Duke to forfeit games to Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's

[billhoward]

[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.

[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.

[nyc94]

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.

[Pete Godenschwager]

[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.

[cth95]

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.

[CrazyLarry]

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.

[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::

[Jerseygirl]

[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.

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[Ken '70]

[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.

[Al DeFlorio]

[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::

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

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%.

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.

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.

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?

[nyc94]

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.

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[Jerseygirl]

[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.