Duke Case: Were I On The Jury, I’d Vote “Not Guilty”
| November 7th, 2006Reasonable doubt rears its head. From an article in The New Yorker:
It was also learned that the photo identification of the three players Nifong indicted was the result of a procedure so problematic that it may prove not to have been worth the effort. After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers. That process (which Osborn described as “a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers”) seems to have been a violation of the Durham Police Department’s own rules.
I don’t know what happened at the party. But I know the photo IDs are essential to the DA’s case against the three accused Lacrosse players. And this was clearly a bad ID. There are standard procedures for running IDs, designed to protect innocent people from being railroaded; these procedures were ignored, and the ID has no reliability. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how anyone - including those who are sure Mary Doe was raped - could be certain beyond reasonable doubt that these three men raped her.
I’ve said a few times in the past that although I think Mary Doe was raped at that party, I also recognize that I could be mistaken about that. And I continue to believe that many of the arguments supporting the “Mary Doe is a liar” case - that her initial statements to police were jumbled and incoherent, that she’s a stripper, and that she also reported being gang-raped many years ago, for three examples - are not only garbage, but are based in dangerous, harmful myths about rape. All of these complaints are variations of The Myth Of The Platonic Rape Victim - the idea we should imagine a perfect rape victim, and then ask if the complainant’s behavior and statements match what our imaginary perfect rape victim would have done and said. The Platonic Rape Victim’s statements are never incoherent, contradictory or inaccurate; the Platonic Rape Victim is not raped twice in one lifetime; the Platonic Rape Victim is certainly not a stripper!
On the other hand, some of the new evidence - in particular, the recent public statements of the other stripper, essentially accusing Mary Doe of making the whole thing up - seems to be to provide much more substantial reason for doubt.
I stand by most of my past posts on this subject. But I no longer believe Mary Doe was raped that night. (Nor do I believe she wasn’t raped. I’m now an agnostic on this question.)
There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?” I don’t know the answer to the first question. But - especially in light of the bad ID - I think the answer to the second question is “no.”
November 7th, 2006 at 1:39 am
I can almost see the next post at the Margins: “Ampgate 2: Barry disbelieves a rape victim”.
My view on this hasn’t changed since the start. In broad terms I have felt the prosecution narrative was more plausible than the defence narrative. That doesn’t mean that took any view on which (if either) would stand up to evidence based scrutiny. Nor have I been willing to undertake that scrutiny, given that the evidence arrives at our table so refined and processed by the media and the various actors in the case, that it would seem to bear as much resemblance to the raw evidence as a pork pie does to a pig.
I will say one thing though. It will be a shame if the case collapses due to police and prosecution procedural failures.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 6:22 am
I don’t know how I’d vote if I were on the jury, since I haven’t seen and heard all the evidence. The actual evidence may be (almost certainly is) different from what’s been reported in the media. If the only solid evidence is the ID, though, I couldn’t vote to convict.
Echoing Daran: gutsy move, posting this, Amp. I applaud you.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 6:54 am
You might also be interested to know, vis a vis the reliability of the ID, that the alleged victim actually identified another lacrosse player, never indicted, as one of her assailants–but because he was known by the police not to have been in Durham on the night of the party, they encouraged her to continue identifying other players until she had named three additional ones. Transcripts of the ID session that have been posted on the web indicate this.
This comment was written by MC.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Was that woman raped? Maybe, maybe not. Was she raped by Duke lacrosse players? Maybe, maybe not. Was she raped by the Duke lacrosse players she ID’d? Maybe, maybe not. Can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she wsa raped by the Duke lacrosse players she ID’d?
No.
It doesn’t look like it at all. In fact, it’s starting to look more and more like those 3 Duke lacrosse players and the woman were all played by the Durham police and an ambitious up-for-reelection prosecutor.
If this plays out the way it looks like it’s headed, the accused three Duke lacrosse players were cheated out of a good chunk of their lives that they didn’t deserve to lose. And, more importantly, the woman involved was cheated out of an honest chance to achieve justice for any crimes that may have been committed against her (a question that’s still open regardless of the future of this particular case), perhaps permanently.
Thanks for the update, Amp. Even if just on that basis alone (and not your expressed opinion on the matter), well done.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 9:12 am
You’re quite right about the myth of the platonic rape victim, too. I hadn’t thought about it much, but in reading your exposition on the matter I see your point.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
The lineup has been known to be faulty since almost the day it happened.
There haven’t been that many recent new developments until recently.
What makes the other witness’ statements so compelling that you would reject the lineup now, but not earlier? What made you think reasonable doubt existed earlier, but not now?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I didn’t express myself very well. In broad terms, I have felt that the narrative which says “the complainant was raped at the party” was more plausible than the narrative which says “nothing significant was done to her at the party”. I probably shouldn’t have described these as prosecution and defence narratives, since I have never considered the narative which says “these defendents did not rape the complainant” to be implausible.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
On the ABC interview by Kim Roberts, her bombshell wasn’t quite what it was advertised to be if you read the transcript where she described the alleged victim’s actions and words while in the car.
Ms. Roberts states that the alleged victim was clearly impaired when she got in the car and was unresponsive with her head down by the time Ms. Roberts pushed and prodded her to get out of the car. Interpretting the alleged victim’s words in response to being shoved as plotting to fake evidence is contradictory to the description of the alleged victim as impaired, acting crazy, unresponsive, etc. The non-responsiveness of the alleged victim is supported by the security guard’s description.
While there are challenges in this case, I think it is problematic to judge the merits of the entire case using the information which has been given to the media.
Also don’t forget the taxi driver who was quoted as overhearing a couple of the players outside the house speculating about whether she would go to the cops and saying something like “she’s just a stripper.”
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
You will take a lot of flak for this Amp and it’s a brave move.
What is unfortunate is that you in this climate you need to be “brave” to not want to convict people without evidence, and that this willingness to require evidence for a conviction will be considered treasonous to others.
This comment was written by Soulhuntre.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
For the record, I’m not at all convinced that I’ll get much flak for this post, at all.
Marcella, thanks for the link, and good point.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
The real question on this day is whether or not Nifong has been using this case for political gain. Once the election is over, regardless if he wins or loses, the charges could very well be dropped within the next week.
This comment was written by me.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Oh, Amp will probably get flak from the usual suspects who think all rape victims are lying sluts who deserve it, but who cares?
After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers.
Assuming this is accurate–WTF could he have been thinking?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I have no idea if they are guilty or innocent.
But picture this: You are innocent and you go through what they have gone through up to this point.
I would get a pretty sour attitude towards society in general.
This comment was written by JG.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
There’s no question it’s accurate, and he was thinking “if I want to win this election, I have to convince the black people in Durham that I will prosecute crimes against black victims, even if the crimes don’t, technically, exist.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Horrible, I’m sure.
Just like it would be horrible if rape actually happened and in addition to that trauma, the victim has to endure being tarred with the label of a lying slut, who sought to ruin the lives of innocent boys out of pure malice.
I don’t know either whether it happened or not (I do think the evidence is too shoddy to to convict the accuseds, so they should “walk”), but I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how often people have tunnel vision of ignoring the sufferin of either falsely accused men, or women who really have been raped but have to endure the label of “false accuser” in addition to that.
I think both are pretty good reasons to get sour, I’d even say that the latter is probably worse (assuming there is no prison), as it is rape+loss of reputation, vs. loss of reputation, and in the end a just court decision.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Tuomas,
This comment was written by Rachel S..OMG, You and I are agreeing with each other. What? LOL!
Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Robert, I rather doubt that he believes the rape never happened. You misunderstand the mentality of a lot of prosecutors and police offers who pull this kind of thing. It’s not (for most of them) “Hehehehe, let’s persecute the innocent for political gain”, but “Well, we know they’re guilty. Why screw around with all this namby-pamby ACLU stuff? Let’s just get ‘im.”
I mean, you’re all for wiretaps. You should understand this.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 8:08 am
The funny thing for me here is that I had these guys pegged as not guilty from day one, and have become increasingly leaning toward ‘guilty’ as time goes on.
I generally don’t believe things that come from strippers with a history of odd behaviors - I’ll exclude the previous rape accusation, but getting drunk, stealing a car, going on a high speed chase, and trying to kill a copper would indicate to me that she’s a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Of course, as I’ve always said, there’s 2 vile, disgusting, predatory creatures on the college campus. Brad the Athlete and Chad the Frat Guy. Just as I’d bet that Mary Doe has a…’colorful’ background of similar incidents, I’d be more than willing to bet that our privileged athletic pals have a history of predatory behavior on women.
That being said, I’m a little disturbed by the fact that there has been nothing about anybody on the team, save for a homophobic fist fight inside of a DC bar. The Cop Gene(TM) says there’s something here. There has to be something here. We’re talking about a dozen white rich kids who get drunk and hire a black stripper. They ain’t boyscouts, that’s for sure.
So as this case has publicly fallen apart to the point where you’re crazy if you still believe a rape occurred I start thinking to myself: How in the hell did this get through a grand jury?
Nifong is apparently an incompetent boob - but even at that, it would be impossible for him to get the fact pattern (as we know it) through the indictment process. To me, that’s indicative that there is a case to be made here with facts that we don’t know.
In other words, the Duke Kiddy’s defense attorney is putting on one hellova show for us and we’re not quite wise to it yet.
This comment was written by dan l.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Rachel:
We must repent. The end is nigh!
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
The Cop Gene(TM) says there’s something here. We’re talking about a dozen white rich kids who get drunk and hire a black stripper. They ain’t boyscouts, that’s for sure.
Nope, it’s not the Boy Scouts. Unfortunately; we’d have a lot better attendance at Roundtable if I could hire strippers! But seriously; so far all that’s here is that a bunch of kids hired a stripper so they could hoot and holler and stare at live T & A. If you can get a couple of dozen people together, nobody has to be rich to raise up enough money to hire a stripper. Unless it’s your position that everyone on the Duke lacrosse team is rich, which I very much doubt. You may think this is immoral, but there’s nothing in hiring a stripper that says “felony”.
So as this case has publicly fallen apart to the point where you’re crazy if you still believe a rape occurred I start thinking to myself: How in the hell did this get through a grand jury?
I’ve been told that any reasonably competent D.A. can indict a ham sandwich. Obviously an exaggeration, but it’s my understanding that in a Grand Jury proceeding, the D. A. can exclude exculpatory evidence, with the exception of the defendant’s own testimony. That would seem to me to greatly enable the ability to get an indictment in a weak case.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
mythago, my guess is that Nifong is guilty of being so worried about getting re-elected that he saw what he wanted to see in this case instead of what was there.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
“I’ve been told that any reasonably competent D.A. can indict a ham sandwich. Obviously an exaggeration, but it’s my understanding that in a Grand Jury proceeding, the D. A. can exclude exculpatory evidence, with the exception of the defendant’s own testimony. ”
A ham sandwich is actually quite guilty looking if you think about it. Now someone who could indict a chicken salad…
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Robert, I rather doubt that he believes the rape never happened.
I also doubt that he believes that, which is why I didn’t say anything like that.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
“even if the crimes don’t, technically, exist”. You meant what?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Key word: technically. The rape may well have happened; Nifong knew that he couldn’t prove it. No proof, no crime, from a DA’s perspective. But that wasn’t politically acceptable in the immediate environment, so he was willing to gin up a phony ID in order to cover his political ass.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I bet Sam ‘n Ella could.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2006 at 8:09 am
The rape may well have happened; Nifong knew that he couldn’t prove it.
Nifong knew he couldn’t prove it before getting the results of DNA tests or interviewing witnesses?
More likely that he figured he had the guys, and the accuser simply needed a little nudge to identify them. This kind of rule-bending is why people later throw tantrums about “guilty criminals getting off on a technicality”–the technicality being prosecutorial or police misconduct. They knew these guys were guilty, right, so why should the bastards walk just because the victim was having trouble with the lineup?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Science tells us that no rape happened. After two sets of DNA tests, no DNA( semen, blood, seminal fluid, sweat, hair, skin cells, condom residue, or interaction of vagina vs anal contamination) were discovered on, in, or on her clothes. After a three man vaginal, anal, and oral rape that is an impossibility. Also the SANE Exam shows no marks of strangulation, no bruising, and three small non bleeding marks on her knee, and foot which were clearly visible as she danced.
While it is said that semen is not always detected in a rape, one cannot extrapolate that to mean in this case, as the accuser described it, we can explain the lack of forensic evidence to prove a rape happened. There is NO Forensic evidence to back up her claims. Add that to the remark that her fellow dancer said it was “Crock” and that she was with her for all but less than 5 minutes it is clear this was a false accusation.
Add the alibi with a Cab Driver, Cell phone, ATM. Food receipts, Dorm swipes that one charged with 100% surety was miles away this case is a travesty.
Remember your initial belief that a rape happened were based upon reports in the Press that the accuser was pretty beaten up and had injuries consistent with rape. Now those reports are false. A great Injustice has been done to three innocent young men.
As Dave Evans said you have been told a bunch of lies.
This comment was written by Marco2006.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Marco2006:
That’s true, but he could very well be one of the liars. The defendants will have a chance to challenge all of the evidence in criminal court and if as you claim, there is evidence proving the defendants’ innocence, they will will be found not guilty.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
One would hope so.
One would also hope that they would be acquitted if there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt.
But it seems to me to be rather strange to assume that juries only ever convict on the basis of evidence while complaining that they often acquit on the basis of prejudice. “Women don’t lie about rape” is just as much a prejudice as “women do lie about rape”, and it’s certainly not clear to me that a juror’s opinions are more likely to be informed by the latter than the former.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Daran, you are straying into generalities. Marco2006 claims that there is undeniable evidence of the defendants innocence. Since plenty of rape cases end in a not-guilty verdict, especially for defendants who can afford the best defense teams as is the case here — this case isn’t likely to end with guilty verdicts based on the idea that “women don’t lie about rape.”
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Right now I’m more interested in when this trial starts than when it ends. Any word on that? This story has completely fallen off the media’s radar screen, but there’s going to be a lot of buzz when (or maybe even if) this trial starts.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Everything that I’ve seen locally points to this trial beginning next Spring.
As to this:
My initial belief that a rape occurred was because 30+ men bought two women for the sole purpose of having those women perform sexually for them at an all-male party.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2006 at 10:38 am
And, following up on Q Grrl’s statement, the men who ordered the women used false names and a false story, and the men at the party intimidated both women enough that they made to leave only minutes after arriving, and that there are multiple reports of racial insults and sexual threats, and that as soon as the two women left the premises, the entire house full of people cleared out, and a few hours later one of those who had attended the party sent an email to the others which said “there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off”.
I find it possible to consider the innocence the three individuals indicted, without doubting that the victim was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for the info, Qgrrl. I’m perfectly willing to believe that this woman was raped. I’m even willing to believe that this woman was raped even if the act(s) did not generate the kind or amount of evidence that will support a guilty verdict in a court. But based on what I’ve heard I’ll have to wait until the trial to see if I actually will believe either of those statements.
My initial belief that a rape occurred was because 30+ men bought two women for the sole purpose of having those women perform sexually for them at an all-male party.
I would guess that the percentage of strippers who get hired to dance at a stag party or frat party or similar event who are then raped is very small. I say that to support the statement that just because someone hired a stripper or two for a party is no reason to assume that the strippers were raped.
And, following up on Q Grrl’s statement, the men who ordered the women used false names and a false story, and the men at the party intimidated both women enough that they made to leave only minutes after arriving, and that there are multiple reports of racial insults and sexual threats, and that as soon as the two women left the premises, the entire house full of people cleared out, and a few hours later one of those who had attended the party sent an email to the others which said “there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off”.
All of which is consistent with someone being raped. All of which is also consistent with a couple of strippers showing up at a party with a number of drunken college students, leaving because drunk fools were yelling racist insults, and then people leaving and lying about what happened because they smelled trouble a-brewing and didn’t want to get involved. Hey, I lived in a fraternity house when I was in college. It wasn’t exactly Animal House (MIT isn’t exactly Duke or Enormous State University), but I saw enough smart kids do stupid stuff when they were drunk. I’ve seen parties empty out because someone was stupid enough to scream insults at a cop when he drove by, and no one wanted to be around when the cop circled around at the end of the block and came back. Yeah, everything that you cite is consistent with what has been alleged, but there’s lots of other explanations.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
From the News Observer
Lacrosse Player Sues Duke
“DURHAM — A former Duke lacrosse player has filed a civil suit against Duke University and a professor, charging that the teacher unfairly gave him a failing grade after an escort service dancer said she was raped at a lacrosse team party.
An attorney for Kyle Dowd, who graduated from Duke last year, filed suit in Durham Superior Court on Thursday. Dowd and his parents, Patricia and Benjamin Dowd, are suing Duke and Kim Curtis, who is listed on Duke’s Web site as a visiting assistant professor in political science.
Curtis, who specializes in political and feminist theory, would not comment Thursday. Duke officials also declined to comment.
The suit said Dowd and another lacrosse player — neither of whom was charged in the sexual assault — were in Curtis’ “Politics and Literature” class last spring.
Before the scandal broke, the suit said, both players were passing the course. But after the rape case made news, both players failed the final assignment, the suit said, and Dowd’s final grade was an F. The players were the only ones to receive F’s, the suit said.”
FYI: the two accused students who have yet to graduate have been invited to return to Duke by the school administation as students in good standing; there’s a link to that story on the above page.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am
RonF, do you know if this lawsuit is alleging that the lacrosse players’ course work didn’t suffer and that it was only the grading that changed? Or are they alleging that Duke’s response to this case caused them to be unable to perform in this class and that by turning in something for their final assignment they should have gotten at least a D on that assignment?
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am
“RonF, do you know if this lawsuit is alleging that the lacrosse players’ course work didn’t suffer and that it was only the grading that changed? Or are they alleging that Duke’s response to this case caused them to be unable to perform in this class and that by turning in something for their final assignment they should have gotten at least a D on that assignment?”
The actual complaint can be found in many places on the Internet - you can read it yourself.
The professor flunked two students who were on the lacrosse team (she had also been very vocal about her dislike for the entire team). The problem was that based on the prior, midterm grades in the class, and based on the grading scheme announced at the beginning of class, the students (mathematically) couldn’t have flunked, even if they had failed the last exam. The fact that this “oversight” only happened to players on the lacrosse team was probably not a coincidence.
Pretty nasty stuff if true.
This comment was written by Vor.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Here’s a link to the lawsuit story.
Note that this professor was one of the leading lights in sponsoring an advertisement in the local paper supporting the complainant in this case and condemning the lacrosse team. Seems wrong to do that when two of the accused are in one of your classes.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I’m curious what her argument about the grade was.
I have found that students frequently don’t understand grading procedures in my class even though they are clearly written on the syllabus.
Being an academic it also seems unsual that someone would go through the court system like this. The typical process works like this. 1) The student appraoches the professor directly asking about the grade (There is no mention of that here.) 2)The student then goes to the department chair/dean or the faculty appeals board depending on the school (clearly this happened, and the student won an appeal for a D. Had he gone directly to the faculty member of chair it could have been changed there.)
I would suspect the lawsuit won’t go anywhere since a faculty board has already heard the case, and universities are allowed to create these procedures. What I find particularly interesting is that they don’t want the grade changed to A or B or C. They want the grade converted to Pass. My guess would be that they are asking for this to raise his GPA enough to graduate–I have seen this–students wanting to convert grades to pass fail after the fact so they have a high enough GPA to graduate.
If she did mark their grades down because they were on the team that’s pretty greazy, but I want to hear her side of the story and the faculty review board transcript. These kinds of situations are exactly why I try to save exams and grade sheets and enter grades into an online spread sheet as they are completed because students frequently want their grades changed. It’s becoming an epidemic.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Ok, I went and read the complaint. I’m not sure if the instructor graded by percentages or letters only, but if she graded by letters only then the student received two Cs and two Fs (all worth 25% each), which does equal a D. If she used %s then you would have to know the exact percents.
The report is a little misleading because this student missed an entire month of class, not just six random days. Per the instructions laid out in the university handbook cited in the complaint, he could have approached the academic dean and probably gotten his absences excused since he was in a very serious legal predicament. I personally would have excused some of those absences (although I’m am a little suspicious that he just happened to have to meet with his attorney every single time this class met for a month. From the perspective of a teacher, I probably would have tried to arrange something to give an incomplete or make up the work.). However, he did manage to turn in the final paper. I’m curious if the material for the final paper wasn’t very good since he hadn’t been to class for the last month (which is likely when that material was discussed).
Anyways, it is fairly clear that they F was not correct, but whether or not their are grounds to change the grade and give the guy $10,000 dollars is a different story.
BTW He was able to graduate on time according to the complaint, so my point about graduation is moot.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Oops, my bad $60,000
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:30 am
The complaint is here.
There’s a lot that’s missing about this case, such as the actual quality of the papers turned in by the two lacrosse players - were they drastically worse than the other 40 students’ papers (none of which got Fs)? Did Professor Curtis spell out attendance policies explicitly or comment on Dowd’s e-mailing her about the situation and his missing class?
This looks like an easy case to settle with a change of the grade to “Pass” and an apology (but only a token payment to the student and his parents).
If it *was* true that Curtis gave the two lacrosse players Fs out of spite because of the scandal, that’s misconduct on her part - she’s charged to grade work and grant credit with a modicum of impartiality. But if the students turned in papers that were pieces of crap (possible, due to the scandal being a distraction) the paper grades may have been justified.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I’m a bit surprised that the lawsuit has been discussed, but that the rape charges being dropped hasn’t. Hmmm ….
This is the NY Times coverage of the case which includes a number of bombshells, in my opinion, about the case, including problems with the DNA evidence.
Initially I believed the rape occured exactly as was described in the media. Three Duke lacrosse players, drunk at a frat party, raped the victim. When they started turning up with alibis, I thought that perhaps it was someone else on the team and that the victim simply failed to identify the correct three players, but that surely a rape had occured.
This quote from the DNA Witness Jolted Dynamic of Duke Case convinced me that there was no rape, by anyone, at the party.
Perhaps I was blind, or perhaps the lack of recent news in the media about the case made me miss the reports about the faulty police lineup, but at this point I believe the case is one of political opportunism on the part of DA Mike Nifong. Presented with a case that would help him win votes amongst women and minorities, Nifong, in my opinion, advanced a case which should have been dismissed soon after it began.
Forget the trial against the Duke players — if I were on the jury in the potential prosecutorial misconduct trial against Nifong, I’d vote “Guilty”.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
“Rachel S.”
You wrote this on your blog “Rachel’s Tavern”, some months ago:
“I encourage people to put up the story on their blogs, and put pressure on the University to investigate the team and level some sort of disciplinary actions, and of course this legal system also needs to do its part to put these men behind bars. I think one way people in the blogosphere may be able to help, in addition to agitating for the full force of the law to come down on these men, is by setting up some sort of fund to help this young woman pay for college (if anybody knows how this can be done). ”
http://www.rachelstavern.com
What was your basis for encouraging people to “agitate the full force of the law” against the lacrosse players?
Just curious.
This comment was written by Q1Checkride.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
We don’t know if other people got F’s on their papers, but we do have the attorney claiming that no one else received an F in the class.
Q1Checkride–I stand behind my statements.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Rachel S., if you had these two young men in a class of yours, would you think it proper for you to sign a statement such as the We are Listening statement that this professor signed? Remember that the activities of the protestors that this statement commends includes putting up posters around the Duke campus labelling these three young men as rapists.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
The professor who is named in the lawsuit participated in one of the earlier rallies, there is a photo of that. I saw one picture of some protestors rallying around 610 Buchanan with a banner that says “Castrate them.” All this before a single shred of evidence to indicate guilt of any of the 46 players was produced. Something tells me this lawsuit is the tip of a very big iceberg-one that could bankrupt the entire city of Durham and Duke(they’ll just raise tuition to compensate for that:)
If Nifong has to get a conviction here-there is no way for him to back out of this. Should be pretty interesting to watch this unfold.
This comment was written by Q1Checkride.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ron, I think the email was fine. The email itself is fairly neutral, and I don’t doubt that many students were upset by all of the problems on the campus at the time. It is not at all unusual for a professor to extend her or himself to the students in a time if crisis on campus.
I have done it myself, and I would do it again.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
RonF, I read the We Are Listening statement that you seem to find objectionable. What that statement shows is that activities which you denouce (wanted posters) are rooted in a pattern of negative treatment and a pattern of dismissal of those who complain about that negative behavior. Taking problems seriously and working to reduce the problem is IMO the best way to defuse vigilantism.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Abyss2hope, what I’m addressing here is that a) a group of students denouce a trio of people accused of a crime but not proven to have committed it by putting “wanted” posters up for them, and b) a professor who has two of those students in one of her classes comes out and publicly supports those protestors. Now, is that proper action by that professor or not?
Rachel S., the statement that I read seems neutral, but I’m considering it in the context above, wherein the actions of the protesting students were publically known to be uncritically accepting the accusations of the complainant. In that context, if you had the accused students in your class, would you publically support those actions?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
An awful lot of people posting here seem to not know about something called “discovery.” Defense lawyers, like Perry Mason of old, can drop unexpected evidence aboout the case at the time of trial. They are NOT required to tip their hands to the prosecution, other than giving a list of witnesses they wish to testify, and even then additions can be made later.
In contrast, the DA is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the defense with the evidence ahead of time. If you review the “discovery” you quickly find that Nifong has ….nothing. Worse than that, he CONSPIRED with the head of a lab to willfully CONCEAL evidence that OTHER MEN had sexual intercourse with this woman. This is on the basis of sworn testimony by his own witness.
So guys, not only is there no there there, when it comes to evidence to convict, NIFONG HIMSELF MAY WELL GO TO JAIL and will almost certainly be disbarred for perpetrating this little hoax.
This comment was written by George Hanshaw.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Snort.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Here is another prism to view this mess through:
Someone explain how Nifong is not guilty of perpetrating a racially motivated hate crime against (at least)three innocent people. If you are having trouble figuring out where I got “racially motivated hate crime”, just read the 17 page NC bar motion….
I’ll bet no one can.
This comment was written by Q1Checkride.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
George, you seem to be confusing discovery in civil cases with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Q1, you bet nobody can read 17 pages? It would help if you’d bothered to provide a link, or if you’d pointed out which of the (helpfully numbered) pages or paragraphs support your claims that Nifong acted out of racial animus. I assume that you’re going to reference Nifong’s statements about the accuser’s race, which is a rather odd way to suggest that Nifong hates whites….
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Q1checkride:
Innocent until proven guilty. A concept that many Duke supporters seem to believe in on a selective basis.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The cheerleaders on both sides have been taking a selective view of the presumption of innocence.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Yes.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence as to the guilt of the alleged perpetrators, you don’t put up posters calling them rapists, you don’t harass them, you don’t campaign against them publicly, you don’t post on your blog about how you think they’re all guilty. Period.
If you do this, you are not presuming innocence.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence for the accuser, you don’t call her a liar, you don’t speculate on how she was asking for it, you don’t engage in victim blaming or ‘all women are liars’ rhetoric, you don’t post on your blog about how the accuser made the whole thing up. Period.
If you do this, you are not presuming innocence.
If you do one of these but not the other, you are a hypocrite, a mere cheerleader for your side, and all of your ‘presumption of innocence’ rhetoric can be safely ignored.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of these people out there, on both sides of the issue.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Well, as has been pointed out in these threads, there’s a difference between presumption of innocence in a legal proceeding and holding an opinion. Legally, a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is not dissonant to say “There’s no way to prove this woman guilty of [x], but I’m convinced she did it.”
You can be convinced that Nifong is guilty of a hate crime without being able to prove such in a court of law. You can be convinced that these three guys sexually assaulted or raped this woman without being able to prove it in court. The question becomes what evidence or testimony backs up your opinion, or whether you are seeing what you want to see instead of what’s there. After these cases are disposed of, there will be people who will think (if someone is convicted) that the defendants were railroaded, and there will be people who will be convinced that the complainant was denied justice. I personally am in no rush to judgement, and I think that the progress of this case so far has shown the wisdom of that approach.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:19 am
*nod* Good point, Ron.
I guess I’ve got no problem, on some level, with debating the guilt or innocence of the accused . . . after all, if blog comment threads aren’t designed for offering half-formed opinions ons incomplete information, what is?
My problem is with folks who post about how the accuser is a money-grubbing liar, oh but for the love of god, we need to presume innocence for the accused. Or, on the other hand, posting about how the guys are rapists who you believe to be guilty guilty guilty, but don’t you dare suggest that the accuser is lying.
If you’re going to set a standard, set it.
If you’re not, don’t.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Yep. That’s why I’ve been advocating from the beginning, “Don’t presume that these guys committed a rape just because a woman accused them”, and “Don’t presume that this woman’s lying just because she’s a stripper”, both of which are positions taken by partisans of one hue or another.
Right now, the only injustice I’m sure happened was that various sanctions were taken against the Lacrosse team in general (and these 3 kids in particular) before anyone knew what had happened. No action should have been taken by the school before the legal proceedings had finished. We may find later that other offenses and injustices have taken place, but we don’t know. Yet.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
RonF, some actions should have been taken by the Duke administration regarding the lacrosse team since they were violating rules that night — and the ones under 21 who were drinking were violating the law. That’s true whether anyone at that party is guilty of sexual assault or not.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
What rules were they violating? (Not saying they weren’t, just asking.)
As for the alcohol, it’s not Duke’s job to enforce NC law.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Right, Abyss2hope, I’d forgotten about the underage drinking and such. Given that people had admitted that, the people involved would fairly be subject to any sanctions that Duke has regarding underage use of alcohol by students and student-athletes. I would presume that some kind of hearing would be required. That leads me to ask whether the sanctions that the team and the members thereof suffered were in line with the offenses they had admitted to under Duke’s administrative codes. I doubt that Duke tosses out every underage student caught drinking. And I’ll bet they don’t even have a rule against hiring strippers, especially since this was not on Duke property and it’s not against the law.
There may have been prior offenses, etc., but overall my guess is that the punishment that was accorded these three, and to the team as a whole (a goodly number of whom were nowhere near this event) was not because of underage drinking; it was due to a presumption of sexual assault and rape, a presumption that now seems to have been unfounded. I say the presumption was unfounded; it may yet prove that some kind of sexual assault actually happened, but it was and still is premature to presume that it happened.
Robert, I believe that it’s not unusual for a school to have rules that say, essentially, “If Student A has broken Law B, then student A is subject to the following sanctions, ….” Use of alcohol by underage students, and especially underage student-athletes, is commonly included in these. So is sexual assault, and felonies in general. But from what I’ve seen, these sanctions are not imposed until the offense has been adjudicated under the law first. It seems that the Duke administration caved in to public pressure and rushed to judgement. It seems that Duke now thinks so as well, since they have re-admitted the two students who had not yet graduated as students in good standing.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
RonF,
Here’s a link to the new Duke Lacrosse team standards that was part of reinstating the Duke lacrosse team. The decision to suspend the Duke lacrosse team definitely related to the lacrosse team’s history of discipline problems.
From the Duke lacrosse review:
This shows that the alleged gang rape was the last straw and not the first and only straw.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Should the past behavior of an alleged perp or an accuser be relevant when evaluating their treatment around an incident like this?
I do understand the ’straw that broke the camel’s back’ syndrome, but if it just ‘coincidentally’ turns out to be something that they’re accused of that there’s a huge media firestorm around, that makes me uncomfortable.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Myca, past behavior doesn’t and shouldn’t impact criminal charges, but many people are alleging that the suspending of the Duke lacrosse team was based solely on this one woman’s report of what happened to her. That’s simply not the case.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Well, let’s turn it around.
What if the accuser had been an employee of the college who publicly accused the lacrosse team of rape and was summarily fired by the college? Then, as her charges began to look more and more plausible, the college rehires her, while simultaneously releasing evidence that in the past she’d been cited for being late to work several times.
But, whatever their other justifications, she hadn’t been fired until she accused the team of rape.
Seriously, what would you think? I would think that she had a hell of a case for a lawsuit.
I find it implausible that these boys were expelled for some other reason, just as I would find it implausible that she’d been fired for some other reason. Let’s not be coy.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Myca, the question would be why she was not fired for extensive tardiness earlier, especially if other employees had been.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Well, yeah.
I mean, look, I’m torn on this.
Seeing a bunch of jocks get their comeuppance is something I’ve been hungering for for . . . golly . . . forever. And yeah, I don’t doubt that as star athletes, they’ve received special treatment galore, and something to offset that isn’t a bad thing.
On the other hand, it seems pretty plain to me that they weren’t expelled for drinking, wild parties, and generally being jock assholes (which they should have been), they were expelled because of the rape allegations, probably in part because they were prejudged thanks to the media firestorm (which they shouldn’t have been).
It’s like the line about O. J. Simpson about how they ‘framed a guilty man.’
It’s not the outcome I’ve got a problem with, it’s the idea that it’s cool to take action against someone based on something like that.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Sure. My point is that the issue is not only “were they treated unfairly?” but whether the unfair treatment was actually the withdrawal of special favors.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
*nod*
Okay, that seems reasonable.
If their ‘punishment’ for being accused of rape is that they don’t get to get away with all the crap they they likely got away with before, I’m not weeping for them.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I can live with that too. Suspension of extra-systemic privilege is an appropriate consequence of even a wild/unfounded allegation; “you guys got these perks when everyone loved you. you didn’t live in a way that kept everyone loving you, and now you don’t have the perks, either.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I actually think of it more like the administration suddenly thinking “Oh shit! Everyone’s watching! We need to mind our p’s and q’s and play everything 100% by the books.”
But yeah, one way or the other, no big deal.
Now, if the professor failed them unfairly over this, I think that actually is a big deal, but that’s a separate issue.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 7:31 am
If their ‘punishment’ for being accused of rape is that they don’t get to get away with all the crap they they likely got away with before, I’m not weeping for them.
They should be punished if they were rapists. They should be punished for breaking whatever rules or laws they broke, commensurate with the offense.
There shouldn’t be punishment for being accused of anything. And they shouldn’t be punished for being rapists if all they actually did was underage drinking and act like jock assholes.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Right . . . but they should be punished for underage drinking and act like jock assholes.
If they were able to break the rules with impunity before and now they’re not, that doesn’t bug me, because they shouldn’t have been able to do it in the first place.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:35 am
O.K., so then how many other Duke students have been expelled in the last few years for underage drinking and acting like jock assholes? If there have been some, fine. If not, then they’re not being dealt with in an equitable fashion.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Here’s someone not pleased with the readmission of the two accused students.
Duke Fallout Continues as Top Black Professor Resigns From Race Committee
“The decision by the university to readmit the students, especially just before a critical judicial decision on the case, is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship,” says Dr. Karla Holloway, the William R. Kenan Jr., Professor of English and Professor of Law at Duke. “I could no longer work in good faith with this breach of common trust.”
So, the decision to expel the students prior to any judicial decisions on the case was acceptable, but the decision to backtrack and wait until there was a judicial decision on the case before punishing the students is a breach of common trust?
I wonder what this professor would have thought if the tables were turned and three black male students had been expelled upon the accusation of rape by a white woman, prior to any trial or conviction? I obviously don’t know for a fact, but I suspect his reaction would have been different.
I flat don’t agree that those students should have been expelled before their case was heard in court and a judgement reached. I think Duke did the wrong thing, and that they tried to make up for it once they realized their error. I think the original expulsions were a breach of trust.
This is a difference between “innocent until proven guilty” and “I think they did it”: the administrators at Duke would have every right to believe as they chose, but as a corporation it was wrong of them to take the corporate action of expelling these students until they had been proven guilty. I think this professor is dead wrong, and if this is the kind of attitude she brings to issues of racism, then this committee is better off without her.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:57 am
It’s not Duke’s job, but it is their responsibility, on many levels, the least of which is Duke’s relationship with the communities surrounding it’s campuses. Duke has increasing pushed student drinking off campus, restricting student’s abilities to have kegs on campus and reducing the number of legitimate bars that are on campus. Duke is a wealthy, self-sustaining campus which offers students the opportunity to meet the majority of their day-to-day needs on campus. Their is a Chick-filet on campus. A McDonald’s. An Armadillo Grill. A barbershop, first class gyms, etc. Just about the only thing students cannot do on campus is drink in designated, legitimate areas.
The other thing that Duke refuses to do is to allocate land and housing to Greek organizations. They don’t want the liability.
So student’s grab up rentals that surround campus and party. And they do party. And Duke knows this. I lived across from the lacrosse “house” for 7+ years. Not the one on Buchanon, the blue house on Markham. Over the years, both Duke officials and specifically the former lacrosse coach were approached by town residents in an attempt to air grievances and to find a solution to the excessive partying, the subsequent trashing of the neighborhood, the public urination, the loss of parking, hell, the loss of sleep. Duke balked. Period. I personally was told by a Duke parent of a lacrosse player that if I didn’t like his son’s behavior, I should move! I was told in not so many words that his son’s one year tenancy in the lacrosse house was more important than my neighborhood, my service to Duke, etc.
Over the years, female undergraduate students developed a stealth system of alerting other females that sexual assualts had occurred at lacrosse parties or in the lacrosse house. The women would come in the middle of the night and toilet paper the trees - an act which is usually seen as a prank, so it flys below the radar, unless you know what the symbolic act means. I myself busted up a lacrosse party that was so large that the party goers could not fit in the house. They spilled out into Markham Ave., drinking in the street and drinking on the wall that surrounds East Campus. The cops were tired of coming to this house, and when I mentioned that there was underage drinking going on (evident by the sheer amount of students *walking* back to East Campus which houses all the first year students), the cops sent not one car, but six. They surrounded the house and blocked off both entrances. They let students out one-by-one. Two hours later, they had written 61 citations for underage drinking.
61.
That’s a hella lot illegal activity.
That was the lacrosse team.
And Duke’s response? Nada. Nothing. Zilch.
Shortly afterwards, maybe five months later, there was another party, same house. I called campus cops this time. They arrived - safely ensconced BEHIND the wall surrounding East Campus. I went over to talk to them, suggested that they do something, and as we watched students walk by us within 20 feet, with open beer cups, I mentioned that there was probably underage drinking.
The cop, doing ABSOLUTELY nothing, said, “Yup.”
So, when exactly are town residents supposed to assume the innocence of the lacrosse team? Of Duke students who party too much, too hard, and with illegal consumption by and serving of underage students? When Duke parents, Duke officials, the lacrosse coach, and team captains refuse to acknowledge what they are doing, when all of the above assume they have the privilege (and money) to live an Animal House fantasy, why does the onus fall on the community to ASSUME innocence? Everything these young men did, over many years, points directly away from innocence - and directly away from accountability, whether social or legal.
If Duke is going to attract these types of students, coddle them, push their illegal activities off into the community, it therefore has a huge fucking responsibility, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. Duke courted these young men, ensconced them in an atmosphere that told them they were mature young gods, looked the other way when trouble arose (which it frequently did), and then foisted the 1-2, if not 3 partys-per-week arrogance of these young men onto the town of Durham.
And you know, contrary to the outsiders here who might claim that Duke still doens’t have a responsibility in these matters — Duke finally got off its ass and has bought the majority of the large, five-bedroom, absentee landlord houses around East Campus to, guess what? - curb the activities of the students Duke origianlly pushed off campus. So, yeah, even Duke admits they have a certain responsibility. They even happend to have just bought the Buchanon house, maybe a month before the March 13th party. Unfortunately for them, the lacrosse team members had a binding lease on the property.
I’m betting that if the members didn’t have such a large house where they could live frat-style, if the house had been further from campus, the reaction of locals to this fiasco would not be such a rush to public judgement.
But as the saying goes: you sleep in the bed you make.
These young men are not, and were not, dewey eyed virgins. They were, and are, privileged, pamperd young men with a fairly long history (in Durham) of illegal activity, public nuisances, who purchased a woman for sexual titillation and provided alcohol to underage students on anything but a minor scale.
You would think, on those items alone, that Duke would be ashamed to call these students their own.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Given that information, Q Grrl, then yes; Duke should have done something a long time ago. My first thought is that consequences for underage drinking should have led up fairly quickly to game and season suspensions from the team and loss of athletic tuition waivers - not for the first offense, but fairly quickly. Duke does have a responsibility to the community it is part of.
My son lives in one of the lacrosse houses at his university. They have parties. “Squalor” would fairly describe the inside of the house. But the outside is reasonably well maintained and they don’t trash the neighborhood. Yes, they have parties, and I’d be stunned if there wasn’t underage drinking going on. But not to the extent of what you’re talking about, where there’s cars and people all over the streets, etc.
For one thing, the local cops make arrests when that kind of thing happens (you can read about it in the papers). For another, at this school the lacrosse team members don’t get athletic tuition waivers. Also, when you buy a keg in this town the buyer has to show their Drivers’ License. The liquor store records it, and if the cops come on a scene of underage drinking and find a keg, they trace it back to the purchaser and charge them for serving alcohol to underage people.
So, I’m not going to defend what these kids have done that you quote above. Duke has neglected their responsibilities. Bust the kids for the drinking and other such things. Bust Duke for abusing the community.
why does the onus fall on the community to ASSUME innocence?
I’m not going to ask you to assume they’re innocent. You are free to assume whatever you like. But we don’t punish people based on assumptions in the United States. What I’m saying is that before they have to suffer the legal consequences of having commited rape or sexual assault, it should have to be proved. Instances of underage drinking and spreading around trash and having loud parties and blocking the streets create an environment where I’d say sexual assault is more likely to occur, but it is not evidence of sexual assault.
Should repeated instances of underage drinking and breaches of the peace have led to warnings, fines, game suspensions, suspension from the team and other school sanctions, up to and including expulsion? Yes, proportional to the number and extent of the violations. That kind of behavior should be stopped, not encouraged or ignored. But to go from nothing to expulsion is an attempt by Duke to cover up their own sins by taking advantage of these particular students’ sins. The first time those kids are arrested for underage drinking, they should get the same punishment as anyone else gets for their first arrest for underage drinking. They shouldn’t get a punishment based on offenses that there’s no legal record of.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
The “TP” system is interesting. Do they TP other places where such things may have occurred? I imagine that there are “football houses” and “basketball houses”, etc. at Duke? Or is there something about the lacrosse culture at Duke that is different from the football or basketball or other teams’ cultures?
Is this the first time that anyone has filed sexual assault charges based on what’s happened to them at a lacrosse party? I realize that a lot of times, women don’t file complaints about such things because of the “he said/she said” issue or because of the way that women have often been treated when they try to bring such charges, but I’m wondering what the history is here.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
who purchased a woman for sexual titillation
Well, now, they purchased her services, not her, services she was free to sell or not, as she chose.
And frankly, when I was in college, there were a lot of virgins that had chipped in to hire a stripper or had stuck a dollar in her G-string at one point or another.
Yeah, I know, “dewy-eyed virgins” is a figure of speech. But I couldn’t resist. After all, the non-virgins have generally figured out how to convince someone to take their clothes off without having to pay cash. It’s the virgins that are more desperate.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I guess my problem is with the formulation that, “these guys were real assholes, look how they acted in the past, they’re probably guilty of rape.”
I have a problem with it because it seems a little too close to “that girl’s a real slut, look how she’s acted in the past, she’s probably lying.”
I’m not even saying that that’s what you’re saying, Q Grrl, it’s just that . . . if we’re going to evaluate how likely something is based on the character of the people involved, that when we get into all the slut shaming and victim blaming and evil crap like that that I’d rather avoid.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Well, but her “services” were her naked body. Unless you know a neato way of separating the person from the body, they purchased her.
Myca: I’m not buying your argument. I absolutely believe that prior criminal behavior is relevant to judging a person’s character. You’re acting as if these young men were raped and I’m holding them responsible based on their past forays into law breaking. What I’m saying is that these young men have a public record of ignoring boundaries, whether social or legal, and that I therefore believe it is fair to assume they would do so on a personal level.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
No, I’m acting as though they’ve been accused of an extraordinarily horrible crime and you’re assuming that they’re guilty based on their past history of common, widely committed crimes. The vast majority of people who engage in underage drinking do not rape.
And what I’m saying is that it does not follow, any more than ‘the accuser changed her story, therefore she’s making up the entire rape out of the whole cloth because she’s a money-grubbing liar’ follows.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I absolutely believe that prior criminal behavior is relevant to judging a person’s character.
Unless, of course, that prior criminal behavior is something you don’t think should be illegal, or is something you think that the criminal was forced into in some fashion, or…
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
DURHAM — A Washington, D.C., judge has cleared a misdemeanor assault conviction from the record of Collin Finnerty, a suspect in the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case.
This comment was written by just a lurker.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Robert: judging doesn’t mean that you always find a negative. Duh.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Well, but her “services” were her naked body. Unless you know a neato way of separating the person from the body, they purchased her.
Her services were to allow them to look at her naked body while she danced. If I purchase a car, I can do with it whatever I want within the law. If I hire a taxi, all I get to do is ride in it for a while. Getting to look at her naked body while she danced is a long ways from “purchased a woman”; what they got to do was very highly constrained, both in what they could do and how long they got to do it. I buy something, it’s mine, and I get to keep it. They didn’t get to keep her.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
RonF:
Unfortunately, for many people these two are seen as no different which puts many dancers at higher risk for sexual assault and is also why many dancers bring a bodyguard. If those who hire dancers aren’t used to respecting boundaries, the potential for violence goes up, especially when the customers are under the influence.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Abyss2hope, I’ve read the thread, I know the context, and I know that in a thread with the genders exactly reversed across the board, you would be livid.
I don’t (of course) think that rape is ‘especially bad’ for men. That’s awful. Denying that doesn’t have to involve the converse either.
Minimizing rape is minimizing rape, period. Many of these comments were not sarcastic. “Now they know how it feels” makes me fucking ill.
When we discuss why male sexual abuse victims feel uncomfortable with feminist discussion, it’s shit like this which you are currently laughing off that’s why.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Grr. Sorry, wrong thread. Amp, if you could delete that, I’d appreciate it. I’ll post the right place.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Unfortunately, for many people these two are seen as no different which puts many dancers at higher risk for sexual assault and is also why many dancers bring a bodyguard.
Yeah, drunks can get out of hand, which is why dancers bring along a bodyguard. But that still doesn’t add up to “hiring a stripper” = “purchasing a woman”.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
In that case, shouldn’t we be emphasising the difference, as Ron has, rather than using the inappropriate language of purchase, as Q Grrl has.
They hired her.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
After all, the non-virgins have generally figured out how to convince someone to take their clothes off without having to pay cash. It’s the virgins that are more desperate.
RonF, I know you were trying to be funny, but it doesn’t work that way.
It’s true that in a logical, absolute sense, they did not “purchase a woman”. It’s also true in a real-world sense that some men who hire a stripper think they bought her, that it’s OK for them to grope or rape because a) she deserves no better and b) they paid her money. That is, they bought her, rather than paying to be entertained by her dancing naked for a fixed period of time.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
This is true, and so very fucking depressing.
Guys, Daran, Ron, I understand your point, and I do think that there’s something to be made of the distinction, and maintaining that paying for a stripper =/= buying a woman . . . but Mythago’s point is well taken.
Although it’s not the same thing there are plenty of people who think of it as being the same thing, and not forgetting that mindset is important.
Actually, I think that that’s an element of male privilege . . . we can afford to forget that that mindset exists.
Goddammit, that’s awful.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Mythago:
This belief is reinforced every time people react to a stripper’s report of sexual assault with the statement that she couldn’t have been raped, she’s a stripper. It’s also reinforced every time stripper and whore are used interchangably.
RonF, the way strippers are treated isn’t linked to the man’s sexual desperation. Demeaning treatment comes from disdain not desire.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 7:25 am
It’s also true in a real-world sense that some men who hire a stripper think they bought her, that it’s OK for them to grope or rape because a) she deserves no better and b) they paid her money. That is, they bought her, rather than paying to be entertained by her dancing naked for a fixed period of time.
If that’s true, I’d say that it applies to damn few men. And in this particular case, so far we have no proof that it applies to the young men involved. I make no pre-judgement, though, and accept the possibility that it could turn out that way. I’m waiting to see what happens if and when the remaining charges come into court.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 7:27 am
And of course, the other half of the disdain nutshell for strippers is that their testimony, especially about rape, is *automatically* unreliable, because they are, you know, um, strippers.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Guys, face it. When a man purchases a woman’s “services” to the end of his own, personal, sexual titillation or release, he has indeed purchased a woman. You can fall all over yourselves to try to minimize the dehumanization of this type of financial transaction, but the bottom line is that men buy women for all sorts or reasons, but never want to name what they’re doing. You purchase a ticket to go see a movie; you purchase a woman if you want to be sexually aroused. You cannot separate the “services” of a stripper from her body, from the very concrete, biological essence that she is. And indeed, that is why she is bought - to reduce a woman of all individuality, to reduce a female body into a form of entertainment or sexual release, to reduce the sexuality of women into something that can be purchased, manipulated, switched on and off like a TV, to focus it narrowly into the confines of male masturbatory release.
And that’s why these two strippers left in the first place. Because the men did forget that there were women behind the sexual display. They offered to sodomize the women with a broomstick. They thought they had every right and every moral imperative to do so. If all they had bought was a strip tease, they would not have thought to make the dance explicit in it’s sexual function, they would have left it with the implicity for which the original financial transaction should have contracted.
And BTW, to who ever suggested that these women were foolish, or asking for it, because they failed to have a body guard — well, you just kind of nailed it on the head on why and how it is that these men did indeed purchase these women. The body guard wouldn’t protect the women per se, he (undoubtably male) would be protecting a financial interest of someone else (undoubtably male) who acted as, shall we say pimp or liason?, to arrange between himself and the party throwers what women would dance, and the contractual nature of that dance (which again can’t be separated from the women).
If all these men had wanted was to hire a stripper for her “services”, then a woman would have shown up at 11:30 and started peeling the paint off their damn house.
It seems only women and slaves can be purchased but still denied the agency and humanity of their bodies. And before any smart ass comes in here whining about how the strippers have agency to leave, or hire a body guard, please don’t forget that these women did leave - without their money, without the men honoring the contract which the men themselves had already violated by suggesting that the women be sodomized with a broom stick. Financial concerns, being what they were for these two women, they returned to the party and re-entered an unsafe space occupied by 30+ drunk and sexually aroused males who had already conveniently forgot that what supposedly had been purchased was a “service”.
Fuck, it really doesn’t get more obvious.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:13 am
An additional development
Accuser changes story in lacrosse case
In her latest statement to investigators, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case changed her account again about when the alleged gang rape occurred, who attacked her and how. Defense attorneys filed the statement in court today, arguing that it was more evidence that the woman is an unreliable witness.
The woman adjusted the timing of the assault to earlier in the evening, a time point preceding the well-documented alibi of one accused player, Reade Seligmann. The defense, however, introduced yet more alibi evidence for Seligmann: he was on the cell phone with his girlfriend during the height of the attack as the accuser now times it.
Plenty more details in the story itself. The interview took place Dec. 21st. This was the interview after which Nifong dropped the rape charges, but apparently the interview itself has just been made public when the defense got it into Court records.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Hm. Q Grrl, if “only women and slaves can be purchased but still denied the agency and humanity of their bodies.”, how do you explain the existence of male strippers? Heck, my wife’s been to the Sugar Shack, and she tells me the women get pretty wild and male strippers have had women assault them and have had to retreat off the stage.
Strippers aren’t slaves, and they are not equivalent to such. Slaves have no choices. Strippers and anyone else who sells services do have choices. That includes refusal to provide services if the people they are selling them to violate the terms agreed to. Which, sometimes, people do. Broken contracts end up in the courts all the time, but that’s not slavery. The fact that these guys acted like assholes and in one case apparently even threatened one of them is dead wrong but is not equivalent to buying or enslaving these women.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Abyss2hope said:
RonF, the way strippers are treated isn’t linked to the man’s sexual desperation. Demeaning treatment comes from disdain not desire.
I’d fully agree with that second sentence. But the first sentence is a function of whether or not a stripper in a particular situation is being treated in a demeaning fashion. Hiring and watching a stripper is not inherently a demeaning act.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Ron, the first paragraph of that N&O article is highly misleading.
WRAL reports that the defense in filing a claim which they will have to substantiate with the judge:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1133573/
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I didn’t say women were like slave or enslaved. I implied they are purchased for the same thing: their bodies sans individuality and agency. And you’re right, the guys being assholes (and breaking the contract) is not the equivalent of buying the women - it is in addition to buying the women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Yeah, Q Grrl, that’s why I basically posted it with little commentary and noted that there were more details. It’s a defense claim, not established fact, and it needs to be proved in court. I just clipped a couple of the first paragraphs to give the flavor, I was not trying to spin it. Sorry if that’s how it appears.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Speaking from experience rather than speculation, RonF, it’s not “damn few”. It’s a sizeable number; it includes both the kind of guy who thinks money entitles him to sex (in a date context, he’s the one throwing a tantrum because he bought a woman dinner, yet she won’t sleep with him), and the kind of guy who thinks that if a woman isn’t a lady, she deserves whatever you want to do to her.
The body guard wouldn’t protect the women per se, he (undoubtably male) would be protecting a financial interest of someone else (undoubtably male)
No, he’s probably hired directly by the strippers to protect them, because the customers see the presence of another male as authoritative.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“A source close to the investigation said Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking his office to assume responsibility of the case.”
This comment was written by just a lurker.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/11/60minutes/main2352512.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse_17
This comment was written by SMM.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2007 at 8:24 am
No, he’s probably hired directly by the strippers to protect them, because the customers see the presence of another male as authoritative.
From what I’ve seen of bouncers and bodyguards, the concept is not so much male authority as it is having the strength, ability and disposition to kick your ass if you don’t behave yourself. I’ve never seen a 5′ 10″ (1.78m) 160 lb. (72.7 Kg) bodyguard.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I have. That’s because the good ones realize that height alone is not going to help you, especially when you’re outnumbered. 5′10″ is the average height for a man, as well, so it’s not as though a 5′10″ bodyguard will be towered over.
If that’s true, I’d say that it applies to damn few men.
On what do you base this?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Well, I haven’t. I have little experience with strippers’ bodyguards, but the ones I have seen and the various bouncers that I’ve seen are all big guys. I’m not talking about professionals; I figure that a stripper can’t afford to hire one.
BTW, Nifong wants out. Nifong has asked the North Carolina Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case. Nifong’s attorney, who is defending him against the professional and ethics misconduct charges brought by the North Carolina State Bar, says “[Nifong] feels, as a result of the accusations against him, that he would be a distraction, and he wants to make sure the accuser receives a fair trial. He still believes in the case. He just believes his continued presence would hurt her.” The Attorney General has yet to announce a decision.
This should throw some delay into this case, especially if the Attorney General grants the request.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
RonF, if you don’t have any experience with strippers’ customers or bodyguards, why are you issuing pronouncements on the subject?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Well, that was quick.
Prosecutor Mike Nifong Removed From Duke Case
The state attorneys general’s office says it will take over the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case at the district attorney’s request. “I wish I could tell you this case would be resolved quickly,” Attorney General Roy Cooper said. “Since we have not been involved in the investigation and prosecution, all of the information will be new to our office. Any case with such serious criminal charges will require careful review.”
And apparently the forensics investigator who says he helped withhold information from the defense in the case will be on 60 Minutes this weekend.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
The NC Bar Association has amended their complaint against Nifong:
“New ethics charges have been filed by the State Bar accusing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court in the Duke lacrosse case.
An amended complaint from the State Bar cites findings from April 2006 that DNA tests found on the alleged accuser excluded all of the Duke lacrosse players as potential contributors.
The complaint states Nifong was told of the test results by Brian Meehan, the director of the DNA company where the tests were performed. The amended complaint also states that Nifong and Meehan agreed the “potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and test results” would not be provided to defense attorneys.
In subsequent court hearings, Nifong told defense attorneys that he had released all of the evidence that would potentially benefit the defense.
“I’ll do what I’ve been doing. Whatever I’ll say, I’ll say in the courtroom,” Nifong said.
In its complaint, the State Bar also cited dozens of pretrial comments Nifong made to the media early on in the case that may have been deceptive and dishonest.
“I’ll say anytime any charges are filed with the State Bar, they are all serious, so we want to make sure we handle them all properly,” said David Freeman, Nifong’s attorney.”
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I think this is significant because this is not media posturing by the defendants’ attorneys; these are charges made in court that will now be either proved or disproved.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Congressman Pushes for Probe Against Nifong
North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones is demanding an investigation of Durham D.A. Mike Nifong. Thursday Jones met with the U.S. attorney general’s office in Washington. He said he has a new reason why he thinks the nation’s top law enforcement office will launch an inquiry. According to the Jones, there is no excuse for the attorney general not to initiate a civil rights investigation because the three lacrosse players had their civil and constitutional rights violated.
The fact that a Congressman is initiating such an action means that it has more legs than if this was posturing by the defense. What constitutes a civil rights violation, anyway?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Here’s the latest and greatest rumor: Report: All Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Players to Be Dropped Soon
Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield told FOX News on Thursday that several sources have revealed to him that the assault and attempted kidnapping charges still pending against Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J., will soon be dropped. Caulfield said his sources include more than just attorneys for the defense. There is no case here and they will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days,” Caulfield told FOX News.
Of course, this is not definite, but perhaps this means we’ll hear something official in the next few days.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Reasonable doubt rears its head. From an article in The New Yorker:
This comment was written by Jury Experiences.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
N.C. attorney general statement dropping Duke sexual assault case
My emphasis.
“We’re dropping the charges due to insufficient evidence” is one thing. But you’ll very rarely hear a prosecutor say that they believe defendants to be innocent.
So; after all this, the defendants are cleared not only of charges but even of suspicion; and the prosecutor is going on trial. That’s not something you’ll see very often. The service of justice is taking a very unusual turn here.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
It’s important to note the AG did NOT say the assault didn’t happen. Just that these three didn’t commit the assault.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Joe said:
“It’s important to note the AG did NOT say the assault didn’t happen. Just that these three didn’t commit the assault.”
True. But consider that there was an enormous rush to judgement against these three young men, with real consequences to numerous aspects of their lives and a great deal of expense. A lot of people very vociferously and immediately condemned them; their perceptions of class, race and privilege were far more important to them than any actual facts. That, to me, is the important issue to face given the denoument of this case.
As I stated way upthread; it is also a great shame that Nifong’s actions in this case may well have destroyed any chance to figure out if anyone actually did assault this woman, and if so, who. The State’s attorney has not said that there’s proof that no assault ocurred, but:
My emphasis. So:
This comment was written by RonF.1) These three young men didn’t assault her. Period.
2) The prosecutor doesn’t think she was assaulted at all in the lacrosse house.
3) It doesn’t appear very likely that it will ever be established that there was an attack on her at all anywhere that night.
4) I’ll personally be that no one will ever be charged with having assaulted this woman on that night, regardless of the location.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I breathlessly await the Group of 88’s next communique. I’m sure it will have an apology to these young men and a condemnation of Nifong’s actions.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I should have followed the link. The part you emphasized does say that the assualt didn’t happen. (Without getting into the tricky part about proving a negative.)
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
The NC AG was very impressive declaring the boys innocent today. A lot of people have egg on their face over this. The race baiters in the media should have to make Imus like apology rounds all over the media. The loony group of 88 should be publicly rebuked by the Duke dean. I am not sure whether the former supposed victim should be prosecuted or not. I guess it would depend on whether she is genuinely crazy or was lying. Apparently the AG thinks she is crazy. We will see how the NYT and WashPost handle this tomorrow. If they had a single ounce of honor they would print an apology in 2″ letter on the front page. At a minimum Nifong should go to jail.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Eh. While I’m glad these young men won’t be wrongfully prosecuted, it isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last time. State power is dangerous power. It’s worth remembering, particularly given the context of the case, that there have been any number of bullshit cases pushed through against people by overzealous prosecutors. These guys were just lucky enough to catch the public eye.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
From the NYT article:
“This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed,” Mr. Seligmann said. “If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.”
Let’s hope he goes and does something with this insight.
This comment was written by Lyn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:07 am
These guys were just lucky enough to catch the public eye.
They were lucky enough to have parents with enough money to hire good lawyers and to put them in the public eye. Three working-class or lower-class white kids would still be in jail and Nifong would be standing on their bodies looking for the State’s Attorney’s job.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:20 am
You’d think with all the hullabaloo, more men would be reaching out to younger men and advising them not to drink, not to serve alcohol to minors, and not to hire strippers. I mean, it’s really quite obvious.
I look at it this way: these boys were rich enough to buy trouble. They bought a stripper (aka: woman) and assumed, through wealth and privilege, that this would be a normal cash transaction. Give money, get dance. Strange how there was a woman behind that dance. A woman who they obviously pissed off and obviously tried not to pay. Silly, privileged, rich white men. They assumed a poor black stripper would merely fade into the night after and not go to the authorities (i.e police) after they made her so angry (or scared) the first time that she left the house. Without being fully paid.
They were right. She went to the authorities so pissed off she hurt these boys the only way she knew how. Obviously not the wallet. That was way too deep for these boys. Obviously she couldn’t shame these men into honesty.
No, she went for the balls. Gets them every time, no?
Do I feel sorry for these three boys. The one’s who serve alcohol to minors, disrupt neighborhoods with their constant partying? The one’s who purchased a woman?
Nah, they should have seen it coming. But money, position, and power blinded them.
I’d say they got their money’s worth from that dance. It’s a great lesson to learn while young.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
So, Qgrrl, you condone falsely accusing someone of a felony?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Oh, and do you also condone the act of an elected official who it seems had used the power of the State to knowingly cooperate in false felony accusations?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Q,
1) The woman got screwed over.
2) Her life will never be the same.
3) The players involved, by all reports, are assholes. Sexist, racist, insert your favorite “-ist” here.
I don’t think many folks will disagree with you on any of those points. I sure don’t, and I seem to recall RonF doesn’t either.
But I think
4) the players ALSO got screwed over.
And though they are racist/sexist assholes, they got punished far, far, more than we generally punish folks for being assholes. Are you saying that you think they got exactly what they deserved?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:57 am
No, Ron, I don’t support what she did. I just think smart boys like this would have seen it coming. I don’t feel sorry for them.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
How so? The served no jail time, did not have to go to trial, and had no financial burden because of this mess (the burden fell on their parents). Sure they had butterflys in their stomachs for a year, but really, *did* they get served any punishment?
No, they didn’t.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Wow, Q Grrrl–are you really, in general, this hostile to underage drinking/providing alcohol to minors? I’ve always viewed that as one “crime” that an sensible cop ignores–like driving 5 mph over the speed limit on the freeway, or possessing a joint–good for pretextual arrests, but entirely pointless otherwise.
Because really–that’s the only thing that I see anyone being accused of that’s CRIMINAL, as opposed to juvenile.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Well I don’t think that there’s any reason that they should have seen this coming.
a) Someone in their house hired a stripper.
b) Someone in their house shouted insults at the women.
c) Someone in their house who was responsible for paying the woman didn’t do so.
I haven’t seen (although I’ll welcome being corrected) anyone say that these three young men were involved in the hiring, insulting, or lack of payment. I don’t seen any reason where these 3 young men should have anticipated that they’d be falsely accused of rape. I think it is entirely unreasonable that anything that happened that night should have caused them to expect what happened.
Also - whose word do we have that insults were shouted at the strippers and that they were shortchanged? That is, besides the word of someone who filed false accusations of rape? I seem to recall that there might have been independent verification of the former, but I’m not so sure about the latter.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
SamC: No, just in relation to the Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team. It’s a matter of public record how many times I had to call the police because of the team’s constant noise violations, underage drinking, and the promotion of drunk driving.
RonF: These are college students at Duke. Any one with an average IQ can figure out that if you have to pay a woman to sexually titillate you, everything is *not* on the up and up. Desparate actions (paying to purchase a woman) lead to desparate situations.
Only sheer male entitlement would lend a person to think this way about that situation. You know, the situation where someone offered to sodomize the dancers with a broomstick, and then the dancers left? Yeah, no one could have expected trouble after *that*.
Snort.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
QGrrl
Nice, so any 20 year old that drinks a beer 5 months before their birthday, any person that walks into a strip club, any person that goes to bachelor or bachelorette party with strippers are obviously asking to be publicly excoriated by the mass media, charged with trumped up felonies, forced to pay millions of dollars of legal fees, kicked out of school, etc. Great plan for both curbing underage drinking and a return to puritanical society! But before signing on I would like to see the fine details of that legislation and the amendments to repeal certain constitutional rights. Also, are these new rules only for upper middle class white males?
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Sailorman,
1) Depends on whether she lied or is crazy.
2) It shouldn’t be the same
3) What reports would those be? Could you provide links to those reports. Thanks.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I wonder what kind of offense filing a false police report accusing someone of a felony is in North Carolina? Is it a criminal offense? If so, will we see this woman brought before the law on it?
What punishment did they have to undergo?
Having their season cancelled, a season they might have won a national championship. Being thrown off the team. Being tossed out of school for a semester and their graduation delayed 1/2 a year. Having their friends and acquaintances and fellow students think they were rapists. Having undergone the stress of being booked for a felony they did not commit. Having to spend months being railroaded for a heinous and despicable crime they did not commit. Having to live with groups of people demonstrate and publish ads condemning them for things they didn’t do. Having to deal with the stress both they and their parents were going through all that time. Having this dominate their lives for all this time. Having to deal with this for the rest of their lives.
You don’t think that’s punishment? And for what, by the way? Being racist/sexist assholes? Once again, tell me what they did. Not what the kids at that party or the Duke Lacrosse team or white people or rich people have done. Tell me what it has been proven what these particular 3 young men did to that woman on that night that justifies any of this.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
If so, will we see this woman brought before the law on it?
No. They’ve said that she has mental health issues and they aren’t going to prosecute her. They are, of course, prosecuting Nifong, which is appropriate since he is the one whose job it is to know better. (Obviously, she should have known better too, but it’s pretty clear that she’s a badly disturbed person.)
I do worry on her behalf that she is now extremely vulnerable, in that people know who she is and she is very unlikely to get a fair hearing from law enforcement if she IS sexually assaulted, which remains a strong possibility in her line of work. (Hell, just in being alive as a woman.) I believe this is her second false rape accusation; some sicko out there may well try to take advantage of her situation.
I don’t know what can be done about that. Fret, I guess.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Nay, Larry. Just the women. Men obviously don’t have to worry about these things.
I wonder if YouTube has a link to Dr. Phil lambasting Miss America? Anyone know?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The case against these three men was dismissed. I don’t see how that means that her police report was false. You would have to prove that in a court of law… oh, but the case was dismissed. She won’t have a chance to show how Nifong mislead her when she identified these men.
Guess we’ll never know.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“Nay, Larry. Just the women. Men obviously don’t have to worry about these things. ”
Ya, I am sure the 3 Duke student’s would testify to that.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Ignoring the impacts of my being right in #44, I’d like to point out that everything that just now came out was well reported back when I made my post at #44.
And I vote Nifong gets strung up by his toenails.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Which college was it recently that told a woman who had been raped by a fellow student that her request to have him removed from campus could not be accomodated?
yeah, those poor boys. Having to go through what women go through when sexually harrassed or raped. Tsk tsk tsk.
You would think there would be more public outcry against the men who *do* rape and how they make all men look guilty.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
“Guess we’ll never know.”
Sorry I just missed this little jewel. Actually we do. The charges were not just dismissed, the boys were declared INNOCENT.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Right. But her police report doesn’t name these three. She says she was assaulted. Nifong fucked up the chance to prove who did it.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
[...] It’s tempting to compare the Duke case to the Long Beach Beating case and the famous Central Park Rape case of the 1980s. In all three cases, a horrible crime was reported; in all three cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in all three cases, police and prosecutors used biased and unfair procedures to concoct a case against a group of young people. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Duke Lacrosse Players Cleared Of All Charges.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Q Grrl writes:
I have strongly mixed feelings about statements like this. I don’t think that two wrongs makes a right. I do hope that the three students learn something other than “they done me wrong!”. Like, maybe, something about power and how it’s abused, and how it’s important to get the right people under the spotlight from the start.
I’ve been following a lot of the work coming out of groups like the Innocence Project. I’m glad that DNA is being used more often, and especially that DNA databases are being constructed of known offenders. One thing, as I recall, that did happen is DNA was taken as part of the rape kit from when she went to the hospital. I’d like to know what’s being done to pursue any leads that DNA might produce, other than clearing those three men.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Qgrrl:
“Right. But her police report doesn’t name these three. She says she was assaulted. Nifong fucked up the chance to prove who did it. ”
Or whether or not anyone at all did.
“Which college was it recently that told a woman who had been raped by a fellow student that her request to have him removed from campus could not be accomodated?”
I don’t remember. But that’s irrelevant to this case. In response to your question - yes, these young men were punished. The fact that other people have been subjected to injustice does not diminish any other individual’s subjection to injustice.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
RonF,
Uh, no, it’s not irrelevant. It’s very likely that these men were punished precisely because there’s a history of not taking these sorts of complaints seriously. My recollection is that Nifong did what he did in large part to prove that he was “serious” so that he could, again, if I’m remembering correctly, improve his odds of winning a state political position.
Had women’s complaints been taken seriously (… by the men who were in power all this time …), Nifong wouldn’t have had to prove anything, and those three students wouldn’t have been raked over the coals. Likewise, had women’s complaints of sexual abuse been taken seriously, those three students, and the rest of the men who organized that event, might have thought twice about everything that happened that evening involving women.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Qgrll:
She might get that chance in the unlikely event that one of the 3 accused men sues her or in the even more unlikely event that criminal charges are brought against her.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Qgrrl:
So, instead of focusing on her falsely accusing these three men of rape, we should focus on their putting themselves in a position to be falsely accused of rape?
(By the way, I apologize for mispelling your screen name in my last post)
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Yes, because they’re sluts who deserved it.
What’s not clear to me is whether Q Grrl really is arguing this, or is parodying the “lying bitch” brigade. If it’s parody, then I think it misses the target, because the people her remarks are directed towards (i.e., RonF and Robert) do not appear to regard rape complainants generally to be lying bitches or sluts who deserved it. They don’t even seem to regard this particular complainant to be a lying bitch. Rather, the prevailing view here seems to be that she’s mentally ill, not responsible for her actions, and deserving of our compassion not our condemnation.
If Q Grrl really is blaming the victims of these false accusations, then she’s a hypocrite.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Golly, it never occured to me that her remarks weren’t parody.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Daran gets the gold star award for perception!!!!!
I was surprised that even Julie thought I might harbor such inanity. I wasn’t so much as addressing RonF or Robert, but that much larger audience that will most likely not post.
Many men are quick to tell women not to do x,y, and z so they won’t get raped (don’t go to bars alone, don’t get drunk, don’t walk alone at night). These men are outwardly motivated by concern and protectionistic/paternalistic feelings. I want to know where these men are now, why aren’t they warning young men of the potential pit falls of delving into the sex trade? Why have no men come forward to say: these young men should have gone to a strip bar… everyone knows hiring two strippers for a private, all-male, barely out-of-adolescent, university affiliated crowd is a recipie for disaster.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Q Grrl,
I don’t think it’s inanity at all — these things happen because other things have happened. There is an interconnectedness betwee why 3 white students were falsely accused of rape and why that other woman was unable to have her safety and security respected. The statement is only “inane” if you don’t see the relationship between what happens on the one hand and what happens on the other. Is it “just”? No, but it is what happens when systematic injustice occurs, and it is what happens when people rush into solutions without full knowledge of the problems, or with ulterior motivations.
I went looking for the text of Malcolm X’s famous “the chickens are coming home to roost remark”, but couldn’t find it in the amount of free time I have for such things.
His comment was similarly not understood, and unless you weren’t hinting that there is a connection between these things — between “I’m going to advance myself by jumping on a bandwagon I do not understand and do not fully support” on the part of Nifong, and “We’re not going to take these women seriously, we’re not going to address their concerns, we’re not going to protect them from these crimes” — I don’t see your comment any less appropriate than his.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hey, I found this –
The alternative to men working together to end the rape culture is political opportunists who will do what they can to flex their political muscles and “get tough” on crimes against women. Men can cut it out NOW, working together amongst themselves, or others will exploit the situation those men are failing to fix and “fix” it in ways that many men find objectionable.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Men can cut it out NOW, working together amongst themselves, or others will exploit the situation those men are failing to fix and “fix” it in ways that many men find objectionable.
Ding, ding, ding. Julie wins the prize.
It is, mostly, men who rape. It is, mostly, men who have to take responsibility for this, and change it. This means internalizing some cultural values that are not popular anywhere on the political spectrum.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Is that code for “we need to bring back Man as Protector,” or what?
Many men are quick to tell women not to do x,y, and z so they won’t get raped
And note how it’s always phrased as “get raped”. It’s something the woman causes to happen to herself, not something done by another person.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Is that code for “we need to bring back Man as Protector,” or what?
No. “Man as Protector” would be popular along wide swathes of the political spectrum, as you know.
The values I have in mind are more along the lines of “nobody is entitled to sex”, and “just because you really want sex doesn’t mean that you need it”, and “the intensity/urgency of sexual desire is not a justification for violating the rights of another person.”
Very few people want to hear any of that; men don’t want to hear it, because (many) men have been raised to believe that natural law is whatever they want or feel like. Many women don’t want to hear it, because it is the first step along a path of expecting self-control and self-restraint and a lot of women have thrown the patriarchal interpretation of those values out the window as oppressive.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 8:42 am
case of the 1980s. In all three cases, a horrible crime was reported; in all three cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in all three cases, police and prosecutors used biased and unfair procedures to concoct a case against a group of young people. But let’s not overlook one enormously significant difference: The Duke players were ultimately exonerated. That doesn’t make the unjust suffering the Duke players went through all right, of
This comment was written by Slant Truth.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
[...] November 7: My view on this hasn’t changed since the start. In broad terms I have felt the prosecution narrative was more plausible than the defence narrative. That doesn’t mean that took any view on which (if either) would stand up to evidence based scrutiny. Nor have I been willing to undertake that scrutiny, given that the evidence arrives at our table so refined and processed by the media and the various actors in the case, that it would seem to bear as much resemblance to the raw evidence as a pork pie does to a pig. [...]
This comment was written by Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Actually, Qgrrl, I didn’t think it was parody at all. There are sites out there that are putting forward quite seriously that these guys deserved what they got even though they in fact did nothing to their accuser, because they were white, rich (although in fact they aren’t all rich), male and were at a party where someone had hired a poor black stripper. I thought you were serious.
You say you weren’t - fine. I’m cool with that. Do me a favor and use a [ /sarc ] pseudo-tag or something next time, O.K.?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I’ve served on several petite juries and four months on a grand jury. I also worked for four years with a division of the attorney general’s office in my state. I left these experiences very disturbed at the immense and very rarely challenged power of persecutors. The selection of the grand jury and the procedures involved resulted in a grand jury which was very subservient to the prosecutors. We may not have indicted a ham sandwich, but we came damn close.
I think this is generally true of grand juries throughout the country, and is a dreadful perversion of the institution started under Henry II in the 12th century. It is one of the rights guaranteed in the 5th amendment to our constitution. It is supposed to be a check on the power of the Sovereign to accuse people for no good reason, but it has completely lost its effectiveness.
Over 90% of criminal cases are settled by plea bargains. For the vast majority of criminal cases, there is no petite jury, and essentially no judicial review. The entire burden of ensuring justice, fairness and equity lies almost entirely in the hands of the prosecutors. The people who suffer the most from abusive, ideological, incompetent or crazy prosecutors are the poor, mentally ill, immigrants and other minorities, and anyone who has difficulty adequately defending themselves.
I don’t think anybody in our society is benefited by prosecutorial misconduct, corruption or incompetence, all of which, I think, occur with some frequency. I witnessed what I considered to be a lot of such behavior. Rarely were the victims non-poor white boys, but those affected faced felony charges with prison terms covering the entire range from three years to life. It was a very serious business; very badly conducted, in my opinion.
It seems to me that the most significant raised in the Duke case is the excessive and unchecked power of prosecutors in the United States. Not the evils of underage drinking. In most European countries alcohol is “absolutely forbidden” to those under 16. Nor the evils of hiring strippers, which has gone on since the beginning of the human species, is practiced in almost every part of the world, and does not, I think, cause nearly as much harm as smoking.
But the unchecked power of prosecutors in the United States has grown steadily since Prohibition—almost 90 years, and shows every sign of continuing to get worse.
Bob
This comment was written by Bob Unferth.Report this comment to the moderators