If you could’ve been “arsed” to dig it up, you’d see that I said the number of White and Black women were equal (which is pretty much the situation in Durham). So next time, you might want to get off your arse and check your facts first before you make yourself look like more of an idiot than you already have.
This sentiment has been expressed several times, all by posters who take issue with Huerta’s introduction of the DoJ stats.
You guys do realize that this isn’t a thread about stats, but rather a thread about an ongoing news story, right? Statistics are a mere hijack to the actual topic.
I agree that that particular hijack is well beyond its “best by” date, but hopefully it will eventually die, leaving the thread to focus on the actual case.
A “mere” hijack? Man, I’d hate to see what a major hijack looks like if this one’s been “mere”.
(Also wondering what’s wrong with scouring the web on your own for information. This isn’t a newsgroup. I’m sure there are numerous blogs where you can read updates on the Duke case. Don’t see why we have to have something like that here, but of course YMMV.)
I don’t think this thread is meant to live much longer, although I do think they should turn it into a ATMB sticky so that Dopers can see just how hard it is to fight ignorance.
I’ve been reading this thread now for twenty seven pages.
I could read it for another twenty seven pages.
I’m not proud… or tired.
So we’ll wait till it comes around again, and this time with four part harmony and feeling…
We’re just waitin’ for it to come around is what we’re doing…
CMC fnord!
With apologies to Arlo Guthrie.
Not “uncritical.” I’ve frequently typed the phrase (one of many phrases roundly ignored by those who want to argue against points I did not make) "Now, the defense could be lying or mischaracterizing the evidence, but . . . "
We know that the defense has access to (or ought to) all the evidence or quasi-evidence Nifong has. We know this because of the discovery rules (and because Nifong was quoted, I don’t have the cite at the moment, as saying “they now have everything we’ve got.”).
I am not aware that any of the defense’s characterizations have been to date shown to be false or distorted. When they’ve made falsifiable factual statements, those have not (to date) been falsified (or even denied).
So, their track record is not horrible.
Oops, to complete the response:
On the report of 20 attackers, all I’ve seen is the Duke PD report. I’ve seen nothing contradicting it, though.
On the mustache – it sounds like you’re grasping, but who knows? The pictures they have from that night would perhaps include one of him – I don’t know. BTW, if I don’t shave for a few days, the colloquial thing that I or anyone I know would say is “My beard is a little rough,” not “my mustache is kind of bristly.” “Beard” is coloquially understood as referring to facial hair/hairiness in general in a way “mustache” is not.
And no, I would not have to know what she thought “tall” meant in order to evaluate her credibility if she had used this terminology and Spud Webb, or Muggsy Bogues, or Edgar Prado were the suspect.
Well, I remember someone said there wasn’t any DNA.
Then we found out that there was DNA. It was the accuser’s BF’s DNA, of course. But there was DNA, as one would expect in a sexually active woman.
So that kind of shows that the defense might have a Karl Rovish way of spinning things, and people should not trust what they say just because its supports their worldview.
I doubt you can find a cite in which defense counsel represented or intended to be understood as representing that there was “no DNA” on her, because this would be foolish – she would at a minimum have her own DNA. If someone on this board coloquially characterized counsel saying “my clients’ DNA is not on her” to “no DNA whatsoever, including no DNA of persons not suspects, was found here,” this does not one thing to impeach defense counsel’s reliability or damn them with spin.
Aha, defense counsel Wade Smith:
http://cbs2chicago.com/nationalwire/local_story_100175352.html
It seems pretty clear he’s referring to the lacrosse players who had been tested (why else refer to “young” men, given that DNA can’t determine the age of the donor?), and even if one mis-reads this statement as a sweeping guarantee that she had no foreign DNA on her at all (why would he do so? The presence of DNA from the boyfriend HELPS his case, because it provides alternate explanations for the vaginal swelling “consistent with” intercourse), this statement was made before the second “more sensitive” round of DNA results was back (it is not clear to me if the BF’s DNA was ID’d in the first or second round of testing, but I think it was announced only after the second).
I believe they purposely left things vague so that the public would not know for sure whether the accuser turned up completely clean or not.
From an article you posted in post #28:
(bolding mine)
‘Course, this isn’t definitive proof that the defense is playing a spin game. I’m just sayin’, though.
On preview…ah forget it, I’m posting this anyway.
Here I go off my arse:
Edited by me to focus on the paragraph I was talking about
I see what you’re saying, but it still doesn’t fly: with one breath you say that white women lie about rape with the same frequency as black women, and with the next you contradict yourself.
Assuming that the ratio of real rapes to false reports is the same for both races, it is true that a randomly-selected white woman is more likely to be a false accuser. But this is only because there is a larger pool of black women who have neither been raped nor made a false allegation. Any given woman of either race who files a rape complaint is equally likely to be telling the truth - by the very terms of the first of your underlined sentences. I’m not sure what use your data is - unless you have, say, vowed to go out and shoot the first false rape accuser you find, in which case your bullet probably does have a white woman’s name on it.
Whew, all that without calling anyone an idiot.
I can’t believe that I’m posting here again five pages later, but…
…I think there were two rounds of DNA testing. The first found no non-alleged victim DNA, the second found the woman’s boyfriend’s DNA. The defense’s comments came after the first round.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?7635
This seems like a good response, and perhaps a model for all athletic prograqms.
Not in this thread you haven’t. Even when the words Now and but are omitted, but haven’t typed that phrase any other time in the 27 pages of this thread.
Now if that is “one of many phrases roundly ignored by those who want to argue against points” that you did not make (as you put it) and that this is happening to you elsewhere, you might want to seek professional help, go to law school, take courses in communication or talk to your rabbi.
Here is an interesting overview from the perspective of a Duke basketball website (not affiliated with Duke University.)
Oops. Apparently, they did not want or request a black girl and were displeased when the strippers arrived. Looking more and more like a dispute over their not getting what they wanted/paid for.
Glad to here you are accepting the account of the other Black woman present, Huerta88. What else did she have to say in the linked article?
I believe the article backs up your point, Huerta88. I think by this account some of the males were contemptuous, abusive, and bigoted drunks. Maybe others were just milque-toast.
They were boys, not men.
Yes. This may be so. By the way, these were not the kinds of guys I liked or hung out with in high school or college.
Which does not make them rapists.
Revealing post on so many levels.
Wait, now Gary Coleman is involved?