Duke Lacrosse Team

[Dagoth Ur]

Anybody else following this circus? Has anybody else come to a conclusion yet?
Let's go over the evidence that we've heard (if I've left any out, please post it):

Favoring the players:
1) No DNA found, despite the stripper's claims of having being raped by, and violently resisting, three players.
2) Defendants' lawyers claim to have digitally time-stamped photos of black stripper arriving drunk and with injuries.
3) One of the accused has an ATM receipt, eyewitness (a cabbie), and a dorm card swipe to show that he wasn't there at the relevant time.
4) Stripper now claims to have been assaulted with a broomstick (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14438495.htm), which was a detail she had left out before.
5) Stripper had made similar previous claims. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427...t3e.6Uv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

Favoring the stripper:
1) Medical personnel at hospital said she had indications of having been raped.
2) The DA claims to have other evidence that he has not produced yet (despite the defense's media offensive).

Miscellaneous:
1) The accuser's friend, another stripper, recently went to a consultant to ask how she can turn this situation to her advantage.
2) It's election year for the DA in a black town.

 

[ChaosRocket]

>5) Stripper had made similar previous claims.

Um why does this qualify as evidence favoring the players? Maybe her previous "claims" were totally true. Because she was raped before, that somehow means it's less likely that she was raped this time? I'd imagine it wouldn't be that uncommon for someone who is a stripper at private parties to get raped.

>which was a detail she had left out before.

That article only says that she didn't tell her father before, not that she didn't say so in her original report to the police. Anyways why would she make up an extra story of being assaulted with a broom, that would give her no advantage if she was lying, because it says she was raped AND assaulted with a broom so it wouldn't explain the lack of DNA, there would be no purpose to lying about that.

>arriving drunk and with injuries.

Not sure how her arriving drunk or injured is evidence that she wasn't raped. What, like if she was drunk she was asking for it?

Hm, looking at the news articles I see that the same 3 guys have been arrested before for assault, for harassing some guy by calling him gay and then beating up on him. I'd say a previous criminal record is evidence in favor of the accuser.

 

[Mozz]

Stupid bitch lied. Go Dukies!

 

[Dagoth Ur]

>5) Stripper had made similar previous claims.

Um why does this qualify as evidence favoring the players? Maybe her previous "claims" were totally true. Because she was raped before, that somehow means it's less likely that she was raped this time? I'd imagine it wouldn't be that uncommon for someone who is a stripper at private parties to get raped.

The men she accused back then were never prosecuted. Why not? Another lack of evidence situation?

>which was a detail she had left out before.

That article only says that she didn't tell her father before, not that she didn't say so in her original report to the police. Anyways why would she make up an extra story of being assaulted with a broom, that would give her no advantage if she was lying, because it says she was raped AND assaulted with a broom so it wouldn't explain the lack of DNA, there would be no purpose to lying about that.

The article clearly states that police did not seize a broomstick, nor did they mention one in their search warrant. If she had told them about it, why didn't they search for one, especially with the DA so eager to prosecute?

>arriving drunk and with injuries.

Not sure how her arriving drunk or injured is evidence that she wasn't raped. What, like if she was drunk she was asking for it?

No, it could be evidence that she had sex, consensual or not, before she arrived at the party.

Hm, looking at the news articles I see that the same 3 guys have been arrested before for assault, for harassing some guy by calling him gay and then beating up on him. I'd say a previous criminal record is evidence in favor of the accuser.

Hmm, I knew I was forgetting something. Thanks. However, I would like to point out that he was under an agreement not to be prosecuted in exchange for not getting into trouble. Wouldn't that give him motivation to not to do something like this?

 

[ChaosRocket]

The men she accused back then were never prosecuted. Why not? Another lack of evidence situation?

Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove and it very often just comes down to he said/she said. Even with DNA the guy can just say it's consentual.

The article clearly states that police did not seize a broomstick, nor did they mention one in their search warrant. If she had told them about it, why didn't they search for one, especially with the DA so eager to prosecute?

Maybe they had reasons for not seizing the broomstick, such as, she knew the guys took it with them to dispose of it. I mean basically you just don't know, you can't make assumptions about the case. And like I said she has no reason to lie about this, there's no reason to tack this on later.

No, it could be evidence that she had sex, consensual or not, before she arrived at the party.

Being drunk and injured is evidence of having had sex?

Hmm, I knew I was forgetting something. Thanks. However, I would like to point out that he was under an agreement not to be prosecuted in exchange for not getting into trouble. Wouldn't that give him motivation to not to do something like this?

Um not really, people who are already on probation for a crime are more likely to commit a crime than people who have never committed a crime. A large percentage of criminals reoffend, in most cases there doesn't seem to be much motivation to keep from getting in trouble.

Also considering the crime they committed, it just seems to me that the sort of people who harass random people about their sexuality and then beat them up are the same sort of people who would rape someone.

Also is it really a coincidence that the three guys she picked out of the lineup are the same three guys who all committed a crime together previously? It seems to indicate that these guys are like buddies who help each other in assaulting people.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Maybe they had reasons for not seizing the broomstick, such as, she knew the guys took it with them to dispose of it. I mean basically you just don't know, you can't make assumptions about the case. And like I said she has no reason to lie about this, there's no reason to tack this on later.

The police were searching the suspects' dorm rooms. If they had taken the broom with them, then the police would definitely have searched for it had they known. There's also the case of the DA not having mentioned any broomstick, despite his gusto for this case.

Being drunk and injured is evidence of having had sex?

It provides an alternative explanation for what the people at the hospital found.

 

[ChaosRocket]

It said they found evidence of her being raped, not just of her having had sex...if she was raped before the party, why on earth would she lie and point to the wrong guys, why wouldn't she accuse the correct person?

And seriously I see no other explaination for how the three guys she chose happened to be the same three guys who had assaulted someone together before.

 

[Barb]

They did do a full rape kit at the hospital, right? [It's called PERK: physical evidence recovery kit] That alone would distinguish between injuries sustained by sexual intercourse (vaginal tearing, bruising, etc) or injuries sustained by a random mugging or beating.

Side note: Finnerty is being tried for an alleged assault at a bar in Georgetown. See link below:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/ny-spduke0426,0,2159403.story

 

[Fig]

I don't believe anyone in that mess until further notice. The woman has reasons to lie, so do the players. Both sides claim to be able to prove their claims, obviously.

On the one hand, I am naturally suspicious of any high-profile sex-accusations. On the other, I am naturally suspicious of any cause supported by the Right-wing medias AND naturally suspicious of sports teams and their members. Hence, I'm naturally suspicious of both sides. I'll want to see what evidence both sides may be keeping for the trial before deciding whose full of shit and who isn't.

 

[ChaosRocket]

Aren't you even more suspicious of people who already have a history of violent crime?

 

[TK n Happy Ness]

She's a whore, plain and simple. Anyone think that this bitch could be related to the one from the Kobe rape case a couple of years ago?

 

[Fig]

Not really.

And I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything about the woman "necessarily" being a liar et al "just 'cause she's a whore".

It makes you look like a moron. Whores can get rapped too, after all, and sportsmen are no more law-abiding than anyone else (if anything, I'd tend to peg them as thinking themselves above the law).

 

[evkl]

The fact that they couldn't match anybody's DNA bothers me. It smells like an overzealous DA in an election year to me, and these guys will wind up with misdemeanor charges of some sort.

 

[Fig]

That could well be the case.

However, jumping to conclusions right now is just plain stupid.

 

[Mozz]

I don't think people are convicting or dismissing the charges outright, but saying what they think is most likely the case.

And I agree with evan.

 

[ChaosRocket]

And I agree with evan.

Are you normally in the habit of giving people who have previously comitted violent crimes the benefit of the doubt when accused of another crime? Seriously how do you explain that the three guys she picked out were the same three that committed assault *together* before, you don't think that's a huge coincidence? If this was some black guy from the ghetto who'd already committed a violent crime before you'd be all "Yeah he did it."

I don't see why not being able to match DNA is a big deal, it just means they had half a brain and used condoms so it would be harder to get caught.

Statistics show that athletes are less likely than non-athletes to be punished when accused of rape, I think this indicates a lot of bias, people just like to give athletes a free pass on stuff, even though they're more likely to be the ones doing violence.

The statistic that I just now made up says that at least 75% of jocks are rapists or attempted rapists. But it's probably true.

 

[Fig]

Alternatively, Chaos, Athletes tend to get on the receiving end of false accusations because they're famous, they got lots of monies, and people want to steal a share of the pie.

 

[Mozz]

You do realize that she picked three lacrosse players out of a lineup of 5 lacrosse players, right? It isn't as though any non-Dukies were thrown in. The DA wants this case big time for re-election.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Are you normally in the habit of giving people who have previously comitted violent crimes the benefit of the doubt when accused of another crime? Seriously how do you explain that the three guys she picked out were the same three that committed assault *together* before, you don't think that's a huge coincidence? If this was some black guy from the ghetto who'd already committed a violent crime before you'd be all "Yeah he did it."

I don't see why not being able to match DNA is a big deal, it just means they had half a brain and used condoms so it would be harder to get caught.

Statistics show that athletes are less likely than non-athletes to be punished when accused of rape, I think this indicates a lot of bias, people just like to give athletes a free pass on stuff, even though they're more likely to be the ones doing violence.

The statistic that I just now made up says that at least 75% of jocks are rapists or attempted rapists. But it's probably true.

Uh, they didn't find DNA on any of the woman's body, so unless you're saying the (very drunk) lacrosse players wrapped the woman in a plastic bag or completely washed her off, I'm feeling some doubts about the rape.

 

[Barb]

She's a whore, plain and simple. Anyone think that this bitch could be related to the one from the Kobe rape case a couple of years ago?

With an attitude like this, do you actually wonder why women don't like you?

Last time I checked, being paid to take your clothes off (stripping) was not in any way, shape, or form the same as being paid to have sex with someone (whoring).

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone at that house, including the stripper(s), was sober enough to remember the events that actually transpired.