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

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[RichH]

[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,

DNA 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

[Beeeej]

[quote RichH]I also heard one of the most bizarre quotes from this.  The D.A. said,

DNA 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.

[Jordan 04]

[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.

[DeltaOne81]

[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

[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.

[Jacob '06]

[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.

[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.

[Beeeej]

[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

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[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?[/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.

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.

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

[Ben Rockey 04]

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.

[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.

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).

[DeltaOne81]

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.

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.

[billhoward]

[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.