As to her own belated admissions ( she initially claimed that she had not had sex within a week prior to the Duke party) that she had sex with three men and had used vibrators in a sexual manner on the evening of the alleged attack prior to the arriving at the party, these would be relevent and admissible both as to the possible origin of the general swelling in her genital area as well as to her truthfulness, since she gave an inconsistant story on this issue in a previous account.

There isn’t as of 1998. The reported rape happened in 1993, before the statute of limitations changed (as far as I can tell) and at any rate, the men named in the report saying “I didn’t do it” would not prove that the earlier report was false. (And anyway, where would they testify? In the rape trial of the Duke lacrosse team members? In a perjury hearing? In a new rape case when the accuser declined to prosecute last century?)

The defense will probably appeal if there were a conviction, on all kinds of grounds.

The fact that the complainant had been part of trial that had returned a not guilty verdict before (after 2 mistrials because police officers had ‘accidentally’ entered non-admissable evidence during testimony) was considered evidence.

The legal history of the defendents was not.

Apparently, New Zealand rape laws were changed in 1993, and those changes were completely ground breaking, and included a bunch of feminist ideas. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have done much good. Which isn’t that surprising, given that the system is still run by and for the men in power.

Did you mean North Carolina?

[Whoops! Thanks for catching that. Correction made. --Amp]

And it seems to me that doesn’t matter if Mary Doe’s 1996 rape report is true or false. The only thing potential jury members will remember about it is that she has made rape accusations before. Folks will assume that because the previous report was not followed up on, it was false. And if they think that one is false, they will assume this one is false.

It breaks my heart to read about rape trials in the news. It is the only crime I know of where the victim is viewed as some kind of criminal no matter what they do.

I’m not at all surprised that there was no investiagtion given the fact that the incident was reported much later. I also read somewhere that the police felt there was no evidence to investigate. That could be wrong, but I think this is indicative of how these kinds of cases are treated by many in law in law enforcement.

Either way, charged with rape or free because of the time passed, this previous set of men will not freely admit guilt. If this accusation is ruled inadmissible, you can bet the defense will appeal this as high as they must.

Supporters of the victim must realize this and prepare now for a very long and trying journey.

It’s probably too late. The assault happened thirteen years ago, which may well put it past the statute of limitations.

And being gang-raped twice in ten years is, from what I’m able to tell, a bit like being in a major car accident twice in ten years - unlucky, but not impossibly so.

Wouldn’t gang-rape at 14 with the issue never legally prosecuted nor the perpetrators punished possibly be consistent with low self-esteem that might lead to risky behavior or involvement in the sex industry, thus actually increasing the danger of a subsequent assault?

As I wrote on RachelsTavern, the police should open this previous case and charge those men as well if that first allegation is true.

Freakin’ Yahweh on a pogo stick… I need aspirin. >: