Can we now, finally, chew the lying stripper a new one?

[Huerta88]

I said I would post on why LWCM’s background should have informed any reasonable investigator as to the plausibility of her claims.

1. Her criminal record (which included auto theft). Theft is a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which is generally regarded as a basis for impeaching witness credibility. Theft is a crime that implicitly involves lying, as driving around in a car you do not own amounts to a false representation that you have a right to own it.

2. Her history of making unprovable gang-rape accusations.

3. Her evident habitiual (and on the night of the party, acute) abuse of alcohol and/or other substances notorious for clouding recall.

4. Her involvement in the sex trade.

“But wait! It’s unfair to say polyamorous women are whores!”

 (a) Crystal is not a whore because she played vassal to both Thor and Chronos at the RenFair.  She is a whore because she sold her body, in one form or another, for money.  Whatever **catsix** defended in the realm of female sexual adventurousness, I doubt it was turning tricks at the Holiday Inn Express.

(b)  I was the one who said strippers and hookers were disingenuous by trade, and I stick by it -- they feign affection and stimulation to lonely desperate men.  That's fake.  Liars are also fake.

 (c)  Most sex trade workers are paid largely in cash.  That must cause the biggest accounting headaches when tax time comes!  Crystal must really be sweating that 1040 right about now!  

 In reality, as with most borderline economies, the sex trade is rife with tax evaders and other criminal liars.  People rarely violate one law, or one social norm.  It's usually none, or many.

 (d)  Strippers, whores, et al., are statistical outliers -- most women (statistically) don't show their wares to all sund sundry.  At the first level, that just tells us they're build different.

 But it turns out the precepts of legal evidence are based on the mainstream, not on the outliers.  Excited utterances and dying declarations are allowed into evidence even when the utterer or declarer isn't around, because we assume that "most" excited or dying people won't have the craft to lie.  

 Similarly, eyewitness testimony is generally granted some (not conclusive) value.  This is because of a rough-cut assumption that "most" people will have fairly accurate perceptions of what happened, and will fairly-accuratley and truthfully report them.  It's an estimate, but it works, for "most" witnesses.

 But given that "most" people (just numerically) are not promiscuous strippers/whores, and "most" don't get trashed out of their minds, I have no problem with putting aside a presumptive belief in "eyewitness only" testimony when the testifying witness is significantly different in kind from the "most" of us on which the model was built.  

It’s not that difficult to see why.

[Cheesesteak]

@alive

If the only evidence is identification by the accuser, and the accuser failed to identify the first time around, and only identified anyone when told that no matter who she identified they would be charged, then how can you possibly say the case should go on?

I read up a bit on it and see that there were prior attempts at a photo lineup where she didn’t identify anyone from the team. Important question ahead… Were those earlier lineups with or without fillers?

If they were with fillers, then I retract my prior position that the no-filler lineup process was OK. If this is how it played out, then clearly the accuser couldn’t remember who to pin the accusation on, couldn’t remember people from the party she attended, and was given a free shot to select whoever she wanted.

If they were without fillers, I’d retain my position that the lack of fillers, in and of itself, was not something that caused the railroading of the 3 defendants. If this is what happened, and Mangum wanted to falsely accuse people, why didn’t she just select people the first time around? This progression of events would suggest to me that the police and DA were pressuring her to select someone. Why else would you bring her in multiple times and show her the same photos over and over again? Of course, with this crowd of characters, who knows what motivations might lurk in their twisted minds?

[Rick]

@Cheesesteak

I read up a bit on it and see that there were prior attempts at a photo lineup where she didn’t identify anyone from the team. Important question ahead… Were those earlier lineups with or without fillers?

If they were with fillers, then I retract my prior position that the no-filler lineup process was OK. If this is how it played out, then clearly the accuser couldn’t remember who to pin the accusation on, couldn’t remember people from the party she attended, and was given a free shot to select whoever she wanted.

If they were without fillers, I’d retain my position that the lack of fillers, in and of itself, was not something that caused the railroading of the 3 defendants. If this is what happened, and Mangum wanted to falsely accuse people, why didn’t she just select people the first time around? This progression of events would suggest to me that the police and DA were pressuring her to select someone. Why else would you bring her in multiple times and show her the same photos over and over again? Of course, with this crowd of characters, who knows what motivations might lurk in their twisted minds?

I brought this up in post #216 quoting from from the Durham in Wonderland blog
“Nifong withheld from the court that the accuser had failed to identify any suspects in an official photo lineup.”
"As he basked in the media spotlight, Nifong appears to have learned that, contrary to his assurances, the DNA results would be negative. But he refused to discard the case for lack of evidence, and instead instructed police to conduct another lineup. Only this time, he would ensure that the accuser identified someone. In violation of Durham policies, the lineup would be confined to suspects—now all 46 white players on the team. In further violation of procedures, the accuser would be told that the lineup contained no fillers. And overriding yet another procedure, the lead investigator for the case—Gottlieb—would oversee the array.

Duke Law professor James Coleman, former chief counsel to the House Ethics Committee, later wrote that these Nifong-mandated procedural irregularities “strongly suggest[ed] that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

Notice the word official in the first quote. Durham police policies call for fillers, so an official line up would seem to include fillers.

[Cheesesteak]

Rick, your post is what prompted me to read a bit more on it. Nothing I found says anything either way about fillers or no fillers. I get crap like this

The accuser identified four players as her alleged assailants on April 4 after viewing PowerPoint pictures of 46 players on April 4. But in March, she looked at 36 pictures of lacrosse players and didn’t identify any of them. She said later in March that she was 70 percent sure Seligmann was at the party but couldn’t remember. On March 21, she twice looked at photos of team captain Evans and didn’t recognize him. Before these lineups, the accuser made contradictory statements and other misidentifications.

I see all sorts of problems with this identification process, and most of them I would consider a lot worse than the no-filler issue.

[Contrapuntal]

Here is how the first two lineups were conducted. (From K C Johnson)

According to Inv. B.W. Himan’s notes, the accuser described at least two of her attackers in ways didn’t remotely resemble any of the lacrosse players. No wonder, then, that the accuser identified none of the suspects that police presented to her in photo line-ups on March 16 and March 21. On March 16, police presented four groups of six lacrosse players each. In each group was one suspect named Adam, Matt, or Brett (the police selected only 2 of the 3 Matts on the team as suspects) and five fillers (players not named Adam, Matt, or Brett). On March 21, police showed the accuser two more groups, with one suspect apiece (the other two residents of the house, Dave Evans and Dan Flannery) and five lacrosse players as fillers. In total, the accuser viewed 36 of the 46 white lacrosse players and identified no one as an attacker.

Fillers were used. The fillers were LAX players, but she was not told that. Each array had one suspect and multiple fillers.
In the April 14 lineup, Mangum was shown pictures of the entire team one at a time, not as an array, and was told that all of the pictures were of LAX players, in violation of DPD procedure, as has been noted.

Anyone who wants an overview of the case (Wee Bairn? brickbacon?) should read K C Johnson’s Overall Case Narrative.

[Contrapuntal]

More on the lineups (pdf.)

[don_t_ask]

@Steve MB

Given that “coercion (by Nifong)” is the less damaging (to the defendant) defense, and thus the more likely to be presented, I think it would be worthwhile to nail that point down in a court of law, in preparation for putting Nifong behind bars.

Wouldn’t the State prefer that she get off on the grounds of her mental instability? The alternative would make the State 100% liable for Nifong’s actions in a civil case. If she is not a party to any claim for compensation they can possibly save a few dollars by ascribing some percentage of culpability to her original claims.

[Contrapuntal]

@don't ask

Wouldn’t the State prefer that she get off on the grounds of her mental instability? The alternative would make the State 100% liable for Nifong’s actions in a civil case. If she is not a party to any claim for compensation they can possibly save a few dollars by ascribing some percentage of culpability to her original claims.

The more I read about her, the more it becomes clear to me that she has serious mental or psychological problems. AG Cooper strongly suggested this in his statement. She appears to believe that her story is true, even one version where she was suspended in mid-air while the rape occurred (no cite yet.)

If she is this disturbed, prosecuting her would serve no purpose at all, IMO.

[Contrapuntal]

@SnakesCatLady

"Since we haven’t gone through a normal legal process, we don’t know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn’t mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn’t collected appropriately enough to go forward.” – Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

(quote found on Liestoppers)
What a bitch. Did you listen to the state DA? The kids were innocent. LWCM has issues.

Broverman clarifies, (quoted with permission from K C Johnson.)

The day that AG Roy Cooper dismissed all charges and declared the players innocent, it seemed as if we had another example of unfortunate conduct by a Duke professor. Newsday quoted Biology professor Sheryl Broverman (who is not one of the Group of 88) as suggesting that we’ll never know the truth of what happened. It turns out, however, that Broverman’s comments were taken considerably out of context.

Broverman e-mailed me shortly after the article appeared, but Wednesday through Friday was unusually hectic, and I just have gotten through this week’s e-mails today. I quote her response in full:

• In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I would like clarify my my comments as quoted in Newsday today. I was contacted by the reporter initially to talk about DukeEngage. He then asked me for my opinion about the expected dropping of all charges against the students. I was unaware that this was about to happen. I made the mistake of trying to provide a nuanced commentary on the difficulty of prosecuting rape in general. Many cases, some of which are valid accusations, are dismissed for lack of evidence. I think all of us would also agree that “normal legal procedures” did not happen under Nifong’s leadership! Do I want the students to be guilty? Of course not. Do I accept that there is not sufficient evidence to go forward? Sure. Do I wish the lack of evidence had been acknowledged last spring? Absolutely! Who doesn’t? However, I still maintain that rape is hard to prosecute, and that IN GENERAL lack of evidence does not mean a crime was not committed. However, I did not mean to suggest that I thought these students should be prosecuted.

In science, if the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis. However, if the data doesn't exist because the experiment didn't work, one can't conclude anything. Looking at how Nifong handled the case, "the experiment didn't work" and one can't conclude anything. Listening to AG Cooper this afternoon, I accept that the data does not support the hypothesis, which in real life means that charges should be dropped.*

People of good faith, it seems to me, can disagree over whether this case shows that rape law has bent too far in favor of prosecutors, and I suspect I would be more inclined to take that position than Prof. Broverman. About the Duke case itself, however, I agree with everything she says in the statement above.

Link.

[SnakesCatLady]

Thanks,** Contrapuntal**, I was just coming in here to post that and my apology. I hate it when people are quoted out of context.

[athelas]

In science, if the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, you drop or modify the hypothesis. However, if the data doesn’t exist because the experiment didn’t work, one can’t conclude anything. Looking at how Nifong handled the case, “the experiment didn’t work” and one can’t conclude anything.

That still sounds like she believes that there is doubt about the actual innocence of the players, as if the claims of the prosecution and LWCM were not shown to be totally without merit. She may have been misquoted, but the quote as a whole shows that she’s still a few steps away from the truth.

[brickbacon]

@alive

There was no physical evidence against the three students. The ENTIRE case rested precisely on the lineup identification.

Wrong, shithead. As this site states:

Either a forcible rape, kidnapping and strangulation happened in that bathroom in Durham or it didn’t. Nor is it a classic he said/she said. There is evidence here, mounds of significant physical evidence: There is a rape kit. There are bruises. There are DNA tests and broken fingernails and witnesses seemingly tumbling out of the woodwork. There are time-stamped photographic accounts of much of the evening. This is not a case about ESP as much as it’s a case about CSI.

So yes, there was physical evidence for both sides.

@alive

The accuser had already gone through a photo lineup once before, one that did have some “filler” pictures. She did not identify anyone, even though 2 of the eventual students she would later identify were in the pictures.

I call bullshit. I want a cite, and not that Durham in Wonderland bullshit. Yes, the lineup was improper, but not at all like you describe. As this cite states

However, an eyewitness identification expert believes the police lineup procedure was flawed because no non-lacrosse players were included.

Gary Wells, president of the American Psychology-Law Society, described it as “a multiple-choice test without any wrong answers.”

Again stupid move on Nifong’s part, but not at all what you described.

@Huerta88

As there is no research of which I am aware indicating widespread safe-sex practices by rapists (who are almost by definitions spontaneous risk-takers), it is safe to assume that in most real rapes there will be some detectable-by-today’s-technologies forensic evidence, especially when an accuser makes no mention of condoms being used [in her initial accusation].

Wrong again stupid.

Experts say that the absence of conclusive DNA evidence would not necessarily be a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case. They cite a figure stating that 75 percent to 80 percent of rape prosecutions do not involve forensic evidence such as DNA.

So yes, a lot of rapes don’t come down to DNA evidence.

@Huerta88

This is just about incomprehensible. DAs don’t (in a democracy) arrest anybody – police do, following an investigation by the police. But when the DAs and the police are corrupt, the police may take orders from the DAs to run the investigation and arrests in a way that suits the DA’s corrupt preferences. And in such a corrupt situation – of course, the DAs or the cops may well arrest someone they don’t think is guilty, if they think that doing so will still allow them to achieve their corrupt purpose (getting re-elected? Getting a conviction from a black lynch-mob jury?). If you don’t even know how the legal system operates, you’d save us a lot of time by not posting in legal-themed threads.

You caught me. I meant to say DAs do not “try” people they do not believe are guilty. My sincere apologies for making a typo.

@Huerta88

If she had made such an evil sexually-charged allegation, as did LWCM, then her sexual character and proclivites might well be a relevant topic in assessing the credibility thereof. But, that is not the case here.

Her sexual proclivities have absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be raped. Whether she’s a “whore” or “cum dumpster” is irrelevant. “Whores” can still be raped. In fact, prostitutes are more often the victims of such crimes. You don’t give up your rights as a human people just because you are a prostitute.

[DMC]

@Airman Doors

Yeah, there’s no need to dredge up a 35-page trainwreck. Besides, this thread will be considerably shorter. I don’t expect to see too many stand-up posters come in here to recant their previous stance. As usual, since nobody really wants to wade through a thread like that, there’s strength in anonymity.

I’m with crowmanyclouds on this one. Since this keeps getting tossed around, surely someone can come up with a list of those posters who would need to recant their previous stance.

[Weirddave]

brickbacon,

I’m just curious, do you have any cites that aren’t from the media hysteria during first few days of the case, before facts started to come to light?

Just wondering,

Dave

[brickbacon]

@Weirddave

brickbacon,

I’m just curious, do you have any cites that aren’t from the media hysteria during first few days of the case, before facts started to come to light?

Just wondering,

Dave

For what information?

[Contrapuntal]

@brickbacon

For what information?

For the injuries, for example. I provided cites from the police reports and from the S.A.N.E. nurse in training report, which you have completely ignored.

Durham in Wonderland is not bullshit. Everything he states as fact is cited. You need to open your eyes and realize that you are either A) Willfully blind or B) The victim of a skewed media perspective. There were no injuries. There was no rape, There was no thirty minute assault that included beating, forced sodomy, and strangulation.

Does the AG report mean nothing to you? Is it bullshit as well? Why?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Huerta88

I said I would post on why LWCM’s background should have informed any reasonable investigator as to the plausibility of her claims.

1. Her criminal record (which included auto theft). Theft is a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which is generally regarded as a basis for impeaching witness credibility. Theft is a crime that implicitly involves lying, as driving around in a car you do not own amounts to a false representation that you have a right to own it.

2. Her history of making unprovable gang-rape accusations.

3. Her evident habitiual (and on the night of the party, acute) abuse of alcohol and/or other substances notorious for clouding recall.

4. Her involvement in the sex trade.

“But wait! It’s unfair to say polyamorous women are whores!”

 (a) Crystal is not a whore because she played vassal to both Thor and Chronos at the RenFair.  She is a whore because she sold her body, in one form or another, for money.  Whatever **catsix** defended in the realm of female sexual adventurousness, I doubt it was turning tricks at the Holiday Inn Express.

(b)  I was the one who said strippers and hookers were disingenuous by trade, and I stick by it -- they feign affection and stimulation to lonely desperate men.  That's fake.  Liars are also fake.

 (c)  Most sex trade workers are paid largely in cash.  That must cause the biggest accounting headaches when tax time comes!  Crystal must really be sweating that 1040 right about now!  

 In reality, as with most borderline economies, the sex trade is rife with tax evaders and other criminal liars.  People rarely violate one law, or one social norm.  It's usually none, or many.

 (d)  Strippers, whores, et al., are statistical outliers -- most women (statistically) don't show their wares to all sund sundry.  At the first level, that just tells us they're build different.

 But it turns out the precepts of legal evidence are based on the mainstream, not on the outliers.  Excited utterances and dying declarations are allowed into evidence even when the utterer or declarer isn't around, because we assume that "most" excited or dying people won't have the craft to lie.  

 Similarly, eyewitness testimony is generally granted some (not conclusive) value.  This is because of a rough-cut assumption that "most" people will have fairly accurate perceptions of what happened, and will fairly-accuratley and truthfully report them.  It's an estimate, but it works, for "most" witnesses.

 But given that "most" people (just numerically) are not promiscuous strippers/whores, and "most" don't get trashed out of their minds, I have no problem with putting aside a presumptive belief in "eyewitness only" testimony when the testifying witness is significantly different in kind from the "most" of us on which the model was built.  

It’s not that difficult to see why.

Georgina Beyer was a transexual stripper/prostitute. Her life changed forever when, working as a prostitute in Sydney’s King Cross, she was raped by four men in the back of a car.

Georgina didn’t go to the police: back in those days prostitutes weren’t commonly believed in cases of rape, because of the sort of beliefs that you are espousing. Fortunately for the world, Georgina didin’t let values such as yours govern her life. In 1995, she became the worlds first transexual Mayor, and in the year 2000, she became the world’s first transexual Member of Parliament. In 2003 Tim Barnett MP introduced the Prostitution Law Reform Bill, and Georgina gave the following speech in support or that bill:

@Originally Posted by GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa)

: I rise to make my contribution to the third reading of this bill, which I support. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the members of this Parliament for a considered and varied debate from both sides and both points of view. Along with that, I congratulate supporters of both sides of the argument for their contribution, which expresses a fair view from both sides of the nation. I particularly congratulate and pay great credit to Tim Barnett, who has had the courage and commitment to see this bill through to this most important point.

I support the bill, because, as everybody knows, I have had experience in the sex industry—and I am the only member of this Parliament to have had it. If I had had a law like this to protect me and give me some teeth for redress when I was 16 and 17 years old—even on entering into the sex industry—then I might have been spared the 5 or so years I spent in that industry. Barriers would have been created against people who would coerce those under 18 to enter the sex industry in the first place. I support this bill for all the prostitutes I have ever known who have died before the age of 20 because of the inhumanity and hypocrisy of a society that would not ever give them the chance to redeem whatever circumstances made them arrive in that industry.

This bill provides some of that protection. It provides people like me at that time with some form of redress for the brutalisation that might happen when a client pulls a knife. The horror of that situation is that it could be a life and death one—one does not know—but it would have been nice to know that instead of having to deal out justice afterwards to that person myself, I might have been able to approach the authorities—the police in this case—and say: “I was raped, and, yes, I’m a prostitute, and, no, it was not right that I should have been raped, because I said no, and it was not paid attention to.”

I think of all the people I have known in that area who have suffered because of the hypocrisy of our society, which, on the one hand, can accept prostitution, while, on the other hand, wants to push it under the carpet and keep it in the twilight world that it exists in. We are bringing prostitution reform into the light with some of what is proposed in this bill, and the criminal element does not necessarily like to be standing in the glare of greater public influence over how an industry like this might be conducted within our society. It is about accepting that that occurs, and it is about accepting the fact that the people who work in this industry deserve some human rights. I plead with those members in this House who are wavering right up to the wire, to think, for heaven’s sake, of the people of whom I have just spoken, including myself, who might be spared some of the hideous nature of the way society treats prostitutes—because that is here with us.

But if one does have fears, this legislation will be reviewed in 5 years to see how it is operating and whether it is effective. If this bill passes tonight, in 5 years we will be able to reassess its worth. That is something that those who are wavering should be comforted by. But to do nothing now would be irresponsible of this Parliament, because the status quo would remain, and that is unacceptable. This is our one chance in perhaps 20 years to do something. Whatever side of the argument we take, I know we all come from a humanitarian point of view, but I beg members to consider the side I am on, and the side many others in this House are on also. It is the side I consider to be right. It does not diminish, in my opinion, the opinions of those who are against this bill, because some valid points have been made, but not to address this issue now, with this possibility, is not right.

I will conclude by saying that right now we have a sex industry, and we have legislation based on an outmoded double standard. Let us change, please, the part we can.

http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2003_06_25.htm#_Toc67114307
above quotation from hansard at New Zealand Parliament, reprinted under Section 27 of the copyright act.
…prostitution is now legal in New Zealand, and while there is still a way to go, attitudes have and are changing in the NZ Police force.

This case has nothing to do with prostitution or race or criminal history. It has everything to do with a prosecutor who decided to make a name for himself, a women who has made a false allegation, and the evidence. There absolutely should be outrage over this case: but slagging off prostitutes? You have made a great attempt to make prostitutes sound like bad people, not only are they liars who prey on “lonely desperate men,” but they are also evil tax evaders too! I’ve known prostitutes who were liars, and prostitutes who were true ladies: oddly enough they fit the demographic norms of most everybody else I know.

Georgina is one of the most amazing ladies I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, she was also a former prostitute, or as you would call it, “a whore.” I do know who I hold her in complete respect: you, not so much. And I’m sure thats not difficult to see why…

[Xema]

@brickbacon

So yes, a lot of rapes don’t come down to DNA evidence.

This is at least as silly now as when it was trotted out in this case: after it was revealed that not only was no DNA from any lacrosse player present, but also that DNA from several other males was present.

Yes, a substantial percentage of rape prosecutions “do not involve forensic evidence such as DNA.” This case does have DNA evidence - all of it strongly exculpatory for the accused. It can be correct to prosecute a case in the absence of DNA evidence - but not in defiance of it.

BTW, it should be noted that Nifong’s actions when he learned of the non-lacrosse DNA are very significant: He took no steps to determine whose was the actual DNA, choosing instead to proceed with the case against lacrosse players whom he now knew were innocent of rape and sexual assault. If a DA actually believed a sexual assualt occurred and tests then showed DNA from various males, is there any possible innocent explanation for failure to pursue this evidence? It’s clear that at this point Nifong was involved in a deliberate hoax with charges he believed to be false.

[Rick]

@brickbacon

Wrong, shithead. As this site states:

Either a forcible rape, kidnapping and strangulation happened in that bathroom in Durham or it didn’t. Nor is it a classic he said/she said. There is evidence here, mounds of significant physical evidence: There is a rape kit. There are bruises. There are DNA tests and broken fingernails and witnesses seemingly tumbling out of the woodwork. There are time-stamped photographic accounts of much of the evening. This is not a case about ESP as much as it’s a case about CSI.

So yes, there was physical evidence for both sides.

Let’s look at some of that mound of evidence.
Rape kit showed that no rape had occurred.

Bruises?

The Duke Hospital medical records make no mention of blunt force trauma. The sexual assault examination form has a section where the examiner is told to “Describe all signs of physical trauma.” Levicy wrote that the woman had two nonbleeding scratches on her right knee and a nonbleeding scratch on her right heel.

cite (top of page 2)

DNA? What DNA? Despite claims of unprotected anal and vaginal sex no DNA was found from any Duke player. Several other males, but no one at that party.

Broken fingernail? Please supply an cite saying that a broken fingernail = rape

I call bullshit. I want a cite, and not that Durham in Wonderland bullshit. Yes, the lineup was improper, but not at all like you describe. As this cite states

Again stupid move on Nifong’s part, but not at all what you described.

Here by the way is an excellent explaination of just how fucked up the ID process was
So let’s talk about the one guy she said that she was 100% certain had raped her orally

@above link

In March, she was 70 percent sure that she recognized Reade Seligmann but couldn’t recall where she saw him at the party. In April, she was 100 percent certain he had orally raped her.

Read that again slowly, this is the only guy that she was 100% sure of. One Hundred percent.
OK Sparky, if she is so sure, then please read all 48 pages of this court filing , and look at the pictures and 'splain to me how a guy that was in a cab miles away could have his dick in her mouth? :dubious:

Wrong again stupid.

So yes, a lot of rapes don’t come down to DNA evidence.

On this we agree, DNA is not used in most rape cases, but DNA tests cost money, take time and usually are not needed due to the mound of other supporting evidence. However in this case there was no supporting evidence, so for Nifong it was DNA or nothing. Unfortunately for him, it was nothing.
BTW your cite appears to be wrong, I believe the correct box score is there was DNA from 5 different males in/on her. None of them being a lacrosse player or her boyfriend.

A private laboratory hired by the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case failed to report that it found DNA from multiple males in the accuser’s body and underwear, according to a defense motion filed today.

The lab, DNA Security of Burlington, found that the DNA did not match the three defendants, their lacrosse teammates or anyone else who submitted their DNA to police, including the accuser’s boyfriend.

Here is the best part

“This is strong evidence of innocence in a case in which the accuser denied engaging in any sexual activity in the days before the alleged assault, told police she last had consensual sexual intercourse a week before the assault, and claimed that her attackers did not use condoms and ejaculated,” said the motion, which was signed by lawyers for all three defendants.

From here
Now do yo see why DNA is so important in this case?
LW, No I have not had sex with anyone for several days until I was raped, and they sppoged all over me
DNA You are a lying whore.

Her sexual proclivities have absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be raped. Whether she’s a “whore” or “cum dumpster” is irrelevant. “Whores” can still be raped. In fact, prostitutes are more often the victims of such crimes. You don’t give up your rights as a human people just because you are a prostitute.

I agree with this. Hookers can be raped, and it is a bad thing. However, you need something called evidence to be able to prove rape. There wasn’t any in this case.

[Contrapuntal]

@Rick

So let’s talk about the one guy she said that she was 100% certain had raped her orally Read that again slowly, this is the only guy that she was 100% sure of. One Hundred percent.

Actually, she was definitely sure about one other guy as being an assailant. Since he was in Raleigh with his girlfriend at the time, and never attended the party, he was not charged.