Since he made that statement at a press announcement at the woman’s college, there seems to be the possibility that he’s trying very hard to avoid any perception of bias in favor of the white and privileged.
And of course, there’s always the possiblitiy that there is a lot more to this than any of know about yet.
I’m leaning toward this being a bogus charge, but I’m reserving my opinion until I hear more.
So now all he has to prove is that 3 people beat and raped her without leaving behind a single strand of DNA or any other type of evidence that would tie them physically to her.
Yeah, I didn’t think so either. These guys are home free.
Oh, please! Unless you have reviewed the same information that the DA has, then you really aren’t in the position to say this is a witch hunt. Has the thought crossed your mind that he might, just perhaps, know a little more about the matter than you do? Just a little bit?
And what, exactly, makes this like the Brawley case? Other than the obvious stuff like the race of the participants and the fact that rape was alleged?
Do you know when she was sampled? Right after the alleged rape or sometime later, like after a shower and change of clothes?
I don’t know. I’m sincerely asking this.
Your post makes me anxious for some reason. Couldn’t tell you why. 
I’m asking the question with the standards in the US today.
I don’t know the answer to that, but even a shower might not have eliminated all of the evidence of rape and sodomy. And if there was no DNA evidence against the players in the fingernails found in their bathroom, that means there isn’t even evidence (available to us) suggesting that a struggle took place.
Which struck me as more than a little odd. Is this an investigation or a pep rally (one news account had hundreds of attendees “cheering” his announcement)? Does he represent the college, this woman, or the interests of the State at large?
I would agree that there’s often “no DNA” in any number of cases. however what would be the purpose of obtaining court ordered DNA samples of suspects if there was no DNA?
Nifong is up for re-election. About 44% of Durham’s population is African-American. I think that might have something to do with it. To be fair, if the races of the accused/accuser were reversed, I’m sure he’d still proceed, since about 45% of Durham’s population is white.
None.
But when they say “no DNA” in this case, I think that we can assume that they mean, “no semen, blood, hair or skin which contain DNA” even after swabbing everything they could swab.
I think.
I find it hard to imagine they have that stuff without having DNA.
And, it was probably hard to prove a rape case “back in the day” without any of those things.
As to the question of “why did they get the kids’ DNA without having DNA to compare it to?”
Well, who knows. Maybe they all assumed they would have DNA to compare it to and the kids gave it up willingly.
What I find hard to believe is that any kid would have given it up if they had been guilty. If you’ve raped a person, and they want a DNA sample, well, even a lacrosse player at that point is going to go, “I think I need to talk to my lawyer.”
I think the “available to us” disclaimer is no small thing. If the accused had telling injuries, wouldn’t that be suggestive of a struggle, even in the absence of DNA evidence? If she was forceably held down by multiple athletes, wouldn’t that have substantially limited her ability to mount a strong counterattack and possibly be a reason why DNA wasn’t found under her nails? Wasn’t she wearing fake nails, too? What role might that play, if any?
I find it hard to believe that the DA would be willing to stake his reputation (and re-electability) on the basis of nothing. Maybe he is an idiot like that, but I haven’t seen indication that he is.
And while you’re at it, would you mind telling me when exactly were the days of “professional” journalism? As a U.S. History major, I’ve had to research, read and cite hundreds and hundreds of American newspaper articles from as far back as the early 18th Century. If there was ever a Golden Age of unbiased, unsensationalized journalism, I must have missed it. Damn state college education.
This thread makes me anxious for some reason.
I’m asking questions about the standards in US law.
Of course this assumes the nails were lost because they came in contact with the suspects skin, if they only touched their clothes there would be no DNA (yes, yes there might be fiber evidence, but most likely it would be a common fiber like cotton, and prove nothing for either side).
Thrown in jail? You mean arrested? Yes, I think that happens everyday in the US.
How many people do you think are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated without someone claiming that a crime was committed against them?
I agree the way we handle crime in the media is appalling, but I see no way of changing that without severely altering the Constitution.
Let me then propose a hypothetical.
You go out to your car and discover someone in the act of trying to steal your car.
You wrestle the person to the ground, and call 911.
When they arrive what do you expect them to do?
Arrest (thrown in jail) them? Or say “sorry, I can’t arrest someone just because you say they were breaking into your car”?
Oh, you say you’ve got evidance? A crowbar?
If that crowbar doesn’t have fingerprints or DNA on it can we call you a lying whore?
Comfortable with that?
CMC fnord!
If you are making an effort to sound like a pedantic undergrad journalism major, you are definitely succeeding.
I hope you are being purposefully obtuse, because otherwise you are being just, well, obtuse. I never represented that accusations of crime were not a predicate (often a necessary) predicate for arrest. I questioned the sufficiency of such an allegation, with nothing more.
A friend was an assistant district attorney in a large city. She occasionally encountered grand jurors (not all of whom were some jury-nullification-embracing bleeding heart criminal-lovers, and many of whom were white collar professionals) deciding not to indict alleged drug dealers despite the testimony of undercover cops who had been eyewitnesses to the drug sale. Why? Who knows? Maybe they didn’t trust the cop. Maybe they thought it was a set-up. As she lamented, often they would ask if there were fingerprints on the money or if the cops had video of the transaction. To some extent I think they were going overboard, but such is the presumption of innocence (and such is the discretion that needs to be exercised even at the indictment stage).
One can imagine a reason or two cops would intentionally lie about an alleged crime, but for the most part it seems improbable. It also seems improbable someone would loan his car to a stranger, or made up a story about a stranger stealing it. Yet these type of accusations are not taken 100% at face value when uncorroborated, either.
That may be true.
If she has them, yes. Supposedly, there is photographic evidence showing she was already injured when she arrived, and nothing so far has suggested that there are additional injuries.
you with the face and crowmanyclouds both asked about DNA and the fingernails, so I quote from the New York Times article I linked to earlier:
“The accuser had said three lacrosse players blocked her in the bathroom of a house and assaulted her. She said she had broken off five artificial fingernails while scraping the arm of one of the men who was holding her.” If that’s true, I’d think there should be DNA.
That implies this case looked like nothing when the story broke. It didn’t. I am not familiar enough with the timeline of this case to I can say why the DA went public or asked for the DNA samples from the players when he did. Perhaps (for example) he did not have the results from the tests on the woman’s body, but the judge felt there was enough probable cause to require the samples from the players.
Reaching a little farther back into this thread…
Gee, maybe they’re trying to say that there were big parties at the house. :rolleyes:
Here is a timeline of events with respect to the police and their response. Link. Note that the first 911 call is made a half hour after it is alleged there was a rape/assault. The person making the call first says she is driving, then says she is walking. She says she is calling because someone referred to her using an ethnic slur. (IMHO a strange reason to call 911.)
Defense attorneys have since claimed to have identified the caller as “Kim,” the second dancer at the party as well as the woman referred to in the second 911 call. If that is true the whole case falls apart, unless she can explain why she would call about an ethnic slur but fail to mention a rape that had already occurred.
Apparently the alleged victim drove around for a half hour to an hour before police were called to the Kroger. After that, I assume she was not out of police custody at least until after the rape kit was collected.
wrt: that quote from jackamanni: I believe the technical term is “wooooooooosh.”
The accuser arrived at the house on Buchanan Road at 11:30pm. She called the police to report the rape from a Kroger Supermarket at 1:22am. This is in an official police document available at The Smoking Gun, related to the charming email sent by lacrosse team member Ryan McFayden very shortly after the alleged attack, who said that he wanted to invite some strippers over to his room and “kill the bitches as soon as they walk in and cut their skin off” and yes, even worse things than that. What a fine upstanding young gentleman.
That document also shows that it was the Duke lacrosse team members who informed police that there were no gatecrashers at the party; only team members were present. I don’t like to make any assumptions, but consider that in a rape accusation, you have only two defenses: consent, or “it wasn’t me”. If these guys were guilty, I’d be claiming that there were others present at the party, if it were me.
I genuinely feel sorry for the accuser. If she was indeed attacked, there isn’t a chance in hell of a conviction at this point. The fact that there is no DNA is reasonable doubt. I don’t even expect the D.A. to bring charges at this point, unless there is some undiscovered photographic or video evidence.
If she falsified the accusation, then she deserves what she’s going through.
One more thing, if there was anyone besides the lacrosse team present at the house on Buchanan Road during the attack, it will be discovered. The initial discovery warrant includes collection of all latent prints identifying persons in the residence. If prints turn up that don’t belong to the team or the two women, I’m sure investigators will want to know to whom they belong.
Sorry for third post in a row, but scratch “discovery warrant” above to read “search warrant”. I am not a lawyer, and for all I know, the two terms are mutually exclusive.