Duke Rape Allegations Update

La Shawn Barber - a female, black, conservative blogger weighs in.

My qualifiers above have more to do with someone else recently in the news, not La Shawn. Somehow I suspect her take differs from what might be that of, say, a Cynthia McKinney.

Also, from the wires:

Lawyers for Duke University lacrosse players say time-stamped photos taken at a house party will help them challenge an exotic dancer's report that she was gang raped by three members of the team.

The eight photos, taken from several cameras, show the dancer arriving at the March 13 party and then show her at different times in a 41-minute period, attorneys said.

Durham attorney Bob Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the players, said the photos show she has several injuries and was "pretty banged up" before the time police reports indicate the assault occurred. The woman had a cut on one of her knees, lacerations on the side of her foot and bruise marks, he said.

The woman also appeared impaired from the time she arrived at the party, Ekstrand said.

Comments

[jr]

seems like some of the players or party-goers are talking to the DA. they didn't all lawyer up. it'll be interesting when the DA's evidence is presented to the defense team on the 15th. until then, everything will have to wait.

[rwilymz]

"Just look at the remark by rwilmyz--"frat boys' main crime is being rich and white...""

Aye. Cuts right to the chase, do'nit?

"Evidently, the medical report and the victims i.d.s don't mean crap to someone of his ilk."

What is "my ilk", son?

Rational? Prefers to let public evidence sway me rather than the politics of desire?

The medical report did not conclude rape; if you think it does, then you'd better go back and look at it.

The "victim's" IDs are H I G H L Y susepct seeing as she named someone "with 100% certainty" who was no longer there at the only point between 12:03 and 12:30 in which a rape **could** have occurred. The other named guy who was arrested was remarkable since, in the words of Kim Roberts [aka, "the 2nd dancer"] he was "the skinny little guy".

Being a "skinny little guy" all my life, I'm very well aware of how we stick out in crowds of athletes, how we are the only memorable face.

"Even if the ids are wrong..."

What ARE the odds??

"any DA would have to puruse an investigation if there is strong physical evidence of rape..."

Oh? You have "strong physical evidence of rape"? Pray, tell, what is it? And then hop the nearest plane to Durham, because a DA would most likely want to talk with you; see ... he doesn't have any.

That's the entire problem here. The is *no* physical evidence of even sexual contact let alone rape. Sexual contact between three males and a woman would render someone's DNA somewhere... on her, on the surroundings, various juices and fluids, pubic hairs, ... you can't have sex without leaving a wet spot. SOMEbody will make it wet. If she "fought back" as described, then there'd only be more DNA. She was cut and bruised in the bathroom? where's the blood.

Oh, they cleaned it up ... while leaving her fingernails, money, cell phone, etc...

There's none.

There is, however, a photgraphic trail that is going unchallenged [at present]. To challenge it would require a herculean conspiracy theory rivaling the Grassy Knoll crowd, and involving being able to jury rig the internal clock on a digital camera during the middle of a drinking party for the sole purpose of raping an "out-call" stripper and saying "neener neener" after it's all done. Occam's razor...

There doesn't exist a time period to fit the claims; even if you want to suggest that, well, she was under stress and exaggerated" you've got the stripper's own alibis for a h-u-g-e amount of intervening time. And then you've got the virtually unchallengeable fact that the "100% rapist" was in a cab when the rape took place.

Long-distance rape?

More conspiracy theories.

No, the DA is *not* obligated to pursue charges just because someone wants him to. His first duty is to put himself in the place of a jury listening to the evidence, and if *he* can't be convinced, then a jury certainly won't be.

To say that it doesn't add up is admitting to being familiar with first-grade arithmetic.

There's no time for rape as claimed, and the one guy wasn't there during the time that remains in any event. No DNA ... no 911 calls until racist name-calling ... grossly inappropriate identification protocols ... bad, bad move from a conviction perspective.

If, however, the DA's motivation wasn't for conviction, but splitting the black vote in the May 2nd primary with his black challenger ... very clever.

"I do think as a white man that the judgment too often goes against the African American based on (pre)judgments and not justice."

How touching. So it's acceptible to reverse polarity on the bias? Rich white frat boys, very obviously racially snobbish if not outright racist, not enough of them in jail ... so therefore ...?

Try this little exercise:
a female cousin is at a party with a group of your male cousins and claims to be raped, and names the cousin who raped her. Video was taken during this family reunion showing this female cousin of yours 28 minutes apart, in between which she was raped for the half hour. Yet in the middle of these missing 28 minutes she gives a several-minute alibi, after which one of the cousin she named went home with your aunt and uncle. She claims to have been injured during the half hour rape, yet the video before the rape shows the injuries she claims to have sustained during the rape.

Can you disinstall your prejudicial filter for long enough to apply basic critical thinking *now*?

[jr]

Funny, how rwilymz makes my point for me. You take all the defense spin and insist it's correct. It's never been challenged. And we don't know what the DA has. That's yet to come. All we do know is that a woman was examined by a hosptial expert who found no reason to think she wasn't raped. And neither you nor I have seen the photos or the time stamps. (My camera screws time stamps up all the time). Your example is absurd. First, we are told that she said it seemed like 30 minutes. I've worked with trauma victims, and their time-line is always extended. Second, horny teenagers come in seconds. Ten minutes is plenty of time to commit a rape. There isn't usually much foreplay in rape cases. But my bigger point is that you make all kinds of assumptions without having reviewed all the evidence. You didn't see the medical report, you haven't examined the photos, you haven't talked to the accuser or any of the accused. But, because white frat boys are the victims of reverse racism in towns like Durham, you know she's a liar. Yes, in my book, jumping to such conclusions when you don't have the facts is the first sign of bias. And don't forget that problems are emerging with the taxi-driver's story. Those problems may not affect Seligman's ride, but you can be dam sure the DA will want to know why he never came forward until Daddy approached him. And then he suddenly remembered everything so well--until yesterday. As a Duke alum, I hope you are right. It would be much better if no rape occurred. But to dismiss the validity of the accuser's claim now, wreaks of good ol' boy justice. I'd be much more worried that innocent men could go to jail if all they had to rely on was an overworked public defender. They have, by all accounts, excellent counsel. For a mensa guy, you sure have trouble distinguishing hearsay from corroborated fact. Of course, you seem to know just what's in the medical report. A journalistic coup, no doubt.

[an $800 broomstick]

someone is going to want to explain how evidence of being violated with a broomstick was found on the victim--a claim we know now she has always maintained. what kind of dna does a brookstick leave? now, it's clear why there's a second set of tests for what the first showed but couldn't link to a player. it also indicates why the DA has felt so confident. it just keeps on getting murkier. the defense is attacking a version of accounts that wasn't offered by the victim. have they played their hand too soon?

[rwilymz]

"Funny, how rwilymz makes my point for me."

It must be funny, yes.

"You take all the defense spin and insist it's correct. It's never been challenged."

This is called "stipulated". I.e., "we accept it as true".

"And we don't know what the DA has."

We know what he HASN'T, and that is the huge mountain he'd have to overcome. There's three methods of proving a criminal case: 1] forensic evidence, 2] witness testimony corroborated by objective evidence, or 3] witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

There is no forensic evidence of the crime claimed.

While there IS witness testimony [i.e., Crystal Magnum's], there is a complete lack of objective evidence or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the possibility that her claim is anywhere close to accurate.

All of which means the DA has no case.

"All we do know is that a woman was examined by a hosptial expert who found no reason to think she wasn't raped."

And the photographs indicate that her injuries "sonsitent with sexual assault" predate her claim of rape.

"And neither you nor I have seen the photos or the time stamps. (My camera screws time stamps up all the time). Your example is absurd."

http://www.wral.com/news/8764090/detail.html

"First, we are told that she said it seemed like 30 minutes. I've worked with trauma victims, and their time-line is always extended."

Okay, fine. It's now "ten minutes" Find ten minutes in there where a] she and the "rapists" are in the same place. Can't be done, because the objective evidence shows they were elsewhere.

"Second, horny teenagers come in seconds. Ten minutes is plenty of time to commit a rape."

Then there's DNA.

...except there isn't.

"But my bigger point is that you make all kinds of assumptions without having reviewed all the evidence."

And my bigger point, big guy, is that YOU are making all kinds of assumptions without having reviewed any evidence. And the first assumption you are making is that because these are rich kids, seemingly racist in a racial situation, you assume rich == power == impunity == entitlement == rape. The chain of equivocation is long but apparent.

It's similar in nature and bigotry to the feminist claim that "women never lie about rape".

"You didn't see the medical report,"

I googled long for it and am not going to do it again, but as I recall it was on the smoking gun.

"you haven't examined the photos"

I've seen five of them.

"you haven't talked to the accuser or any of the accused."

You're correct there, yes.

"But, because white frat boys are the victims of reverse racism in towns like Durham, you know she's a liar."

NO!! Because there is no plausible way in which the claims could be accurate **REASON** says it's a lie. Just because YOU are a bigot doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you must be an opposite bigot.

"Yes, in my book, jumping to such conclusions when you don't have the facts is the first sign of bias."

Then stop doing it. Duh.

"And don't forget that problems are emerging with the taxi-driver's story."

He was drinking decaf instead of high-octane? Ooo, major defense obstacle!

"you can be dam sure the DA will want to know why he never came forward until Daddy approached him."

B E C A U S E the DA has been doing a slipshod investigation, attempting to mete out a Southern Speed Trap for local political purposes. ID lineups did not include known innocents, only Duke Lacrosse players; in many jurisdictions that is one of those "technicalities" that can get charges dropped lickety split. It may be in NC as well.

"to dismiss the validity of the accuser's claim now, wreaks of good ol' boy justice."

Because her story is implausible when placed next to unchallenged reality her story has little validity.

"For a mensa guy, you sure have trouble distinguishing hearsay from corroborated fact."

I have no trouble at all, in fact.

Corroborated facts:
timeline doesn't provide opportunity for a half-hour raping, what time exists doesn't match when the "rapists" were present;
no DNA;
stripper-provided alibi;
bizarre priorities that get separate calls to 911 for racist name-calling and for drunken girl in the car who won't get out, but NOT for rape or for threatened broomstick penetrations.

Those are the publically-known facts. Most of those are findable in this internet age on the web.

C'mon Einstein, piece it together.

[rwilymz]

Five photos, here:

http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/04/photos_duke_lacrosse_stripper.html

[jr]

what a laugh. the photos don't show shit. you see what you want to see. i like how you accuse me of making assumptions, etc.. I've said I'll wait to see what the DA has on the 15th. YOu just want to buy into everything Clinton hack Bennett has leaked to the press. And it's funny that you claim to have seen the medical report, since none of the defense lawyers have. And yes, rich kids do have an advantage in the legal system. Would OJ have gotten off, if he hadn't had money? It doesn't take a mensa punk to realize that money matters most. I take it you are not a judge, just an ideologue who, by the tone of your comments and overt hostility to women....

[rwilymz]

"the photos don't show shit."

Finally, you said something accurate. They don't. No shit whatsoever. it wasn't *that kind* of party.

But they do show the girl at 12:03 and then at 12:30. Between which she was "raped". For a half hour. Or ten minutes. Whichever.

Whatever happens to fit the theory du jour.

"I've said I'll wait to see what the DA has on the 15th."

The primary is on the 2nd; that is the more important date.

"YOu just want to buy into everything Clinton hack Bennett has leaked to the press."

And you want to believe everything that the desperate prosecutor hack has leaked to the press in violation of ethics.

But I now know something about you: depending on whether the "Clinton hack Bennett" is called a "Clinton hack" or a "neocon hack" advertises the biases of the speaker.

"yes, rich kids do have an advantage in the legal system"

And? Because they have an advantage we are required to presume guilt?

"Would OJ have gotten off, if he hadn't had money?"

1] OJ was not a kid;
2] it's irrelevant to this subject

"I take it you are not a judge, just an ideologue who, by the tone of your comments and overt hostility to women"

My ideology is based on avoiding convenient biases to justify political actions. We should kick out illegal immigrants whether they are Mexicans wanting to pick lettuce, Iranians wanting to commit jihad or Britons wanting to get decent pizza. Goodbye and come back when your papers are in order.

Just because most illegals are Mexicans the convenient rationalization for denouncing me is that I don't like Mexicans or Mexico. Hardly true. My wife and I are going there in a week and a half to spend all kinds of money and help to get their economy to a point where the Mexicans who might otherwise sneak across the border for a job can get one without leaving home. After which they can visit the US as tourists, while we visit Mexico same -- everybody wetbacks, them in the pools of the Holiday Inn, us in the reefs off Cancun.

...but expedient denunciations are a lot more fun, hey?

But if I were a judge presented with the evidence which is known to date, and the methods by which a large part of the testimony was rigged, I'd have a hard time not dismissing all charges, and an even harder one not citing the prosecutor for misconduct.

[juan]

Excuse me, I apologize. I know understand how you work. You cherry pick informaton and cast aside what's inconvenient for the sake of lashing out against anyone not of your kind. did you have anything to do with the run-up to the war"

Do us Mexicans a favor, we don't want you to visit. Your money is blood money.

[WickOhio]

Funny. Juan says" cherry pick" Moron.

[juan]

Thanks for pting out that Juans are not allowed to say "cherry pick." I like the name-calling as well. It really strengthens your agrument. Gives it that 'je ne sais quoi, kind of like the "wetback" comment from one of your allies. I will have to remember these tactics next time I'm losing an argument. It really is a showstopper--puts the facts in a whole new light. thanks for the tip. juan

[WickOhio]

You just made my point for me. Exactly what is your argument? Everyone else here is clear. All you can do is play whinny ass Immigrant.

[rwilymz]

Good grief. "Juan" is the same guy I've been blabbering with who used to call himself "richard block", and he's decided to get all self-righteous about some phrase or something.

[juan]

Really, my pt. has been clear along. We have only pieces of information, most of it leaked by the defense. The defense was quick to trumpet the DNA report but refused to release it and evaded some very key questions. That might mean something. The defense claims the alleged victim has changed her story several times; last night on FOX that was debunked. The taxi driver has changed his story and evaded the ? about whether anyone had offered him money. The alleged victim's father says she was sodomized with a broomstick, which some have said was verified by labs. Seligman, we have also heard, was done with her in five minutes and his name was curiously missing from the list of names of those attending the party presented to the DA. And why did he ask to be picked up two blocks from the house?? The bruises that were supposedly on her body when she arrived, accdg. to Dan Abrams, were very slight and nothing like the bruises that the DA says she had after the party. Where did the handmarks around the neck come from? I don't know. I'd like to wait and let the judicial system work through the facts. Instead, everyone has already branded her a liar. Given how selective the information is that is now avaiable, I ? how some of you can piece it all together with such certainty. What allows you to connect the dots, when there are so few of them or so many of them missing. You have special glasses.
And cut out the name-calling. If you want to argue facts and the manner in which one pieces them together, fine. But if all you can do is call people names, don't waste my time.

[jr]

well, this blog has certainly deteriorated. juan suggests that the DA may have more than he's showing, and he's called a "wetback" and a "whiny immigrant." I think Juan makes a good pt. when he mentions that the defense never released the entire DNA report. They don't have to. And there may be nothing more to it. And don't forget, even one of defense attorneys based in Durham said Nyfong was a solid, honorable DA. He's tried lots of rape cases, so I'll go out on a limb here and say he might know what he's doing. But relax, I'm done with the blog. I don't find it interesting to argue with those who compensate for gaps in their stories by hurling puerile epithets. jr

[WickOhio]

She claimed she was raped when she was fourteen? By 3 men? Maybe the defense is slipping this out. I think it's ok. The truth will find a way.

[julia]

The media and the defense must be afraid of the truth so they get started right away putting the victim on trial. The good citizens of North Carolina will not let this happen.I have so much faith in our justice system and I know justice will prevail.The news talk shows say they want justice and the truth as long as it's not convicting these men. Rape is a horrible horrible crime that can't be swept under the rug.We as people must denounce this evil and rid it from us,no exceptions.Then all of us as Americans can know that we love good and not evil.

[Michael Powers]

I'm starting to believe this is a D.A. who is just trying to get re-elected. What I would do if I were one of those boy's and found to be not guilty, I would sue the state of North Carolina for the state of North Carolina, than some of these wanna be "Ass Holes" would stop trying to toot their own horns with bogus charges. It kind of reminds me of Richard M.Daily up in Chicago when he wanted to be elected mayor of Chicago, he blamed an innocent man of killing his daughter. What an Ass Hole thing to do.

[justice58]

The DA has already been re-elected and will be so again. He is just doing his job and a good job at that.Mike Nifong has 27 years being a prosecutor, he is a seasoned prosecutor and knows what he is doing. Lets just wait and let the legal system work.