And we worked hard for our win.
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=117594
Just saw that, too. Can't exactly help us down the road, can it?
regardless...i'm impressed that of the duke administration's response. granted...if this were their basketball team, who knows if it would be the same.
Shouldn't they just cancel the season? UVM canceled their hockey season over hazing.
Not to take away from Cornell's 11-7 win, but if the entire team was asked to give DNA samples -- and they all agreed? based on their being on the lax team or based on their having been identified as being at the site? can DNA samples be required from such a broad group of possible suspects? -- this was probably weighing pretty heavily on Duke's minds.
[edit]Again, not to make light of an apparently serious crime, but this broadly race-based stuff doesn't belong in a paper ...
Quotehttp://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-716791.html The woman told police that three white men assaulted her. Spokesman Cpl. David Addison said police are not releasing information about the other woman at the house because she is part of their ongoing investigation.
... A generation ago, reporters learned that it was wrong, wrong, wrong to say a liquor store was held up by two armed black men. It's okay to say it was held up by two black males 20 or 22 years old, about 5-foot-10 wearing yellow parkas, one with a heavily pockmarked face. The second description at least has the potential of narrowing down the suspect list. The first just demonizes based on race.
[quote Jason L]regardless...i'm impressed that of the duke administration's response. granted...if this were their basketball team, who knows if it would be the same.[/quote]
Don't be impressed. They had to do that or it would have looked even worse. You don't see them cancelling the season or forfeiting all games until the issue is clarified. And if the squeakball team had done this we would not have heard about it. Coach K is too smart and powerful.
The article doesn't mention if the DNA samples were voluntary or court ordered. I also don't think it mentioned if the 46 players represents the entire roster orr if there were others besides lax players present.
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/421494.html
says "ordered"
[quote jms]http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/421494.html
says "ordered"[/quote]
[quote News Observer]
>>> Such a broad DNA sampling early in an investigation is unusual, several local lawyers said.
The assault allegedly happened in a house shared by three members of the men's lacrosse team, Duke officials said.
All but one member of the team reported to the Durham police crime lab downtown at 4 p.m. Thursday to be photographed and "to provide identifying information," said John Burness, Duke University senior vice president for public affairs. The team member who did not report was not ordered to the screening, Burness said without explaining why.[/quote]
Sad day for college sports especially at an outstanding university. There are probably a lot of university presidents asking/telling their ADs, "It couldn't happen here ... could it?"
http://insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=118405
Duke's season has now been postponed "pending clearer resolution of the legal situation."
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=251530
[quote Hillel Hoffmann]Duke's season has now been postponed "pending clearer resolution of the legal situation."
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=251530[/quote]
Now hitting the AP wire.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse_investigation_9
Duke lacrosse saga on Page 1 of the Wednesday 3/29 New York Times. Suspended or cancelled season was pretty clearly what this was headed to since virtually all of the team was reported at the party. Some good may come from all this if colleges, without getting back in to the in loco parentis business, are firmer in pressing for decent behavior from students, starting with the ones who represent them. This may escalate to a wider examination of sports -- "we'd expect it of the Miami football team but Duke lacrosse?" -- because of the themes of perceived privilege, and many of the players coming from the metro NY area, which means the people at the NY Times or SI or Newsweek who follow this are from the same towns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/sports/29duke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
QuoteRape Allegation Against Athletes Is Roiling Duke
By VIV BERNSTEIN and JOE DRAPE
Published: March 29, 2006
DURHAM, N.C., March 28 — Duke University suspended the season of its nationally ranked men's lacrosse team Tuesday while the authorities investigated allegations that a woman from a nearby college who had agreed to dance at a private party attended by many team members had been sexually assaulted.
The incident on March 13, which occurred at an off-campus house owned by the university, has brought into sharp relief long-simmering tensions between the private university and the city. The woman is black, most of the team members are white and law-enforcement officials say they are investigating allegations that racial epithets were shouted at the woman. ...
[quote billhoward]... A generation ago, reporters learned that it was wrong, wrong, wrong to say a liquor store was held up by two armed black men. It's okay to say it was held up by two black males 20 or 22 years old, about 5-foot-10 wearing yellow parkas, one with a heavily pockmarked face. The second description at least has the potential of narrowing down the suspect list. The first just demonizes based on race.[/quote]There now appear to be two reasons why the race of the attackers was relevant. (1) There is a black player on the Duke lax team that isn't a suspect and did not have to provide a DNA sample. (2) There is apparently a hate crime aspect to the investigation.
[quote nyc94]The article doesn't mention if the DNA samples were voluntary or court ordered. I also don't think it mentioned if the 46 players represents the entire roster orr if there were others besides lax players present.[/quote]
Nope - there are 47 on the roster. The only one who wasn't tested is black, and the rapists were white.
Race is a legitimate identifying characteristic. I can't understand the thinking (Bill) that we should be willfully blind to the most obvious distinguishing characteristic in the name of PC. What's next - can't say that the perpetrator of a crime was old or fat or male or female? Sheesh.
My understanding of the law is that to get a warrant for the white members of the team the police or district attorney needs compelling evidence that the attackers were in fact on the lacrosse team. The statement of the victim is enough in this case but you have to wonder why the team captains would go out on a limb and say the DNA will exonerate the team.
[quote nytimes]A statement attributed to the team's captains — Matt Zash, David Evans, Dan Flannery and Bret Thompson — said the team had cooperated with the police. "We have provided authorities with DNA samples," it said. "The understanding is that the results of the DNA testing will be available sometime next week. The DNA results will demonstrate that these allegations are absolutely false."[/quote]
[quote nyc94]... but you have to wonder why the team captains would go out on a limb and say the DNA will exonerate the team. [/quote]
Yeah, I wondered this too. But considering a portion of the team may end up facing aiding-and-abetting charges for refusing to speak to authorities about it, I can't help but think that we're dealing with a bunch of guys stupid enough to think that if they just close their eyes and shut their mouths, it'll go away.
[quote Robb][quote nyc94]The article doesn't mention if the DNA samples were voluntary or court ordered. I also don't think it mentioned if the 46 players represents the entire roster orr if there were others besides lax players present.[/quote]
Nope - there are 47 on the roster. The only one who wasn't tested is black, and the rapists were white.
Race is a legitimate identifying characteristic. I can't understand the thinking (Bill) that we should be willfully blind to the most obvious distinguishing characteristic in the name of PC. What's next - can't say that the perpetrator of a crime was old or fat or male or female? Sheesh.[/quote]
It's profiling and police departments who use it have been hammered in court. Perhaps we're blinded here because it's 47 white guys hauled in for testing, rather than 47 black guys roped in and the 1 white guy at the party let off. What's happened in the past was this:
Based on race as the only identifier of a suspect, police would cast a wide dragnet and only pull over black people. Black guy in a jacket and tie carrying a briefcase, black kid in baggy jeans and expensive Reebooks, all pulled over. By coincidence, I just sat at dinner last night next to a prosector in the Dallas DA's office which installed video cameras in every police car so there's a record of the officer's conduct (as well as the stopped person's) but also in case there's a question as to whether an unusual number of minorities are being pulled over in racially diverse areas. If the camera goes down, the cops have to fill out a report on every stop indicating the apparent race of the people stopped. They recognize profiling is a big legal problem.
Suppose this incident happened on a college fraternity row and by some mechanism the soon-to-be victim showed up so drunk she didn't even know what frat house she was in. Would you take 47 times 10 or 15 DNA samples from every white fraternity brother? Make the entire Duke Caucasian community submit? Coach K too? Yes, that's absurd, but some people might think testing four dozen people is high, too.
It sounds as if the police took a shortcut here. They didn't apparently take intermediate steps to disqualify some suspects and then, say, compel their testimony. Is this going to taint the case if it goes to trial?
My sympathies are with the victim, if what the Ralegh papers reported is accurate. (My earlier post was critical of the paper's failure to say if there was anything descriptive beyond color such as height, facial hair, blemishes, clothing.) I think the Duke lacrosse team as a group acted irresponsibly, and so long as the team bands together and apparently stonewalls the investigation, the team needs to be (and is) sanctioned by the university. Even if there are individuals who can be singled out and charged, if there was a crime (the team captains issued a statement that DNA tests will show there was no crime), then it wouldn't be inappropriate to call off the season, not just suspend it, because it happened at was essentially an all-Duke-lacrosse party, not just something where three players were out on their own. (Remember the two Union hockey players who misbehaved badly, on their own, and were suspended, but not the whole hockey team.)
It's probably appropriate that the season is temporarily suspended for now, not cancelled, in case there turns out to be some huge misunderstanding, such as that there really was no crime.
This is not going to turn out as honorably as Cornell's Fifth Down football game, but Duke should try to salvage some sense of decency here. The most honorable thing might be for the team itself to vote an end to the season.
Testing the white members of the team is fine if the police have a witness (e.g. the victim) that says the attackers were white members of the team. Where I am afraid they will run into trouble is how the victim knew the attackers were definitely on the team. If there were only 47 men present and they were wearing their Duke jerseys there would be little room to challenge the warrant. If there were non-lax players at the party. . .
The team was already punished for the party and underage drinking by the forfeiture of two games (although the NCAA is said to be handling them as "no contests" rather than forfeits).
Aren't you jumping the gun by assuming that what is alleged actually happened? You're certainly in the majority on this as there is no question, in the media for example, that when there's a dispute between a black female and 46 white males the presumption of truth always goes to the former.
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.
If team members are guilty, they'll get and deserve punishment. If they're not guilty, they'll still get punished. The DA is on a crusade.
[quote nyc94]Testing the white members of the team is fine if the police have a witness (e.g. the victim) that says the attackers were white members of the team. Where I am afraid they will run into trouble is how the victim knew the attackers were definitely on the team. If there were only 47 men present and they were wearing their Duke jerseys there would be little room to challenge the warrant. If there were non-lax players at the party. . .[/quote]
DNA testing - a snip of the hair? - is non-invasive, unlike a blood sample, so is there a lesser requirement for compelling it? Does it require a court order? It appears here the players agreed voluntarily regardless. You have to wonder if they had (good?) counsel early on. Not so they can beat the rap, but in case the case turns more serious than they perhaps first anticipated. Or in case they should opt for a plea, there's less evidence hanging over their heads.
I'm going to respond to both of your posts at once, if you don't mind.
[quote billhoward]It's profiling and police departments who use it have been hammered in court. Perhaps we're blinded here because it's 47 white guys hauled in for testing, rather than 47 black guys roped in and the 1 white guy at the party let off.[/quote]
You are being a little dramatic. The accusation wasn't "I was raped by three white guys." The accusation was much more specific: "I was raped by three white men on the Duke lacrosse team." When approached as part of the investigation, all members of the team declined to talk to the police. The result is a limited group of suspects: 46 players. That is a small enough size to manage an investigation and to conduct preliminary DNA analysis. It ain't profiling. Whether it is enough to get 46 warrants for DNA samples depends a lot on the attitude of the judge toward the 6th Amendment.
[q]DNA testing - a snip of the hair? - is non-invasive, unlike a blood sample, so is there a lesser requirement for compelling it? Does it require a court order? It appears here the players agreed voluntarily regardless.[/q]
DNA testing in this case was reportedly done by swabbing the inside of their cheeks. That is still enough to require a warrant and a court order if the suspect doesn't voluntarily comply. The standard for getting a blood sample is usually higher than that required for less invasive tests - in practice if not strictly in law. Balancing rights analysis and all that.
[quote Ken'70]The team was already punished for the party and underage drinking by the forfeiture of two games (although the NCAA is said to be handling them as "no contests" rather than forfeits).
Aren't you jumping the gun by assuming that what is alleged actually happened? You're certainly in the majority on this as there is no question, in the media for example, that when there's a dispute between a black female and 46 white males the presumption of truth always goes to the former.
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.
If team members are guilty, they'll get and deserve punishment. If they're not guilty, they'll still get punished. The DA is on a crusade.[/quote]
Jumping the gun? My post had so many if-the-story-is-as-claimed qualifiers, I was about to ask Age to add a [footnote] [/footnote] formatting option.
If this goes to trial, the witness is going to have some issues with her background. Still: Even an exotic dancer ought to have the legal hope that she can take her clothes off and dance without getting raped (if that is what happened).
Rape cases make for tricky jury selections. I remember covering courts in Massachusetts and seeing the then-DA excuse on challenge (and if not for cause, with a peremptory challenge) every black male in the jury pool because, as the defense attorney said privately, "The DA believes there's no such thing as rape to black man." You get some less affluent female minorities on the jury, they may identify with the victim. Blue collar whites might feel little sympathy for privileged white kids, less for the victim.
A public trial is probably something Duke would just as soon avoid, although it can't force the students/players to cop pleas.
Hard to believe the laws allow you to hold underage drinking over peoples' heads. Stupid law with good intentions (fewer DUI accidents).
There's a made-for-TV movie in the offing.
[quote Ken'70]
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.[/quote]
Hooker? You mean stripper right.
What she does is no more relevant to the (alleged) crime than their "privilege, etc." However, taking stripper and turning it into hooker, worries me that you're counting the (alleged) media bias with your own.
As an alum of both CU and duke, I think there is a misunderstanding in this forum of the workings of Duke. The Nytimes article describing the natural confrontation between their townies and Duke and between races there is quite true. It is not just a matter of townies taking seats at Lynah, and kids coming down from the Hill to annoy townies at Wegman's.
In Durham there really is a general sense among many locals that the university and its members belittle and manipulate the locals. Coupled with the reality that much of Duke (including the lax team) is northern and perhaps insensitive to southern ways, many locals (black and white) don't trust Duke kids. Furthermore, duke has a reputation of providing privilege to its students, regardless of whether they are Coach K's players or simply chemistry geeks. There is no doubt that the school will stand by the players as long as it can as can be seen from Brodhead's emphasis on the presumption of innocence (whehter that is right or wrong). And I would assume that the real truth won't likely arise.
Remember, this is a school that last year had a very quiet steroids scandal within its second-rate baseball team. Even then, Duke circled the wagons as long as possible. I doubt there will be any moral stand like the memorable 5th down incident unless it is forced upon them.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Ken'70]
The accounts of the incident have no problem using past behavior (drinking) of the team members or broad implications of loutishness, privelege etc. to characterize them but the fact the accuser is a hooker is apparently not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial.[/quote]
Hooker? You mean stripper right.
What she does is no more relevant to the (alleged) crime than their "privilege, etc." However, taking stripper and turning it into hooker, worries me that you're counting the (alleged) media bias with your own.[/quote]
From the March 25 edition of the Raleigh News&Observer:
""The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week.
"It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule."
And exactly what else would "one-on-one" dates be a euphemism for?
Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.
Either way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But this isn't a court of law, and the sympathy does tend to go towards the alleged rape victim. But we'll see. If they did it, they deserve to be punished severly - and those who protected them punished as well. If they didn't, then lacking any proof of a cover up for anyone who may have done so, they deserve to go on with their lives.
[quote DeltaOne81]Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.[/quote]OK, I disagree with a lot of what Ken has written on this thread (too much white-men-have-it-so-hard-in-this-cruel,-cruel-world for my tastes), but this should have been an apology. You accused him of anti-stripper moralist bias when, in fact, the victim was a prostitute.
QuoteEither way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.
That depends on how the case shakes out. While it is certainly illegal (and possible) to rape a prostitute, refusing to pay after consensual, if contracted for, sex doesn't convert the act to rape. The St. John's basketball players didn't get prosecuted for just this reason. (Some of them still got kicked out of school, though, because solicitation of a prostitute for a gangbang isn't exactly part of the Catholic mission of the university...)
[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]Well that's not exactly an article any - or most - of us had read.[/quote]OK, I disagree with a lot of what Ken has written on this thread (too much white-men-have-it-so-hard-in-this-cruel,-cruel-world for my tastes), but this should have been an apology. You accused him of anti-stripper moralist bias when, in fact, the victim was a prostitute.[/q]
I can't really blame myself, because I read 5 things in the press saying she's a stripper and then read one thing on a message board calling her a hooker without backing it up.
Nonetheless, I was wrong about his bias, and I apologize for accusing him of such.
QuoteQuoteEither way, as I said, her profession (if even illegal) is no more relevant to the facts of the case then their privilege.
That depends on how the case shakes out. While it is certainly illegal (and possible) to rape a prostitute, refusing to pay after consensual, if contracted for, sex doesn't convert the act to rape. The St. John's basketball players didn't get prosecuted for just this reason. (Some of them still got kicked out of school, though, because solicitation of a prostitute for a gangbang isn't exactly part of the Catholic mission of the university...)[/q]
Well, alright, now you're just being picky.
Yes, her professional is irrelevant to the facts, unless its relevant to the facts :)
But if that was the case, the team wouldn't put out a statement saying that the DNA will exonerate them. Because some of them would know full well that it wouldn't. At least, I'd think. But who knows.
They did stupid things to put themselves in a bad situation and are paying for it. If there was criminal activity on top of stupid activity, then they should pay for that too. If not, then they've served their time. We'll see.
Edits: stupid quote formatting
[quote DeltaOne81]But if that was the case, the team wouldn't put out a statement saying that the DNA will exonerate them. Because some of them would know full well that it wouldn't. At least, I'd think. But who knows.[/quote]
People do stupid things all the time (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/).
Apologies in advance for the inevitable thread drift to follow...
[quote ugarte] ... I disagree with a lot of what Ken has written on this thread (too much white-men-have-it-so-hard-in-this-cruel,-cruel-world for my tastes), but this should have been an apology. ...
.... The St. John's basketball players didn't get prosecuted for just this reason. (Some of them still got kicked out of school, though, because solicitation of a prostitute for a gangbang isn't exactly part of the Catholic mission of the university...)[/quote]
Interesting phrasing.
Insert obligatory priest jok--wait, never mind. Today's the NY Diocese is rightsizing dozens of their schools because of financial woes. This priest-sex thing may change the church more than Vatican II.
(anyone else find they're hanging around the site for no important reason other than maybe there might be a Wisconsin forfeit and we really are gong to Milwaukee ...? I have been to the lynah construction site a dozen times so far, again for no reason.)
Here is some more recent info from ESPN. Apparently many of the team members didn't exactly have squeaky clean records to begin with.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2387151
And now Sports Illustrated (online) is heard from same day as The New York Times publishes. College presidents read the Times, alumni read SI, and they're hard to ignore, even if SI's first pass is a rewrite plus analysis, not firsthand reporting.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tim_layden/03/29/duke.lacrosse/
[quote SI.com]A step in the right direction
Duke made proper move in suspending lacrosse team
[By] Tim Layden / Viewpoint
Something bad happened at a party in a house near the Duke campus more than two weeks ago. How bad that something was, and precisely which -- if any -- of the Duke men's lacrosse team's 47 members were involved, is currently the subject of a criminal investigation and the impetus behind considerable unrest on the idyllic Duke campus and in the city of Durham, N.C. ...
(An elephant has entered the room. Would [Duke President] Broadhead have acted imilarly if this incident had involved his powerhouse men's basketball team or his mediocre -- but ACC -- men's football team? Would any Division I-A president? Small steps, here. ...
... In terms of its competitive athletic philosophy, Duke is somewhere closer to Florida State than to Yale.
[/quote]
[quote cth95]Here is some more recent info from ESPN. Apparently many of the team members didn't exactly have squeaky clean records to begin with.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2387151[/quote]
Although the one-third who've had brushes with the law are mostly drinkers who don't meet the contemporary 21-year drinking age in the U.S.
Sorry, but when you're walking through some of the funkier parts of Manhattan and smell burning leaves on every second streetcorner, it's hard to think of having a couple beers as a seroius crime.
[quote billhoward]It's profiling and police departments who use it...[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Your original complaint was that a newpaper article described the perpetrators as "white." That's not AT ALL the same thing as a police department collaring people on the street without probable cause due to their race. Sort your apples and oranges and see if you still want to rant.
Regarding the DNA testing in this case: it's voluntary, not forced, so nobody is being "hauled in" or compelled in any way. If a female (of any race) walks into MY police department and says, "3 white men at a party raped me. I can't confirm it, but based on their conversation, etc, I believe that they are members of the Duke Lax team," you can be darn sure that I'll be interviewing the white members of the Duke Lax team and will be asking them to voluntarily submit to DNA sampling. And aftward, I'd wrap myself in the US Constitution (including the 14th amendment) as I slept easly at night over the decision.
On the other side of the coin, if I were a member of a team and someone accused members of the team of committing this crime, I'd be first in line opening my mouth for the swab. This issue is just not that complicated.
[quote Robb]If a female (of any race) walks into MY police department and says, "3 white men at a party raped me. I can't confirm it, but based on their conversation, etc, I believe that they are members of the Duke Lax team,"[/quote]
Btw, I could be mistaken, and I'm not going to read through all the articles again, but I don't think we know for a fact that she said anything about the lacrosse team. She very well may have just told them the address, and based on the address and likely other evidence, the police are the ones who figured out it was the lacrosse team.
Nonethless, there's quite a large difference between pulling random people off the street because of their race, and narrowing your search to members of a small group who match the characteristics.
[quote Robb][quote billhoward]It's profiling and police departments who use it...[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Your original complaint was that a newpaper article described the perpetrators as "white." That's not AT ALL the same thing as a police department collaring people on the street without probable cause due to their race. Sort your apples and oranges and see if you still want to rant.
Regarding the DNA testing in this case: it's voluntary, not forced, so nobody is being "hauled in" or compelled in any way. If a female (of any race) walks into MY police department and says, "3 white men at a party raped me. I can't confirm it, but based on their conversation, etc, I believe that they are members of the Duke Lax team," you can be darn sure that I'll be interviewing the white members of the Duke Lax team and will be asking them to voluntarily submit to DNA sampling. And aftward, I'd wrap myself in the US Constitution (including the 14th amendment) as I slept easly at night over the decision.
On the other side of the coin, if I were a member of a team and someone accused members of the team of committing this crime, I'd be first in line opening my mouth for the swab. This issue is just not that complicated.[/quote]
The similarity is the wide net of suspicion cast against people just because of their skin color, whether in print describing suspects or on the streets hauling in suspects. I don't believe I saw anything attributed to the woman saying she couldn't identify them beyond their skin color, which had the effect of cutting out 1/47 of the suspect pool if the suspects only could have been Duke lacrosse players and not other students, roommates, friends, who might also have been there.
Your supposition of how the non-directly-involved players acted ("if I were a member of a team and someone accused members of the team of committing this crime, I'd be first in line opening my mouth for the swab") may be opposite what happened. Some reports say the team is stonewalling. And that's why investigators are taking the "let's test 'em all right away" shortcut that bothers me.
I'm still troubled that every white player on the team gave - voluntarily? voluntarily but under coercion? with a court order? - samples. Four dozen people hauled in for something perhaps involving two or three. The police couldn't further narrow the field? If the lone black player was at the party (although if his teammates acted the way they did, he probably knew of the behavior before and kept his distance), the cops could lean on him, grant immunity, force him to explain what was happening, and from there identify and lean on others there who knew what was going on but didn't have direct involvement. It feels like the police took shortcuts.
If this were the Howard Univeristy (no relation) lax team with 47 blacks and 1 white and a similar incident happened and the police hauled in all 47 blacks without first narrowing the field of contenders, what do you think the reaction would be? People might be marching to support the victim, but a lot of others would be blasting "the ugly blanket of suspicion cast over young men of color simply because of their color."
---
FWIW a lot of the legal maneuvering unfolded in the two days after the Cornell game. "Distracted" would be an understatement to describe Duke. I wonder if the selection committee tries to find a way to consider this not a quality win.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-718588.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html
The warrant shown here is for the house, not for the players' DNA samples.
Based on the following solid evidence and highly credible accounts the DA has already determined a rape did take place, by the lacrosse team, at the house in question:
- 911 Call: the caller is driving by the house when a white male shouts n****r at her, check that - she's walking by the house when a bunch of white males shout n****r at her; she identifies the house exactly by number, opps, there's no number on the house
- Accuser tells police she and the other dancer re-enter house and get seperated, no - wait, the DA says the other dancer said she stayed outside
- Woman who took accuser to Kroger says she was just driving by and picked up accuser on street, no - wait, woman who drove accuser to Kroger says she was the second dancer (both versions courtesy of Durham police dept)
- Kroger security guard says accuser is on drugs, can't get out of car
- Accuser has demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks
- Lacrosse players, their lawyers and parents confident DNA will reveal none of them involved - DA says it doesn't matter if no DNA match found, DNA doesn't prove anything (I'm not kidding, http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/423471.html )
If anyone else thinks the DA is a bit over the top on this, the answer is that he's in a re-election race with the vote in May. This case is a god-send for him, particularly given the racial aspect.
[quote Ken'70]
- Accuser has demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks
[/quote]
Putting this particular case aside for a second, it's bullshit like this that sends my blood pressure through the roof. Tell me Ken, how many moral check marks does a woman have to have before she's allowed to accuse someone of rape? Should men who rape and assault working prostitutes not be charged because hey, the girls asked for it by being on the street corner at 3 a.m.? What about a "slutty" (God, I hate that word) freshman who passes out at a frat and gets gang raped? Did she lose the right to say no because she's said yes before?
Getting back to the case, no, I don't think the DA is a bit over the top on this. I'm not making any judgements on guilt or innocence. Rape is a very serious crime, and if the accusation is made, it needs to be treated as such until the facts show otherwise.
Newspapers have had their own No Child Left Behind requirement for decades. You have to put in quotes or explain anything that might go over the heads of one subscriber or force him to put his teeth back in to better pronounce the phrase. Note explanatory ending to the sentence.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/423471.html
[quote Benjamin Niolet, Anne Blythe and Jane Stancill, Staff Writers]Ignacio Adriasola, an art history graduate student, had a sign taped to his shirt: "It isn't what Duke has, but what it lax," using the shorthand word for lacrosse.[/quote]
Gee, if there were only some venue in which a group of people analyze the evidence, with advocates for both sides and some sort of impartial official presiding. ::rolleyes::
[quote jtwcornell91]Gee, if there were only some venue in which a group of people analyze the evidence, with advocates for both sides and some sort of impartial official presiding. ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Crazy talk! Surely unrelated participants with personal biases must pick and chose the pieces of evidence that fit their preconvinced notion in an anonymous setting, in order for justice to prevail!
[quote Ken'70] she identifies the house exactly by number, opps, there's no number on the house
[/quote]
According to the warrant, the number is indeed on the house.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke2.html
(under description of premises)
[quote jtwcornell91]Gee, if there were only some venue in which a group of people analyze the evidence, with advocates for both sides and some sort of impartial official presiding. ::rolleyes::[/quote]
That kind of forum sounds so cool. Rather than just let anybody cover it, how about auctioning off exclusive broadcast rights? Katie Couric would be great interviewing parents about the grief their boys are going through. I forgot, was there another side to this story? Oh, right, sometimes a crime has a victim.
---
Now there are reports of potential problems with some of the reports to police by the victim or third parties such as whether or not a caller who ID'd the house by its street number really could have seen the number, whether a number was on the house (or was at the time of the incident), etcetera. If this turns out to be something less ... it still leaves a pattern of loutish behavior, rowdiness, underage drinking (whether right or wrong, still illegal), bringing in strippers to perform for the team, etcetera.
[quote Pete Godenschwager][quote Ken'70] she identifies the house exactly by number, opps, there's no number on the house
[/quote]
According to the warrant, the number is indeed on the house.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke2.html
(under description of premises)[/quote]According to one of the articles previously posted, the number is on the house but not visible from the street because of obstructions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/sports/31duke.html
Not much new today but the Times says a second house was searched. This warrant has yet to be leaked to the Smoking Gun.
[quote ugarte][quote Pete Godenschwager][quote Ken'70] she identifies the house exactly by number, opps, there's no number on the house
[/quote]
According to the warrant, the number is indeed on the house.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke2.html
(under description of premises)[/quote]According to one of the articles previously posted, the number is on the house but not visible from the street because of obstructions.[/quote]
Ok, I missed that one I guess, thanks.
Similar article to the ones in the Sports bad boys... thread.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2398409
http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,93843,94425#msg-94425
What a mess. I sure hope these are very rare and isolated incidents in the world of college sports, and not just ones that we found out about.
Having sat on ajury last week in a case where all the eveidence was eyewitness testimony, good luck finding such a place John. Any faith I had in the system is pretty much dogshit now.
[quote Jerseygirl][quote Ken'70]
- Accuser has demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks
[/quote]
Putting this particular case aside for a second, it's bullshit like this that sends my blood pressure through the roof. Tell me Ken, how many moral check marks does a woman have to have before she's allowed to accuse someone of rape? [/quote]
Apparently you were once told character doesn't matter. It's not about morals, it's about veracity. Really, do you take everyone's word at equal value?
More on veracity:
http://www.wral.com/news/8513890/detail.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/04/Worldandnation/Separating_truth__con.shtml
http://www.wral.com/news/8516436/detail.html
Most likely scenario: she was too stoned to dance, players wanted their money back, argument ensues, she decides to take "rich" white kids and parents for all she can and files rape charge, her injuries due to tricks she was turning earlier in day. Right out of Rev. Al playbook.
If the above turns out to be the case, how much do you want to bet the Duke administration will run around saying it was important to raise awareness of these critical class/race/gender issues and the fact that we were made to look like fools by a crack whore really isn't the point, and BTW the Lacrosse team is still suspended, the coach still fired and everyone has to go through two days of class/gender/race/crack whore sensitivity training next fall to make sure this doesn't happen again? ::screwy::
[quote Ken'70][quote Jerseygirl][quote Ken'70]
- Accuser has demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks
[/quote]
Putting this particular case aside for a second, it's bullshit like this that sends my blood pressure through the roof. Tell me Ken, how many moral check marks does a woman have to have before she's allowed to accuse someone of rape? [/quote]
Apparently you were once told character doesn't matter. It's not about morals, it's about veracity. Really, do you take everyone's word at equal value?
More on veracity:
http://www.wral.com/news/8513890/detail.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/04/Worldandnation/Separating_truth__con.shtml
http://www.wral.com/news/8516436/detail.html
Most likely scenario: she was too stoned to dance, players wanted their money back, argument ensues, she decides to take "rich" white kids and parents for all she can and files rape charge, her injuries due to tricks she was turning earlier in day. Right out of Rev. Al playbook.
If the above turns out to be the case, how much do you want to bet the Duke administration will run around saying it was important to raise awareness of these critical class/race/gender issues and the fact that we were made to look like fools by a crack whore really isn't the point, and BTW the Lacrosse team is still suspended, the coach still fired and everyone has to go through two days of class/gender/race/crack whore sensitivity training next fall to make sure this doesn't happen again? ::screwy::[/quote]
Ken, I'm a firm believer in the importance of one's character. A great place to start is Matthew 7:1-5. I never said the accusers were guilty based on the woman's claim. In fact, I asked you to PUT ASIDE this case for a moment and ask yourself what kind of moral criteria a woman has to have before she is allowed to accuse someone of rape. According to the post I quoted, you tried to use the fact that a woman had children by different fathers and was allegedly a prostitute as evidence to discredit her claim.
It's exactly this kind of moral condemnation that makes so many women afraid to speak up about rape, which is a serious crime and ruins people's lives.
To address your concerns about this case, if it turns out the woman has lied, she will have done a terrible disservice not only to the players she's accused (who, even if innocent, do not sound like angels themselves, does their character matter? -- see: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke1.html) but also to woman who are in fact brutally raped and are afraid of not being believed should they come forward.
As far as senstivity training goes, I really don't think it's a bad idea for anyone to be taught that we're all God's [or whomevers, if you don't believe in God] creatures and should be afforded basic respect no matter what our background.
To take that further, it would be nice if some of the money going toward women's self defense lessons could be funneled to self-control lessons for men. My female friends and I have been catcalled (and worse) numerous times by men of all races and from all walks of life, and at its core it's not about sex or attractiveness, it's a power struggle -- the worst for me came when I was at work, in a high rise in Jersey City, dressed professionally for my white collar job.
[quote Ken'70]
If the above turns out to be the case, how much do you want to bet the Duke administration will run around saying it was important to raise awareness of these critical class/race/gender issues and the fact that we were made to look like fools by a crack whore really isn't the point, and BTW the Lacrosse team is still suspended, the coach still fired and everyone has to go through two days of class/gender/race/crack whore sensitivity training next fall to make sure this doesn't happen again? ::screwy::[/quote]
And if her story pans out and one or more of the player admit to and/or are convincted of rape and other related crimes... how much do you want to bet that you'll still be on here spewing hate and entirely inappropriate comments, feeling bad for the poor, rich white priveledged rapists, and still jumping to attack anyone who dares accuses someone of rape unless they are of at least equal class status?
Do we know what happen? No, we don't. But you lobbing insults at her, and using such inappropriate, bias awful terms, is just as bad as jumping to the conclusion on the other end (for the record, I completely disagree with the Duke prof who said they shoulda been expelled... we don't even know if they did anything yet).
"Innocent until proven guilty" does NOT equal "slander the alleged victim until she's bleeding even worse than after the rape". Get over yourself and your sense of high and mighty all-knowingness.
[quote Jerseygirl] I asked you to PUT ASIDE this case for a moment and ask yourself what kind of moral criteria a woman has to have before she is allowed to accuse someone of rape. According to the post I quoted, you tried to use the fact that a woman had children by different fathers and was allegedly a prostitute as evidence to discredit her claim.
It's exactly this kind of moral condemnation that makes so many women afraid to speak up about rape, which is a serious crime and ruins people's lives. [/quote]
Jerseygirl,
I have no moral criteria for an accuser to be able bring charges. My issue is with people who abandon facts and common sense and accept all claims equally at face value.
Women are their own worst enemy when it comes to cedibility and rape charges. Approx. 40% to 50% of all rape charges are eventually recanted by the women who initially brought them (see http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm as one of many on this topic). And how many false claims are never recanted?
In this case we have even more reasons for skepticism. Since the alleged victim is black and the alleged attackers white, we can look to the Dept. of Justice's Natonal Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus03.pdf , see table 42) to see the frequency of white on black rapes in 2003. The number of white rapists reported by black victims in 2003 is so small it's reported as 0%. This table is only for single offenders, however a further analysis of the data done by Jared Taylor ( http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm ) also shows multiple offender white on black rape to approximate 0%.
Finally we turn to the topic under discussion, the character of the accuser. While the above would lead us to be careful about such an accusation leveled by a reputable black woman, the accuser in this case is a convicted car thief who tried to run down a police officer, an admitted hooker and reported drug user.
Investigate the claim - absolutely. But take it as more credible than the players denials, and put the onus of proof on the accused, as the Duke administration and far left at Duke are doing - simply an act of ideology not only unsubstantiated but contradicted by any relevant data at hand.
[quote Ken '70]...reported drug user...
[/quote]
So we go from "reported drug user" to "crack whore." Surely no bias or prejudgment being shown there, of course.::rolleyes::
[quote Ken '70]
Women are their own worst enemy when it comes to cedibility and rape charges. Approx. 40% to 50% of all rape charges are eventually recanted by the women who initially brought them (see http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm as one of many on this topic). And how many false claims are never recanted?[/quote]
Fine, but totally irrelevant to any individual case, including this one. I don't care if 99% were recanted. You still have to approach each and every one objectively and with an open mind. You've accused many people of not doing that, and apparently you feel the solution is to be equally biased on the other side. Yeah, I'm sure preconceived notion and partisan retoric is just what we need here.
QuoteIn this case we have even more reasons for skepticism. Since the alleged victim is black and the alleged attackers white, we can look to the Dept. of Justice's Natonal Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus03.pdf , see table 42) to see the frequency of white on black rapes in 2003. The number of white rapists reported by black victims in 2003 is so small it's reported as 0%. This table is only for single offenders, however a further analysis of the data done by Jared Taylor ( http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm ) also shows multiple offender white on black rape to approximate 0%.
Do you think that's really because it hardly ever happen? Or do you think it may be more often done by white people in a position of power over black people, especially in cities/towns/counties with a history of racial tension and a corresponding class/power divide.
Keep in mind that those statistics only reflect *reported* crimes (of course). Rather than saying that it means it doesn't happen, it could also mean that we have a serious problem about power and priveledge being used to prevent the reporting of white-on-black crime. So perhaps she should be commended for being one of the brave few who does the right thing regardless of the power and slander that's likely to come (as you so willingly pile on)?
Do I know which is true? No, I certainly do not. Do you? No, you don't either. Despite your willingness to interpret any facts to fit your particular preconceived notions, it could mean just the opposite. But your bias is firmly established, so you refuse to see anything else. Leaving you and one huge pile of hypocracy when you accuse the media of the same (who, btw, just reported the known facts, and didn't interpret much).
But again, group facts are completely and totally irrelevant to the facts of any individual case. I don't care if it could be completely confirmed that white-on-black rape had never happened before in the history of mankind. Its completely irrelevant to if it happened here. The facts of the case, which you so willingly pick or ignore as you wish, is all that matters.
QuoteInvestigate the claim - absolutely. But take it as more credible than the players denials, and put the onus of proof on the accused, as the Duke administration and far left at Duke are doing - simply an act of ideology not only unsubstantiated but contradicted by any relevant data at hand.
If all we had is an accusation and a denial, you are absolutely right. The burden of proof is always on the state (note: NOT the accuser in a criminal trial - the state. She has absolutely no need to prove anything, she just has to tell what she knows and its the police's job to prove the facts).
But the police and the investigators know a lot more than what you and I know. And we know plenty more than what you're admitting. First, theres the medical exam. There's her fingernails and other possessions found on the floor. There's the email. Theres the eye witness who said the party was called off 5 minutes after she left (circumstancial - but seems to imply something unpleasant happened, no?). There's the pending DNA tests. There's probably more that I'm forgetting. And there's likely much more that we don't know about.
Oh, and to counteract your claims that she made up the story and went to the police for the money she could get, she didn't even go to the police. Someone called the cops when they saw her sitting in parked car in a grocery store parking lot. They picked her up and then she told her story. Sure, circumstancial, but not any more so than all your accusations against her.
The point of me listing the above is *not* to say they did it. That will be decided elsewhere. And even with all the media reports and smoking gun document, we probaby still don't know half the story. But the point is only to show that you pick the facts that meet your already-decided opinions, and drop those that don't.
You accuse the media of bias, you accuse the police of bias... but yet you turn around and cherry pick the facts to fit your own predetermined bias. So apparently the only way they can be 'fair', is to be biased in the same way you are. You lose all credibility as someone who's looking at the facts fairly when you act like you've been acting.
The protesters in Durham are not judge, jury, and executioner of the Duke lax team. And you are not judge, jury, and executioner of the alledged victim.
Unless and until you open your mind to all the facts, and not just the ones that happen to fit your predetermined 'truth', then you lose all credibility in posting about this situation and in accusing others of bias and poor judgement.
If you can't change your mind... are you sure you still have one?
The media is not supposed to be biased. Police are not supposed to be biased. Individuals are free to say whatever they want.
If the protesters railroad a DA up for reelection into prosecuting a case he can't win then i would question if justice was really served.
[quote nyc94]The media is not supposed to be biased. Police are not supposed to be biased. Individuals are free to say whatever they want.[/quote]
Yes, but then they can be accused of being biased for it.
If you're going to go around railing on bias, it would be beneficial if you at least pretended to have some shred of objectiveness yourself.
Otherwise, everything balanced looks biased to you, because it doesn't agree with your predetermined 'truth'. Meanwhile, I don't think the press did anything other than report the known facts. Not interpret them or reach conclusions. But since the known facts at that point did not match Ken's bias, and the press did not go out of their way to twist and interpret things as Ken saw them, he screams bias, unable to see things any other way than the way he wants to.
[quote Ken '70]
Women are their own worst enemy when it comes to cedibility and rape charges. Approx. 40% to 50% of all rape charges are eventually recanted by the women who initially brought them (see http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm as one of many on this topic). And how many false claims are never recanted?
[/quote]
I don't have any right-wing radio hosts to cite on this one, but do ya think that maybe, just maybe, some women recant because they don't want to go through the considerable stress of a trial? Or because they don't want the details of their sex lives detailed in public as evidence that they are not credible? Or because, quite simply, they don't think they're going to be believed? If someone recants, it doesn't mean no rape occurred. It means no one is going to get tried.
And, for what it's worth, I've had friends on both sides of this issue -- one of my male friends was accused of rape by a girl with whom he had broken up (she eventually recanted), and an acquaintance of mine was on her way home from a party and got picked up by two men. They followed her into her house and raped her. She went to the hospital but never pressed charges because she had been drinking and didn't think she would be believed that it wasn't consensual.
[quote Jerseygirl]
I don't have any right-wing radio hosts to cite on this one, but do ya think that maybe, just maybe, some women recant because they don't want to go through the considerable stress of a trial? Or because they don't want the details of their sex lives detailed in public as evidence that they are not credible? Or because, quite simply, they don't think they're going to be believed? If someone recants, it doesn't mean no rape occurred. It means no one is going to get tried.
And, for what it's worth, I've had friends on both sides of this issue -- one of my male friends was accused of rape by a girl with whom he had broken up (she eventually recanted), and an acquaintance of mine was on her way home from a party and got picked up by two men. They followed her into her house and raped her. She went to the hospital but never pressed charges because she had been drinking and didn't think she would be believed that it wasn't consensual.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty in relating the story of your friend who made the false claim. But it's not quite correct to characterize this and the real rape your other friend experienced as being "both sides of this issue". The issue we (at least I) have been discussing is to what degree we should take the Duke accuser's claim at anything approaching face value, as the Duke administration, campus zealots, and much of the press has. The issue here is not a general consideration of rape in America. I don't doubt there are unreported rapes and that the under-reporting may be significantly higher for this type of crime than others for the reasons you give.
I "put aside", as you asked me to, the specifics of the Duke accuser to the extent I considered some general statistics about rape and rape accusations that had bearing on this case and which supported my view that this rape claim was a fabrication. On this score the news becomes more convincing every day http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-722409.html (but hey, Holy Cross beat Minnesota, so anything is possible)
As for the right wing radio host, he's not the source of this data but simply summarizing research/experience by:
- Eugene Kanin, Purdue sociology prof.
- Washington Post
- Linda Fairstein, NY DA Sex Crime Unit
- Craig Silverman, former CO prosecutor
I don't know to what extent Kanin, Fairstein or Silverman may have "right wing" views, but I'm pretty certain the Washington Post doesn't.
[quote Ken '70]
The issue we (at least I) have been discussing is to what degree we should take the Duke accuser's claim at anything approaching face value[/quote]
Fair enough. Everything needs to be investigated and nothing can be taken at face value.
Quoteas the Duke administration
Disagree. Everything the Duke administration has put out (at least that I've seen) has said "alledged", "if this is proven", etc. The only actions the administration has taken has been based on known facts (the inappropriate party, the disgusting email, simply the fact that (as agreed by the team) it would not be appropriate to continue the season at this point, etc), but the Duke administration has done nothing based on any presumption of guilt. Nor taking any accusation at face value.
Quotecampus zealots
Agreed. There has been jumping to conclusions on the part of certain portions of the Durham/Duke community. This does not include everyone who is outraged by these accusations, but only those who demand action based on no known facts.
Quoteand much of the press has.
Disagree. While there may be isolated examples, basically the reports have told the facts of "the victim alledges ___", "police say they found ___", "a source reports ____", "players say ___".
In the first week or two, almost all the facts that came out cast the team in a negative light. That may not be fair, but it doesn't mean the media shouldn't report the known facts. It is not the medias job to defend the accused, nor to interrogate the accuser, but merely to report what is known as such.
QuoteI don't know to what extent Kanin, Fairstein or Silverman may have "right wing" views, but I'm pretty certain the Washington Post doesn't.
Well, the Post *is* considered 'conservative', just like the Times is considered 'liberal', but I don't believe that eiother would let that impact their reporting of facts.
On the point of the 'campus zealots' jumping to conclusions. I only wish that you would realize that you've been just as guilty in that. It doesn't make it better because the conclusion you've jumped to is different. Nor does it make a darn bit of difference if the conclusion that you or they jumped to turn out to be correct - they are both equally inappropriate behaviors.
I know the remark was reasonably tongue-in-cheek, but I think the Holy Cross/Minnesota reference is actually pretty apt. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely people find things, the system deserves its chance to determine the truth as best it can in this particular case. And its not helped by people declaring the accused guilty pre-emptively, or calling the alledged victim as a liar (, crack whore, etc) pre-emptively.
[quote DeltaOne81]Well, the Post *is* considered 'conservative', just like the Times is considered 'liberal', but I don't believe that eiother would let that impact their reporting of facts.
[/quote]
(Disclaimer about how inaccurate quick binary political labels for particular media are part of the problem and blah blah blah, and they're not really applicable in this or any real life situation...)
You have your Posts mixed up there. In the world of "Metropolitan areas shalt have two major publications, and one shalt be respected by other journalists and liberal, and one shalt be conservative and usually tabloid formatted and owned by Murdoch, how things play out in real life notwithstanding," The Washington Post is liberal. When these newspapers are classified in such simple ways they are *considered* to be paired up as follows:
New York Times (L)
New York Post (C)
Washington Post (L)
Washington Times (C)
Boston Globe (L)
Boston Herald (C)
St. Petes Times (L)
Tampa whatever (C)
etc...
I can't think of anyone who bothers to use such a format who would put the New York Times and Washington Post on opposite sides.
First of all, Spelling Cop time: alleged. Thanks.
[quote DeltaOne81]
Quoteas the Duke administration
Disagree. Everything the Duke administration has put out (at least that I've seen) has said "alledged", "if this is proven", etc.[/quote] This part strikes me as a bit naive. I assure you that (a) the coach was forced to resign; (b) the school doesn't give a shit whether or not the players agree that the season should be cancelled and (c) a party featuring strippers isn't enough to get a season cancelled.
I don't know what happened (and figure the truth, as is often the case with fifth-hand information I hear, is in between the accounts of the accuser), but Duke is engaged in damage control and is willing to act in ways that presume guilt.
I return to expressing no opinion whatsoever regarding guilt or innocence as, from my perch in SoHo, it is hard to get an accurate read.
[quote ugarte]
[quote DeltaOne81]
Disagree. Everything the Duke administration has put out (at least that I've seen) has said "alledged", "if this is proven", etc.[/quote]
This part strikes me as a bit naive. I assure you that (a) the coach was forced to resign; (b) the school doesn't give a shit whether or not the players agree that the season should be cancelled and (c) a party featuring strippers isn't enough to get a season cancelled.[/quote]
It's not as naive as it may've sounded.
(a) very possibly, dunno
(b) agreed, but they did... which gives credence to (c)
(c) Correct. But what is reason is the controversy surrounding the allegations (better spelling? ;) ). If they had played, they would have been doing so knowing the may end up in court and jail - not a way to have a good season. The game would have been surrounded by protests which may have been intimidating, and you would be subjecting the other team to it, etc.
The reason to cancel the season was because of everything swirling around them, causing protests, and significantly distracting them from the course of their normal lives, and subjecting players, their family, and visiting teams to (yet another) ugly situation. In away games, the team may have faced threats or insults lobbed at them due to the situation. The fact that the players agreed it wasn't a good idea to play backs this up, because they surely don't seem to agree that they're guilty.
I think it was a move of caution, not making a bad situation worse, and not inflaming tensions - not one of pre-judgement.
To be even more clear I think -
- the party/stripper lead to the two games of no-contests, not to the rest of it
- the discusting email lead to that particularly player being suspended from school
- and everything I just discussed lead to all further no-contents/total cancellation
[quote Ken '70][quote Jerseygirl]
And, for what it's worth, I've had friends on both sides of this issue -- one of my male friends was accused of rape by a girl with whom he had broken up (she eventually recanted), and an acquaintance of mine was on her way home from a party and got picked up by two men. They followed her into her house and raped her. She went to the hospital but never pressed charges because she had been drinking and didn't think she would be believed that it wasn't consensual.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty in relating the story of your friend who made the false claim. But it's not quite correct to characterize this and the real rape your other friend experienced as being "both sides of this issue". The issue we (at least I) have been discussing is to what degree we should take the Duke accuser's claim at anything approaching face value, as the Duke administration, campus zealots, and much of the press has. The issue here is not a general consideration of rape in America. I don't doubt there are unreported rapes and that the under-reporting may be significantly higher for this type of crime than others for the reasons you give.
[\\quote]
Ken, please read what I wrote. I said a MALE friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. I don't know the woman who accused him and eventually recanted the accusation. That is one side of the issue of reporting/falsely reporting/not reporting a rape. The other side is the acquaintance who didn't press charges after being raped because she was afraid of not being believed since she was drunk at the time she was attacked. Maybe it's not like opposite sides of a coin, maybe more like different sides on the octagon of rape claims or whatever. I brought up the first issue because I want you to understand that I do recognize that making a false rape claim is an extremely reprehensible, damaging thing that does happen.
This is what I have a problem with:
"Women are their own worst enemy when it comes to cedibility [sic] and rape charges. Approx. 40% to 50% of all rape charges are eventually recanted by the women who initially brought them (see [www.glennsacks.com] as one of many on this topic). And how many false claims are never recanted?"
And how many real claims are never brought to the attention of law enforcement? How many of these rencanted claims are actually real? How many women are raped but decide it's easier to try and forget what happened than have their body treated like a crime scene and eventually testify or give a deposition/affidavit, etc. and have to live what happened all over again? Sorry, I'm just pretty fucking sick of people, mostly men, who seem to think that pressing rape charges is as psychologically easy for the victim as for other crimes, or that recanted claims or claims that go unreported are simply false or didn't happen. In my acquaintance's case, she was afraid she'd be accused of inviting her attackers in for a little "after party." Do you think she would have felt the same way if she had just been robbed?
Sorry to take up bandwidth on this, because I am discussing rape in general and not this particular case (on which I have no opinion, because, like other posters have said, all I have to go on is fifth hand or worse information). And yeah, I do agree that the Duke case looks more doubtful as time goes on, but then again, that's because the defense attorneys are starting to talk. But why should they be more credible than the DA? Sure, he's up for reelection, but if they win this case, they'll be sitting pretty too. Book deal, anyone?
[quote Jerseygirl] How many women are raped but decide it's easier to try and forget what happened than have their body treated like a crime scene and eventually testify or give a deposition/affidavit, etc. and have to live what happened all over again? Sorry, I'm just pretty fucking sick of people, mostly men, who seem to think that pressing rape charges is as psychologically easy for the victim as for other crimes, or that recanted claims or claims that go unreported are simply false or didn't happen. [/quote]
I agree with Jerseygirl.
One of my closest friends was raped at a party she threw, in the house she grew up in, by a friend of a friend who she'd never met before. I don't pretend to know exactly why she didn't press charges, although I suspect the alcohol involved would make it difficult to prove it wasn't consensual, but she didn't talk to anyone at Cornell about it for nearly a year, and even now, mostly tries to ignore it. Clearly, her psyche wasn't (and isn't) ready to handle the emotional and psychological turmoil associated with pressing rape charges.
Assuming a rape occurred, it takes a lot of courage to press charges, knowing that you will likely be dragged through the mud. As such, you have to take any rape claims at face value. The victim's credibility should certainly not be based on her(/his) profession, sexual history, etc. Find inconsistencies in their story or something.
[Tangent: I never understood why someone who's "slutty" would make a less credible rape victim. Wouldn't a woman who's slept around be less likely to later regret it and press charges than someone, who, say, just lost their virginity?]
http://www.nbc17.com/news/8602612/detail.html
Who woulda' thunk it?
Although it's not exactly relevant to the Duke situation, there's an interesting and thoughtful column in today's Sun about the inherent difficulty of defining consent.
http://www.cornellsun.com/news/2006/04/12/Opinion/Questions.About.no.Means.No-1844609.shtml
Beeeej
ESPN says the case will go before a grand jury on Monday.
is it just me or is this case now just as dead as the Duke lacrosse season?
I have to admit that when i first heard this it all sounded credible and i figured one of those bastards was guilty. Now i guess that was a bit premature. No doubt if it turns out that no crime was commited, by the lax team at least, then they got royally screwed and i kind of feel bad for them.
[quote WillR]is it just me or is this case now just as dead as the Duke lacrosse season?
I have to admit that when i first heard this it all sounded credible and i figured one of those bastards was guilty. Now i guess that was a bit premature. No doubt if it turns out that no crime was commited, by the lax team at least, then they got royally screwed and i kind of feel bad for them.[/quote]
It took a sensational charge that now appears unlikely or unfounded to draw out the problems of a team out of control on a campus whose atmosphere is more removed from Cornell than we thought:
- The team has an impressive record of citations and arrests for stupid, uncontrolled things such as urination in public and underage drinking. Not that a lot of Cornellians aren't guilty of at least the latter. At least the Duke players got caught at it a lot (1 citation for every 3 players) which suggests it happened an awful lot.
- There was the inredibly stupid, dumb, racist remark by one of the players that he'd like to kill and skin, or was it skin and kill, another exotic dancer. Even stupider to put it in an email, not voice it in a bar.
- The campus seems to have used the issue, or non-issue, of the maybe, now-maybe not rape to say the Duke lacrosse team lived apart from and above a lot of the rules of decency. And that brought forth the comparisons of just how apart the Duke campus and students are from the town -- more of a gulf than the kind of town-gown gap in Ithaca, said another poster who's been at both Cornell and Duke.
- The off-campus house was a public nuisance, just about everyone felt, other than the players.
- There was the complaint by a Duke prof, a former lax player, that the coach was scheduling morning practices that forced players to skip class.
... so take away the accusation and the attendant publicity, and the other issues probably would not have come to the fore. But they still were real, probably should have been dealt with, and probably wouldn't.
[quote WillR]is it just me or is this case now just as dead as the Duke lacrosse season?
I have to admit that when i first heard this it all sounded credible and i figured one of those bastards was guilty. Now i guess that was a bit premature. No doubt if it turns out that no crime was commited, by the lax team at least, then they got royally screwed and i kind of feel bad for them.[/quote]
Its not dead, but it becomes significantly, significantly more difficult to prove. ESPN legal analyst said the same thing. That if you have other evidence found at the scene, circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc, you can still prove it, but its much more difficult.
Of course, if the pictures/video of her already injured and significantly out of it does indeed exist, then its pretty much dead. Although I've heard some legal analysts ask, if it does, then why not release it? Of course, if it doesn't, then why lie? Guess we'll see.
Bill brings up a good point that its hard to feel too too bad for them as a history of irresponsible behavior and problems with the team deserved to be taken care of, but no means would that justify false rape allegations (unless she was just high/hallucinating and didn't know she was lying), and wouldn't've deserved the cancellation of the whole season.
Lawyers for Lacrosse Players at Duke Say They Expect Indictment in Rape Case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/sports/sportsspecial1/13lacrosse.html
I don't think any D.A. would be stupid enough to seek an indictment unless he thinks he can actually get the conviction, especially when considering how much money these kids probably have to spend on high quality defense lawyers. Nifong has had plenty of time to back off if he really doubted the alleged victim's story, and I'd personally take this move as a sign that he feels he has a strong case.
[quote billhoward]
- There was the inredibly stupid, dumb, racist remark by one of the players that he'd like to kill and skin, or was it skin and kill, another exotic dancer. Even stupider to put it in an email, not voice it in a bar.
[/quote]
You're perpetuating another myth about this case. Here is the email text in its entirety:
To whom it may concern
tomorrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as they walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond
41
Please point out the racist remark.
What exactly are the substantiated racist remarks they're accused of?
[quote Ken'70]
Please point out the racist remark.
What exactly are the substantiated racist remarks they're accused of?[/quote]
You're right, it wasn't racist. Bill was mistaken. Because, yeah, that makes it so much better ::rolleyes::
The biggest problem the state will face in this case may be proving which player may have done it. Even if, hypothetically, they can convince the jury well beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occured by the residents in that house (which itself won't be a trivial thing), proving beyond a reasonable doubt *which* players did it will be yet another degree of difficulty.
Vaguely reminds me of the one-blank-on-an-execution-squad situation, where you can never really prove that any one man shot someone. Important note: by no means am I suggesting that was the plan or anything but the lax team, I am merely pointing out that even if the jury may have no reasonable doubt that a crime occured that night in that house, they can still have reasonable doubt as to who committed it - just as in the execution example.
It seems to me that this will be one of those unfortunate circumstances where we'll never really know the truth. Hopefully a jury can carefully weigh the evidence and come to the best conclusion possible - surely a heavy burden has been put on their shoulders. Although we'll never know for sure, hopefully justice will be done one way or the other.
[quote DeltaOne81]
Its not dead, but it becomes significantly, significantly more difficult to prove. ESPN legal analyst said the same thing. That if you have other evidence found at the scene, circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc, you can still prove it, but its much more difficult.[/quote]
NPR had a good story about this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338512
I also heard one of the most bizarre quotes from this. The D.A. said,
QuoteDNA results can often be helpful, but you know, I've been doing this a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this we didn't have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.
Maybe it's me but..."the good old fashioned way??" Are we making lemonade? Investing at Smith Barney? How in the world can anyone be nostalgic and cavalier about prosecuting sexual assault cases? I understand the point he was trying to convey given the context, but I sat up and said "huh??" upon hearing that.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337956
[quote RichH]I also heard one of the most bizarre quotes from this. The D.A. said,
QuoteDNA results can often be helpful, but you know, I've been doing this a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this we didn't have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.
Maybe it's me but..."the good old fashioned way??" Are we making lemonade? Investing at Smith Barney? How in the world can anyone be nostalgic and cavalier about prosecuting sexual assault cases? I understand the point he was trying to convey given the context, but I sat up and said "huh??" upon hearing that.[/quote]
I've got to agree with you on this one, especially after my experience at the Innocence Project. You might be shocked to know how many prosecutors will, after they are shown conclusive DNA testing that proves to a mathematical certainty that the person they convicted could not have committed the rape, simply fall back to the position of, "There was enough other evidence [usually eyewitness/victim testimony] to convict him, so this doesn't matter." And from a strictly legal/appellate/procedure standpoint, fifteen years ago (before states started legislating DNA testing opportunities) that statement may have been "correct," but it's a pretty appalling thing to hear and it makes you wonder what goes on in some people's heads.
Luckily, the Allegheny County, PA District Attorney isn't like that. When testing proved last year that Thomas Doswell* couldn't have committed the rape for which he'd already served nineteen years, DA Stephen Zappala, Jr. started moving heaven and earth himself to get him out. Eight days from exonerating test results to walking out the door, an all-time Innocence Project record. Now there's a guy who understands justice.
Beeeej
(*) Tommy's currently opening for B.B. King on some of his tour dates. Check it out if you get the chance.
[quote Ben Rockey 04] Nifong has had plenty of time to back off if he really doubted the alleged victim's story, and I'd personally take this move as a sign that he feels he has a strong case.[/quote]
Or an election to win.
The case certainly won't die yet; I believe the primary is the first week of May and the election is at the end of May. The facts and validity of the case nonwithstanding (and I am not going to make a judgment on that here), Nifong has a very strong motive to keep this case -- and his name -- in the paper for 6 more weeks.
Edit: It appears the only date of consequence is May 2, as there is no Republican challenger for District Attorney.
[quote RichH]
Maybe it's me but..."the good old fashioned way??" Are we making lemonade? Investing at Smith Barney? How in the world can anyone be nostalgic and cavalier about prosecuting sexual assault cases? I understand the point he was trying to convey given the context, but I sat up and said "huh??" upon hearing that.
[/quote]
I think he basically just meant "the old fashioned way". Not to imply that it was actually good, but its just that "good old fashioned way" is an expression, so he used it, albeit inappropriately.
It'd be like saying you're "good and tired", even if you're not happy about the situation. This, of course, is a more serious situation in which you would hope he wouldn't say something like that, but I hardly think he's happy about it :)
[quote DeltaOne81][quote WillR]is it just me or is this case now just as dead as the Duke lacrosse season?
I have to admit that when i first heard this it all sounded credible and i figured one of those bastards was guilty. Now i guess that was a bit premature. No doubt if it turns out that no crime was commited, by the lax team at least, then they got royally screwed and i kind of feel bad for them.[/quote]
Its not dead, but it becomes significantly, significantly more difficult to prove. ESPN legal analyst said the same thing. That if you have other evidence found at the scene, circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc, you can still prove it, but its much more difficult.[/quote]
Okay, so I'm wondering, if the DNA evidence doesn't exonerate the players, does that mean the rapist(s) didn't leave fluids? That's certainly possible (and someone who's raping someone they consider a "crack whore" would probably use a condom to protect themselves), but if that's the case, wouldn't the DA's office already have known that? Were they trying to match to some other trace evidence, so that a non-match doesn't necessarily mean someone else definitively did it? I guess we'll find all this out at trial, but it does seem a little weird.
[quote jtwcornell91][quote DeltaOne81][quote WillR]is it just me or is this case now just as dead as the Duke lacrosse season?
I have to admit that when i first heard this it all sounded credible and i figured one of those bastards was guilty. Now i guess that was a bit premature. No doubt if it turns out that no crime was commited, by the lax team at least, then they got royally screwed and i kind of feel bad for them.[/quote]
Its not dead, but it becomes significantly, significantly more difficult to prove. ESPN legal analyst said the same thing. That if you have other evidence found at the scene, circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc, you can still prove it, but its much more difficult.[/quote]
Okay, so I'm wondering, if the DNA evidence doesn't exonerate the players, does that mean the rapist(s) didn't leave fluids? That's certainly possible (and someone who's raping someone they consider a "crack whore" would probably use a condom to protect themselves), but if that's the case, wouldn't the DA's office already have known that? Were they trying to match to some other trace evidence, so that a non-match doesn't necessarily mean someone else definitively did it? I guess we'll find all this out at trial, but it does seem a little weird.[/quote]
The defense lawyers claim there were no fluids from sex, and no other persons DNA under her fingernails. However, there was a very vague description of a towel and "other item" found in the bathroom that had two of the players DNA, the other item having semen. I have a feeling the "other item" was a condom.
Yes, you have a valid point, but how many of those cases you've worked on involved a WASPy college student from a reputable school and well-off family being charged with rape despite lack of foolproof evidence vs. the number of people changed with rape despite a lack of foolproof evidence who were poor or black?
Tangling with rich kids, who go to an expensive school, and have a large alumni group associated with their athletic team who want to foot their legal bills seems like a dangerous proposition to ones prosecutorial career.
[quote Jacob '06]The defense lawyers claim there were no fluids from sex, and no other persons DNA under her fingernails. However, there was a very vague description of a towel and "other item" found in the bathroom that had two of the players DNA, the other item having semen. I have a feeling the "other item" was a condom.[/quote]
The only way that testing all the players' DNA would exclude or include them, then, is if the other item was a condom, and the victim's DNA was also found on the outside of the condom. Off the top of my head, I really can't think of any other way it would be relevant at all.
Beeeej
[quote Ben Rockey 04]Yes, you have a valid point, but how many of those cases you've worked on involved a WASPy college student from a reputable school and well-off family being charged with rape despite lack of foolproof evidence vs. the number of people changed with rape despite a lack of foolproof evidence who were poor or black?
Tangling with rich kids, who go to an expensive school, and have a large alumni group associated with their athletic team who want to foot their legal bills seems like a dangerous proposition to ones prosecutorial career.[/quote]
That's true, but isn't that also entirely unfair.
"Well, we kinda have some evidence that could maybe fly... who's the accused?"
"Poor and black"
"Let's go for it!"
...
"Rich and white"
"Uh oh, better not get involved here"
If they believe they have a case and believe a crime was committed, the identity, wealth, and priviledge of the victim shouldn't be a reason to drop the case. I'd rather see a prosecutor do what he/she believes is right, even if its not a good career move long term. Now whether that applies to this case is a separate topic, but on a general plane, its the right thing to do.
[quote Ben Rockey 04]Yes, you have a valid point, but how many of those cases you've worked on involved a WASPy college student from a reputable school and well-off family being charged with rape despite lack of foolproof evidence vs. the number of people changed with rape despite a lack of foolproof evidence who were poor or black?[/quote]
You're forgetting, before fifteen years ago, there was no such thing as "foolproof evidence" of a rape. More often than not, victim and eyewitness identification was about all you had. And studies have shown cross-racial identification to be particularly unreliable - not just when white victims are picking out blacks from a lineup, but (surprisingly to some) also when black victims are picking out whites from a lineup. But juries love ID testimony; they eat it right up. They just no longer necessarily consider it enough.
My point had nothing to do with the demographics of the victim; it had to do with the shocking number of prosecutors who consider it their duty to "win" rather than to see justice done. And part of Rich's point, I believe, was that if the "good, old-fashioned" way of trying a rape case was far less scientifically sound, it's ludicrous to long for it. If this DA tries to prosecute the case based only on the victim's testimony identifying specific lax players, and the DNA evidence really tends to exonerate the students as much as their attorney claims, the case won't even get to the jury.
QuoteTangling with rich kids, who go to an expensive school, and have a large alumni group associated with their athletic team who want to foot their legal bills seems like a dangerous proposition to ones prosecutorial career.
Backing off a rape prosecution because a bunch of rich kids, their expensive school, and their alumni group are pressuring you is a really good way to lose the next election when it's the locals, not the rich kids, who vote.
Beeeej
I'm with you 100%, I'm just suggesting that if it didn't seem like a clean-cut, easy conviction, there are many reasons that he could have backed out of the case to avoid having to endure losing it in court.
Yes, you are very correct that failing to prosecute is a good way to not win elections, but losing the case in court is also a good way to shoot future career advancement in the foot. There won't be Congressional or State Senate race in his future if he goes to trial and loses, then suffers a defamation suit from WASPy kid's parents.
I'm all for justice, I'm just exploring options here. If he still plans to prosecute, I would wager he has more evidence than is publicly acknowledged, or these photographs that show the stripper injured are less damaging to the D.A.'s case then the defendant's lawyers would like the public to believe (big shock there).
Quoteif it didn't seem like a clean-cut, easy conviction, there are many reasons that he could have backed out of the case to avoid having to endure losing it in court.
If it was a clean-cut easy conviction, it would never make it to a court case, they'd plead guilty (or no contest, etc) almost certainly. Anything that goes to court is, by definition pretty much, not clean-cut and easy.
Now, there's certainly a standard of which you do not bring things, but that's what a grand jury is for - does it even meet the burden of proof to deserve to be brought?
And, there's again a standard of not even bothering to go to a grand jury, but that's even lesser than that.
If everything that wasn't clear cut and easy got dropped, we'd have a lot of crime going unpunished in this country. As to whether this case deserves to be brought to a grand jury, I don't know. Clearly its not an easy case. If he's doing it just to win, then he's doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. If he's doing it because he honestly believes this is what occurred, and believes he can prove it, then that's the right thing to do - even if (and almost especially if) the accused can afford to hire expensive, skilled attorneys.
[quote Ken'70][quote billhoward]
- There was the inredibly stupid, dumb, racist remark by one of the players that he'd like to kill and skin, or was it skin and kill, another exotic dancer. Even stupider to put it in an email, not voice it in a bar.
[/quote]
You're perpetuating another myth about this case. Here is the email text in its entirety:
To whom it may concern
tomorrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as they walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond
41
Please point out the racist remark.
What exactly are the substantiated racist remarks they're accused of?[/quote]
If this was cut and pasted it verbatim from the Duke University website (or wherever first posted), you are of course right. The remark was not overtly racist. That was probably the only thing it was not.
[quote Jordan 04]
Or an election to win.
The case certainly won't die yet; I believe the primary is the first week of May and the election is at the end of May. The facts and validity of the case nonwithstanding (and I am not going to make a judgment on that here), Nifong has a very strong motive to keep this case -- and his name -- in the paper for 6 more weeks.
Edit: It appears the only date of consequence is May 2, as there is no Republican challenger for District Attorney.[/quote]If this blows up in his face quickly enough (I'm not assuming that it will blow up at all, but there is a possibility), the Republicans probably have time to field an anybody-but-Nifong candidate. I don't know NC election law, but in most places the parties seem to be able to nominate candidates even after a primary if no one has filed in time for the primary.
ESPN says Duke has released their lacrosse recruits from their commitments.
[quote Ben Rockey 04]Yes, you are very correct that failing to prosecute is a good way to not win elections, but losing the case in court is also a good way to shoot future career advancement in the foot. There won't be Congressional or State Senate race in his future if he goes to trial and loses, then suffers a defamation suit from WASPy kid's parents.[/quote]
No offense, but if you had any idea how difficult it is to bring a civil suit against a DA for defamation, wrongful prosecution, or any kind of violation of civil rights, you'd know how funny the above sounds.
Beeeej
No indictments by the grand jury today and they adjourned for two weeks.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=An7SbuPIKg.1O02S6OFCqhk5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns
"It was not known, however, whether indictments in the Duke case may have been returned under seal or were among the 24 cases "carried forward" to be heard at a later date."
[quote nyc94]No indictments by the grand jury today and they adjourned for two weeks.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=An7SbuPIKg.1O02S6OFCqhk5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns
"It was not known, however, whether indictments in the Duke case may have been returned under seal or were among the 24 cases "carried forward" to be heard at a later date."[/quote]
Always possible the DA's office ran into the rare grand jury that acts independently rather than as a rubber stamp, the rubber stamp GJ figuring if they made a mistake, the trial judge or trial jury will catch the glitch and set things right.
[quote billhoward][quote nyc94]No indictments by the grand jury today and they adjourned for two weeks.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=An7SbuPIKg.1O02S6OFCqhk5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns
"It was not known, however, whether indictments in the Duke case may have been returned under seal or were among the 24 cases "carried forward" to be heard at a later date."[/quote]
Always possible the DA's office ran into the rare grand jury that acts independently rather than as a rubber stamp, the rubber stamp GJ figuring if they made a mistake, the trial judge or trial jury will catch the glitch and set things right.[/quote]
CNN now saying two indictments. And the link above now goes to a story saying the same. Good job AP. ::rolleyes::
Detailed article on CNN about the two indicted players, who have since voluntarily surrendered:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/18/duke.rape/index.html
Beeeej
QuoteQuoteIn this case we have even more reasons for skepticism. Since the alleged victim is black and the alleged attackers white, we can look to the Dept. of Justice's Natonal Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus03.pdf , see table 42) to see the frequency of white on black rapes in 2003. The number of white rapists reported by black victims in 2003 is so small it's reported as 0%. This table is only for single offenders, however a further analysis of the data done by Jared Taylor ( http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm ) also shows multiple offender white on black rape to approximate 0%.
Do you think that's really because it hardly ever happen? Or do you think it may be more often done by white people in a position of power over black people, especially in cities/towns/counties with a history of racial tension and a corresponding class/power divide.
Keep in mind that those statistics only reflect *reported* crimes (of course). Rather than saying that it means it doesn't happen, it could also mean that we have a serious problem about power and priveledge being used to prevent the reporting of white-on-black crime. So perhaps she should be commended for being one of the brave few who does the right thing regardless of the power and slander that's likely to come (as you so willingly pile on)?
Just a point of fact here. The NCVS is a household sample survey that is specifically designed to measure crimes that are both reported and not reported to the police. Interviews are conducted one-on-one with household members to encourage reporting of sensitive incidents, and the survey includes careful questioning regarding crimes that are difficult to report, including sexual assaults. It's about as state-of-the-art as is possible for a general population survey measuring these kinds of events. However, there are relatively few rape/sexual assault incidents measured, compared to other violent crimes like assault, so the analysts at BJS typically don't push the breakdowns by race/ethnicity very hard. This is partially a result of the sample size of the survey, which - while large enough to measure most personal and household crimes accurately - is not as useful for measuring sexual assault and producing reliable estimates and comparisons for this type of crime. Bottom line: Take any sexual assault data broken down by other factors such as race with a grain of salt.
[quote Ken '70]In this case we have even more reasons for skepticism. Since the alleged victim is black and the alleged attackers white, we can look to the Dept. of Justice's Natonal Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus03.pdf , see table 42) to see the frequency of white on black rapes in 2003. The number of white rapists reported by black victims in 2003 is so small it's reported as 0%. This table is only for single offenders, however a further analysis of the data done by Jared Taylor ( http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm ) also shows multiple offender white on black rape to approximate 0%.[/quote]
Jared Taylor was one of the world's experts on Lotus 1-2-3 in the 1980s and early 1990s (see PC Magazine's Spreadsheet Clinic) ... fluent in Japanese (he grew up there) ... and Christopher Reeve-good looking. However, his politics outside the world of 1-2-3 are a bit out of the mainstream. His writing on Japan has been called insightful by the WS Journal on the OpEd page but elsewhere as something approaching racist. So any factual information parsed and reported by Jared on matters of culture or race ought to be viewed with a skeptical eye. As part of a broad range of research/study, he'd be a great counterpoint resource. As the only source, approach with open eyes.
At first, this was a fascinating thread, perhaps a little titillating, perhaps a little glee at someone else's misfortune (schadenfreude). Perhaps.
Not it's just sad. It's a reminder that group behavior can possibly lead relatively normal people to do deviant things. It's going to scar some promising young lives. Plus there's the victim -- if what she says happened, happened, then she's suffering worse that somebody who's now going to have trouble landing a nice job at Credit Suisse upon graduation. Even people living on the borderline of the law deserve some protection from the law.
High school and college sports are great. But parents in high school and to some extent coaches and administrators in college need to reinforce the reality that the heros on the field aren't so special off the field.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1
I didn't know I was going to have to actually IDENTIFY anybody, I thought I could just get me the money from, you know, what I said. Damn, wouldn't you just know I'd go ahead and pick one that wasn't there. Can I try again?
[quote Ken '70]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1
I didn't know I was going to have to actually IDENTIFY anybody, I thought I could just get me the money from, you know, what I said. Damn, wouldn't you just know I'd go ahead and pick one that wasn't there. Can I try again?[/quote]
Do you have any evidence that the alleged victim's motives are extortionate, or that she knowingly misidentified someone? If not, Ken, your post is just plain despicable and hateful.
Beeeej
[quote Beeeej]
Do you have any evidence that the alleged victim's motives are extortionate, or that she knowingly misidentified someone? If not, Ken, your post is just plain despicable and hateful.
Beeeej[/quote]
Is that aything new for Ken?
Local station recently reported on process police are to use for photo ID of attackers: the suspect is supposed to be one of 8 pictures (7 unrelated parties) shown sequentially to accuser. Given that 46 players were suspects then following the procedure to the letter would require the accuser to view 368 pictures - I bet that happened. Since the players may have been shown with their shirts off, then the 342 unknowns should also have been shirtless.
A local organization that designed, implemented and monitors the process says if police just showed the accuser the 46 pictures of the lacrosse team the ID would not be admissible.
That's why defense lawyers are so keen to find out how the ID was done.
IMO, a very bizarre effect of this matter:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=1862560&page=1
As expected...
http://www.wral.com/news/8893975/detail.html
Yeah, that's pathetically sloppy police work.
Beeeej
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=124847
Feared this would happen: Cornell's victory being tainted by the belief that Duke had things other than lacrosse on its mind on game day.
QuoteAnd, does the [NCAA lax seeding] committee value Maryland's early-season win over Duke more than Cornell's, since by that point the Blue Devils could've been distracted by the early stages of the sexual assault investigation? This year, more than any, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall during the selection process.
If this slips Cornell's seed so it loses a field advantage, or so it winds up bracketed against Virginia before the finals (were Cornell to advance that far), we got screwed. It kind of pales against the tragedy, much of it self-inflicted, that's affecting Duke.
[quote billhoward]Feared this would happen: Cornell's victory being tainted by the belief that Duke had things other than lacrosse on its mind on game day.
QuoteAnd, does the [NCAA lax seeding] committee value Maryland's early-season win over Duke more than Cornell's, since by that point the Blue Devils could've been distracted by the early stages of the sexual assault investigation? This year, more than any, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall during the selection process.
If this slips Cornell's seed so it loses a field advantage, or so it winds up bracketed against Virginia before the finals (were Cornell to advance that far), we got screwed. It kind of pales against the tragedy, much of it self-inflicted, that's affecting Duke.[/quote]
Nice persecution complex, bill.
Personally I think its entirely possible, if not likely, that Duke may not have been at their best that day.
Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation. For all other teams, it doesn't matter what you are when you beat them, it matters what they are at the end of the year. Why should this be any different? Duke, at the end of the year, will be a 20th something team. So we should get credit for beating a 20th something team. You can't go about assuming that they would have beaten the top teams and gotten back up to a place that they're not in - that would be what is ridiculously unfair.
Does it suck for us? Sure. Is it fair? Yes it is.
Now if Duke was sitting in the top 5 or 10 or even 15 at the end of the sesaon, that becomes a more interesting question. And I think you have to treat them as if that's what they were. But its irrelevant here.
Personally, my favorite part of the article is where they said its not a big factor because we've solidified our bid. Something that I was hoping, but was unsure of. Who knows if it'll hold up for sure, but its nice nonethless. But beat Brown tomorrow and it won't matter.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/433646.html
She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.
[quote DeltaOne81]Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation.[/quote]Why are they ranked so low? Before the scandal weren't they considerably higher? I'm going to guess that the teams they beat kept on losing but I'm all ears for someone with knowledge to fill me in.
[quote Ken'70]She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.[/quote]Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?
[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]Furthermore, Duke, at 6-2, is a 20th something team in the nation.[/quote]Why are they ranked so low? Before the scandal weren't they considerably higher? I'm going to guess that the teams they beat kept on losing but I'm all ears for someone with knowledge to fill me in.[/quote]
I dunno specifically, but must be. The ranking is just RPI, same formula as in hockey - win %age, opponent's win %age, and opp's opp's win %age.
Since the former is frozen by definition, the difference must be in strength of schedule - which is 2/3rds opp's win %age, and 1/3rd opp's opp's win %age. Opp's opp's is usually not a big difference between schools and tends to converge - and is only 1/3rd of SOS - so it seems the main effect would be from teams they played starting to lose.
[quote ugarte][quote Ken'70]She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.[/quote]Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?[/quote]
Exactly. Well said, ugarte. I would have used many more words, but that was brevity in its best :)
Of course, there's also the chance that just because she may have lied before doesn't mean she's lying now. But I agree that things seem to be falling apart slow but steadily.
[quote ugarte] Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case [/quote]
Yuh think?
QuoteAND that you are being an asshole, right?
Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.
[quote Ken '70]I do understand.[/quote]
Sadly, I'm certain you don't. Pity.
[quote Ken '70][quote ugarte] Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case [/quote]
Yuh think?
QuoteAND that you are being an asshole, right?
Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.[/quote]
No, you really are just an asshole. Does Age need to take a poll?
[quote Ken '70][quote ugarte] Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case [/quote]
Yuh think?
QuoteAND that you are being an asshole, right?
Hey, I understand, it's human nature. When you've completely missed the obvious you feel embarrassed and foolish. People lash out under these circumstances. Really, I do understand.[/quote]
Jumping to a conclusion, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, is not any better than jumping to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong.
Of course, now you probably think you have a great deep understanding of everything and know all and can look into people's souls and know their intent.
But really, you're just an asshole who jumped to a conclusion and apparently got lucky. No better than the people who said the entire team should be kicked out of school without knowing the facts.
[quote ugarte][quote Ken'70]She says she was raped, her dad says it never happened. Oh, and it was 3 guys that did it.[/quote]Just checkin': You are aware that it is possible that you were right about this case AND that you are being an asshole, right?[/quote]
Ugarte, you said it for all of us, and you just missed it being haiku length. Well done.
Personally, I'm worried that a visitor to the site will see the other username and think: "Hey, Dryden really WAS the goalie on that 29-0 team of 1970 ... but he seems to be a bit moody these days."
I vote "yes". Haven't put my two cents in, but have been following this thread. I had no idea who was right in this case and have seen plenty of problems with both sides of the case over time. Despite not being surprised that the case seems to be falling apart for the prosecution, I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded. Cornell must not have offered its widely publicized diversity back in 1970.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Ken '70]I do understand.[/quote]
Sadly, I'm certain you don't. Pity.[/quote]
[quote Delta One] Jumping to a conclusion, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, is not any better than jumping to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong. [/quote]
Ken,
To expand on Delta One's thoughts, so that perhaps you might eventually understand, it's one thing to jump to a conclusion based upon having a good percentage of the facts of the case, but it's quite another thing to jump to a conclusion based upon your perceived racial or class stereotypes. Yes, sometimes the answer may turn out to be correct, but the logic used to get there is fatally flawed.
[quote cth95]I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded. [/quote]
narrow-minded? elitist? no, not at cornell... who whould have thunk it?
I'm with Ken on this one.
This situation is not yet settled and so it is still possible that the stripper told the truth, but it certainly looks like this case is heading for the trash heap. If that ends up being the case, I think its pretty pathetic that these kids lives were messed up so badly because they made the admittedly terrible mistake of getting consistently drunk and acting like fools. Something that I'm sure all of us have done (maybe not consistently) at some time or the other. There is no debating that the racist crap was way over the line and I know that kids with some decency wouldn't resort to something like that even when drunk. However, we all know what a combination of being made to feel super important, combined with an overdose of alchohol can do to some people.
These kids made a very bad mistake, and sometimes you have to pay the price and face the consequences, but I believe that it is okay to vilify the parasites that feed off such events. In this case the stripper, the prosecuter, the "it makes me feel good to patronize poor African-Americans" lobby, and the national media, all of whom proved that they can't seperate their head from their arse.
I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.
[quote Redscore]I'm with Ken on this one...
I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.[/quote]
Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely. ::help::
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Redscore]I'm with Ken on this one...
I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.[/quote]
Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely. ::help::[/quote]
I may miss a point here and there but I certainly don't miss the ones I do "so completely". Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to quote my post, quote it completely. Quoting the first line and the last sentence makes for a very clever bit of editing, and makes your point at the expense of the facts.
My point was not whether they deserved to be f'd up for any of the things that they ACTUALLY did, they absolutely do and I did say that they need to face the consequences. My point was that it appears as if a combination of false statements and a confluence of events took things to a level that was beyond fairness. We may execute people for murder (in some states) but we don't execute them for robbing banks.
If you think that it is okay for a mugshot of Seligman to be placed on the cover of Time and Newsweek and to receive premium exposure on all other forms of media including network TV, and to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there as a rapist when it now appears that he left the party early, you are just not being fair. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light. And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life. Those other facets should be judged and evaluated on their own merits. I don't like these kids at all. I just think that sometimes it is okay to point out the flaws in our culture as they expose themselves.
If your point is that I should save my energy for other more pressing problems rather than try to assess the appropriate calibration of the punishment for this behaviour, I would probably have to agree with you. I guess I'll just move on.
I don't think that anyone here has a problem with you feeling these guys have gotten a horrible deal if they are innocent; which looks more and more likely. They should never have been smeared so badly without being proven guilty. You have posted a reasonable argument.
I think most people's problem with Ken 70, is that he has been highly condescending and has presented a holier-than-thou attitude throughout this event, without showing any indications of open-mindedness at all. He basically has represented the opposite facet of the extremists you have correctly criticized for smearing the players with no hard evidence. Just because he may turn out to be right doesn't justify his comments or attitude before hard evidence is presented proving that the woman was lying.
I think Al's point was less disagreeing with your ideas and more disagreeing with your self-association with Ken.
You say (emphasis mine):
QuoteI don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light. And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life.
Why is there any difference between the accuser and the accused? The case in question revolves around the night in question, not anyone's race, profession, background, etc. When this story broke, it sounded as if the dancer had truly been raped by the Duke lax players. Ken posted things like this: http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,92572,94548#msg-94548
While mass media was portraying the players as a group of racist rapists, Ken was essentially saying it was impossible for the woman to have been raped because it would've been white-on-black rape, because she was a "hooker," and because she has "demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks." http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,92572,94021#msg-94021
It now looks like the dancer was indeed making up the story, and it's a shame that it has damaged so many lives, but that doesn't mean it
couldn't have happened.
edit: cth95 beat me to it. cth, I agree.
I'll agree with cth and Liz.
Redscore, I don't think anyone disagrees (at least not much if at all) with your posting that the players did not deserve this. The complaint was your association with Ken.
As you said yourself:
[Q]If you think that it is okay... to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there ... you are just not being fair.[/Q]
Yes, I edited that down, but I really intended to do it to get to the heart of your point, and not to twist it. Please let me know if you disagree.
But basically you said, its not fair to be pre-judged. I agree completely. So why was it then okay for Ken to prejudge the accuser on things like her background and by calling her a "crack whore", before we had any real sense of how legit any accusation may be. How it is fair to call it a lie simply because "white on black" crime apparently doesn't exist, even before we even have any specific suspects who could be guilty or innocent.
No one is saying that pre-judgement is right. I really did my best not to pretend that I knew the truth, as did, I believe, most people on here. How exactly is it okay to pre-judge the accuser, but not the players? Which is exactly what Ken stands for on this thread. Is it that poor and black can be pre-judged but not rich and white? Is it anything that matches Ken's viewpoint can be pre-judged, but not anything that doesn't?
I don't think anyone disagree with your point that this was a shame and not fair - if it does indeed turn out that this is a very bad case - but watch who you align yourself with and what they truly stand for.
Fair points cth, Liz and DeltaOne. I jumped into this thread late, read the postings quickly and focused on one aspect of Ken's arguments. Agreed - it is not okay to pre-judge the accused OR the accuser.
The Duke players were out of control but it took an accusation of a horrible nature to get the Duke community to look at the things that long ago should have been reigned in.
Athletes sometimes get rowdy when they're not actually on the field or the ice. But Duke seems to have carried this to excess ... no one (Pressler, the ex coach; or the athletic director) tried to or succeeded in keeping it down to a dull roar ... and now the team and to a lesser extent anyone who cares about Duke is paying the price.
Some of the publicity was unfair. The Newsweek cover story came really late, at the time the story seemed to be unraveling, and probably didn't deserve the cover at that point, but then Newsweek had a couple breaking news stories for the cover the previous couple weeks like the one about why women have trouble sleeping at night. (That was sarcastic but in reality it's stuff like that that's going to be the short term prop for newsweeklies that no longer have much news you don't already know about.)
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/436642.html
"The Duke lacrosse case was the overwhelming issue," said Philip Cousin, a longtime Durham Committee member who is also a Durham County commissioner and the minister at St. Joseph's AME Church. "I think a lot of people thought there wouldn't be any arrests. When Nifong came through with the indictments, that indicated to the black community he would be fair."
[Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]
This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though. ::rolleyes::
"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.
For those who didn't follow this closely, the Duke players' troubles bubbled to the surface during the re-election campaign of District Attorney Mike Nifong, who defeated challengers Freda Black and Keith Bishop. Black is white. Bishop is not ordained but is black. Got that? The Bishop got the black endorsement. The white Black finished second. Black the candidate got more of the black vote than the black candidate Bishop, but Nifong, whose name doesn't have any connotation I can think of (unless it's Polynesian for paleface), got more of the black vote than Black or the black candidate. But Nifong also got 1 percentage point less of the black vote (44%) than Nifong got overall (45%). (Because the two challengers combined, Black and the black candidate, together got 56%.)
There are now reports one of the alleged exotic dancers is also part Asian. So far that part has not become a major issue unless there's a one-liner about thirty minutes later she was back again.
Okay, conservatives, let's see your spin on this one. If Rush is still in rehab, you're kind of on your own.
Can Ugarte work a standup sketch around this?
... and it's still a sad situation. The lacrosse players are still jerks whether or not they're felonious jerks, Duke's good name has been sullied, the town-gown schism deepened ... no winners in this one.
[quote Robb][Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]
This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though. ::rolleyes::[/quote]
The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.
If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.
[quote billhoward]
The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.
If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.[/quote]
Sure, but that's not what she said. All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser. That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.
If she'd said, "I wanted to vote for Bishop, but didn't think he had a chance to win and I strongly dislike Black, so I decided to vote for Nifong to be sure that Black lost," then I can understand that as a rational, reasonable position to take.
Of course, it's also extremely possible that that's what she DID say and the reporter just misquoted her...
[quote Robb]Sure, but that's not what she said. All she told us is that she switched votes BECAUSE she didn't want to end up voting for a loser. That's like cheering for the Yankees just because you like to be on the winning side (as frequently as possible) - for your own personal satisfaction.[/quote]
Well, then you'd only be in the company of about 50% of America ::rolleyes::
Note: I am not saying that Yankees *fans* are bandwagon, only the majority of people who cheer for the Yankees. A very different thing.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not surprised.
[quote billhoward][quote Robb][Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]
This one's my favorite. Way to make your vote count for something, genius! Congratulations on picking the winner, though. ::rolleyes::[/quote]
The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.
If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.[/quote]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.
[quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]
I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.
[quote Robb][quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]
I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.[/quote]
I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking. I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning. I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent. Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.
[quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.
[/quote]
Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.
[quote Ken '70][quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.
[/quote]
Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.[/quote]
No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.
[quote WillR][quote Robb][quote WillR]
Actually she isn't even pragmatic. She may however be delusional. Only if the vote would have been tied in the absence of her voting and she breaks the tie does her vote actually count. I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. In 2000 even if one of us was allowed to vote 50 times in Florida then our votes still wouldn't have counted.[/quote]
I definitely strongly disagree with this line of thinking. I think both the winners and the loser know and care whether the race was won by 1 vote or 100%. Voting for a losing candidate does not mean that your vote didn't "count" - you still sent the message as to who (or what platform) you feel best represents your interests, and that's all you can really expect your vote to do, whether you vote for the eventual winner or the eventual loser.[/quote]
I actually don't disagree with your line of thinking. I was going to write at the end of my previous post to vote for who you want not to vote for who you think has the best chance of winning. I will go vote in the next election, but i have a hard time imagining that Joe Candidate looks at the results, and my +1 contribution and takes away a much different view of the message the voters sent. Still, on Wednesday he/she can look at the results and take away what they will from the numbers that my vote is hiding among.[/quote]We could bring the "My vote doesn't matter because there are so many other people voting" argument back home and say, "There are so many other people at Lynah cheering, my voice can't be heard." But we do cheer, and the fact of everyone cheering is impressive.
[quote nyc94][quote Ken '70][quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.
[/quote]
Except he's not a politician, he's a DA. There is a difference.[/quote]
No, when the DA is an elected position they become politicians.[/quote]
Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician
[quote Ken '70]Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician[/quote]
While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.
And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.
[quote DeltaOne81]The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Ken '70]Just because you're elected doesn't mean you're in politics. For example see definition of politics here, noting exception for judicial branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician[/quote]
While the Wiki is a useful reference, I don't think its exactly a source that can be considered the end-all-be-all technicality dispute reference.
And, even if you did prove that members of the judicial system aren't *technically* politicians? So what? The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]
I don't see anything in the Wikipedia link that supports what you're saying, Ken.
"A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office.
In Western democracies, the term is generally restricted to those officials who attain their position through election campaigns, rather than all members of the state bureaucracy."
[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]The point isn't the definition of a word - the point is the behavior expected of people when they're up for re-election.[/quote]That hardly makes you the winner of the argument, Delta. Grandstanding may be expected of any politician but abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing. And you really should distinguish between "what voters have come to expect" and "what voters deserve." If Nifong doesn't truly believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute it is not OK in the context of an election.[/quote]
Hey, I don't know what Nifong believes or doesn't - and at no point was I attempting to argue or say that Nifong's behavior was appropriate (or wasn't).
I was merely defending Bill's point - which is what Ken was arguing:
[quote billhoward]"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.[/quote]
I never meant to say it was appropriate. All I was doing was agreeing that its not surprising. And Ken didn't try to prove that it wasn't appropriate, All he tried to prove was the technical definition of politician - which, technically true or not, still doesn't make the behavior surprising.
3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."
If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.
[quote WillR] I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count. [/quote]
You never know when 1 vote counts. One afternoon in '67 or '68 I was headed home from Cornell when, leaving campus, I remembered that a fraternity brother of mine was running for a student government position (could have been something called SCARB, but very fuzzy at this point). It was late afternoon and I wasn't sure the polls were still open, and what a hastle to go back to campus, park etc. But he was a good guy, and the smartest, hardest working fellow student I ever knew at Cornell, so I turned around and got to the Straight to vote just before the polls closed. He won by 1 vote. (FWIW, this is him http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html )
But by all means, please stay home next election, it makes my vote that much more important.
[quote Ken'70]3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."
If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.[/quote]
"Wiki," "authority," and, "cite" don't belong in the same thought.
Besides, right there in your (subtly) self-proclaimed authoritative definition, it says "usually." That means that there ARE members of those organs of government who are sometimes regarded as politicians. I would think that most people would agree that someone who is running a campaign for office is "politicking," and is, at least during that campaign, acting as a politician.
Of course I'm speculating as to how most people would think, but that's how I see it.
The way I see it, if you're being elected for your job then you're a politician. Judges are appointed so that would obviously make them not a politician but DA's shake hands and kiss babies just like any politician.
[quote nr53]Judges are appointed so that would obviously make them not a politician ...[/quote]
Haven't voted in a while? New York elects judges.
Meh. I'm from Jersey and as far as I know (no thats not very much) judges are appointed there.
[quote Ken'70]But he was a good guy, and the smartest, hardest working fellow student I ever knew at Cornell, so I turned around and got to the Straight to vote just before the polls closed. He won by 1 vote. (FWIW, this is him http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html )[/quote]
It's a shame he had to fall in with such a bad crowd ;)
[quote Redscore]Fair points cth, Liz and DeltaOne. I jumped into this thread late, read the postings quickly and focused on one aspect of Ken's arguments. Agreed - it is not okay to pre-judge the accused OR the accuser.[/quote]
Thanks for writing this, Redscore. This is precisely what I meant in my posting responding to yours saying you were "with Ken on this one."
Peace.
[quote WillR]I am not arguing for all of us to stay home on election day, but we might want to tone down our expectations come the next election if we really think we count.[/quote]
When I was a kid in New Haven a mayoralty election was decided by two votes. (The winner owned a funeral home. One wonders how many of his clients voted. ;-) ) Close enough to keep me going to the polls still.
The first time I ran public office I won by a single vote. At lunch in the company cafeteria that day the conversation came around to the election and someone from my town happened to be at the table. I told him to vote for me, and he told his wife. That tipped the balance.
A couple of years ago we had a bitter race for city council (in another ward) that ended in a tie. They flipped coin. The good guy won.
[quote Ken'70]3rd paragraph, last sentence, "Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work."
If anyone has another authority to cite relative to who are and aren't politicians I'd be interested. Wiki's conformed to my everyday understanding of the term.[/quote] http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=politician
QuoteNoun
* S: (n) politician (a leader engaged in civil administration)
* S: (n) politician, politico, pol, political leader (a person active in party politics)
* S: (n) politician (a schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politician [q]1.
a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
b. One who holds or seeks a political office.
2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process" John F. Kennedy.
3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[/q]
we had a school budget vote end in a tie two years ago. which was actually a loss because to pass the budget you needed a majority... every vote counts
Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195753,00.html
Also, the inevitable result of "thought leadership" from the likes of Jesse Jackson, The New York Times and AAS programs
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/05/17/197673.html
[quote Ken '70]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195753,00.html[/quote]
Jesus Christ, Ken. Why exactly does she not have the right to a civil case when everyone else does? When the hell *isn't* there a civil suit??
Now that doesn't mean its right, but why the hell shouldn't she do what everyone else does. Oh right, because you called her a whore. That's true, that means she doesn't get to have the same options in the legal system as everyone else.
You're truly an awful human being.
Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Ken '70]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life, so why not go for the brass ring when fortune and an unscrupulous DA have put it so appetizingly close?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195753,00.html[/quote]
Jesus Christ, Ken. Why exactly does she not have the right to a civil case when everyone else does? When the hell *isn't* there a civil suit??
Now that doesn't mean its right, but why the hell shouldn't she do what everyone else does. Oh right, because you called her a whore. That's true, that means she doesn't get to have the same options in the legal system as everyone else.
You're truly an awful human being.
Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.[/quote]
Delta, would you tone it down please?
[quote nyc94]
Delta, would you tone it down please?[/quote]
Sorry. You're right. I should just not read this thread anymore based if I'm gonna get this riled up by the blatant racism. Sad thing is I'm interested in the general topic.
< sigh >
I'll remove my earlier post if people would like.
[quote DeltaOne81]Although I guess Fox News one up's you on the worthless-piece-of-crap scale, hidden in the article is this 'phrase': "There is no indication that the accuser has spoken with Gary." Meaning they're just trying to rile up conservatives against something that hasn't yet happened. To increase that imagined persecution complex.[/quote]Without getting into the things about Ken that you wrote that I agree with/disagree with/lack information to judge, you may want to cut Fox a break. The Essence article that Fox links to (http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/takeastand/0,16109,1186586,00.html), and on which the Fox story is based, is titled Accuser's Mother Meets With Famed Attorney: Civil-rights lawyer Willie Gary expresses interest in Duke rape investigation. I don't know that it is all that significant that the accuser hasn't met with Gary herself.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote nyc94]
Delta, would you tone it down please?[/quote]
Sorry. You're right. I should just not read this thread anymore based if I'm gonna get this riled up by the blatant racism. Sad thing is I'm interested in the general topic.
< sigh >
I'll remove my earlier post if people would like.[/quote]
I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.
Based on what we know from the newspapers the prosecution has a pretty lousy case. Since the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than a criminal case the accuser may have a better case but it again based on what we know it seems it is going to come down to he said, she said.
[quote nyc94]I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.[/quote]
You're probably right; [Q]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life[/Q] is really more misogyny and classism.
[quote jtwcornell91][quote nyc94]I'm not taking sides with anyone but I fail to see how this is blatant racism.[/quote]
You're probably right; [Q]Whoring and raising illegitimate kids is a tough life[/Q] is really more misogyny and classism.[/quote]
Not disagreeing with that.
http://www.wral.com/news/9343920/detail.html
She was turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party (as prostitutes are wont to do). Her partner at the Duke house said when first interviewed that the rape charges were a "crock". That lasted until she figured she could pry some money out of the situation by sustaining, or at least no longer denying, the accusing hooker's lies.
And all these continued lies and sordid behavior are a complete mystery and so surprising to many here who simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that character matters (and is predictive).
Of course now the liberals will again ring down charges of racism, classism, misogyny and god knows what else for simply stating facts that annoy their own prejudiced fantasies. And will engage their favorite pastime of ad hominem attacks when confronted with inconvenient facts.
It gets more degrading all the time. According to a photo caption in the story Ken so kindly linked for us, while in court, the performance partner of the accuser ... "stuck out her tongue and made an obscene gesture at a television camera." What uncivilized people the Duke athletes had the misfortune to retain. Fortunately for those of us of a gentler disposition, the story didn't go into detail about the nature of the obscene gesture.
Interesting. From which part of that article did you gather that she had been "turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party"?
As much as this is the accuser's fault if the accusation is indeed false, this could perhaps all have been avoided had the police not withheld the second dancer's statement.
I wonder what race and economic background they're from?
Beeeej
[quote Ken'70]Of course now the liberals will again ring down charges of racism, classism, misogyny and god knows what else for simply stating facts that annoy their own prejudiced fantasies. And will engage their favorite pastime of ad hominem attacks when confronted with inconvenient facts.[/quote]I fail to see how you can be this obtuse.
The more recent facts that have come out indicate more and more that the accuser is lying. This would be very difficult to dispute (though pointing out that this information was in the defendants' court submission is one reason to perhaps not consider it 100% accurate) - so nobody is disputing it, though you seem to believe that other people are.
What so galled people at the beginning were your grotesque biases. What continues to gall them, is that because your wild-assed guess that the accuser was a lying prostitute (simply because she was a dancer) turned out to probably be right, you seem to believe that all of your disgusting biases are now confirmed.
Nobody should be proud if they assumed that the players were guilty but your repeated "victory laps" mark you as pretty douchey.
[quote Beeeej]Interesting. From which part of that article did you gather that she had been "turning tricks immediately before going to the Duke party"?[/quote]
Presumably "had a function at a hotel room with a couple where she performed using a [sexual device], which clearly could have caused signs or symptoms of vaginal penetration." However, assuming that the redacted word is "dildo", that's certainly not what one usually means by "turning tricks".
If you're disgusted with a corrupt DA pandering to a maleable constituency by persecuting demonstrably innocent people you can write to the North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, requesting an special prosecutor.
See http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/ for a sample letter to use in whole or simply to get you started.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/450867.html
So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?
[quote nyc94]So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?[/quote]
Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?
[quote Chris '03][quote nyc94]So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?[/quote]
Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?[/quote]
From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.
[quote nyc94][quote Chris '03][quote nyc94]So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?[/quote]
Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?[/quote]
From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.[/quote]
I agree completely. The whole thing reeks of a DA doing anything to get elected again. But from a journalistic point if view it would have been nice to hear the other side of the story from someone.
[quote Chris '03][quote nyc94][quote Chris '03][quote nyc94]So, who watched 60 Minutes tonight?[/quote]
Who didn't think it was incredibly one-sided?[/quote]
From a strictly legal standpoint this thing is incredibly one-sided. I can't believe they got an indictment with that lineup procedure and should those guys get convicted in Durham they'll win their appeal.[/quote]
I agree completely. The whole thing reeks of a DA doing anything to get elected again. But from a journalistic point if view it would have been nice to hear the other side of the story from someone.[/quote]
I'm guessing very few people wanted to be on the record supporting a sinking ship.
Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236362,00.html)), the DA has dropped the rape charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse). Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.
I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237608,00.html) in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.
[quote ugarte]Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236362,00.html)), the DA has dropped the rape charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse). Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.
I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237608,00.html) in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.
AP Bar presses charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse_ethics)
At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.
[quote WillR][quote ugarte]Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236362,00.html)), the DA has dropped the rape charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse). Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.
I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237608,00.html) in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.
AP Bar presses charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse_ethics)
At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).
[quote Beeeej][quote WillR][quote ugarte]Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236362,00.html)), the DA has dropped the rape charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse). Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.
I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237608,00.html) in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.
AP Bar presses charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse_ethics)
At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).[/quote]
Ah thanks, i see.
Is there any reason then that the defense would not bring such a charge forward at this time? Assuming money is no object, i would imagine it would make the DA's job even more difficult to hold together this prosecution and to begin working in some way on his own defense for malicious prosecution.
-WillR
[quote WillR][quote Beeeej][quote WillR][quote ugarte]Not surprisingly (in light of the DNA test results (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236362,00.html)), the DA has dropped the rape charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse). Surprisingly, he has the cojones to keep other charges live as the alleged victim now claims that she "can not recall if she was penetrated or not." Good luck with that prosecution, pal.
I don't know what the standards are for malicious prosecution (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237608,00.html) in North Carolina but Nifong should make sure that he is adequately insured.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution or not, some justice seems to be heading his way. The NC Bar has filed charges against Nifong. The report didn't say malicious prosecution but it did say the charges were ethics related.
AP Bar presses charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse_ethics)
At this point- based on the lineup alone- he should just appologize, resign and then join in OJ simpsons search for the real killers.[/quote]
Malicious prosecution is a private cause of action, not an ethics or criminal charge. It would have to be brought by the defendant(s).[/quote]
Ah thanks, i see.
Is there any reason then that the defense would not bring such a charge forward at this time? Assuming money is no object, i would imagine it would make the DA's job even more difficult to hold together this prosecution and to begin working in some way on his own defense for malicious prosecution.[/quote]First win your defense, then you sue for malicious prosecution. Victory in court is, in practical terms, a condition precedent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3F4uRoWnxQ&eurl=
[quote Ken '70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3F4uRoWnxQ&eurl=[/quote]I am very reluctant to click ...
[quote ugarte][quote Ken '70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3F4uRoWnxQ&eurl=[/quote]I am very reluctant to click ...[/quote]Totally work safe. It's a clip of Mary Catherine Ham of Townhall.com talking about the Duke case in her usual style.
[quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote Ken '70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3F4uRoWnxQ&eurl=[/quote]I am very reluctant to click ...[/quote]Totally work safe. It's a clip of Mary Catherine Ham of Townhall.com talking about the Duke case in her usual style.[/quote]Work safe isn't what I was worried about.
Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=ArdLjXUcV_d8YG5.vwqOc2k5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns
[quote nyc94]Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=ArdLjXUcV_d8YG5.vwqOc2k5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns[/quote]Two? Why only two? Was the third the one who transferred to Hofstra to play under his father (or something like that)?
[quote ugarte][quote nyc94]Duke University says it has invited 2 lacrosse players back to school
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=ArdLjXUcV_d8YG5.vwqOc2k5nYcB?slug=ap-dukelacrosse&prov=ap&type=lgns[/quote]Two? Why only two? Was the third the one who transferred to Hofstra to play under his father (or something like that)?[/quote]
The third player graduated just before he was charged. I think you're thinking of an incoming freshman released from his commitment...but I'm really not inclined to track down why I think that :)
I think one was a senior, and may have had enough to graduate before he was suspended.
Today's news is Nifong has asked the state to take over the case so he can focus on the ethics charges he is facing over his handling of it.
Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.
[quote Chris 02]Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.[/quote]
But the team just lost to Cornell again! Who knows what those kids are going to do this time.
[quote ugarte][quote Chris 02]Looks like all the charges are being dropped in the next day or so.[/quote]
But the team just lost to Cornell again! Who knows what those kids are going to do this time.[/quote]
They could always try growing up. The legal problems may be behind them. But they were never charged by the DA with boorish behavior, not being gentlemen, and acting as out-of-control privileged jocks with a plantation mentality. On those charges they may be guilty, guilty, guilty. Coach K never would have allowed it, and with the spotlight on Duke hoops, even if he wanted to, which he didn't, it wouldn't have been possible. The three who got charged paid too high a price. The others who lost a season? Hard to say. Sometimes, as the poster says at Despair (http://www.despair.com), The Purpose of Your Life is to Serve as a Warning to Others.
ESPN reports that it's all over but the disbarrment (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2832824). You know it is a poorly conceived prosecution when the only charges pending are against the DA.
EDIT: The title of this thread is so understated in light of what follows.
[quote ugarte]ESPN reports that it's all over but the disbarrment (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2832824). You know it is a poorly conceived prosecution when the only charges pending are against the DA.
EDIT: The title of this thread is so understated in light of what follows.[/quote]
Right: Al should've given more thought to the immortality of his thread. Maybe "Nappy-headed dancers accuse Duke laxers; DA salivates at opportunity"? Wait, wrong medium. And perhaps Safire on Language can enlighten us as to the etymology of the term.
Better not hold our breath waiting for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to apologize to the Duke players for jumping all over them.
[quote cth95]Better not hold our breath waiting for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to apologize to the Duke players for jumping all over them.[/quote]
...or the Duke faculty group of 78 (or whatever it was) or the Duke administration or any person or group where reality is determined by ideology rather than facts.
[quote Ken70]any person or group where reality is determined by ideology rather than facts.[/quote]
...and who didn't get lucky by having the facts happen to fall in line with his prejudices.
[quote Ken70]any person or group where reality is determined by ideology rather than facts.[/quote]
Isn't this the definition of the word "truthiness?"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Colbert-truthiness.jpg)
[quote Stephen Colbert]It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty...What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?
Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.[/quote]
[quote jtwcornell91][quote Ken70]any person or group where reality is determined by ideology rather than facts.[/quote]
...and who didn't get lucky by having the facts happen to fall in line with his prejudices.[/quote]
Well, it is pretty rare to see so many people disappointed that a woman wasn't raped.
http://laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=7062
The author definitely has a flair for the dramatic but the 5th paragraph amuses me the most:
QuoteMost of the Ivy League despise the thought that Duke is trying to be something it's not: one of them. In the Ivies' minds, Duke is a poser, striving to emulate an image Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, and the University of Pennsylvania spent centuries developing.
I think its one of the few lists of Ivy League schools that includes Cornell while also leaving out Princeton in exchange for Stanford.
That's hilarious.
Quote from: Don YeagerIt was a postcard-perfect Monday afternoon in North Carolina on March 13, 2006. A brilliant sun was accompanied by temperatures in the mid seventies. The campus of Duke University was peaceful and relatively empty with the arrival of spring break. Dukies, with the exception of athletic teams in season such as men's lacrosse, welcomed the reprieve. The city of Durham, meanwhile, embraced a new work week. Durhamites savored the crisp, clean air as they scurried around town and tackled their to-do lists. Little did they know the perfect storm had started to churn on the horizon.
The Perfect Storm?
Yes, that's exactly what would occur. Not a drop of rain would fall in Durham over the next twelve hours, but an extraordinary combination of events would devastate a prestigious university and a proud city, changing many lives forever. Not rain, not snow, not wind would cause this massive destruction.
The elements that produced this perfect storm were in a powder keg, just waiting to be ignited. That powder keg, located in the living room at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard, was packed with the politics of privilege, race, sex, and money. As the alcohol flowed, and music filled the air, the fuse was lit.
There was an explosion around midnight.
No, that's hilarious.
If you buy one instabook this year, make it "It's Not About the Truth."
I'll bite. You made this up, or it's the real intro to Duke Lacrosse: Now the Truth Can Be Told? If the latter, can real books be entered into the Bulwer-Lytton (http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/) Fiction Contest?