that she may have been drugged, but highly unlikely.

    Bob: thanks for reminding me of that one, to me significant fact: they were looking for blood on the fingernails. And they found . . . none. How does one, in a life and death struggle trying to breathe (as Nifong described it), not draw blood?

    hues: it sounds like there will be testimony of multiple witnesses describing the victim as intoxicated upon her arrival at the house. A level of intoxication that's at odds with the amount of alcohol she consumed after she arrived at the house mean nothing (except to make her ID's less credible).

    Alan: about the nails, another point. I love hearing the female commentators discussing artificial nails - the cost, the durability, the pain of removal. As if the AV had paid $40+ at a salon or spa. No, no, no. This I will bet anyone here: the AV bought some press-on nails. Those things come off so easily, cost very little, and come ready to . . . press on. The defense has said, more than once, words to the effect that "wait until you SEE these nails" that were found in the wastebasket in the bathroom. Maybe still with the adhesive on them? Still like out of the package? Defense attorneys may lie, but not usually about specifics where they can be caught.

    Alan:
    How does 'not conclusive' reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? How many out of the total population share the same genetic markers with Evans? How likely is it that the trashcan in Evans' bathroom would not contain his DNA? How likely is that one object in the said trashcan would not touch another object and thereby acquire DNA? Wikipedia is interesting on DNA fingerprinting, although it obviously does not answer these questions.
    I think I was pretty clear in saying that none of this corraborating evidence can stand on its own to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But if a jury believes the AV, or is even inclined to, all of this evidence supports her version of the story. Evidence doesn't have to be dispositive to be useful - it just has to make the testimony of one of the parties more or less likely. If the AV says she was robbed and they find her money sitting in the house, that makes it more likely that she's telling the truth. The question was, what evidence is there of rape other than the AV's word. The best I can do is provide a couple nuggets that support her account. I'll freely admit that they can't prove rape without her word and without the jury believing her word. But can you think of a single rape case where that wouldn't be the case? Maybe if someone got a woman in a coma pregnant, but other than that there aren't many circumstances I can think of.

    noni mouse I'm not saying the AV has an airtight case or that the prosecution has enough that it has a good chance of winning. I'm saying that Nifong has more than just the AV's word as evidence. If the neighbor testifies that she didn't look intoxicated coming in, and by all accounts she was falling down drunk a half hour later, that's evidence. It's not slam dunk evidence, but it's something. Nifong isn't going to just call the AV to testify and immediatly rest his case.

    Teresa: don't know the details of wh was there at the photo line up, didn't know that it was videotaped. But I would hope that a juror would not take the AV crying to be proof of Finnerty's guilt. Yes, prostitutes get raped. But I would hope that a prostitute or any woman would not have the history of crime, criminal behavior, and lying that both the AV and Kim do. And, no, this is not an ATTACK (sorry, couldn't resist the capitalization) on anything but their credibililty. Anyone think either or both of them have reported all of their income to the federal government for income tax purposes? Small thing, perhaps, but it is a lie. They have both, by their own admissions, lied to their families. The AV "strayed" outside her marriage. Surely that involved some lying to her spouse. Hell, I have lied many times in my life. Please understand. To bring charges as serious as those the AV has brought against the ARs (that's my compromise: I will refer to her as the Alleged Victim, and I will refer to those indicted as the Alleged Rapists), one must be ready to have one's honesty, ones history of lying or truthfulness brought out. Rape is a unique crime. Arrest, detainment, and prosecution can take place solely upon the word of the alleged victim of the crime. If she had come to Nifong's office, or the Durham police a couple days later, he could STILL indict and prosecute the ARs. On her word alone. And that, all of my "sisters" is more power than I think any of us should ever have.

    I've been reading this board now for quite a while, but each time I feel the urge to comment, the level of personal animosity has made me hesitate to throw my hat into the fray. That being said, I don't think that those who are more inclined to believe the AV are either more or less likely to resort to shrill pettiness than those more inclined to believe the ARs. I rather feel bad for the few caught in the middle, as they seem genuinely willing to go through the processes of analysis and reasonable skepticism before choosing to believe or disbelieve either side. They seem to be the ones most likely to end up snarked at by both sides. The fate, I suppose of compromisers everywhere. What finally convinced me to post was the question raised (albiet not particularly gracefully) in this thread about how admissions at Duke were or will be affected by this scandal. With full honesty, I can say it is my intention, the student loan gods willing, to begin graduate school at Duke next fall. And yeah, it was kind of a bummer that the scandal broke just about the time I was deciding on which program to attend. I'm confident that I had the rationality to know that the program attributes that originally attracted me to Duke weren't changed by this scandal. Unfortunately, I don't think the average high school senior (or perhaps his or her overprotective parents), even the best and brightest, will always be as rational. Perception, in the case of the intangibles in life--like reputation, support, etc. is often tantamount to reality. (Perception, in the case of this particular rape case, might not always be reality, as evidenced by ~99.4% of the comments posted on this blog). So putting yourselves in the position of those students whose decision to attend or not attend Duke boils down to perceptions of the school, how would you categorize your perceptions of Duke as an institution BEFORE the incident (let's say March 12) and CURRENTLY (post-incident, i fear, will only come after the trial)?

    She may have drugged herself, obviously. If I had to do what she did, I sure as hell would be high enough that I wouldn't remember what I did the next morning. Come to think of it . . .

    What is likely is that the 1 1/2 drinks she popunded down in a matter of minutes between arrival and dancing contained about 6-9 ounces of alcohol (12 oz cups, hard-partying college strength pours). She looks to be a small girl (5'3", 115 lbs)...this would hit her quickly in about 5 minutes and have her stumbling, passed out drunk in about 20-30 minutes. This would be compounded if she smoked, popped or drank something before she arrived. . . . 99% of the time women in their formers careers use alcohol or drugs . . . .
    I don't doubt that people in the AV's line of work drink a lot and do a lot of drugs. If that's the cas for the AV, 1 1/2 drinks isn't going to leave her falling down drunk (and my impression from the pictures was that the AV looked a little husky - I could be wrong though). And while this is anectotal, I had gf who weighed around 115 wasn't a heavy drinker at all. A remember a night when she and her friends were just knocking back the shots. She got destroyed and ended up throwing up on me in the back of a car. But the thing is, it took a lot longer than 5 minutes for it to kick in and it took a lot more than 6 ounces of liquor to get her to the point where she was even stumbling drunk. She certainly wasn't falling down drunk hobbling around in a single high-heeled shoe. A self induced high is possible, but there just aren't that many drugs that'll leave you in the state that I can really imagine the AV taking before a show. It doesn't sound like she was on heroine and she certainly wasn't on coke, X, or meth. What stripper is going to give herself a roofie before dancing in front of strangers? It just sounds a little fantastic.

    thinkandtype said:
    Unfortunately, I don't think the average high school senior (or perhaps his or her overprotective parents), even the best and brightest, will always be as rational.
    If I were a parent who had to pay $40,000 in tuition, I'd think long and hard before sending my son or daughter to Duke after what we've seen from the Duke administration in this case. The adm. initially encouraged the players to talk to Nifong without lawyers, the faculty who made public comments behaved as if the players were all but certainly guilty, and the president didn't even protest when Nifong sent police to campus to interview Duke students in their dorm without their laywers present. If that's what a $40,000 tuition gets you, a Duke education isn't a very good bargain. So looking elsewhere would be a very rational decision.

    think: in a similar vein, I thought about going to my Duke reunion, which was on a weekend in April. So glad I decided, before this all hit the fan, not to go. This won't taint my memories of Duke, nor should it affect your choice. As if. I said earlier, as an alum of Duke, those prospective students who decide NOT to go to Duke because of this shouldn't be going there in the first place. No loss, to my mind. Not demeaning their reasons for saying no to going there, simply saying that Duke does not need, nor should they want, anyone there who does not want to be there. It is still a privilege, for me, to say that I graduated from Duke University. This case could have happened in any of many schools, on just about every campus in the country. Enjoy your time there, and DON'T HIRE ANY STRIPPERS.

    hues: ever done X?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#269)
    by Jo on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    ... 1 1/2 drinks isn't going to leave her falling down drunk ...
    ... it took a lot longer than 5 minutes for it to kick in ...
    ... took a lot more than 6 ounces of liquor to get her ...
    Maybe the AV had been using drugs/alcohol prior to the arriving at the Duke house, and it began to show at the time she started dancing. This could be a possible reason why she might not want a tox screen. And yes, I know I am just wildly speculating, but it seems to fit better than some other explanations.

    SharonInJax
    She may have drugged herself, obviously. If I had to do what she did, I sure as hell would be high enough that I wouldn't remember what I did the next morning.
    Come to think of it
    hahahaha Hmmm? You wouldn't be that law student ********* told us about would you?

    khartoum: go ahead and send your kid to Duke, just not in a non-revenue producing sport (everything but basketball). As a Duke alum I am not happy with how the admin handled this. I think they did some things right, some things terribly wrong. But I am afraid the same would have transpired at any upper tier college: academia is more than ever driven by political correctness, and the traditional Duke/Durham dichotomy made it even easier in this case. The only real "hero" I have seen yet in this case is the NCCU Chancellor.

    Khartoum posted:
    The adm. initially encouraged the players to talk to Nifong without lawyers, the faculty who made public comments behaved as if the players were all but certainly guilty,
    See, this is kind of what I find fascinating about the whole affair. I think maybe the appeal of it is that any side can be rhetorically demonized, depending on individual perspective. This is not to say I agree or disagree with you on this point (I'm holding back, as much as possible from a definite position of guilt or innocence for all parties involved). It's just as easy for people to make the implicit and occasionally explicit arguments that Duke administration "tipped off" the players, allowed boorish behavior to run rampant, and to be the great white (although with ~40% minority students, this is a bit of a stretch) devil in an oppressed-by-their-money town. Extend this rhetorical merry-go-round to the key players in this case (not just lacrosse players. . .) and it's no wonder it can hold so much of our attention. It's like Matlock were transformed into a Rubik's cube. Except, of course, Rubkik's cubes very rarely go to jail. And I never saw an episode where Matlock was gang raped.

    thinkandtype wrote:
    With full honesty, I can say it is my intention, the student loan gods willing, to begin graduate school at Duke next fall.
    Have no hesitency whatsoever! This fiasco will be gone from the collective conscience of the US as soon as there is a major nationwide news story to change the cycle...the Ken Lay & Jeff Skilling verdicts may do it. It is already slowing down...no one was particularly buzzing about the fact that the AV's description was missing from the 1300 pages of discovery. Anyway, having spent 4 years at Duke myself, I know you will enjoy your classes, professors, fellow students, the campus, climate, research triangle area and....believe it or not...Durham. Definitely catch a Durham Bulls game or too. The respect you will receive in earning a Duke degree will last your lifetime (except from a Tar Hole...though that too will last a lifetime). In the long run, this fiasco is merely a pimple on Duke's overall reputation. I envy you, except for the student loan part, but it is worth it and with a Duke degree you will tame that bear alot faster.

    Exactly, Jo. Before going to the house, or while in the bathroom after the infamous broom comment. I still like someone's suggestion here that it was not a broom that was held up, but a lacrosse stick. Much more likely, equally gross, but when one accepts money from strange men to "dance" naked with another woman, I don't think one should have such delicate sensibilities. Again: if the atmosphere was that volatile, that dangerous, WHY DID THEY GO BACK IN?

    khartoum
    If that's what a $40,000 tuition gets you, a Duke education isn't a very good bargain.
    Picking a college based on the crisis handling prowess of its administration is really shortsighted. The number one reason to go to Duke is its prestige, and that's what your 40k gets you. For better or worse, I think most schools of comparable prestige would have handled the situation similarly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#276)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    Kali, Sorry, I was referring earlier to your comment that perhaps the dancers were the first to offer (racist) insults. The AV says the dancing was stopped due to racial slurs: from N&O, April 16,
    The [AV] said she and another dancer sent by a second escort service stopped dancing because several men at the party yelled a racial slur. In a court document used to obtain DNA samples from lacrosse team members, the woman said one man in the room threatened to sexually assault her with a broom handle.
    from nccu.edu mar 30
    While [the AV] and the other dancer started to perform the men started making racial slurs and became aggressive.
    With respect my comment about observing attacks on some posters, here are a few commments from this very thread that attack AV "sympathizers" and/or women as reprehensible, opportunist, no respect for men's reputations, little compassion towards other posters, making a presumption of evil, strident: from lightenup:
    I have to tell you what I find perhaps the most reprehensible: Nifong's arrest of the Sudanese cabbie. But more so, the total lack of outrage by any of the AV supporters here, the local community, the opportunist activists.
    from supamike,
    I get the feeling from the women on this very website that they feel men are suppose to be able to take this kind of stuff, and they seem to not have any respect when it comes mens reputations...
    from Bob 1:56 PM (whole paragraph included for context)
    It's interesting how little compassion the core of pro-AVs here seem to have towards other posters. There is always a presumption of evil against people who may not be as strident as they are in their belief that the AV was raped. If someone writes anything that they can get their little claws into, they rip rip rip.
    from Bob same post (whole paragraph included for context):
    The more the Pro-AVs speak in rhetorical generalities, the less of a case the AV seems to have. The AV shouldn't be an icon for the feminism unless you're planning on crashing feminism, in which case I'm sure the reactionaries will thank you for all your hard work.
    Sharon, I believe you have enough outrage for all of us. How about outrage for Finnerty's unprovoked assault on a man in Georgetown? Re: the SANE nurse: As I posted above, we also have the head of the SANE program at Duke, saying in an interview:
    "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told," Arico said.
    Honestly, if Arico didn't think her injuries were significant or related to what she said, do you think she'd say even that much in an interview? I don't. I think she'd say, "Sorry the information is confidential and I can't discuss it." Sharon, as far as the nails go, the tissue was consistent with Evan's bodily make-up, and the DNA was a 90% match. It was found under the fingernail. I know it's not proof but it supports the AV's version of the story. BTW, not to be gross, but I just dragged my own (real) nails over my arm and no blood (not very scientific but hey I was curious). Teresa, Why would the physical evidence have to be greater? Are paying clients more likely to be rougher than non-paying partners?

    Lora said:
    I believe Nifong said: they don't know my timeline, not: I plan to change the timeline.
    noname said:
    I remember him saying that as well, and finding it very problamatic. If the accused are guilty, and Nifong's timeline is correct, one would assume the accused know Nifong's timeline. If they don't know his timeline, how can it be right?!?
    Lora said:
    noname, I assume Nifong would have had to give his timeline to the defense as part of his 1200-odd page book, no? I don't know.
    Lora, you know very well that Nifong made this comment before discovery (you yourself brought up the comment). So I ask again, how does Nifong say that the accused don't know his timeline while maintaining both that they are guilty of the crime (were present and active) and that his timeline is correct? How could they not know his timeline under these circumstances?

    SharonInJax May 25, 2006 09:32 PM hues: ever done X?
    X will keep you up all night, it'll make you love the feel of just about anything against your skin, it'll keep you dancing for hours on end, ect. But it's not really the kind of drug that leaves people stumblig around for half an hour in one high heeled shoe before ending up "passed out drunk" in a stranger's car a half hour later. It doesn't sound like that's what she was on. I've never tried it though, so I can't really say from personal experience.

    Kalidoggie wrote:
    This fiasco will be gone from the collective conscience of the US as soon as there is a major nationwide news story to change the cycle...the Ken Lay & Jeff Skilling verdicts may do it.
    Maybe, maybe not. I think the appeal of this case is that many people can use it to let all kinds of latent resentments bubble-forth in the name of fact-finding or analysis. Consider the "perfect storm" (my new favorite media cliche) of hot-button issues this case appeared, at least from the beginning, to stir up. We have racism, classism, gender-bias, academic elitism, and all of this takes place in the South, which means that talking heads can easily stir up emotional embers just by some suggestive shots of columned buildings, etc. Compared to that, securities fraud is just so tame. Perhaps if someone told Nancy Grace that Enron employees were gang-raped out of their inheritance by Skilling, Lay et al?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#280)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    re: the nails. If the AV wore press-on nails, we all agree that they would come off easily. If she clawed at her attacker with press-on nails, they might have popped off before she could have exerted enough pressure to draw blood.

    huesofblue, If the AV refused to take the toxicology test, the presumption is that she was hiding whatever intoxicated her. It's hard to imagine, considering the condition that she was in at both the drunk tank and the hospital, that the SANE nurse didn't ask her to take a toxicology test. If Nifong argues, after the AV refused a test, that the drink she took was laced with something, he's a bigger fool. As far as the AV's history of stripping and intoxication, uh, you may not want to go there. I think it was 1.9, right? Stole a taxicab, took the cops on a long chase endangering the citizens of Durham and beyond, tried to run over a police officer. Hey, it's possible a team of Navy Seals parachuted into the Durham campus, captured her and injected her with sodium pentathol before she went into the house. Since the rape isn't looking very likely we may want to to into other possibilities. I won't go as far as alien abductions, though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#282)
    by weezie on Thu May 25, 2006 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    Hey Kali, what about Durham in the middle of July? Admit it, you know the humidity is pretty awful then. Thinkandtype, try Bullock's bar-b-que in Durham and then Mama Dip's in Cary.

    Lora, if the AV didn't claw at anyone they could have come off easily. If she stumbled against a wall the would have come off easily. If she were in the bathroom doing her nails they may have come off easily.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#284)
    by Teresa on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    Teresa, Why would the physical evidence have to be greater? Are paying clients more likely to be rougher than non-paying partners?
    Lora, I meant that in this case because there are other sexual encounters preceding the alleged rape, I don't think they can prove this case without physical evidence such as DNA even if she's telling the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#285)
    by weezie on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    Almost forgot the QShack!

    thinkandtype posted:
    Perception, in the case of the intangibles in life--like reputation, support, etc. is often tantamount to reality. (Perception, in the case of this particular rape case, might not always be reality, as evidenced by ~99.4% of the comments posted on this blog). So putting yourselves in the position of those students whose decision to attend or not attend Duke boils down to perceptions of the school, how would you categorize your perceptions of Duke as an institution BEFORE the incident (let's say March 12) and CURRENTLY (post-incident, i fear, will only come after the trial)?
    And there you have it. If I were Duke-bound before this happend, it wouldn't change my mind, but I'd guess it did change the minds of over 100 qualified candidates (a couple of lacrosse recruits included). I'm with Sharon on this one: no loss for Duke (except for the LAX recruits). Now here's a conspiracy theory for *** ** ********: Maybe the FA knew someone in the top 100 that was on that waiting list? btw, thinkandtype, nice name.

    huesofblue posted:
    The testimony of multiple witnesses describing the victim as intoxicated is plenty of evidence of intoxication.
    Well, it is pretty well agreed upon that she was "out of it" at least by the end of the party, but that could be from a diabetic insulin reaction -- theoretically -- which would imitate "intoxication" very closely.
    A self induced high is possible, but there just aren't that many drugs that'll leave you in the state that I can really imagine the AV taking before a show.
    No, not that many, but enough. Drugs for anxiety would do it -- Xanax, Valium, taken in sufficient dose 45 minutes to an hour before the party. Taken with alcohol, they would produce very similar effects. And she could well have been very nervous about doing her first -- how should I say this delicately? -- her first "real" group strip tease dance. Kim had not met the AV before that night, so she was not really in a position to know immediately to what extent the AV arrived intoxicated.
    Roberts said that she thought the other woman arrived sober. But when the two began their strip show around midnight, the other woman began having trouble. "She started stumbling," recalled Roberts. "When I think back on it, she had a glassy look in her eyes." Roberts says she "gave her a look that said, 'C'mon, girl, what's going on?' "--but got no response.
    According to that version the AV was too "out of it" even to start her routine, which is one version of why the players allegedly got upset and started in with the abusive remarks. That's too "out of it" too fast to be fully accounted for by drinks and/or drugs consumed entirely at the start of the party. Although clearly intoxicated it is not at all clear that at least some of it was not self-induced prior to her arrival.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#288)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    noname, Sorry if I'm being dense here...I'm not sure I understand. Nifong said, before discovery, that the defense didn't know his timeline, correct? I would conclude that he thinks that the defense timeline is wrong, and his is right. Therefore, he doesn't agree with what they've been saying is exculpatory: the time stamped photos, the ATM receipt, the alleged restaurant receipt, etc. Right? I don't know that he would be obligated to share it with the defense. I just made a guess that he would have had to hand it over in discovery. I could be wrong though. It isn't evidence, it's his own reconstruction of the events. So maybe they still don't know what his timeline is.

    Well, it's been up for a day. Hues gave it a shot. There is nothing but the the AV's testimony that a rape occurred. All other evidence is either neutral or points against her. And I imagine once she's on the stand and all her inconsistencies are laid out her story is going to crumble too. I imagine the cops are all going to be giving depositions soon. We'll get the "20 rapists" story, we'll get the report that she initially told a cop at the hospital that she hadn't been raped. We'll get her initial descriptions of the rapists. We'll get her version of events. We'll get her explanation of her intoxication. Maybe we'll find out about her mental history, if she's on any meds currently. Maybe we'll find out if there's any indication of drug abuse. Maybe we'll find out how come she charged four other men with various criminal acts against her person and then failed to pursue the charges. Or maybe we won't. I kept thinking Nifong was going to pull a rabbit out of his hat. No rabbit. No hat.

    So one thing has kind of had me wondering about this whole fingernails issue. I don't honestly know if anyone here can answer it, but it's worth throwing out there. The speculation by the defense is that, at some point, the AV was doing her nails in the bathroom. I had assumed, I believe from a snippet on an Abrams report, that they meant painting her nails. As in, when I announce my intention to get my nails done, or to do them myself, I tend to think of a full manicure, polish included. Otherwise, I'd just say file, or something. But I don't wear press-ons--or fake nails of any sort, so I'm not sure how that influences the rhetoric. Could "doing" her nails be referring to re-affixing fallen-off nails? If that's the case, how long would/should it take? Nail polish generally takes a while to dry, offering credence to the idea of someone spending a half-hour in grooming time. But I'm not sure about nail adhesive. Whose timeline would it support? And were the contents of the makeup bag ever discussed? Was a bottle of polish present? Or nail glue? I just kind of think it's weird, in that I don't usually carry polish (even for touch-ups) in an evening/going out/for emergencies makeup bag. Thoughts?

    to thinkandtype: as Sharon said,
    It is still a privilege, for me, to say that I graduated from Duke University.
    I echo that wholeheartedly. An amazing experience, and one that has defined my life in a very positive way. And the prejudice and stereotyping against the school and its students, as shown by some posters here, will pass. On that note, I'm asking those of you who are doing this (and you know who you are) to stop taking pot shots at Duke. If it was your school, your friends, your sport, your family, and your achievements, you would be hurt as we Dukies are (but do not discount our loyalty). And it is irrelevant to this case, unless you want to perpetuate stereotypes. I also want to state that it's a given that any woman can be raped, no matter her circumstance or career. I just fear that this case will make it that much more difficult for women who have legitimate cases to come forward, including those in the sex industry. Oh, and why are we talking about consent anyway? The defense's contention is that there was no contact at all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#292)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:11:24 PM EST
    Teresa, I still don't follow. A healthy active woman doesn't have to be a prostitute to have plenty of sex. That's why I'm questioning your premise that she'd have to show more physical evidence.

    SLOphoto
    No, not that many, but enough. Drugs for anxiety would do it -- Xanax, Valium, taken in sufficient dose 45 minutes to an hour before the party. Taken with alcohol, they would produce very similar effects. And she could well have been very nervous about doing her first -- how should I say this delicately? -- her first "real" group strip tease dance.
    That's a really good point. I forgot about valium and xanax. Those are both good examples. Taking a couple valium before knocking back a dixie cup of jungle juice would put almost anyone off their ass.

    Lora, Regarding the timeline, the indictments say that the rape occurred on March 14. That would make it after midnight. That leaves about 40 minutes for the rape to have occurred. It all but eliminates Seligmann. According the the rumors, that would eliminate Finnerty, too. So the only guy left is the one with the mustache.

    Hues wrote:
    [I}remember a night when she and her friends were just knocking back the shots. She got destroyed and ended up throwing up on me in the back of a car. But the thing is, it took a lot longer than 5 minutes for it to kick in and it took a lot more than 6 ounces of liquor to get her to the point where she was even stumbling drunk.
    I hear your story and have been in a similar scenario (GF was trying to roll down the power windows, then barfed in her purse...it was my fault somehow so I had to buy her a new one). I would distinguish your story in two ways: (1) my guess is your GF & friends were doing mixed shots (i.e., sex ont he beach), not pure booze; and, (2) it also sounds like your GF did not pound 6-9 shots in 5 mnutes. Here, I would lean towards an estimate of 9 ozs given the pours I saw in college. It would be even worse if on an empty stomach. Regardless, that is a sh*tload of booze in 5 minutes for anyone!!! As for the drugs she could have taken....valium, xanex, oxycontin, percocet, vicodin. Mix any of these with that much booze and lights out quickly!!

    Lora
    I still don't follow. A healthy active woman doesn't have to be a prostitute to have plenty of sex. That's why I'm questioning your premise that she'd have to show more physical evidence.
    I think she's saying that a woman who's recently had a lot of consensual sex is a lot more likely to exhibit physical symptoms consistent with rape. Absent DNA evidence, simple tenderness or mild swelling isn't that probative as evidence. I'm no expert on the subject though.

    300 comments, time for a new thread. I began it with the motion Reade Seligman filed today.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: More Attacks on Accuser's Credi (none / 0) (#298)
    by Lora on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    Bob,
    There is nothing but the the AV's testimony that a rape occurred
    There is the SANE exam. There is the eyewitness testimony of the hospital workers. There is the police report. There is the eyewitness testimony of ESPN's hospital source. There is the eyewitness testimony of her father as to her appearance and demeanor before and after the party. There is Kim's testimony as to her appearance and demeanor before, during, and after the party. There is the 90% under the fingernail tissue/DNA evidence combined with a 90% ID. At some point in time, there will hopefully be eyewitness testimony from the other party goers as to what they saw, heard, and witnessed. There may be other evidence collected by Nifong (1200 pages worth). It may all hold together. It may not. It isn't "nothing."