He’s running, but not for re-election. He was not elected in the first place, he was appointed.
Bite me. Point out anywhere I said she lied or shut the fuck up. Point anywhere I said she was a whore or shut the fuck up.
I thought so.
If these guys are guilty I hope they rot in jail. The DA has been trying this in the press and it has come around to bite him in the ass. He’s had a month. If he does not need the DNA evidence why has he not charged anyone? How do you explain the contradictions in the first 911 call? How do you explain the total lack of DNA matches? Why are you so willing to believe someone who has a criminal record for stealing a car, assaulting an officer, and DUI after stripping for the guy she stole the car from.
If it turns out she fabricated these charges “lying whore” will be much to good for her.
Hmmm. Mayhap (1) there were no guys by those names there or (2) there was other circumstantial evidence pointing away from any guys of that name, 'cause why else wouldn’t you just focus on those three? Let alone, why not go with the visual ID?
We’re also (now) hearing a lot about how the lack of DNA could be explained because they used condoms. Which, one infers, she did not notice or report at the time, or the DA would not have been so optimistic (at first, before backpedaling) about the DNA tests.
Certainly sex feels different for a man wearing a condom. I’ve never been on the other side of the equation, but I’ve had GFs comment that it feels different for them too. Apparently this one’s MV’d.
Also, any statistics on how many gang-rapists (IRL) thoughtfully stop to practice safe sex? Just wondering . . . .
While I’m not sure that nothing untoward occured that night, the evidence (DNA as well as the 911 phone calls) seem to be considerably inconsistent with her story.
(“Inconsistent with her story” = lie)
I don’t stand behind the “whore” part, but if it does come out that she lied, I will think of a number of substitute words. And if it comes out that she didn’t lie, I’ll come out with some equally horrid substitute words for the guys that did it.
If I remember correctly, when this story broke, it was reported that there was considerable evidence that a rape did take place (regardless of whether these specific guys perpetrated it).
She also said she struggled, she was choked, she broke off her fingernails scratching at the rapists. For a half hour. Condoms or no, some DNA would exist, from skin under the nails, pubic hair, blood, etc… None such was found.
When one hears that she showed up at the party with bruises on her legs (as supposedly documented by photographic proof), one begins to suspect that those pre-existing injuries might have (wrongly) persuaded someone that she’d been battered . . . .
And if nobody ever lied when they said ‘I was raped.’ that would be enough. Unfortunately, that is not the case. False accusations happen, and so do wrongful convictions. Some men have been released from prison after years of incarceration for a crime that they never committed. Also remember that it doesn’t take a guilty verdict to effectively ruin a person’s life. His name and picture on the TV news and in the newspaper with the accusation is often enough to end a career, a marriage, and in at least one case led to suicide.
I wonder how the DA is going to pick which three white men to prosecute? I was under the impression that the accuser had not identified any specific men, merely said that they were three white men.
I also wonder how many of those convictions, nationwide, have been overturned based on DNA evidence because the convicted man was innocent?
Unless of course you think about their future in lacrosse, academics, and the community. An accusation of rape has a way of never leaving.
Feeling that way is not a crime. Writing an email that says you feel that way is not a crime. It certainly seems reasonable to feel that way after being the target of a false rape accusation, knowing full well that it could end his academic career even if he’s not convicted.
Actually there’s another possibility: nothing at all happened. There was no sex, consensual or otherwise.
Physical injuries consistent with rape–both vaginally and anally–was confirmed at Duke hospital where she was treated shortly after the alleged assault.
People keep saying there was no DNA. But there had to have been DNA found or they would not have sampled the men. The issue is that there have been no DNA matches, which is quite a different thing.
The accuser also said a broomstick may have been involved. Broomsticks don’t ejaculate.
The Kanin article appears to be from an academic journal. I found the below purported extracts online (I will attempt to verify, maybe I’ll buy the whole article, but the below fair-use quotes are I think of interest):
I’m just wondering how different evidence of vaginal and/or anal penetration looks from evidence of vaginal and/or anal rape (this is a question, not a statement).
Because assuming she was raped, and assuming that it wasn’t these guys, then this story is even stranger.
You do not know that. Unless I’ve missed something, no one has reported that they waited to see if any non-“victim” DNA was found on the “victim” before ordering the sampling. Do you have a cite to the contrary? As the DA appears to be out of control, I am not going to assume that this is so.
Why would we assume she was raped? The great majority (the overwhelming majority) of sexual acts in this country or anywhere are consensual. The purely-statistical odds are that if she had a sexual encounter of any kind that night, it was more likely of the consensual variety than the non-consensual variety.
I think what you with the face is saying that if they are saying that there is no DNA match, there has to be no DNA match to something. Obviously, if there was no DNA on the victim, then there was no reason to swab the alleged perpetrators in the first place, and it wouldn’t have had to wait a week to see if there was a match.
If you are going to compare A to B, there has to be a B in the first place.
But, yeah, I guess the DA might be something of an ass, and gone on a fishing expedition to see if these guys DNA matched up with anything in the system.
I’m not a rape expert or a medical doctor, but I would think bruises, tears, bleeding and other signs of forced entry would be quite suggestive of rape as opposed to consensual penetration. But I don’t know how rigorous the criteria are in determining that an injury is consistent with rape.
Did you read the link I provided? Their justification for the court order to retrieve DNA samples from the students was based on the report from the SANE nurse. Think about that. They were forced to give DNA samples before any evidence linking them to a crime was discovered. (Even if their was a rape it could have happened before she got to the house. Or it could have been consensual rough sex.) Before anyone was charged. (Which has yet to happen.) Before any suspects were identified.
This is bullshit, and possibly unconstitutionial bullshit. Imagine being at a party where a crime was alleged to have occurred and being ordered by the court to submit to DNA testing simply on the basis of your attendance. This DA is out of control.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
I think what you with the face is saying that if they are saying that there is no DNA match, there has to be no DNA match to something. Obviously, if there was no DNA on the victim, then there was no reason to swab the alleged perpetrators in the first place, and it wouldn’t have had to wait a week to see if there was a match.
[QUOTE]
I know that posters keep saying that. And of course it would be (IRL) somewhat illogical to order such invasive testing if there had been no (foreign, male) DNA in fact proven to be on or in the accuser. The only problem I have is that despite this being true and despite posters’ insistence that “they wouldn’t have ordered testing if there weren’t known to be some foreign DNA to match,” I have seen no evidence (I’ll gladly step down if there is some) that the DA did, in fact, wait until he had such evidence in hand. Contrapuntal suggests that this isn’t how it played out.
After digging around trying to find a cite, I concede that you have a point. But this leads me to ask why you are assuming that there was no DNA found? All I see are reports that there were no matches with the accused, but I’ve seen nothing that states that no DNA was found. I find that hard to believe, seeing how the accused would have had to have sustained those injuries somehow–either consensually or nonconsensually–and DNA transfer is highly likely in either case.