Duke guys...no dna?

My first thought was she had to be telling the truth if only because it wasn't a 1 on 1 accusation. Then when I heard the 911 call, and how adamant the attorneys were that "no assault
took place" I started to think something wasn't right here. After the dna results I'd have to say that she is full of chit.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Actually, that is not accurate. Prosecutors are not supposed to be advocates for a side but rather for justice. In the real world many ignore this and prosecute dubious cases, particularly if there is political mileage to be gained.
More...

Political mileage could be a factor. Quote from an article about this story in today's NY Times (Michael Nifong is the Durham County DA):

'Nifong said most rape cases did not depend on DNA testing. "I'm not saying it's over," he said Monday night, according to The News and Observer. "If that's what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed." Nifong, who is running for re-election, spoke at a candidate forum.'

Also this, from the same article:

'Peter J. Neufeld of the nonprofit Innocence Project, an expert on DNA testing, said that in general, an absence of DNA evidence did not necessarily mean there was not a crime. "There have been thousands and thousands of men who have been convicted in the United States of the crime of rape without DNA and without semen," Neufeld said.'

You might remember Peter Neufeld from the OJ trial. I guess that's a perfect background for the Innocence Project...
 
also, as to the prosecutor's comments. prosecutors, like defense attorneys are advocates for a side. that is their job. while they are supposed to be, and mostly are, fair minded and critical, they are also, by virtue of their position - inclined to believe alleged victims. once a story is "bought", the psychological and political pressure against realizing one has been flimflammed is very difficult to give in to.

....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Actually, that is not accurate. Prosecutors are not supposed to be advocates for a side but rather for justice. In the real world many ignore this and prosecute dubious cases, particularly if there is political mileage to be gained."

please read what i wrote. i believe we are on the same page. i am well aware of what prosecutors are supposed to do. i am saying that as a result of their position (when you are a hammer, things tend to look like a nail - to paraphrase), prosecutors TEND (see above: by virtue of their position) to be/become advocates for a side. as soon as one buys into a case theory (this is a basic psychological principle that also holds true in politics - see: Cognitive Dissonance), then one naturally tends to lend more weight to evidence that supports your position vs. that which doesn't. look, for example at the system of prosecution in domestic violence (and look at the current 911 hearsay case pending in the scotus). prosecutors work closely with DV advocatates, and have pushed for so called "victimless" prosecutions (cases where alleged victims either don't require prosecution, and/or don[t even see themselves AS victims). the reason (among others) why hearsay is generally inadmissible (there are several exceptions) is that it is seen as inherently unreliable. and then there is also the 6th amendment issue that has gotten glossed over. i predict the defense will win this current scotus case fwiw. i wish my stock market accuracy was as good as my case law predictions :)

i am not saying this has anything to do with lack of ethics, or even intentional actions. it is merely an edifice of an adversarial system with two sides set against each other. to paraphrase another philosopher - it's the worst system in the world, except for all the other systems :)

i have had extensive conversations with both prosecutors and defense attorneys, and have been called as expert witness in my area of expertise on dozens of occasions. so, i am not just speaking from theory, but from practical knowledge. the fact that cases like mcmartin preschool could have ever gotten as far as they did, tends to support my theory.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Actually, that is not accurate. Prosecutors are not supposed to be advocates for a side but rather for justice. In the real world many ignore this and prosecute dubious cases, particularly if there is political mileage to be gained.
More...

Now that is the truth. From my own experience I understand that the Da is not in the business of justice, but conviction. They will use as much of their ammunition as need be to get it, or cause enough pressure to the point where even an innocent person might take a plea.
.
They dont care what the truth is, once they get somebody in their sights they wont relinquish. God himself could tell the DA, "look you made a mistake here" with absolute no effect.

However, as fkced up as this system is, it is still the best in the world.
 
Quote from whitster:

also, as to the prosecutor's comments. prosecutors, like defense attorneys are advocates for a side. that is their job. while they are supposed to be, and mostly are, fair minded and critical, they are also, by virtue of their position - inclined to believe alleged victims. once a story is "bought", the psychological and political pressure against realizing one has been flimflammed is very difficult to give in to.

....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Actually, that is not accurate. Prosecutors are not supposed to be advocates for a side but rather for justice. In the real world many ignore this and prosecute dubious cases, particularly if there is political mileage to be gained."

please read what i wrote. i believe we are on the same page. i am well aware of what prosecutors are supposed to do. i am saying that as a result of their position (when you are a hammer, things tend to look like a nail - to paraphrase), prosecutors TEND (see above: by virtue of their position) to be/become advocates for a side. as soon as one buys into a case theory (this is a basic psychological principle that also holds true in politics - see: Cognitive Dissonance), then one naturally tends to lend more weight to evidence that supports your position vs. that which doesn't. look, for example at the system of prosecution in domestic violence (and look at the current 911 hearsay case pending in the scotus). prosecutors work closely with DV advocatates, and have pushed for so called "victimless" prosecutions (cases where alleged victims either don't require prosecution, and/or don[t even see themselves AS victims). the reason (among others) why hearsay is generally inadmissible (there are several exceptions) is that it is seen as inherently unreliable. and then there is also the 6th amendment issue that has gotten glossed over. i predict the defense will win this current scotus case fwiw. i wish my stock market accuracy was as good as my case law predictions :)

i am not saying this has anything to do with lack of ethics, or even intentional actions. it is merely an edifice of an adversarial system with two sides set against each other. to paraphrase another philosopher - it's the worst system in the world, except for all the other systems :)

i have had extensive conversations with both prosecutors and defense attorneys, and have been called as expert witness in my area of expertise on dozens of occasions. so, i am not just speaking from theory, but from practical knowledge. the fact that cases like mcmartin preschool could have ever gotten as far as they did, tends to support my theory.
More...

I didn't intend my comments to sound as critical as they perhaps did. I think we are indeed in full agreement on this. Prosecutors do have a theoretical duty as officers of the court to render justice, not merely use every trick to gain a conviction. In practice, they seem to ignore this duty, either through identification with the victim, a cause or politics.
 
Tony Kornheiser had a long segment on PTA tonight with Abbe Lowell, a well-known Washington, DC defense attorney. Lowell was very critical of District Atorney Nifong, saying that he had basically done things backwards in the case. He charged people in the media before he had the evidence, now he is way out on a limb with no way to back off. Also, the alleged victim has a police record featuring some bizarre behavior.

Of course, none of that means she is not telling the truth, but we don't even know what her story is. An emergency roon nurse was quoted as saying she refused to say who had assaulted her. I would have thought the first thing the police would have done was conduct a lineup. I haven't read anything about that.

It's a troubling story, and people are going to be upset no matter how it is resolved.
 
Second Lacrosse Party Dancer Makes Obscene Gesture In Court

DURHAM, N.C. -- A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday.

When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.

Roberts, 31, was in court for a probation hearing on a previous embezzlement charge. She was arrested on March 22 -- eight days after the lacrosse party -- on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photo-finishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to court documents.

In a previous interview, Roberts said she does not know if an attack actually happened, but said she has "to wonder about their character," referring to the suspects in the case.

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press in April.

Defense attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her.

They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage." The firm later said it would not be representing Roberts.
 
Filing: Second dancer called allegations a 'crock'

By Joseph Neff, Staff Writer
The second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case told police early on that allegations of rape were a "crock" and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes.

The second dancer, Kim Roberts, made that statement when she was first contacted by Durham police.

Roberts' statements and notes of the detectives in the case were made public today.

Seligmann's lawyers said police omitted important facts contradicting the accuser's story when they obtained an order to photograph and take DNA samples from the players.

"She heard that (the accuser) was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a 'crock' and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left," according to Himan's notes. "The only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than five minutes."

Seligmann's lawyers said there were major discrepancies in the reports of the doctors and nurses who examined the accuser at Duke Medical Center.

Prosecutors and police have said that the accuser was hit, kicked and strangled while she was sexually assaulted anally, vaginally and orally.

The accuser told the nurse "that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the sexual assault," the lawyers wrote in a sworn statement. The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said. The lawyers filed the accuser's medical records under seal with the court.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/448437.html
 
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
Jun 8, 2006 : 10:43 pm ET

DURHAM -- The exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping her was drinking while taking medication that night, and had sex with at least four men and a sexual device in the days immediately leading up to the off-campus party, according to court papers filed Thursday.

A medical examination showed no signs of the sort of sexual or physical attack of which the dancer complained, according to the motion filed by defense attorneys for Reade Seligmann.

Among other previously undisclosed details, the motion says the woman at one point accused her female dance partner of helping the lacrosse players rape her and of stealing her money.
 
Yes, but it doesn't matter that the whole thing was a cooked up crock of shit. You see, it helps highlight the plight of sexually abused black women across the country. So it doesn't really matter that this case didn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top