No Rape

[R. Richard]

OK, now it is even clear to the prosecutor that there was no rape in the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case." Of course, there are other charges that the prosecutor can pursue. All of the other charges are solely based upon the testimony of a woman who has already publically changed her story several times. However, three Duke Lacrosse players now have to defend themselves against "guilty until proven innocent charges." The prosecution has withheld evidence from the defense and that alone should result in dismissal of all charges. Comments?

Rape charges dropped in Duke case

DURHAM, N.C. - Prosecutors dropped rape charges Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of attacking a stripper at a team party, but the three still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges.

According to court papers filed Friday by District Attorney Mike Nifong, the accuser told a prosecution investigator on Thursday that she now does not know if she was penetrated during the alleged attack.

Nifong had previously said he would rely on the woman's account because of a lack of DNA evidence against the players.

Lacking any "scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony" to corroborate that aspect of the case, Nifong wrote, "the State is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense."

Nifong did not immediately return calls seeking comment Friday, and a sign posted on his office door read, "No media, please!"

The accuser, a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University, has said three men raped her in a bathroom at a March 13 Duke lacrosse team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper.

The indicted players — Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — all say they are innocent, and their attorneys have consistently said no sex occurred at the party.

The defense attorneys have repeatedly cited a lack of DNA evidence in the case as proof of their clients' innocence, while Nifong had said he didn't need DNA evidence to win convictions.

"It's highly coincidental," said defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, that the charges are being dropped a week after the director of a private DNA testing lab acknowledged that he initially, with Nifong's knowledge, withheld from the defense test results showing none of the players' DNA was found on or in the accuser's body.

Testing also showed that genetic material from several males was found on her undergarments and body.

"The reality is, what else could the DA do?" said Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Once the DNA evidence came out last week, I can't imagine how they could sustain a rape charge."

That the accuser had again changed her story hurts Nifong's case on the other charges, as well, Goldman said.

"It strikes me that a case based on this particular complaining witnesses' credibility appears to be in jeopardy," he said.

Defense attorneys have said for months that the woman has told several different versions of the alleged assault, and Seligmann's attorney has said she has given investigators at least a dozen different versions of the alleged attack.

The defense also has argued that the woman misidentified her alleged attackers in a photo lineup and they have asked the judge to prevent the accuser from identifying the players from the witness stand.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have been following this case for almost a year. The DA loudly shouted through the news media that a black woman had been raped by white members of the Duke lacrosse team after performing as a stripper at a team party. He also said that after the DNA evidence came back, he would prosecute the case.

A lot of DNA was found, in her vagina, in her rectum, on her clothing and on her skin. However, none of it belonged to any of the lacrosse players. This fact was made public. It belonged to male acquaintenances, all black, of the accuser. I don't believed the men were named, but they were identified by status. (boy friend, manager, etc.) In other words, the exonerating facts were made public but other details were not. Personally, I thought the other details were not relevant.

The DA then said he did not need DNA evidence which, under the circumstances, I thought was nonsense. He had the accuser look over a photo lineup and she picked two men from it. The problem was that the pics were all of team members, with no decoys. This was not a valid lineup. The two men named looked very little like the description the accuser gave to the police and one of them had a very solid alibi that he was not present at the time of the alleged rape.

The third suspect was identified by DNA. The accuser's false fingernails had been left in the bathroom of the house and were thrown into the waste basket. After they were fished out, they were found to have traces of the DNA of the renter of the house. I expect that everybody who heard that said something like: "Well, duh. I expect the waste basket was full of his DNA, and the fingernails could have been tainted by that." Anyhow, that is all the evidence there was against anybody. The trial was set for April, 2007, more than a year in the future, and a violation of the defendants' constitutional rights.

As for why did the DA make such a public and preliminary anouncement? He was running for re-election and faced a tough primary election a few months later. I think he wanted to curry favor with black voters in Durham, and he succeeded. He won the primary election and the general election in November. Since he no longer had any reason to prosecute the case, and it was a sure loser, he had to find a graceful way to drop it, and now he has.

Personally, I hope the lacrosse players bring suit against the city or county for malicious prosecution, or some such thing. Maybe even against the DA personally, because he was the malicious one.

As for the idea of "Guilty until proven innocent", sadly, that is the way things work in this kind of a case. The woman's acusation is usually considered to be prima facie evidence of guilt, unless it can be proven otherwise. Even if the men are proven to be innocent, they will carry this very bad reputation for the rest of their lives.

The woman, on the other hand, even to those who know her, has not suffered at all, unless she was really raped, which I doubt.

 

[Pure]

?

"No Rape "

That's not very accurate, RR. Essentially the DA decided a criminal prosecution for an alleged rape could not succeed.

Needless to say, though something can't be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt, it can indeed be actual:

taking the case of OJ, he was found "not guilty" of the murder charge, (I bet I won't hear you say 'no murders' on this one!).


BUT the Goldman's suit against him, based on the usual civil standard of proof (balance of probability) DID succeed; that jury found he had done the murders.
---

Note to Box: the presence of a boyfriend's semen and the absence of the rapists' is scarcely determinative. not a few rapists use condoms.

it's merely grist for the character assassination mode employed against all accusers. (such grist usually succeeds, despite its legal irrelevance).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Character assasination is only ever applied against accusers. Never against accused. That PC 101.

And I've had a few glasses of wine.

 

[S-Des]

OK, now it is even clear to the prosecutor that there was no rape in the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case." Of course, there are other charges that the prosecutor can pursue. All of the other charges are solely based upon the testimony of a woman who has already publically changed her story several times. However, three Duke Lacrosse players now have to defend themselves against "guilty until proven innocent charges." The prosecution has withheld evidence from the defense and that alone should result in dismissal of all charges. Comments?

Additionally, the DA said that the woman has changed her story to say that she couldn't remember if there was actual penetration in her rape (WTF??? ). The other stripper said she was lying. The photos and other evidence shows she was probably lying. There is testimony that she told a client at the strip club that she was, "Going to get paid" a couple of days after the rape.

I'm sure someone will say that this doesn't prove the men innocent. I'll pause now while I roll my eyes.......Nothing short of her saying she was lying the whole time would be good enough for some people (and then they'd just say that she was forced to say that). It's sad, but there are people out there who are so desperate to believe that women don't lie (and that most men are animals) that they will always be happy to leap to conclusions and won't have a problem with destroying the lives of men like these. Not only did these boys have their college careers ruined, they have had this hanging over their heads for almost a year now. They have had their names and faces plastered all over television (and when they tried to stay off TV, the media showed them running away, which is portrayed as acting guilty).

Finally, their parents are having their life savings gutted. People assumed that these families must be rich because their kids were Lacrosse players and attending Duke. This is not the case. A defense in a case like this could easily result in a six-figure fee. Imagine having to come up with that kind of money just to keep your child out of jail (when they swear to you they are innocent and even have some level of proof). As RR said, they'll always be, "The Duke Lacrosse players" to most people, many of whom will steadfastly refuse to believe that they were innocent, no matter what happens. Just utterly sad...

 

[Boxlicker101]

"No Rape "

That's not very accurate, RR. Essentially the DA decided a criminal prosecution for an alleged rape could not succeed.

Needless to say, though something can't be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt, it can indeed be actual:

taking the case of OJ, he was found "not guilty" of the murder charge, (I bet I won't hear you say 'no murders' on this one!).


BUT the Goldman's suit against him, based on the usual civil standard of proof (balance of probability) DID succeed; that jury found he had done the murders.
---

Note to Box: the presence of a boyfriend's semen and the absence of the rapists' is scarcely determinative. not a few rapists use condoms.

it's merely grist for the character assassination mode employed against all accusers. (such grist usually succeeds, despite its legal irrelevance).

In this specific case, I believe the DA realized what almost everybody else who had followed the case at all knew already. NO RAPE HAPPENED!!

DNA isn't only semen, you know. There was no pubic hair on the woman from any of the men, no skin cells, nothing at all. Obviously, they never touched her, certainly not in anything approaching a sexual way.

The only evidence is her statement that she was raped and her phonus balonus identification of the three men. She changed her story drastically and frequently. The description of the men she gave to the police doesn't come close to matching that of the accused. One of the men wasn't even there when the rape is alleged to have occurred, and he has documentary evidence to prove it. She displayed bruises during her examination but pictures and videotapes taken when she was performing show them as existing then. The second of the two strippers insists they were together all the time and nothing happened.

As for character assassination, that woukld have been viable 100 years ago (and probably more recently as well.) However, now, especially in this case it means nothing. For a young, attractive divorced woman to have had sex with her boy friend is considered completely normal and, if she claimed she hadn't, people would be likely to wonder why.

Roxanne, I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but character assassination has certainly been committed against these three young men. Their names have been dragged through the mud, and their reputations will always be tarnished. There are some people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, will always believe they are guilty, just because the woman involved in the case said they were. Today, on a news program, all three of them were clearly identified, including picture, full name and home town. Why the last item was considered relevant, I don't know.

 

[Huckleman2000]

While I hope that justice has been served in this case, at least so far as it can be determined, I find it really difficult to pity the LaCrosse players.

Okay, they (probably) aren't rapists.

They're just privileged white students of a prestigious university who decided that a worthy use of their money was hiring local black strippers to debase at their party.

Forgive me if I'm not incensed over their legal fees. Some peoples' education costs more than others'.

 

[S-Des]

While I hope that justice has been served in this case, at least so far as it can be determined, I find it really difficult to pity the LaCrosse players.

Okay, they (probably) aren't rapists.

They're just privileged white students of a prestigious university who decided that a worthy use of their money was hiring local black strippers to debase at their party.

Forgive me if I'm not incensed over their legal fees. Some peoples' education costs more than others'.

I didn't quite get your point. Are you saying it's,

A) Wrong to hire strippers?
B) Wrong to attend prestigious universities?
C) Wrong to be white?

What exactly does their educational cost have to do with the possibility of them being rapists?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I didn't quite get your point. Are you saying it's,

A) Wrong to hire strippers?
B) Wrong to attend prestigious universities?
C) Wrong to be white?

What exactly does their educational cost have to do with the possibility of them being rapists?

It's not wrong to be or do any of those things, so far as they go. And educational costs have very little to do with the possibility of them being rapists.

The wrong lies in the additive stupidity and insolence and insensitivity of their knowing combination of all those factors, in a place where just such a combination would be a political powderkeg.

I suppose it's not a crime to be stupid. But if people with more money and privilege than good sense have to spend some of both to learn something that's obvious to the rest of us, I can't say as I give a shit.

And I'll go further - if you latch onto this as some sort of principled stand, you're either well-connected or self-delusional.

 

[Pure]

comments.

i will agree that it's possible no rape occurred; stripper parties do get out of line, at times, and some kinds of assault do occur--i.e., unwanted attentions, etc. as huck says, the fun is to 'use' the ho in everywhich way. should she not initially have agreed to the whole ball of wax, there's going events which, legally, amount to common assault. BUT she's going to have a helluva time pressing charges if she says, "I agreed to be groped, but not to having fingers shoved up my ass." or "I agreed to suck off the leader, but not the nine others." "I agreed to cum on my face, but not to being pissed on."

so while the boys may have had a rough time, the larger picture has to be considered: frat boys and jocks *have* gotten away with rapes for years. esp. the latter are protected by the school. so what we're seeing is a pendulum swing, in trying to hold the rowdies to account. ** it's possible the DA went overboard in this specific instance, but very likely that he ignored lots of similar cases, say, 30 years back. (this thing is reminiscent of the Tawana Brawley incident; again, in efforts to make up for ignoring assaults, one shakey set of accusations was believed, as if the DA were trying to compensate for years of neglect.)

**in the South, in particular, we have hundreds of years where it was taken as an axiom that a black woman who consented to keep company with a white man or men, or a black prostitute or stripper, COULD NOT be raped.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's not wrong to be or do any of those things, so far as they go. And educational costs have very little to do with the possibility of them being rapists.

The wrong lies in the additive stupidity and insolence and insensitivity of their knowing combination of all those factors, in a place where just such a combination would be a political powderkeg.

I suppose it's not a crime to be stupid. But if people with more money and privilege than good sense have to spend some of both to learn something that's obvious to the rest of us, I can't say as I give a shit.

And I'll go further - if you latch onto this as some sort of principled stand, you're either well-connected or self-delusional.

I can't figure why you are ranting like this. First, they are probably not stupid, or they couldn't have gotten into the university in the first place. Second, I don't see that they have done anything wrong. They attend college. They play lacrosse at that college. They are white. They held a team party and hired two strippers to entertain at that party. That's all they did. I would not hold any of those things against them.

I also wonder how you know they have a lot of money and privilege. I don't know that they don't; I just wonder how you know they do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

i will agree that it's possible no rape occurred; stripper parties do get out of line, at times, and some kinds of assault do occur--i.e., unwanted attentions, etc. as huck says, the fun is to 'use' the ho in everywhich way. should she not initially have agreed to the whole ball of wax, there's going events which, legally, amount to common assault. BUT she's going to have a helluva time pressing charges if she says, "I agreed to be groped, but not to having fingers shoved up my ass." or "I agreed to suck off the leader, but not the nine others." "I agreed to cum on my face, but not to being pissed on."

so while the boys may have had a rough time, the larger picture has to be considered: frat boys and jocks *have* gotten away with rapes for years. esp. the latter are protected by the school. so what we're seeing is a pendulum swing, in trying to hold the rowdies to account. ** it's possible the DA went overboard in this specific instance, but very likely that he ignored lots of similar cases, say, 30 years back. (this thing is reminiscent of the Tawana Brawley incident; again, in efforts to make up for ignoring assaults, one shakey set of accusations was believed, as if the DA were trying to compensate for years of neglect.)

**in the South, in particular, we have hundreds of years where it was taken as an axiom that a black woman who consented to keep company with a white man or men, or a black prostitute or stripper, COULD NOT be raped.

I will ask you the same thing I asked Huckleman. Why are you ranting so about this case? From the evidence of innocence and lack of evidence of guilt, it seems obvious that no rape occurred. Although such parties have gotten out of hand in the past, that seems to be not the case this time.

I'm a little surprised that you would claim these young men are guilty,or probably guilty, because because other young men in similar situations were guilty. I certainly wouldn't have expected you to have considered that to be evidence of anything.

I also wonder about this "larger picture" you refer to. First, how do you know these guys are "frat boys"? The one who is renting the house where the party was held apparently isn't. I don't know about the others. Do you? Calling them jocks is a bit of a stretch also because lacrosse is a pretty minor sport. If they were basketball players, that might be a different story because Duke is a national basketball powerhouse. To a lesser extent that might also apply to baseball or football, but not lacrosse. Second, you seem to be saying something like "Let's nail these guys because others have gotten away with this kind of shit," I can't believe that you would feel that way. If crimes were committed by certain groups of people in the past, does that mean we should now punish persons who are similar to those who got away with those crimes?

What does your last paragraph have to do with the here and now? Are you saying again that innocent people should be punished now for what people got away with before?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I can't figure why you are ranting like this. First, they are probably not stupid, or they couldn't have gotten into the university in the first place. Second, I don't see that they have done anything wrong. They attend college. They play lacrosse at that college. They are white. They held a team party and hired two strippers to entertain at that party. That's all they did. I would not hold any of those things against them.

I also wonder how you know they have a lot of money and privilege. I don't know that they don't; I just wonder how you know they do.

First, this is hardly a rant on my part. If I was ranting, there would be no mistaking my points or my derision for anyone else. I'm a nasty ranter, for good or ill.

My overriding interpretation of this episode is that no one comes out looking very good, let alone vindicated, in the final event.

If you don't see that they did anything wrong in hiring two black strippers to entertain at their white party (in a sport that has a well-known predilection for selectivity on the basis of privilege due to its prevalence at elite prep schools), in an area where the predominant student profile is white from high income families, well then I can't take seriously your contention that the prosecutor's tenacity was not warranted. He knows his constituency. So should the people who go to school there for a limited period of time.

Coming to grips with the "townies" at elite universities isn't a newly discovered distraction. Dealing with this common externality isn't some unusual burden placed upon these students, and having some expectations of common decency, even for 'entertainers', is not beyond reason.

What in the behavior of these people are you trying to defend, apart from not-raping?

I'll grant you that maybe their behavior didn't amount to provable rape. From what you know of what has been admitted, would you be proud of that?

 

[S-Des]

First, this is hardly a rant on my part. If I was ranting, there would be no mistaking my points or my derision for anyone else. I'm a nasty ranter, for good or ill.

My overriding interpretation of this episode is that no one comes out looking very good, let alone vindicated, in the final event.

If you don't see that they did anything wrong in hiring two black strippers to entertain at their white party (in a sport that has a well-known predilection for selectivity on the basis of privilege due to its prevalence at elite prep schools), in an area where the predominant student profile is white from high income families, well then I can't take seriously your contention that the prosecutor's tenacity was not warranted. He knows his constituency. So should the people who go to school there for a limited period of time.

Coming to grips with the "townies" at elite universities isn't a newly discovered distraction. Dealing with this common externality isn't some unusual burden placed upon these students, and having some expectations of common decency, even for 'entertainers', is not beyond reason.

What in the behavior of these people are you trying to defend, apart from not-raping?

I'll grant you that maybe their behavior didn't amount to provable rape. From what you know of what has been admitted, would you be proud of that?

Several of my students play lacrosse. They are neither well to do, nor are they at "elite prep schools". Getting a scholarship for a sport is hardly proof of priviledge (more likely, it's proof of work ethic). I've seen & heard interviews with the families of the athletes involved, none of them are wealthy (unless you consider middle-class wealthy).

Since it's such a problem for a stripper to perform at a party, shouldn't we be trying to ban stripping totally? As for hiring "black" strippers, it came out early on that they asked for strippers (possibly white ones), but the agency sent two black ones instead. Now you ignore that truth and attack them for being insensitive to race? I agree with Box, I can't figure out where you are coming from on this. College kids having a party and things getting sexual???I'm shocked.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Several of my students play lacrosse. They are neither well to do, nor are they at "elite prep schools". Getting a scholarship for a sport is hardly proof of priviledge (more likely, it's proof of work ethic). I've seen & heard interviews with the families of the athletes involved, none of them are wealthy (unless you consider middle-class wealthy).

Since it's such a problem for a stripper to perform at a party, shouldn't we be trying to ban stripping totally? As for hiring "black" strippers, it came out early on that they asked for strippers (possibly white ones), but the agency sent two black ones instead. Now you ignore that truth and attack them for being insensitive to race? I agree with Box, I can't figure out where you are coming from on this. College kids having a party and things getting sexual???I'm shocked.

I had an undistinguished and indiscriminate college partying career, including several instances that I would not freely admit to and don't need to, since they were just kind of stupid and not remotely illegal. While offensive, no one was harmed as a result. I did poppers on the dance floor of a gay disco, though I'm not gay - and realized that as a result . I did coke, shrooms, and enough pot and booze to make plenty of stupid mistakes.

I never had to hire strippers, of whatever color, to make a party worthwhile. Sheesh, hang a disco ball and put condoms in the ashtrays and it's already on the way to 'legendary' if anyone gets laid who wasn't already set up beforehand. What does it say about a 'team' if they need to hire women to perform at their party? That most non-paid women wouldn't think twice about attending?

What do you find defensible about the team's behavior, apart from 'they didn't commit provable rape'?

Yeah, I'd be SO PROUD of my son at that party.

 

[Pure]

to box

From the evidence of innocence and lack of evidence of guilt, it seems obvious that no rape occurred. Although such parties have gotten out of hand in the past, that seems to be not the case this time.

I'm not convinced that you and RR have accurately summarized the evidence; neither of you bother to provide links to good sources.

There's not enough evidence for a rape charge. Period.

I suspect there was a 'common assault'; but jocks' 'wall of silence' will prevent the issue from proceeding, as usual.

What does your last paragraph have to do with the here and now? Are you saying again that innocent people should be punished now for what people got away with before?

no, my last para remarked that NO black stripper or pro, in the past, in the South, could ever claim rape. NOW the DA is at least looking at accusations, laying charges, etc. PERHAPS he got overzealous to prove that the South is not so bigoted as in the past, that crimes against black women get some attention by police and prosecuters.

you and rr are typical white squawkers about minor injustices or mishaps to whites; i suspect that in the past, both of you were entirely silent as hundreds of crimes against blacks never were investigated, not so say prosecuted; as hundreds of blacks COULD be railroaded on the word of one white woman, etc. up to and including the death penalty. so when there's an effort to fairness, to eliminating racism, you're out there LOUDLY squawking about Southern White Boys' rights (when the charges are dropped, as seems appropriate).

 

[Kev H]

I had an undistinguished and indiscriminate college partying career, including several instances that I would not freely admit to and don't need to, since they were just kind of stupid and not remotely illegal. While offensive, no one was harmed as a result. I did poppers on the dance floor of a gay disco, though I'm not gay - and realized that as a result . I did coke, shrooms, and enough pot and booze to make plenty of stupid mistakes.

Wow, you're a real winner with the personal logic, so it mostly explains your logic as applied to others.

 

[Pure]

i suspect huck meant he hadn't broken any of the laws for real issues of society, i.e., crimes against persons and property. drug laws have been ignored -- often by the cops-- for decades.

these laws for 'crimes without victims' are often a joke, and probably you've broken a few yourself, as have i.

in any case, taking a puff from a joint was probably in a gray area, arguably legal.

in the present case, apparently the rape charge was ill conceived. i believe there was likely a common assault. the fact that you and rr have summarized the evidence so as to accord with the ax you're grinding does not impress me (though some of what you allege may be true).

i'd forgive a DA who actually took crimes against black women seriously, even if he make a mistake of overzealousness in the present case. the system worked more or less as it should; charges were laid, then dropped. much of the hoo-hah is due to the press, on this case.

 

[R. Richard]

From the evidence of innocence and lack of evidence of guilt, it seems obvious that no rape occurred. Although such parties have gotten out of hand in the past, that seems to be not the case this time.

I'm not convinced that you and RR have accurately summarized the evidence; neither of you bother to provide links to good sources.

Pure: The story has been in the news for quite some time and you can get all of the sources you want by conducting a 'Net search.

[There's not enough evidence for a rape charge. Period.

There is NO evidence for a rape charge against the lacrosse players. None!

[I suspect there was a 'common assault'; but jocks' 'wall of silence' will prevent the issue from proceeding, as usual.

There were TWO strippers at the party. There is a second witness. Unfortuantely for your theory, the second witness has also changed her story.

[What does your last paragraph have to do with the here and now? Are you saying again that innocent people should be punished now for what people got away with before?

no, my last para remarked that NO black stripper or pro, in the past, in the South, could ever claim rape. NOW the DA is at least looking at accusations, laying charges, etc. PERHAPS he got overzealous to prove that the South is not so bigoted as in the past, that crimes against black women get some attention by police and prosecuters.

Your statement seems to justify the presecution of people because others of the same race committed crimes/discrimination in the past. If that is the case, you need professional help.

[you and rr are typical white squawkers about minor injustices or mishaps to whites; i suspect that in the past, both of you were entirely silent as hundreds of crimes against blacks never were investigated, not so say prosecuted; as hundreds of blacks COULD be railroaded on the word of one white woman, etc. up to and including the death penalty. so when there's an effort to fairness, to eliminating racism, you're out there LOUDLY squawking about Southern White Boys' rights (when the charges are dropped, as seems appropriate).

Ah, you descend to argumentum ad hominem. Pure, if there is someone here at Literotica who is more critical of the scumbags than I am, have them step forward. As to inter-racial sensitivity, I have loudly and publically stated that the scumbag's mother's sucked black cock and that they same scumbags pimped their women for Negroes. Apparently you feel that falsely charging Caucasians for a crime against a Negro is a fair and proper payback for previous false charges made by Caucasians against Negroes. I hope that you will pardon me for saying that your logic ranks right up there with fighting fire with gasoline and fucking for virginity. A Caucasian prosecuter decided to arrest and indict Caucasian males for an alleged crime against a Negro. Proper investigative procedures were never used by said Caucasian prosecuter. [From newspaper accounts, a photo lineup was used that only contained pictures of Caucasian Duke lacrosse players.] The often conflicting statements of a stripper were used as the basis for arrest and indictment of citizens on rape charges. The Caucasian prosecuter now admits that there is no legal basis for the rape charges. The Caucasian prosecuter now has a court case that is almost entirely dependent upon the emotional argument that "These here white boys done evil things to this here black woman who don't really remember what was done, but it shore as hell was evil." I strongly suspect that the jurisdiction represented by the Caucasian prosecuter will be sued for unlawful arrest and prosecution once the Caucasian prosecuter's case is tossed out of court.

Now, let us get back to law. From published newspaper reports, semen was found in the anus of the "poor Nego stripper." Said semen was not from any of the Caucasian boys. Said semen has been positively identified as coming from a specific Negro man. Anal intercourse is against written law in North Carolina. No arrests have been made by the Caucasian prosecuter for anal intercourse.

I have been persecuted by Negroes since I was a small child. [I was called Whi' Boy in the South Central and it was sufficient to identify me.] Despite the racially motivated persecution I have never, privately or publically supported lynching or other discrimination against Negroes. However, let me state what the male Negroes in the South Central knew almost from birth. If a male Negro got himself involved with a Caucasian woman, he had just volunteered for a lynching. It wasn't fair or legal, but that was the way things were. I was a long jumper, sprinter, hurdler in high school. The events are almost entirely contested by Negroes. I got to know the Negroes as few Caucasians did, since I was of sufficient skill to compete at the top levels where we were bussed to distant events. I don't claim to understand Negroes, hell I don't claim to understand Caucasians. However, I deal with people, not races. I do prejudge people. I decided early on that damn near every male [and a few who's sexuality wasn't really clear] in the South Central was trying to kill me and I wasn't far wrong. The people in the South Central were poor, violent, vicious people and some of them were almost as poor, violent, vicious as I was. I take umbrage at your insinuations that I am a racist. I hated everyone in the South Central without regard for race, religion or national origin. [I admit that I hated the scumbags even more than the rest, but the scumbags were mostly Caucasian.]

 

[cloudy]

in an area where the predominant student profile is white from high income families

Have you ever been to Durham??????

I managed a store there, although I lived in Raleigh (about 20 minutes away). Your statement is so wrong that it's beyond ridiculous.

 

[R. Richard]

in the present case, apparently the rape charge was ill conceived. i believe there was likely a common assault. the fact that you and rr have summarized the evidence so as to accord with the ax you're grinding does not impress me (though some of what you allege may be true).

i'd forgive a DA who actually took crimes against black women seriously, even if he make a mistake of overzealousness in the present case. the system worked more or less as it should; charges were laid, then dropped. much of the hoo-hah is due to the press, on this case.

The charges have NOT been dropped. Since the alleged victim has made statements such that a rape charge is not viable under the law, the rape charge will not be prosecuted. There are other pending charges that are still scheduled to be prosecuted agains the Duke lacrosse players.

One of the Duke lacrosse playes has a [Negro] cab driver witness and an ATM time and date receipt that supposedly shows that he was at an ATM machine some distance from where the alleged assault took place. If the Duke lacrosse player does have such evidence, then the alleged victim's testimony against the other Duke lacrosse players is essentially worthless [False in one, false in all.] There is no evidence other than the unsupported word of the alleged victim. [There was asecond stripper at the party. Said second stripper did not see the alleged assault and she has also changed her story a number of times.]

I would expect that the jurisdiction of the prosecuter will face a rather nasty civil lawsuit at the end of the criminal procedings. There is essentially no defense against said lawsuit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From the evidence of innocence and lack of evidence of guilt, it seems obvious that no rape occurred. Although such parties have gotten out of hand in the past, that seems to be not the case this time.

I'm not convinced that you and RR have accurately summarized the evidence; neither of you bother to provide links to good sources.

There's not enough evidence for a rape charge. Period.

I suspect there was a 'common assault'; but jocks' 'wall of silence' will prevent the issue from proceeding, as usual.

What does your last paragraph have to do with the here and now? Are you saying again that innocent people should be punished now for what people got away with before?

no, my last para remarked that NO black stripper or pro, in the past, in the South, could ever claim rape. NOW the DA is at least looking at accusations, laying charges, etc. PERHAPS he got overzealous to prove that the South is not so bigoted as in the past, that crimes against black women get some attention by police and prosecuters.

you and rr are typical white squawkers about minor injustices or mishaps to whites; i suspect that in the past, both of you were entirely silent as hundreds of crimes against blacks never were investigated, not so say prosecuted; as hundreds of blacks COULD be railroaded on the word of one white woman, etc. up to and including the death penalty. so when there's an effort to fairness, to eliminating racism, you're out there LOUDLY squawking about Southern White Boys' rights (when the charges are dropped, as seems appropriate).

Pure, from reading this and other posts by you, I get the impression that, because there have been injustices in the past, you want to make up for it by committing injustices against other people now. I have a hard time believing you think like that, but it certainly comes across that way.

I would hardly call these false accusations minor mishaps or injustices. They are very serious charges, which will forever tarnish the reputation of the accused, innocent though they are. These MEN are not Southern White Boys , They are all from the North, and are in the South to attend Duke University. Not that their home towns are relevant, but Ijust thought I would mention it.

I can't prove it, of course, but I believe the DA was grandstanding to the Black voters of Durham in order to win a tough primary election. He succeeded, and went on to win the general election. How often, even before any physical evidence is available, does a DA make such a big production out of a case like this? Michael Nifong ended up with egg on his face after the DNA tests came up negative for any of the suspects, and he has been doing damage control since. I repeat, there is NO EVIDENCE except the various, extremely diverse, stories the accuser has told. If there had been any kind of an asault at all, there would have been skin and hair cells found on the victim and/or her clothing, but none were found.

As for why she would be lying, I don't know. Perhaps she tried to shake down the men, and made her complaint when they would not pay off. Maybe she just has a grudge against all young white men. Maybe she just has an active imagination and believed she was raped. I don't know her motivation, but I do know from reading and hearing about the case that there is NO EVIDENCE against anybody.

I also don't think it would be right to make the accused men scapegoats or whipping boys for past injustices.

Even Nancy Grace thinks they are innocent. I don't believe she has ever before professed a belief in the innocence of anybody in a high profile case.

I agree that there have been hundreds of crimes perpetrated, against people of all races and by people of all races, that have never been prosecuted or even investigated. I would have been silent on them because I would have had no knowledge of them.

 

[Pure]

note to cloudy,
while you may be right about poverty in NC, the issue is the SES of the students at Duke, one of the US elite universities.

from the website

http://www.registrar.duke.edu/bulletins/Undergraduate/2006-07/financial.pdf

the tuition is 32,800; room about 5,000; food about 5,000; books about 1000. that's at least $44,000 per year.

now what would be the family income of a family spending that on little Rhett? surely at least $200,000. QED.

there is student aid, of course. but as a person who attended a similar--but better-- university, i can say that the dominant SES was quite well to do, if not wealthy, despite the substantial presence of scholarship students.

so there is no question but that the strippers were several notches lower, and black. since you are a native person, i would expect you to be sensitive to the previous impossibility of rape charges by poor, non white women, against better off white males. further, even though now it sometimes happens [that such charges are laid], i think you might agree that poor, black, hispanic, or native females are still at a disadvantage as far as succeeding in any such criminal prosecution against a white male.

ADDED: from the above, one can see the NON racial dimension to what occurred, what i said above applies to poor women of any color, including white. a poor white woman, e.g., a house cleaner, is unlikely to succeed in any kind of rape charge against her employer.

 

[Pure]

note to rr

while you have made several good points about prosecutorial bungling, here, the following is a cheap shot which tends to discredit your side:

Now, let us get back to law. From published newspaper reports, semen was found in the anus of the "poor Nego stripper." Said semen was not from any of the Caucasian boys. Said semen has been positively identified as coming from a specific Negro man. Anal intercourse is against written law in North Carolina. No arrests have been made by the Caucasian prosecuter for anal intercourse.


So you are suggesting that an anti sodomy law which is essentially dead letter--and likely unconstitutional-- be enforced against this stripper?

This entire line of argument is bogus, and is DIS allowed at a rape trial. The sexual activity of the complainant--even on the day in question-- has NO conceivable bearing on the issue of whether another person forced sex upon her. You are following a biased way of thinking as illustrated in the old situation whereby a prostitute cannot [in practice] be raped.

 

[Boxlicker101]

note to cloudy,
while you may be right about poverty in NC, the issue is the SES of the students at Duke, one of the US elite universities.

from the website

http://www.registrar.duke.edu/bulletins/Undergraduate/2006-07/financial.pdf

the tuition is 32,800; room about 5,000; food about 5,000; books about 1000. that's at least $44,000 per year.

now what would be the family income of a family spending that on little Rhett? surely at least $200,000. QED.

there is student aid, of course. but as a person who attended a similar--but better-- university, i can say that the dominant SES was quite well to do, if not wealthy, despite the substantial presence of scholarship students.

so there is no question but that the strippers were several notches lower, and black. since you are a native person, i would expect you to be sensitive to the previous impossibility of rape charges by poor, non white women, against better off white males. further, even though now it sometimes happens [that such charges are laid], i think you might agree that poor, black, hispanic, or native females are still at a disadvantage as far as succeeding in any such criminal prosecution against a white male.

ADDED: from the above, one can see the NON racial dimension to what occurred, what i said above applies to poor women of any color, including white. a poor white woman, e.g., a house cleaner, is unlikely to succeed in any kind of rape charge against her employer.

Since Duke is a national powerhouse in lacrosse, I think it probable thea the three men in question were on athletic scholarships. Besides that, there are grants and loans, so they don't have to be rich to attend there.

You keep nattering about past injustices against poor women of color. What does any of that have to do with THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I don't like to shout but I do feel the need to remind you that this thread is about the one specific case.

Bt the way, I said earlier that the three men were from the North. Actually, one is from New York, one is from New Jersey and the other is from Maryland. The last is not really "The North" but is usually considered to be "a border state" meaning it is on the border between north and south.