I find this rather confusing as well, because it’s been reported that she did identify the alleged rapists by name: Adam, Bret and Matt. There is one Adam on that team, and one Bret. [There’s also a Breck.] There are two Matts. This would seem to eliminate the need to test 40 other people, and I don’t know why it didn’t.
Supposedly, some charges may be brought on Monday - one player charged with assault, and others with aiding and abetting. That’s all per links and posts in the rather large Pit thread.
I read somewhere that the players allegedly used each other’s names around the stripper for reasons that are not clear. That’s probably why there is some question as to whether the three she identified are really the three who allegedly did it.
I know next to nothing about the incident, it doesn’t affect me at all, and I prefer not to force actual complicated people into narrow symbolic categories in order to argue for the things I believe. So I’ve been ignoring the sensationalistic news and I have no opinion on it whatsoever.
I think that if they are guilty, then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If they are not guilty, I feel very sorry for them as they are now marked.
I do think the media, blogs, etc need to stop trying these guys before all the evidence is in. Besides, they will not be making the decision.
I heard last night that a cop saw her after the alleged attack and radioed in that she was not in distress, just passed out drunk.
You know. I think people have gone crazy! This girl goes to a house filled with young college guys (SHE DOESN’T KNOW) and takes all of her clothes off and proceeds to dance naked in front of a bunch of college boys. And oops MAYBE it got out of hand and she was raped! Unbelieveable! But I guess that JUST BECAUSE she went to a strange house filled with young college guys and stripped naked that she didn’t deserve to be raped! God!!!
If I understand what you are saying (could be a big if) you are the first one to suggest the "she was asking for it " defense. I bet your momma’s mighty proud.
At this point, I think the evidence is definitely NOT in her favor. I’m not necessarily saying she’s a “lying whore”, as others have, but something smells in this case.
You’re a genius. Okay, not really. You’re actually an idiot. “Bitch was asking for it” isn’t really all that helpful.
However.
Having been acquainted with more than a few strippers, I do know that it’s a rule (usually enforced by whatever person is booking the job) for the women to be accompanied by some man. Usually the intimidating type, sometimes armed, but more as insurance against this kind of thing. After all, one escort isn’t going to be a whole lot of good against a roomful of drunk, horny guys - but he is a sober witness.
Here is an article from ABC News concerning the alleged alibi of one of the players that I offer for your edification with this comment–If it can be proved that at least one of the players ID’d by the complainant was not in the house at the time of the alleged assault, the DA will have an uphill battle convincing a jury that any of the IDs are valid, considering that she was “100% certain” that the two students named in the indictment raped her. Guin, I agree that “lying whore” is out of line. I think she was very upset, made a false accusation, and things got out of hand. Just my opinion.
If she were in fact raped, why did the second dancer (with the complainaint in the car) make a call to 911 and complain about being called a nigger, but not about being raped? Cite. Why did they drive to a Kroger, and not the hospital or to the police station? Why did they not mention to the security guard at the Kroger that she had been raped?
I don’t know enough about this case to make an informed judgment, but the fact that one of the students (Colin Finnerty) and one of his buddies assaulted a gay man in D.C. last year is probably going to get a lot of press in the next few days. (Finnerty received probation and community service [the latter he has yet to perform as it’s in D.C.].)
I have read that account and several others which were quite similar (I can link if you like) but they all say he called the guy gay. They don’t say he was gay. Not to excuse the behavior–it is reprehensible. Just to clarify. FWIW.
Not that it makes it any better, but that article doesn’t say Finnerty “assaulted a gay man.” It says that, according to the dude assaulted, he was assaulted after telling Finnerty & Co. to stop calling him “gay and other derogatory names.” Let me be clear, for all I know, Finnerty did assault the dude because he was gay, BUT the article doesn’t say that, so I can’t arrive at that conclusion based on this article alone. I think we can all take notice that for boys of Finnerty’s ilk, the term “gay” is a generic insult – as abhorrent as that is – so its use is not per se evidence of a hate crime.
Let’s not forget the recent case where a petty thief was chased down and beaten in front of a gay bar. Because one of the assailants called him a faggot after the incident, it was widely reported as a hate crime, when it was nothing more than a guy getting beaten up after stealing someone’s wallet.
Each piece of new information needs time to be digested and countered. That ABC report looks like death for the prosecution. Actually, I haven’t seen any new facts coming out to bolster the prosecution’s side, but you never know what tomorrow will bring.
Just to clarify my first sentence, the thief was caught in front of the gay bar and beaten there, he was drinking with the assailants in a completely different bar prior to the theft/chase.
Yeah that’s an excellent summary of what we know to date. Unless there’s some very incriminating piece fo evidence that hasn’t popped up so far it appears (at this point) like the DA is holding up a big bag of made up shit for a case that’s going to be beaten like a pinata by the defense.
However, remember OJ… you never can tell what some juries will do.