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.
If they used a broomstick or the like, there would be less chance for DNA. There probably would still be DNA, but less likely.
<bolding mine>
…and we know a RIM job when we see one!
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.
So now she can’t tell the difference between a penis and a broomstick? You’re really reaching now.
But you’d still probably find evidence of an assault, and probably fibers or particles from the broomhandle.
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.
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):
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.
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.
Would *you *mind consenting to a test for comparison purposes?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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”. 
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).
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?