Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Rape accusation against Duke lacrosse team

Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8(9)10 11

15:21 / 13.10.06

And so trial by media rumbles on.

I have to say that women or men do not develop a flashing light on their forehead after suffering sexual attacks. I lived with someone during a period before and after they experienced an attack and to this day I can not believe I didn't spot it. But I didn't. If a victim is feeling ambivalent about the attack, which I imagine is often the case in the first few days, then there is even less chance they will let thier guard slip.

23:58 / 15.10.06

While that might be true, given the new 60 Minutes interview where the accuser's stripping partner disputed a great deal of her testimony I think the woman was probably lying.

All Acting Regiment

09:47 / 16.10.06

Yes Slim, she was obviously lying:

But in a "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast this Sunday on CBS, Roberts dropped a bombshell: She no longer supports the alleged victim's story.

"Did she give you any reason to believe that she had been assaulted?" Ed Bradley asked Roberts.

"No," Roberts said. "She obviously wasn't hurt, because, you know, she was fine."

Because, you know, she was fine. For fuck's sake.

22:21 / 17.10.06

DNA update:

"The second round of DNA test results in the Duke University rape investigation show "no conclusive match'' to any lacrosse players, defense attorneys said, but a vaginal swab of the alleged rape victim produced DNA from a "single male source'' — a man not on the lacrosse team who did not attend a March 13 party that was the site of the alleged rape."

also

"On Thursday, ABC News reported that prosecutors believe they have DNA evidence that could link a third player to the alleged attack.

Sources close to the investigation did not claim the material under the plastic fingernail was a conclusive match — only that it would be "helpful'' to the prosecution. The player whose genetic material was found under the fake fingernail is the same player who was identified in a photo lineup by the alleged victim with "90 percent" certainty, sources said."

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:47 / 18.10.06

I have no experience of these things but it seems to me to be taking an extraordinary long time to get to court. Is this true or is this how long things take in the US these days?

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

14:33 / 19.10.06

Once the media gets involved these things can take a really long time. I think even longer when there is DNA evidence involved, because everyone is working under the watchful eye of the news, so they do things slowly so as not to screw up.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:24 / 22.12.06

D.A. drops rape charges against students, charges of kidnapping and sexual offenses still standing.

Joseph Cheshire and attorneys for the other players have said for months the woman told several different versions of the alleged assault.

Cheshire said Friday that the accuser now says she does not know if she was penetrated, which he said led District Attorney Mike Nifong to dismiss the rape charges.

23:40 / 02.02.07

So they did it? They didn't do it? They did it but nobody can prove it? I'm thinking how incredibly unjust and horrible it would be to be innocent and to have the hounds baying for your blood on the word of a very unreliable witness.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

15:05 / 03.02.07

All signs point to "they didn't do it." The prosecutor is facing ethics charges. The DNA evidence doesn't match any of the players.

So, yes, it is terrible. Everyone vilified these kids as some sort of monsters, and they seem to be just a bunch of dumb college kids after all. Their reputations are pretty much fucked, their own school president decided they were guilty before the trial was over... Yes. It sucks.

17:39 / 03.02.07

And next time someone is actually gang-raped by a bunch of frat boys, people will remember this and be skeptical.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

16:29 / 04.02.07

Thanks for uncovering the real tragedy here, diz.

Those frat boys, always raping people.

Jesus christ.

18:49 / 04.02.07

I don't think diz was implying that all fratboys are innately, incurably, serial rapists, just that, if it does happen after this, it might make someone's genuine case harder to get through to a jury. Just like when an accusation of single-rape is proven false it can harm genuine court cases that come after it.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

00:47 / 05.02.07

Really? So if someone was unjustly accused of committing a crime and acquitted, it would make it more difficult to prosecute people in similar cases that actually did commit a crime?

And I always thought it was based on facts. Gosh, silly me.

00:57 / 05.02.07

And I always thought it was based on facts. Gosh, silly me
That part is pretty silly. Juries are obviously made up of very imperfect humans and are subject to really stupid biases sometimes.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

01:01 / 05.02.07

Yes, that is true, but there is an extensive jury selection process that tries to weed out people who have a personal stake in the outcome.

I still think the idea that these kids being proven innocent somehow undermines legitimate future rape cases is absurd.

01:14 / 05.02.07

Yes, that is true, but there is an extensive jury selection process that tries to weed out people who have a personal stake in the outcome.

In theory, but it doesn't actually work, though. It's not so much about weeding out people with conflicts of interest but rather about the prosecution and defense trying to bias the jury in their favor.

I still think the idea that these kids being proven innocent somehow undermines legitimate future rape cases is absurd.

No, no, no. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that the woman making the apparently false accusation undermined the cases of people in the future making true accusations, and the prosecutor's highly unethical behavior compounded that.

Of course they should be acquitted, and that acquittal in no way undermines legitimate rape cases. They didn't do it, and it's as simple as that. What undermines the legitimate rape cases is the behavior of the alleged victim and that of the prosecutor.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

01:25 / 05.02.07

I just don't agree. It's a solitary incident, and I don't see it impacting anything but the futures of those involved. I mean, I fucking wish Nixon getting impeached would make it easier to impeach fuckstick Bush, but it just doesn't matter. There's no correlation.

01:35 / 05.02.07

Actually, rape is well known to have an anomalously low conviction rate. One could argue about the causes of this, but it is fairly frequently argued that negative preconceptions about women - that there are lots of loose, lying women - is a key factor. Actually, it is fairly hard to deny that sexism doesn't play a role here, and so a high profile case in which the woman has been (presumably) proven to be dishonest is exceptionally bad for those who are concerned about the issue. That isn't to say that the men shouldn't have got off (I confess I haven't followed it closely, so I'm just assuming that they are essentially innocent of rape) but the additional effects could well be unfortunate. This isn't particularly controversial, is it?

Jake, Colossus of Clout

01:44 / 05.02.07

Actually, it is.

They aren't "essentially" innocent, they are innocent. The accuser isn't "presumed" to be lying, she was lying.

Are you saying that these kids being proven innocent is going to let someone guilty get off in the future?

02:34 / 05.02.07

"Essentially innocent" and "presumably lying" are about the fact that (as I understand it) the charges relating to kidnapping and sexual assault still stand. Like I said, I don't know the details of the case, so I'm hesitating to adopt an unequivocal tone.

Can I say for certainty that someone guilty is likely to be set free in the future because of this? I obviously can't be specific, but is it really that hard to accept that a high profile rape case which has collapsed may add to the prejudices people have about the status of women in rape cases? It could be a cause for concern - given, as I said, the well known problems in rape prosecutions - even while we are all happy that the innocent are acquitted.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

02:49 / 05.02.07

is it really that hard to accept that a high profile rape case which has collapsed may add to the prejudices people have about the status of women in rape cases?

Who are "people?" If they aren't in the jury, then what do they have to do with anything? Idiots will draw their own conclusions, as always, and I sincerely doubt that this case will influence anyone one way or the other.

05:40 / 05.02.07

Juries do not exist in a sociocultural vacuum. They're made of people who live in the world, consume the media and therefore may have the same subtle biases as everyone else (and are not necessarily "idiots").

06:15 / 05.02.07

Are you saying that these kids being proven innocent is going to let someone guilty get off in the future?

For the second time, no, I'm not. I'm saying that Ms. Mangum's lies and Mr. Nifong's misconduct very well might.

As has been noted, many people are inclined to believe that actual victims of actual rapes are lying harpies/sluts trying to drag down innocent clean-living young men. This is especially true when the accused are clean-cut affluent white men and the accusers are on the wrong side of a race or class divide with them. There is a broad cultural tendency to spin events so that rapists are made to seem like victims.

I'm saying it's really goddamn unfortunate that Ms. Mangum chose to fabricate a story which became a cause celebre. The actual events of the Duke 2006 rape case essentially fit the nightmare scenario of malicious wrongful accusation that virtually every defense lawyer tries to evoke in virtually every rape case, and even before these events, they succeed more often than they probably should. When the nightmare scenario actually happens, it gives the whole idea more cultural credibility, which, overall, I would argue is detrimental to the cause of successfully convicting actual rapists in the future.

It's not a terribly complicated thing that I'm trying to say. I'm not really sure what I could be saying differently that would be more clear to you.

Disco is My Class War

13:18 / 05.02.07

Hang on a minute. So the rape charges have been dropped, but sexual charges, and the charge of kidnapping, still stand.

I'm assuming the other charges are still being pursued because the prosecutors think there's enough evidence to get a guilty verdict. Heaps of rape charges aren't prosecuted because of a lack of DNA evidence and plaintiffs having their credibility razed because their testimony isn't consistent. The difference between a rape charge and a sexual assault charge can rest on incredibly tiny technicalities. No-one has suggested that Mangum was lying about every detail of her story. And often ethics charges like the one the prosecutor is facing are put up as a way to decrease the credibility of the whole case -- by the best high-class lawyers those Duke students' Daddies can afford.

So, in what universe can anyone claim that these 'kids' are innocent? Wait until the outcome of the trials. People who trumpet 'innocent!' now are basically implying that kidnapping and sexual assault are both less serious, and thus don't matter. I find this rather frightening.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

13:54 / 05.02.07

Jake, Death to Flying Things They aren't "essentially" innocent, they are innocent. The accuser isn't "presumed" to be lying, she was lying.

The first is true, the second, not so much. As she has not been put on trial for lying, she has not lied, however, as she has changed her story several times people called Jake might like to 'presume' that she lied when she said she was raped. As she has changed her story and the DA has decided not to prosecute, he has decided she is to unreliable a witness to be relied upon in seeking a conviction.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:34 / 05.02.07

Also, they have not been found innocent. A set of charges have been dropped. Other charges are ongoing. Whether the "kids" are innocent or not is not settled even in a legal sense. What one can say is that they are no longer facing charges of rape.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

23:16 / 05.02.07

I guess we may just have to agree to disagree and wait for this thing to shake out.

The fact that they're not being charged with rape makes me think that, y'know, they didn't rape anybody, but we'll see.

As for the prosecutor, he withheld evidence, for crying out loud. And he was charged by the state bar association, not "the best high-class lawyers those Duke students' Daddies can afford."

00:25 / 06.02.07

The fact that they're not being charged with rape makes me think that, y'know, they didn't rape anybody, but we'll see.

Actually, I've been looking into this, and apparently North Carolina defines rape rather narrowly as penetration of the vagina with a penis without consent. Any other form of sexual assault falls under "sexual offense," and those charges have not been dropped.

Technically, then, all we know now is that:

- The DA's office is no longer charging them with putting their penises inside her vagina.
- The DA's office is still charging them with other sexual offenses of a sort not made clear.
- District attorney Mike Nifong is off the case and is being charged with ethical violations because he withheld potential exculpatory evidence
- The other stripper is contradicting Ms. Mangum's story.
- DNA evidence does not back up key aspects of Ms. Mangum's story.

02:11 / 06.02.07

Don't forget that we also know that she changed multiple part of the story.

03:47 / 06.02.07

Yes, that's true. Her story has been inconsistent and has changed many times. Between that and the DNA evidence, she has serious credibility issues.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:43 / 06.02.07

Jake, Death to Flying ThingsI guess we may just have to agree to disagree and wait for this thing to shake out.

Well, it's always difficult to reach consensus when one side uses facts from the real world while the other makes reference only to the episodes of Saved by the Bell: The College Years running in their brain.

The fact that they're not being charged with rape makes me think that, y'know, they didn't rape anybody, but we'll see.

Maybe, if you hear this one more time it'll stick. The fact that they're not being charged with rape means that the prosecutor feels he cannot prove to a court that they did it. That fact has no connection to whether they did or did not rape the woman. They could have raped the woman, ensured that they all backed one another up that such a thing didn't happen, the woman may have gone home and initially decided to block out the event and be persuaded later by someone else to report it, she may have received threats or inducements to change her story or, yeah, sure, she may have consented to sex and later decided to accuse the fratboys of rape because hey, they're rich crackers, they've got money whereas she's just dirtpoor and black, she's bound to have more credibility than them.

You might want to read up on the Stephen Lawrence case before going on about how not being charged must equal innocent of the crime.

You may be right, but please don't make your case using sloppy logic. There are some sins that are just unforgiveable.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

18:33 / 06.02.07

No, you're right, if a bit needlessly acerbic.

I just get the impression that most people here think that the players are guilty already, when the case against them is shoddy at best, and has been extensively catalogued as such. I think someone way up the thread talked about beating them with a rubber hose, for crying out loud. They are, in fact, innocent until proven guilty, and, in following the case, I don't think the evidence against them is particularly convincing, at least at this juncture.

I just don't like the tone of this thread, and I was a little irrational. I'm hardly the only one, however, as this is a topic that tends to make tempers flare. You were barely civil, yourself.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

18:41 / 06.02.07

I may have been wrong about the rubber hose comment, I could have sworn that was in this thread but I couldn't find it. Sorry.

Oh, and browsing the early days of this thread is a terrifying experience. I'd forgotten about ShadowSax.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

19:08 / 06.02.07

I apologize in advance for the triple-post (how gauche, I know), but I found this story. Two of the members of the grand jury spoke to the press anonymously about the trial. One of them says that ze wouldn't have voted to indict them if he knew then what he knows now. It's not anything earth-shattering, but it's worth a read.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:45 / 07.02.07

"What do you mean you're not sure whether you got raped or not? That … didn't add up," said the second grand juror.

Oh... dear.

Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8(9)10 11