Lying whore.

[BabaBooey]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

I pit not only the woman who lied and tarnished the reputation of these men, a team and a school, but I pit the people who forged protests and accosted these men despite zero evidence that a crime occured. What the hell were they expecting to accomplish by protesting? And what were they protesting anyway? And what of the coach that retired? A huge fucking mess blown out of proportion with people with entirely too much time on their hands.

[Marley23]

It's worth noting that the source there is the team's attorneys, but given that this party was a month ago and there have still been no charges filed, I think it's probable that nothing happened. Also, it doesn't sound like the police or prosecutors in Durham are offering a different interpretation.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by BabaBooey

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

I pit not only the woman who lied and tarnished the reputation of these men, a team and a school, but I pit the people who forged protests and accosted these men despite zero evidence that a crime occured. What the hell were they expecting to accomplish by protesting? And what were they protesting anyway? And what of the coach that retired? A huge fucking mess blown out of proportion with people with entirely too much time on their hands.

Are you kidding? There is no evidence that she lied about anything, and very little reason to doubt her story at this point. I think it's a little too soon to be calling her a lying whore.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Maybe gate crashers raped her? They might have been able to be low key enough that no one really took note of them, and the stripper would assume they belonged there (not knowing the team members intimately) and would think it was team members assaulting her? I don't know what happened, but that is a possibility. I think it is more possible then the stripper being stupid enough to think she could pull off a scam in this age of DNA technology.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Are you kidding? There is no evidence that she lied about anything, and very little reason to doubt her story at this point. I think it's a little too soon to be calling her a lying whore.

I agree, until there is evidence absolutely proving that no one did it, I think we should presume that they are guilty.

[tiny ham]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

I agree, until there is evidence absolutely proving that no one did it, I think we should presume that they are guilty.

Seems like a big difference between presuming guilt and going fifty miles to the other end of the spectrum and saying they're SO INNOCENT that she's a lying whore.

How about we reserve judgement on EVERYONE involved? Or is that wierd?

[Fiveyearlurker]

"Authorities ordered 46 of the 47 players on Duke’s lacrosse team to submit DNA samples to investigators. Because the woman said her attackers were white, the team’s sole black player was not tested."

Can someone clarify the legality of this for me? I had been under the impression (apparently mistaken) that being of the same race as an alleged perpetrator would not be enough probable cause to compel DNA.

(not to jump in on your rant, but perhaps to tag on an additional rant....)

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Being of the same race, and being in the location at the time of the rape apparently is enough. They tested everyone that they knew was at the party. That still leaves the possibility that they missed people, because they gate crashed and went unnoticed.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Seems interesting that the police DNA tested her phone, finger nails and every other conceivable place DNA might have been present from the alleged attack. So if she had lent her phone to one of the team members, or slapped one who got to close to her dancing, would he now be up for rape charges.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

That should read "They tested everyone that they knew was at the party that fit the description of the assailants."

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Presumeably they would question the dancer about things like that, Bippy. I would think they asked if she loaned her phone to anyone, and maybe if she touched anyone too.

[BabaBooey]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

Maybe gate crashers raped her? They might have been able to be low key enough that no one really took note of them, and the stripper would assume they belonged there (not knowing the team members intimately) and would think it was team members assaulting her?

NO male DNA whatsoever was found on her. No male DNA was found on her fingernails that were in the bathroom.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

I agree, until there is evidence absolutely proving that no one did it, I think we should presume that they are guilty.

Did I presume anyone was guilty? All I said was that calling her a liar is unjustified?

[wonder9]

I live down the road from this whole mess. Earlier today, there was a piece in the paper about photographs that seem to support the players as well. I really feel for this young woman, who seems to have shown up at this party already tanked and banged up and who---I bet---does not remember anything that happened after the party. But NOTHING justifies false accusations of rape, just as nothing justifies the rank behavior of various "student atheletes" that is tolerated at campuses all over the country. Bad, wrong, and stupid...all of it, all of them. This is a perfect storm of race, class, alcohol and perceived priviledge. What a mess.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Did I presume anyone was guilty? All I said was that calling her a liar is unjustified?

What you said was there is "very little reason to doubt her story at this point". With absolutely zero DNA evidence from what was alleged to be a savage beating and rape, I'd say that there is quite ample reason to doubt her story at this point.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by BabaBooey

NO male DNA whatsoever was found on her. No male DNA was found on her fingernails that were in the bathroom.

The only person who used this phrase:

No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman

was defense attorney Wade Smith, so take it with a grain of salt. I smell spin. Probably the unspoken words in that phrase should be "who are my client(s)". When I see a more official source saying the found no DNA whatsoever I will be less skeptical.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Do you really think that a defense attorney would risk destroying his clients (and his case) by lying about the evidence when the truth would come out in short order? I don't.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

No, but I do think he might not speak his thoughts very well in his rush to tell the world that his clients were excluded. Reread what I said. I might not have phrased it the best. I think the attorney likely unintentionally spun the truth, and the media is having a heyday. In any case, why not wait to see if someone more official than a defense attorney comes forward and states that no DNA evidence whatsoever was found. The article only quotes the defense attorney. Find me one where more unbiased officials say that.

[Garfield226]

I'm fairly certain there are acts which are legally defined as sexual assault and rape which would not result in DNA of the assailants on or in the victim's body.

Just something to think about.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

I'm fairly certain there are acts which are legally defined as sexual assault and rape which would not result in DNA of the assailants on or in the victim's body.

Just something to think about.

From the SI article:

"The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her."

These acts would result in DNA of the assailants being on the victim's body.

[athelas]

The protests and orchestrated interest-group outrage is definitely overplayed, though. It seems whenever the word "rape" is used, regardless of facts (or lack of), a certain portion of the population goes into Righteous Indignation Mode.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

From the SI article:

"The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her."

These acts would result in DNA of the assailants being on the victim's body.

If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely.

[Nic2004]

Originally Posted by athelas

<snip>a certain portion of the population goes into Righteous Indignation Mode.

<bolding mine>
...and we know a RIM job when we see one!

[lissener]

I think some clarification is required. If there was actaully zero DNA found on the girl, there would have been no reason to take DNA samples from the players. So someone's not being clear.

Seems to me the fact that DNA samples were taken is enough proof, to me, that DNA actually WAS found on the girl, so my jury's out on the defense attorney's accuracy, for the time being.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely.

So now she can't tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You're really reaching now.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely.

But you'd still probably find evidence of an assault, and probably fibers or particles from the broomhandle.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Does anyone know if the police can take DNA samples before they even know if they have a sample from the survivor to compare with? It seems to me that no judge would order people to give DNA samples without something to compare the samples to.

[Huerta88]

Update (what's not explicitly mentioned in the article is that N.C., like other states, appears to have a law requiring the prosecution to turn over any inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to counsel for the accused, which is why you can be fairly confident the defense counsel isn't talking out of his rear end -- he evidently got the skinny from the state crime lab today):

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...e/3784741.html

Attorneys: No DNA Match in Duke Scandal

By TIM WHITMIRE Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

DURHAM, N.C. — DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday.

Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party.

No charges have been filed in the case.

"No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman," said defense attorney Wade Smith.

The alleged victim, a 27-year-old student at a nearby college, told police she and another woman were hired to dance at the party. The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her.

Authorities ordered 46 of the 47 players on Duke's lacrosse team to submit DNA samples to investigators. Because the woman said her attackers were white, the team's sole black player was not tested.

District Attorney Mike Nifong stopped speaking with reporters last week after initially talking openly about the case, including stating publicly that he was confident a crime occurred. He went on to say he would have other evidence to make his case should the DNA analysis prove inconclusive or fail to match a member of the team.

Smith said Nifong now has the evidence needed to change his mind.

"He doesn't have to do it," Smith said of filing charges. "He is a man with discretion. He doesn't have to do it, and we hope that he won't."

Nifong's assistant said earlier Monday the prosecutor would not comment on the findings. North Carolina Central University, where the alleged victim is a student, said after the results were released that the prosecutor would appear at a campus forum on Tuesday to discuss the case.

Attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents one of the team's captains, said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim's body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes.

"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA," he said.

Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it's likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.

"The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that _ and that's not here," Cheshire said.

Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the DNA results don't mean that Nifong can't go forward with the case _ but the test results make a successful prosecution much harder.

"Isn't the absence of DNA evidence, given the way the victim has described the crime, in and of itself almost enough to raise a reasonable doubt?" he said. "That's all the defense has to do."

Robert Archer, whose son, Breck, is a member of the lacrosse team, said the test results only confirmed for parents what they already knew.

"I know the kids on the team and I know they're innocent," said Archer, of East Quogue, N.Y.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

So now she can't tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You're really reaching now.

Bite me.

Heurta88, thank you for the better explanation. It wasn't clear to me that they could take samples before they even knew if they had evidence from the survivor to compare. That is the whole reason I was skeptical, because I was going on the idea (which lissener managed to convey) that they had something to compare those samples to.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by lissener

Seems to me the fact that DNA samples were taken is enough proof, to me, that DNA actually WAS found on the girl, so my jury's out on the defense attorney's accuracy, for the time being.

Well yes, it's overwhelmingly likely that DNA was found on her, as we're all completely covered in it. What they collect is not DNA per se, it's fiber on the clothing, or hairs, fluids, skin under the fingernails, and the like. They collected what material they could, and if reports are to believed, none of it belonged to the lacrosse team.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that they made an assault without direct contact, or that she got raped by someone present other than the suspects, or that the DNA test results were wrong (state labs can be sloppy). Or that she was lying. It's too early to say anything except this may not be the slam-dunk conviction it was made out to be.

[JonScribe]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

So now she can't tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You're really reaching now.

Would you mind consenting to a test for comparison purposes?

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

Bite me.

Heurta88, thank you for the better explanation. It wasn't clear to me that they could take samples before they even knew if they had evidence from the survivor to compare. That is the whole reason I was skeptical, because I was going on the idea (which lissener managed to convey) that they had something to compare those samples to.

No problem.

I must confess to having a problem with your use of "the survivor." The whole problem here is it's far from clear that there has been anything to "survive." It stacks the deck to say, in effect, well, she says she was raped, so she's a "victim" or "survivor," so let's just find out whom to pin it on.

If I accused you of swindling me out of money in a complex financial transaction the details of which were not clear, I doubt that anyone not my mother would refer to me as the "fraud survivor" or "embezzlement victim." I think I would be the "accuser" or "alleged victim."

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

So now she can't tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You're really reaching now.

To clarify. All we know about the assault is what is released to the media. Some states classify rape as any object used to violate, and sodomy also varies by state. So penises need not have been the things the assailants used. This is the idea I was agreeing with. It was first hinted at by Garfield226. Apparently it is moot now though. I am still waiting to hear what the prosecutor says, they will speak on this matter Tuesday.

[lissener]

Originally Posted by Brain Wreck

Well yes, it's overwhelmingly likely that DNA was found on her, as we're all completely covered in it. What they collect is not DNA per se, it's fiber on the clothing, or hairs, fluids, skin under the fingernails, and the like. They collected what material they could, and if reports are to believed, none of it belonged to the lacrosse team.

The defense attorney said that NO DNA WAS FOUND.

It seems to me they wouldn't ask for samples from the team in the FIRST place if that were true.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Huerta88, I was using the term more as a generic referance, not as specific to the stripper who has made the complaint. I do not quite know what to think about whether or not she was assaulted or not, but it seems maybe she wasn't. I am waiting to hear from the prosecutor tomorrow. I used the phrase for lack of a better one, and because until the prosecutor speaks up and says her allegations were completely disproven there really isn't anything else to say. I dislike the term "rape victim", so use survivor instead.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Update (what's not explicitly mentioned in the article is that N.C., like other states, appears to have a law requiring the prosecution to turn over any inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to counsel for the accused, which is why you can be fairly confident the defense counsel isn't talking out of his rear end -- he evidently got the skinny from the state crime lab today):

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...e/3784741.html

"No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman," said defense attorney Wade Smith.

Is this saying "No DNA was found that came from any young man who was present at the party", or "No male DNA was found on this woman at all"?

I thought it was the latter, based on this:

Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it's likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.

It sounds like there was no indication that anyone ejaculated anywhere near this woman. So I suppose she could have been sexually assaulted in other ways, which is not rare in rapes (AFAIK), but her description of the crime included both rape and sodomy. Which sounds to me like sexual penetration.

And, since they also collected DNA from under her fingernails and her cell phone, and none of it matched, there is also no evidence that can tie any of the players to the crime even if it did not involve penises at all.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kaboom]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

Huerta88, I was using the term more as a generic referance, not as specific to the stripper who has made the complaint. I do not quite know what to think about whether or not she was assaulted or not, but it seems maybe she wasn't. I am waiting to hear from the prosecutor tomorrow. I used the phrase for lack of a better one, and because until the prosecutor speaks up and says her allegations were completely disproven there really isn't anything else to say. I dislike the term "rape victim", so use survivor instead.

Whats wrong with "accuser"?

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by Kaboom

Whats wrong with "accuser"?

That would be fine, except I was asking questions about how evidence was gathered, and the term survivor was meant to mean "a random person, male or female who was apparently raped 01".

[Huerta88]

Well, but the problem remains "apparently raped." When will we (generically) decide that the "apparently" bar has been cleared? I hope it is not the moment a woman (or man) says "I was raped" -- with nothing more.

I read the quote as implying that none of the 45 identified guys' DNA had been identified, but one could read it as Shodan did, too. In any event, I'll reiterate that we have no reason to doubt the defense lawyer -- saying "there's no DNA from my guys" is specific, factual, and easily-falsifiable (to the great detriment of him and his clients). (N.B. that saying "They're absolutely not guilty," while it seems a stronger statement, would actually be weaker and potentially-more-weasly, as it could mean "They did what's alleged, but lacked the requisite intent" or "They did it, but have affirmative defenses," or "They did it, but the case is too circumstantial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" -- that scumbag Mumia's supporters still seem not to realize that this is what he's doing when he casuistically says he is "not guilty as charged" or whatever his elision is).

[Zabali_Clawbane]

I am not doubting that the team was cleared. My confusion was due to the fact that the samples were taken at all, because I believed that they had to have DNA evidence from the person who was saying they were raped BEFORE they could make possible assailants give DNA samples. What is the truth here, can they just take DNA samples for possible comparision with evidence that might or might not be there, where these events are happening based only on an accuser's say so? The articles imply that there was a comparison in some places, yet implies there was no evidence found on the stripper's body in almost the same breath. Was there or was there not some kind of evidence on the stripper? Can anyone provide an even clearer article?

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

I am not doubting that the team was cleared. My confusion was due to the fact that the samples were taken at all, because I believed that they had to have DNA evidence from the person who was saying they were raped BEFORE they could make possible assailants give DNA samples. What is the truth here, can they just take DNA samples for possible comparision with evidence that might or might not be there, where these events are happening based only on an accuser's say so? The articles imply that there was a comparison in some places, yet implies there was no evidence found on the stripper's body in almost the same breath. Was there or was there not some kind of evidence on the stripper? Can anyone provide an even clearer article?

Not at the moment. I don't know the N.C. procedure -- do they take a sample from the alleged victim and the accused at the same time, and test in parallel? Do they wait till they find DNA not her own on her, then test suspects? The standard is going to be (no surprise) "probable cause." The rub is that this is judged in the first instance by the prosecutor. This prosecutor (as witness his initially trying the case in the press, than backpedaling like crazy when it seemed the DNA wasn't going to come through) is not necessarily above doubt as to his judgment.

It's also not clear to me who the "authorities" were who "ordered" the suspects to give DNA samples. Was it the DA, or a local judge? Was it truly an "order" or just a request with which they voluntarily complied?

I don't know that any of that crim. procedure stuff matters much to the OP or the ultimate issue (did it happen?). How they got from point A to point B (allegation of rape to revelation of non-existence of forensic evidence) seems of limited probative value to the issues we really care (or should care) about (did they do what she said, or is shewhat the OP accuses her of being?).

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Meanwhile the newspapers etc. are selling like crazy, and raking in the money from all of this hullabaloo. I really dislike the trend in much of the media to trumpet to the rooftops any old thing as "credible" and to hype it up, then turn around and use the exact same procedure as the case unfolds even if it conflicts with what was reported previously.

[Waenara]

From the article quoted in an earlier post:

"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA," he said.

Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it's likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.

"The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that _ and that's not here," Cheshire said.

[emphasis added by me]

A few posters have speculated that perhaps persons unknown (gate crashers) were the attackers, instead of members of the team. But apparently there was absolutely no DNA, latex or lubricant on her.

Given that, what evidence was that there she was even attacked? This is the first I've heard about this case (I'm from Canada, and I don't follow American news or sports news very closely). Have other news articles given any physical confirmation that she was attacked (e.g. the "broomhandle" scenario?). I would think that she would have massive bruising/lacerations if that were the case. Easy enough to find in a rape exam.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by lissener

The defense attorney said that NO DNA WAS FOUND.

No, it's impossible for no DNA to be found on any person. We're all covered with it. And anyway, that isn't what he said.

No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman.

He doesn't say there was no DNA on her. He also doesn't say she wasn't raped. He's just saying whatever it was, it wasn't a young man. Whether he's reliable, I have no idea.

It seems to me they wouldn't ask for samples from the team in the FIRST place if that were true.

DNA testing takes time, and if a suspect is named, they don't have to wait for the initial results to come back before collecting the sample.

[JonScribe]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

Meanwhile the newspapers etc. are selling like crazy, and raking in the money from all of this hullabaloo. I really dislike the trend in much of the media to trumpet to the rooftops any old thing as "credible" and to hype it up, then turn around and use the exact same procedure as the case unfolds even if it conflicts with what was reported previously.

Ah, bullshit.

You're reading about it, so we're going to follow the story. Where ever it leads.

Are you suggesting that when someone makes an accusation such as this that we try to keep it quiet until when? Charges are filed, trial begins, there's a conviction?

Or are you suggesting that we not report when new information comes forward?

Newsfuckingflash: This is a legitimate story whether she's telling the truth or lying her ass off.

Are we making money off of a story like this? Yeah, just as much as any other story we run. But if you don't like it, don't read newspapers and magazines. Don't subscribe. Don't watch TV. Don't listen to the radio.

But don't fucking wallow in the gory details and then cluck your tongue with disapproval at the "trends in media."

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by JonScribe

Ah, bullshit.

You're reading about it, so we're going to follow the story. Where ever it leads.

Are you suggesting that when someone makes an accusation such as this that we try to keep it quiet until when? Charges are filed, trial begins, there's a conviction?

Or are you suggesting that we not report when new information comes forward?

Newsfuckingflash: This is a legitimate story whether she's telling the truth or lying her ass off.

Are we making money off of a story like this? Yeah, just as much as any other story we run. But if you don't like it, don't read newspapers and magazines. Don't subscribe. Don't watch TV. Don't listen to the radio.

But don't fucking wallow in the gory details and then cluck your tongue with disapproval at the "trends in media."

Here's a novel idea, why not report the truth and not hype it up or put your own objective slant on it? Hmm? Why not go back to the days of professional journalism. I was thinking of other cases where the media did similar things with BTK. They hyped every single possible theory up sky high, and even seemed to publish speculation as probable fact when there was nothing to report, and didn't back down even when the DA said the information they put forth was "patently false". I have a valid point in this, and you should consider it.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

The thread I linked to is over a year old btw, so don't ressurect it.

[Garfield226]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

Here's a novel idea, why not report the truth and not hype it up or put your own objective slant on it? Hmm? Why not go back to the days of professional journalism. I was thinking of other cases where the media did similar things with BTK. They hyped every single possible theory up sky high, and even seemed to publish speculation as probable fact when there was nothing to report, and didn't back down even when the DA said the information they put forth was "patently false". I have a valid point in this, and you should consider it.

Ahem.

What the FUCK is an "objective slant"?

I suggest you at least get your terminology straight before you start talking about things you know nothing about.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

Ahem.

What the FUCK is an "objective slant"?

I suggest you at least get your terminology straight before you start talking about things you know nothing about.

Biased slant, I meant biased. I do know better.

[Garfield226]

Now that you've gotten the correct phraseology, maybe you could point out some specific examples of things in the media has reported about this case that are "hyped up" or a "biased slant."