No Rape

[Guest]

Another dumb cunt who thought she could score Kobe Bryant money by making up outrageous accusations against a high-profile big money athletic organization. Good to see that's not gonna fly here.

--Zack

Wow.

Way to add your unbiased, non-sexist two cents worth.

 

[Pure]

re kobe

to sarah and anyone,

the original police interview with kobe is at

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0924041kobea1.html

VERY informative; the police, not surprisingly are bending over backwards to be helpful and Kobe does a lot of story revision, from 'no sex' to 'well, some' 'ok, intercourse,' etc. seems as if he's been raised on porn since he says that, for him, the best thing is to come on the woman's face. as to mrs. kobe, he asks for discretion.
(i guess he may not come on her face).

 

[Guest]

to sarah and anyone,

the original police interview with kobe is at

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0924041kobea1.html

VERY informative; the police, not surprisingly are bending over backwards to be helpful and Kobe does a lot of story revision, from 'no sex' to 'well, some' 'ok, intercourse,' etc. seems as if he's been raised on porn since he says that, for him, the best thing is to come on the woman's face. as to mrs. kobe, he asks for discretion.
(i guess he may not come on her face).

Thank you, Pure.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Wow.

Way to add your unbiased, non-sexist two cents worth.

You ain't kidding, sister. You know as well as I do that the Kobe accusation was a complete fabrication, not to mention this Duke nonsense. Kate Faber cashed out with what, two million bucks? Tell me how that helps the abused sisterhood, claiming rape and then cashing out for a big payday. I'm with you on that. Right on. Disgusting.

--Zack

 

[Pure]

i suspect the civil suit did not proceed because the shoe was on the other foot. kobe bryant would have to be deposed or questioned. perhaps he didn't want all his 'cum on the face' incidents delved into, affairs etc. Faber's past and her identity phone number and address had been publicized, so there wasn't much more that could happen. Oh, and two men were convicted of making death threats against her.

so Kobe, being not exactly 'pure as the driven snow', bit the bullet and shelled out. probably it was something in a gray area, a quasi 'date rape.' we'll never know: Faber got intimidated, and was quite active sexually. Kobe screws a lotta chicks of all kinds and loves to come on their faces and professes to love his wife.

like rr, zack has a little trouble with the simple logical point that an criminal prosecution that fails does NOT me[an] 'no such act occurred.'
and the simple logical point that sexual activity before and/or after a rape is irrelevent to the question of the occurrence of the rape. unless of course all women are sluts.

it's funny how the right wing screws up their logic. 'not proven' regarding OJ or the Clintons, etc. means simply they 'got off.' 'not proven' against the Duke guys means, in rr's words, 'no rape.'

 

[R. Richard]

like rr, zack has a little trouble with the simple logical point that an criminal prosecution that fails does NOT me 'no such act occurred.'
and the simple logical point that sexual activity before and/or after a rape is irrelevent to the question of the occurrence of the rape. unless of course all women are sluts.

I never said that failure of a criminal prosecution means that no rape occurred. Failure to CONDUCT a criminal prosecution does, under the law, mean that no rape occurred. [Rape is a criminal offense.] Now, since Nifong is not going to conduct a criminal prosecution, the normal fall back would be a civil prosecution [as in the OJ case.] A civil prosecution would have to overcome the fact that no Duke lacrosse DNA was found on the body of the supposed victim. [The DNA found on the fingernail(s) was after said fingernails were found in a wastebasket. The guy whose DNA was found on the fingernails lived in the house. Trying to prove that said DNA did not come from material thrown in the wastebasket is a hopeless task.] If we are talking about a civil action, the question would be what monetary harm was done. If the woman is normally engaged in sex for free, that would be evidence in a civil [not a criminal] case.

it's funny how the right wing screws up their logic. 'not proven' regarding OJ or the Clintons, etc. means simply they 'got off.' 'not proven' against the Duke guys means, in rr's words, 'no rape.'

In the case of OJ, he was found innocent of criminal action by a jury. He was found guilty of civil damage, also by a jury. If a multi-million dollar civil decision against OJ was "getting off," you have a different idea of getting off than I do. Clinton was tried for alleged sexual activity against Paula Jones. He settled the matter with a payment of $650,000 (?) to Paula Jones. Clinton was later fined a large amount by Judge Webber-Wright for perjury. Clinton also lost his law license. Clinton was never tried for a couple of more charges of rape.

 

[Pure]

sorry, rr,

you're simply mistaken.

Failure to CONDUCT a criminal prosecution does, under the law, mean that no rape occurred. [Rape is a criminal offense.]

Rape, murder, theft and robbery have everyday meanings most people understand. The absence of a legal proceeding simply means 1) police weren't informed, or 2) police, on being informed, decided not to proceed for any number of reasons; not proceeing entails that no conviction can occur. Lots of rapes do not result in any proceeding in courts, at all. Indeed, 'unreported' cases are significant for lots of crimes, including robbery (e.g., being robbed by a prostitute or gay hustler).

In terms of a crime that's 'on the books of the legal system,' conviction is key. But everyone knows 'convictions' for any given crime are a small percentage of actual occurrences of the criminal act (which may remain 'unproven' as to the culprit).

so, rr, your thread title is an obvious error.
==

let us consider a simple case.
i say: RL fraudulently obtained prescription drugs; RL was charged with such; RL will not be tried (and thus not convicted) for that crime). in the end, the 'charge' itself will disappear.
====

Rush Limbaugh makes deal to end 'doctor shopping' probe

RAW STORY
Published: Friday April 28, 2006
[www.rawstory.com]


Print This | Email This


After his arrest on Friday, Rush Limbaugh has entered into a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end their probe of allegations that the conservative talk show host went "doctor shopping" to obtain prescription pain-killing medicine, RAW STORY has found.

The Palm Beach Post reported that Limbaugh turned himself over to Florida authorities late Friday afternoon after a warrant had been issued.

"The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and bonded out an hour later on a $3,000 bail," said a spokesman for the State Attorney's office, according to the Palm Beach Post.

According to attorney Roy Black, a single charge of doctor shopping will be filed in court by the state attorney, and as long as Limbaugh "completes an additional 18 months of treatment" by his physician, and pays $30,000 "to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation," the charge will then be dropped.

In November of 2003, investigators raided four Florida doctor offices after Limbaugh's former maid claimed that she and her husband sold the conservative pundit drugs. Limbaugh was accused of "doctor shopping" in order to obtain an "inordinate abundance of painkillers," which included "OxyContin, Lorcet, Norco, Hydrocodone and Kadian, the anti-anxiety drug Xanax, the cholesterol-lowering drug Niacin, and Clonodine, which treats high blood pressure" according to documents obtained by The Smoking Gun.

The "Booking Blotter" for the Palm Beach Police Department can be seen at this link.

Rush Hundson Limbaugh was booked at 4:25 PM under Charge 893.13-3730: Fraud-Conceal info to obtain prescription, according to the Blotter.

Press release issued by Limbaugh's attorney:

#
In response to media and other inquiries, Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, released the following statement today concerning a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end the investigation of Mr. Limbaugh:

"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.

"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.

"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.

"Mr. Limbaugh had intended to remain in treatment. Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won."

The actions taken today are as follows:

-- The State Attorney has filed a single charge of doctor shopping with the Court. The charge is being held in abeyance under the terms of an agreement between the State and Mr. Limbaugh.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has filed a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Court.

The formal agreement between Mr. Limbaugh and the State Attorney will be filed with the Court on Monday. The terms of the agreement are substantively as follows:

-- Mr. Limbaugh will continue in treatment with the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years.

-- After Mr. Limbaugh completes an additional 18 months of treatment, the State Attorney has agreed to drop the charge.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation.

#

 

[Boxlicker101]

i suspect the civil suit did not proceed because the shoe was on the other foot. kobe bryant would have to be deposed or questioned. perhaps he didn't want all his 'cum on the face' incidents delved into, affairs etc. Faber's past and her identity phone number and address had been publicized, so there wasn't much more that could happen. Oh, and two men were convicted of making death threats against her.

so Kobe, being not exactly 'pure as the driven snow', bit the bullet and shelled out. probably it was something in a gray area, a quasi 'date rape.' we'll never know: Faber got intimidated, and was quite active sexually. Kobe screws a lotta chicks of all kinds and loves to come on their faces and professes to love his wife.

like rr, zack has a little trouble with the simple logical point that an criminal prosecution that fails does NOT me[an] 'no such act occurred.'
and the simple logical point that sexual activity before and/or after a rape is irrelevent to the question of the occurrence of the rape. unless of course all women are sluts.

it's funny how the right wing screws up their logic. 'not proven' regarding OJ or the Clintons, etc. means simply they 'got off.' 'not proven' against the Duke guys means, in rr's words, 'no rape.'

In the case of OJ, he got away with it by being acquitted of murder. Being forced to pay out money from a civil suit doesn't mean all that much because he still lives the good life, rather than doing life in prison.

As for Hillary Rodham Clinton, she obviously got away with insider trading or fraud or other white collar crimes. Billing records from her law firm mysteriously disappeared, only to reappear just as mysteriously after it was too late for them to shed any light on the matter at hand. Although having no expertise, she ran a small investment into a large return in a short period of time. Nothing was ever proven, but neither of these two events passes the smell test.

The Duke case is another matter entirely. This was proven. It was definitely proven that NO RAPE occurred, meaning the thread title is correct. The DNA, including vaginal and anal swabbings showed sexual intercourse with several different men, and careful inspections of foreign cells from her clothes and body showed the same thing. The fact that these other traces were found on her body, but no hair and skin cells from any of the Duke lacrosse players, proves without question that there was no intimate contact with the latter, therefore no rape.

It is possible, of course, that the accuser's great, great, great grandmother might have been raped by somebody's great, great, great grandfather, but that is totally immaterial, even though your previous posts have seemed to claim it should mean something.

 

[R. Richard]

you're simply mistaken.

Failure to CONDUCT a criminal prosecution does, under the law, mean that no rape occurred. [Rape is a criminal offense.]

Rape, murder, theft and robbery have everyday meanings most people understand. The absence of a legal proceeding simply means 1) police weren't informed, or 2) police, on being informed, decided not to proceed for any number of reasons; not proceeing entails that no conviction can occur. Lots of rapes do not result in any proceeding in courts, at all. Indeed, 'unreported' cases are significant for lots of crimes, including robbery (e.g., being robbed by a prostitute or gay hustler).

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem with? ["Everybody knows" is NOT admissable in a court of law.]

 

[Pure]

RR, you must learn the lingo of the people in the field

An acquittal in a criminal proceeding, "Not Guilty" commonly called "Innocent", means that in respect of the government's criminal justice system, there is(has been) no crime.

RR asks What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem with?

That phrase describes the assumption of *criminal justice system*, as an arm of the government.

It is a simple fact that there are unreported crimes; rape being an example.

rr: ["Everybody knows" is NOT admissable in a court of law.]

If I ran into a judge so obtuse, I'd present him with a stack of documents such as the following. I direct you to the second, and the last sentence [bolded] in the excerpt. The term 'unreported crime' is a valid concept, recognized in the research of persons working for the US Dept. of Justice.

I might mention that the method of such a survey below, obviously, is NOT to look at court records, but to contact persons directly and ask them about having been victim of various crimes. [AND whether they reported it].


---
US Department of Justice
National Crime Victimization Survey
“Criminal Victimization, 2005”

http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncvs_2005.pdf?PHPSESSID=fe53f1b39999a6d7aba4672fd962d0cf

In 2005 U.S. residents age 12 or older
experienced an estimated 23 million
violent and property victimizations,
according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). These
criminal victimizations included an
estimated 18 million property crimes
(burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft),
5.2 million violent crimes (rape or sexual
assault, robbery, aggravated assault,
and simple assault), and 227,000
personal thefts (pocket picking and
purse snatching).

Because of a decline in the rate of theft,
the overall property crime rate declined
between 2004 and 2005. Victimization
rates for every other major type of
crime measured by the survey were
unchanged. For completed robbery with
injury and simple assault without minor
injury, aggregate rates for the period
2004-05 were somewhat lower than
those for 2002-03. The 1-year (2004-
2005) and 2-year (2002-03 to 2004-05)
change estimates indicate that at the
national level crime rates remain
stabilized at the lowest overall levels
experienced since 1973.

Between 1993 (when the NCVS was
redesigned) and 2005, the violent crime
rate decreased 58%, from 50 to 21
victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12
or older. Property crime declined 52%,
from 319 to 154 per 1,000 households.


In 2005, according to victims, 47% of
violent crimes were reported to the
police, up from 43% in 1993. The
proportion of property crimes reported
to the police also increased to 40%
in 2005, from 33% in 1993.

 

[R. Richard]

An acquittal in a criminal proceeding, "Not Guilty" commonly called "Innocent", means that in respect of the government's criminal justice system, there is(has been) no crime.

RR asks What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem with?

That phrase describes the assumption of *criminal justice system*, as an arm of the government.

Pure, if the *criminal justice system* is not an arm of the government, then those being held in prison are kidnap victims. I offer no proof, but you will find no responsible person in the government who is willing to entertain the idea that those being held in prison are kidnap victims. Thus, the *criminal justice system* is an arm of the government.

It is a simple fact that there are unreported crimes; rape being an example.

rr: ["Everybody knows" is NOT admissable in a court of law.]

If I ran into a judge so obtuse, I'd present him with a stack of documents such as the following. I direct you to the second, and the last sentence [bolded] in the excerpt. The term 'unreported crime' is a valid concept, recognized in the research of persons working for the US Dept. of Justice.

If an incident is not reported, it is NOT a crime. There are undoubtedly people who are willing to accept the unsupported word of an individual that said individual has been criminally deprived of property and/or rights. However, the unsupported word of an individul does not make a crime.

OK, "everybody knows" is admissable. Everybody knows that Blowjob Bill Clinton sadi, "I did not have sex with that woman!" Everybody knows that, per DNA analysis, Blowjob Bill did get his cock sucked by ol' Monica. [Dat ol' blue dress done told a tale on ol' Blowjob Bill.] Everybody knows that a blowjob is sex. [Try having your girlfriend blow you in the town square if you don't think so.] Thus, per your 'reasoning,' Blowjob Bill Clinton is a criminal. Blowjob Bill done committed adultry [yes, he actually is married to that frigid bitch.] Blowjob Bill used an office that taxpayers pay for to get his cock sucked [fraud.] Bolwjob Bill lied about "I did not have sex with that woman!" and repeated the lie in front of a court of law [perjury.]

Now tell me, why is Blowjob Bill Clinton not in jail? [Don't try to tell me it was an unreported crime!]

 

[Misty_Morning]

......

 

[Pure]

have it your way, rr; end of conversation.

rr If an incident is not reported, it is NOT a crime.


then there can be no 'unreported crime,' and the DOJ, as quoted below are obviously being very sloppy. i suggest you write to them and give them your expert advice.

In 2005, according to victims, 47% of
violent crimes were reported to the
police, up from 43% in 1993. The
proportion of property crimes reported
to the police also increased to 40%
in 2005, from 33% in 1993.

 

[Boxlicker101]

An acquittal in a criminal proceeding, "Not Guilty" commonly called "Innocent", means that in respect of the government's criminal justice system, there is(has been) no crime.

RR asks What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem with?

That phrase describes the assumption of *criminal justice system*, as an arm of the government.

It is a simple fact that there are unreported crimes; rape being an example.

rr: ["Everybody knows" is NOT admissable in a court of law.]

If I ran into a judge so obtuse, I'd present him with a stack of documents such as the following. I direct you to the second, and the last sentence [bolded] in the excerpt. The term 'unreported crime' is a valid concept, recognized in the research of persons working for the US Dept. of Justice.

I might mention that the method of such a survey below, obviously, is NOT to look at court records, but to contact persons directly and ask them about having been victim of various crimes. [AND whether they reported it].


---
US Department of Justice
National Crime Victimization Survey
“Criminal Victimization, 2005”

http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncvs_2005.pdf?PHPSESSID=fe53f1b39999a6d7aba4672fd962d0cf

In 2005 U.S. residents age 12 or older
experienced an estimated 23 million
violent and property victimizations,
according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). These
criminal victimizations included an
estimated 18 million property crimes
(burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft),
5.2 million violent crimes (rape or sexual
assault, robbery, aggravated assault,
and simple assault), and 227,000
personal thefts (pocket picking and
purse snatching).

Because of a decline in the rate of theft,
the overall property crime rate declined
between 2004 and 2005. Victimization
rates for every other major type of
crime measured by the survey were
unchanged. For completed robbery with
injury and simple assault without minor
injury, aggregate rates for the period
2004-05 were somewhat lower than
those for 2002-03. The 1-year (2004-
2005) and 2-year (2002-03 to 2004-05)
change estimates indicate that at the
national level crime rates remain
stabilized at the lowest overall levels
experienced since 1973.

Between 1993 (when the NCVS was
redesigned) and 2005, the violent crime
rate decreased 58%, from 50 to 21
victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12
or older. Property crime declined 52%,
from 319 to 154 per 1,000 households.


In 2005, according to victims, 47% of
violent crimes were reported to the
police, up from 43% in 1993. The
proportion of property crimes reported
to the police also increased to 40%
in 2005, from 33% in 1993.

Actually, that first sentence is not entirely true. Sometimes an accused person or persons will be acquitted, but the government is so avid to convict them that they concoct another charge, different from the original one. An example is in the Rodney King case. The accused police were acquitted but the Feds brought a charge against them of "violating Rodney King's constitutional rights". In a kangaroo court, they were convicted.

The ccriminal justice system is obviously an arm of the government, using "government" to mean all levels of government. It consists of cops and investigators and prosecutors and judges, all government employees.

There are certain facts that are so well established, and such general knowledge that nobody is ever asked for proof. Examples are: Septrmber has 30 days. Two plus two equals four. Four quarts make a gallon. If a witness in a court proceeding were to make such a statement, nobody would ask the witness to prove it because such facts are common knowledge. In other words, "everybody knows...."

I don't think there is any doubt that a "crime" is a serious violation of the law. If such a violation occurs, it is a crime whether it is reported or not.

 

[R. Richard]

rr If an incident is not reported, it is NOT a crime.


then there can be no 'unreported crime,' and the DOJ, as quoted below are obviously being very sloppy. i suggest you write to them and give them your expert advice.

In 2005, according to victims, 47% of
violent crimes were reported to the
police, up from 43% in 1993. The
proportion of property crimes reported
to the police also increased to 40%
in 2005, from 33% in 1993.

Let try one more time, taking it slow.

Report1: "Rich white Duke lacrosse players raped me."
Conclusion: "Crime! Crusading DA takes on the establishment and wins."
Report2: "No DNA evidence."
Conclusion: "Obviously a sneaky rich white boy trick."
Report3: "I can't remember if the white boys penetrated me."
Conclusion: "No crime under the law. Don't talk to the media. Find another crime."

The careful observer will note that, despite heavy media coverage and trial by media, the reported 'crime' was non-existent. Yet, if the woman hadn't reported the non-crime, it would have gone down as a 'non-reported crime.' Clear now?

 

[Pure]

box: I don't think there is any doubt that a "crime" is a serious violation of the law. If such a violation occurs, it is a crime whether it is reported or not.

yes, exactly, box. that's the dept of justice terminology; there's a kind of event amounting to a crime; one may then discuss the reporting rate, the proportion of charges that result, and the proportion of charges resulting in a conviction; then only SOME convictions result in incarceration. iirc, from the beginning to the end you probably have 90%+ attrition for lots of crimes; i.e., if a person does a crime, the chances are 10% or less he'll ever 'do time.' for some crimes, i'm sure the final % incarcerated is probably closer to 1%, e.g., for white collar crimes (the banks do not like even to report certain events-- frauds, swindles, cooked books; makes them look bad and gives people ideas.)

the courts have to follow 'rules of evidence' regarding their designating anything a crime, since a persons liberty is at stake. there are rules for the judicial proceedings, the trial. what comes out the other end is, so to say, an *officially recognized crime*, logged by the government and rendering you liable to pay a penalty, including incarceration.

in everyday life, we cut corners. if i'm your friend and i say, 'my mother's purse was snatched', you'll probably believe me and say, later, to someone else, that you know of a *robbery.* technically, however, you, for court purposes, cant 'take my word'; that's to rely on 'hearsay.'

there are, of course, false reports of crimes; but usually there's a clear motive; e.g. a woman wants to spite a man who dropped her; a man wants to punish his exwife for divorcing him, so he alleges she's sexually abusing their kid. perhaps he wants custody. a person alleges a robbery to defraud the insurance co.

in the case of the DOJ victimization survey, there's much less motive to lie to the person doing the interview in person or on the phone (i.e., what's to be gained? nothing).

 

[Boxlicker101]

box: I don't think there is any doubt that a "crime" is a serious violation of the law. If such a violation occurs, it is a crime whether it is reported or not.

yes, exactly, box. that's the dept of justice terminology; there's a kind of event amounting to a crime; one may then discuss the reporting rate, the proportion of charges that result, and the proportion of charges resulting in a conviction; then only SOME convictions result in incarceration. iirc, from the beginning to the end you probably have 90%+ attrition for lots of crimes; i.e., if a person does a crime, the chances are 10% or less he'll ever 'do time.' for some crimes, i'm sure the final % incarcerated is probably closer to 1%, e.g., for white collar crimes (the banks do not like even to report certain events-- frauds, swindles, cooked books; makes them look bad and gives people ideas.)

the courts have to follow 'rules of evidence' regarding their designating anything a crime, since a persons liberty is at stake. there are rules for the judicial proceedings, the trial. what comes out the other end is, so to say, an *officially recognized crime*, logged by the government and rendering you liable to pay a penalty, including incarceration.

in everyday life, we cut corners. if i'm your friend and i say, 'my mother's purse was snatched', you'll probably believe me and say, later, to someone else, that you know of a *robbery.* technically, however, you, for court purposes, cant 'take my word'; that's to rely on 'hearsay.'

there are, of course, false reports of crimes; but usually there's a clear motive; e.g. a woman wants to spite a man who dropped her; a man wants to punish his exwife for divorcing him, so he alleges she's sexually abusing their kid. perhaps he wants custody. a person alleges a robbery to defraud the insurance co.

in the case of the DOJ victimization survey, there's much less motive to lie to the person doing the interview in person or on the phone (i.e., what's to be gained? nothing).

In this case, it has been essentially proven that no crime was committed except by the accuser. I wonder how false reports figure into the statistics.

I don't know what her motivation was. Maybe she disliked the crude sexual and racial things that were said to her, and wanted to get even. Maybe she is a racist and hates all white people and wanted to get them in trouble. Maybe she tried a shakedown, and falsely reported a crime when they wouldn't pay off. Whatever her motivation, I would hope that she is now in big trouble for false reporting and perjury and maybe some other things. I hope Nifong is in big trouble too, for all the aggravation he has helped her cause, and for malicious prosecution and other things. He should be disbarred and impeached as DA.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, since everyone else is beating the dead horse...

I did some research on false rape accusations (see Joe W's thread). It's a problem, and not one I want to belittle.

It's also a phenomenon that generally does its most damage in specific circumstances. For example, in divorce and custody cases, it's a particularly virulent charge. In extortion cases, it can be damaging, though isn't always. Sometimes it is the manifestation of different types of mental illness.

This is not one of those cases, at least not entirely. The surrounding circumstances in question occurred, there are public witnesses to some of them, and the Duke players clearly had expectations of sex occurring as a result of their securing the services of the strippers. The strippers were subject to verbal assault, by several accounts, after they initially refused to perform when they got to the party, which was not at all what it was represented to be when their services were secured.

The alleged victim is clearly not without fault. She was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or a combination. She could have symptoms of PTSD - this was her first 'party' gig, she is a mother and a student and poor, and she was doing the stripping work without telling anyone she knew about it. Feeling nervous enough to have to get drunk beforehand, expecting a small bachelor party, and then arriving at a frat house bash of 40 or so drunk and rowdy LaCrosse players hoping for a gang-bang is not the sort of experience anyone should have to deal with, whether a stripper or not.

If that's the situation you're hiring for, say so up front - don't lure someone under one scenario and then get mad when the service providers balk. If they'd hired a caterer for a ten-person party, and when the caterer arrived there were four times that number, and the party verbally assaulted them and threatened them, who would you find at fault here?

The victim had bruises and scratches consistent with sexual assault, from the hospital report.

Again, if you're hitching your anti-false-rape-accusation wagon to this case, it's hardly the clear-cut instance you think it is, and the victim in question has not been shown to be the vindictive gold-digger you want to expect, and the DA has not behaved with the unequivocal vindictiveness you wish to ascribe. It's not a cut-and-dried case, and the refusal to acknowledge that smacks of sexism and racism and class-ism.

 

[Pure]

box In this case, it has been essentially proven that no crime was committed except by the accuser.

no, sorry, that's the initial distortion. there is possibly one fellow who wasn't there, so yes, if he was at an ATM, that proves he's NOT one of the rapists.

what is accurate to say is that A:"no evidence was found that pointed to intercourse/bodily contact with any of the lacrosse team."

this is NOT equivalent to B: "evidence was found that indicated NO intercourse with any of the lacrosse team."

HOWEVER: A is NOT uncommon in rapes, so I'm told. Only the most brutal leave clear evidence. Rapists now frequently use condoms, so LACK of semen is to be expected.

it is the nature of the crime, box, that in 90% of the cases, it's pretty much the woman's word (unless there's a direct witness). that's why it all comes down to credibility. HOWEVER, the womans credibility is confused, by people like rr, with her avidity for sexual partners. {IOW slut=liar}

this is pretty much beating a dead horse, so....

 

[R. Richard]

box In this case, it has been essentially proven that no crime was committed except by the accuser.

no, sorry, that's the initial distortion. there is possibly one fellow who wasn't there, so yes, if he was at an ATM, that proves he's NOT one of the rapists.

what is accurate to say is that A:"no evidence was found that pointed to intercourse/bodily contact with any of the lacrosse team."

this is NOT equivalent to B: "evidence was found that indicated NO intercourse with any of the lacrosse team."

HOWEVER: A is NOT uncommon in rapes, so I'm told. Only the most brutal leave clear evidence. Rapists now frequently use condoms, so LACK of semen is to be expected.

it is the nature of the crime, box, that in 90% of the cases, it's pretty much the woman's word (unless there's a direct witness). that's why it all comes down to credibility. HOWEVER, the womans credibility is confused, by people like rr, with her avidity for sexual partners. {IOW slut=liar}

this is pretty much beating a dead horse, so....

Pure:
There was no lack of semen. Semen was found in the accusers vagina and rectum. However, the semen was not from the Duke lacrosse guys. DNA was found on the accuser's body. However, the DNA was not from the Duke lacrosse guys. As to the accuser's credibility, the woman basically has no credibility. The reason that the accuser has no credibility is not because of her sexual activity. The reason the accuser has no credibility is that she has changed major elements of her story not once but several times. The last change completely wipes out any chance of a rape charge under state law.

I never said that the accuser had no/low credibilty because of her sexual activity. What I did say was that she was found to have engaged in anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is against written state law.

Nifong, the DA, is willing to press an almost hopeless case against the Duke lacrosse guys. He is not willing to enforce written state law. Strange.

By the way, Nifong is now being attacked by attorneys from the area. The complaint is that what he is doing is wrong. There have been professional calls for his disbarment. Currently he has admitted that he failed to give the defense evidence that had a bearing on their case. This last is a major violation of ethics. Nifong's only real chance of avoiding severe punishment is to claim he just forgot to tell the defense legal team(s). "I didn't violate ethics, I am just incompetent."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, since everyone else is beating the dead horse...

I did some research on false rape accusations (see Joe W's thread). It's a problem, and not one I want to belittle.

It's also a phenomenon that generally does its most damage in specific circumstances. For example, in divorce and custody cases, it's a particularly virulent charge. In extortion cases, it can be damaging, though isn't always. Sometimes it is the manifestation of different types of mental illness.

This is not one of those cases, at least not entirely. The surrounding circumstances in question occurred, there are public witnesses to some of them, and the Duke players clearly had expectations of sex occurring as a result of their securing the services of the strippers. The strippers were subject to verbal assault, by several accounts, after they initially refused to perform when they got to the party, which was not at all what it was represented to be when their services were secured.

The alleged victim is clearly not without fault. She was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or a combination. She could have symptoms of PTSD - this was her first 'party' gig, she is a mother and a student and poor, and she was doing the stripping work without telling anyone she knew about it. Feeling nervous enough to have to get drunk beforehand, expecting a small bachelor party, and then arriving at a frat house bash of 40 or so drunk and rowdy LaCrosse players hoping for a gang-bang is not the sort of experience anyone should have to deal with, whether a stripper or not.

If that's the situation you're hiring for, say so up front - don't lure someone under one scenario and then get mad when the service providers balk. If they'd hired a caterer for a ten-person party, and when the caterer arrived there were four times that number, and the party verbally assaulted them and threatened them, who would you find at fault here?

The victim had bruises and scratches consistent with sexual assault, from the hospital report.

Again, if you're hitching your anti-false-rape-accusation wagon to this case, it's hardly the clear-cut instance you think it is, and the victim in question has not been shown to be the vindictive gold-digger you want to expect, and the DA has not behaved with the unequivocal vindictiveness you wish to ascribe. It's not a cut-and-dried case, and the refusal to acknowledge that smacks of sexism and racism and class-ism.

I have to wonder how you know so much about the facts in this case. First, the men requested strippers from an escort service. From what I have heard and read, they wanted white women, but settled for the women who were sent. I don't know if they expected sex or not. They probably wouldn't have asked for this outright, but might have hinted at it. I also don't know how they described the party to the service.

I don't know what the service told the women. This info might actually be known because the other stripper has spoken out, but I don't know that detail. She did say that both women were together so close to constantly that no rape could have happened.

The bruises and scratches were there, at least in part, while the women were performing, according to photos. They could be consistent with rape but they could also be consistent with vigorous consensual sex. And it has been proven that the accuser had sex very recently before going to the party. That is nothing against her; she can fuck all she wants but it does tend to explain the bruises and scratches.

I certainly don't know what you mean by me "anti-false-rape-accusation wagon". I have no such conveyance. I dislike false rape accusations, and I believe this is one, as I dislike false accusations of all kinds. I know the accuser to be a divorced black woman in her late twenties, with two children and that she is attending a local college. I haven't described the DA as vindictive, just as politically ambitious, which I consider to be worse. I don't think he has anything against the three accused men but I do think he would gladly railroad them to keep his job as DA.

I am neither a sexist nor a classist nor a racist. I have expressed more scorn for Nifong than on anybody else, and he is a white, male professional. If I believed that a rape actually happened, I would be clamoring to throw the men UNDER the jail, and that would be so regardless of the race or social status of the men or the woman. Since I believe this is a false accusation, and I don't claim to know her motivation but I have mentioned some possibilities, I am calling on the law to punish her. I would be doing this regardless of the race or social status of the accuser and the accused.

Pure, the search for DNA is not limited to swabbing the woman's anus and vagina. They examine her body for body oil and hair and skin cells and they found some, but not that were from any of the accused. What that means is that there was no bodily contact between them and her. An exception is DNA on the artificial nails that were in the waste basket, but that obviously came from some kind of refuse.

There is a great deal of pressure on Nifong to drop the case and give up on it. This comes from the local member of Congress and other prosecutors. None of these people are the least bit allied with the young men, who are not even from North Carolina. They see, as does almost everybody who has been following the case except Pure and Huckleman, that it is a total fabrication.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pure:
There was no lack of semen. Semen was found in the accusers vagina and rectum. However, the semen was not from the Duke lacrosse guys. DNA was found on the accuser's body. However, the DNA was not from the Duke lacrosse guys. As to the accuser's credibility, the woman basically has no credibility. The reason that the accuser has no credibility is not because of her sexual activity. The reason the accuser has no credibility is that she has changed major elements of her story not once but several times. The last change completely wipes out any chance of a rape charge under state law.

I never said that the accuser had no/low credibilty because of her sexual activity. What I did say was that she was found to have engaged in anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is against written state law.

Nifong, the DA, is willing to press an almost hopeless case against the Duke lacrosse guys. He is not willing to enforce written state law. Strange.

By the way, Nifong is now being attacked by attorneys from the area. The complaint is that what he is doing is wrong. There have been professional calls for his disbarment. Currently he has admitted that he failed to give the defense evidence that had a bearing on their case. This last is a major violation of ethics. Nifong's only real chance of avoiding severe punishment is to claim he just forgot to tell the defense legal team(s). "I didn't violate ethics, I am just incompetent."

Actually, that last part wouldn't work either. He told the people who did the DNA testing to conceal the results, according to their sworn testimony.

I doubt that anybody will be charged with sodomy in this case. Even if they were, the cases would probably be found to be unconstitutional, and rightly so.

 

[R. Richard]

I doubt that anybody will be charged with sodomy in this case. Even if they were, the cases would probably be found to be unconstitutional, and rightly so.

My point exactly! If the constitution is the prime law of the land in the US, then violating the constitution must be a major crime. The state that has an unconstitutional law needs to be take to court and severely punished.

 

[Pure]

you still haven't got it, rr or box,

I said 'there was no evidence of intercourse/bodily contact with the lacrosse players.'

This is a correct statement, yes?

rrThere was no lack of semen. Semen was found in the accusers vagina and rectum. However, the semen was not from the Duke lacrosse guys

the boyfriend's semen is evidence of sex with her boyfriend. it has NO bearing on whether she had sex, forced or not, with the lacrosse players. condoms, guys!
--

anyway, this has gotten boring; there is no proof of an assault, beyond the victim's word, which may not be reliable. we cannot say with great certainty, as per the thread title, 'there was no assault.'

 

[R. Richard]

More fuel for the fire. If I am beating a dead whore, so be it. Comment?

N.C. bar files charges against Duke D.A.

RALEIGH, N.C. - The North Carolina bar filed ethics charges Thursday against the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of saying misleading or inflammatory things to the news media about the athletes under suspicion.

The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment.

Among the four rules of professional conduct that District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of violating was a prohibition against making comments "that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

The charges will be heard by an independent body called the Disciplinary Hearing Commission, made up of both lawyers and non-lawyers.

In a statement, the bar said it opened a case against Nifong in March 30, a little more than two weeks after the party where a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University hired to perform as a stripper said she was raped.

Nifong did not immediately return a call for comment.

Another of the rules Nifong was charged with breaking forbids "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation." The bar said that when DNA testing failed to find any evidence a lacrosse player raped the accuser, Nifong told a reporter the players might have used a condom.

According to the bar, Nifong knew that assertion was misleading, because he had received a report from an emergency room nurse in which the accuser said her attackers did not use a condom.

Defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents one of the three lacrosse players charged with sexual offense and kidnapping, declined to comment.

Last week, Nifong dropped the rape charges against the athletes after the stripper wavered in her story.