Posted on 04/10/2006 6:06:40 PM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C. Apr 10, 2006 (AP)— DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday.
Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
"The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that and that's not here," Cheshire said.
This looked suspicious from the beginning. I'm curious--did this stripper have a grudge against someone on the lacrosse team? It looks like she was trying very hard to destroy them.
Update to the no evidence story.
There's still no evidence.
The first thing I thought of was Tawana Brawley. The story sounded bogus to me from the start.
In a related story.....Elvis is still dead
We have to choices: A. Believe the lawyers, B. Believe the stripper.
Tough choice. ;-)
"to" s/b "two"
Arrest the lying slut, and throw away the key!
Can't wait to see the apologies splashed all over the print and broadcast media..... Yeah, right.
Geez.
Reminds me of the Kobe Bryant scandal.
Or, was she working for the overzealous alumni/fans of some other university?
Sowaddyasayin?
The DA has said he is moving forward with the case. Don't confuse him with the facts. My suggestion is that the attorneys for the DUKE players immediately put Henry Lee on retainer and tell the DA to bring it on.
Seeing as how the lawyers in this case are the thin veneer that is keeping these poor kids from being thrown to the wolves I don't quite get your comment. I hope the day does not come where you, or one of your loved ones, are in the same situation. If that day does come please promise me that you will have the same silly attitude toward lawyers.
Not only the media! Others attending that school have demanded they be expelled, they have treated them like scum, they became judge and jury before any real evidence (one way or the other) surfaced. Particularly the feminist clubs on campus.
Yup, glad to see that innocent until proven guilty is still taught on campus.
But, then again, maybe they were taking a page from the Dimocrat playbook. You know, most Dims have already tried and convicted President Bush on a number of issues. And these are the LAWMAKERS of the land becoming judge and jury rather than letting the legal process work.
So, I guess we should not be too hard on the campus groups.
Ah, screw it! Those groups should be expelled!!
And Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead......
Nope. It sounds like "little miss wonderful" saw what she perceived to be a bunch of rich boys and decided to get a few million out of them. Extortion, intimidation?? Whatever, it didn't work. I'll bet you that she will still file a civil action and hope the "boys" will pay off to get it over with. Pathetic.
In a case such as this, is it SOP for the authorities or the DA to try to eliminate other causes/sources for injuries or does tunnel vision rule the day?
Would the defense attorney have shown the DA the photos prior to releasing the info to the public? Just trying to get a sense of how this works.
My first guess as to the source of her injuries would be a pimp, a john (if she is a hooker) or a dealer.
Actually we have three choices: C. Believe the evidence (or lack thereof).
Ya know, The first thing that came to my mind was the Emmett Smith incident.
The Lawyers for the players are UNC grads! GO HEELS! BEAT DOOK!
Has the D.A. gotten a DNA sample from Duke President Brodhead? At this point he's as likely to be the perp as any member of the ill-fated lacrosse team.
No, actually it is the exact opposite of the Kobe Bryant scandal. In that case the girl was actually raped, but the legal system and the media immediately put up the "nuts and sluts" defense e.g. "why was she even in his room",etc. Eventually, the accuser gave up and took a settlement. In this case, the accuser is a hooker with a criminal record and the system/media immediately took her side even though we all know that a rape did not occur. It is, quite simply, a racial issue. Kobe got a bye and the Duke lacrosse team did not. Do you think the coach will be reinstated? I think not. Do you think the season will be reinstated? I think not. Did Kobe miss a game? I think not.
Imagine that lineup of attorneys who spoke to him tonight sitting on the other side of the courtroom from this doofus.
They will pulverize him.
And where do you think he's going to discuss the case tomorrow? Why, he's going right over to NCCU to have a news conference.
Pandering at its worst!
I think they need to get DNA samples from every male she knows and every male in Durham. Let's not leave any male stones unturned. Everyone is a suspect, turn in your passports and don't leave town without telling the police.
"Those DNA tests don't mean Jack. I'm going to keep on fighting for the sister. I believer herrrrrrrrrr." (Standing ovation from his voter base.)
Let's tune in tomorrow and see the wanabe re-elected doofus say words to this effect.
I don't think he had time; he gave over 70 interviews!
BTW, the email was taken out of context; evidently it has something to do with a cult movie, American Psyhco, and it was one of several emails that some of the players exchanged among themselves.
My money is on dealer, since the DNA analysis showed that she did have sex with anyone for several weeks. She was probably high, not drunk (hence the security guard perceiving her as intoxicated but not smelling alcohol) and she needed to explain to her family? or her boyfriend? how she got these injuries that night. I bet she has had a drug problem for a while.
Yow! 70 interviews? The guy likes the camera and microphone, doesn't he?
If doofus had ANY brains at all he would immediately clam up and put a gag order on his staff, and quietly drop the case at some future date.
There was no real proof of rape. She took the cash and ran. Her story had some tough holes in it. But, the racial overtones were there and Kobe was certainly treated differently.
2 feminazis on LKL are adamantly of the opinion that the absence of DNA does not prove there was no rape. (They are convinced that the woman was not lying. What can one say in the face of this bullheadedness?)
Between this and the Cynthia McKinney escapade, there seems to be a coordinated campaign of race-mongering going on in certain sections of the media and among the usual suspects. This appears to be in preparation for the fall election. Divide and conquer has always been a tactic of the far left.
Plus these huge demonstrations by the Mexican invaders...that scene is looking a lot more like the period in history when the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and Visigoths descended upon the Roman Empire.
Hmmmm...Gotta go out and buy some Reynolds wrap.
Please remind me. Emmett is my all time favorite running back, but I don't remember any incident. Of course I kill a few hundred brain cells every day.
"Oyez, oyez, oyez. By order of his most high and imperial doofus in Durham, North Carolina, all males in Durham are directed to report to the Police Department at 0800. At the command "Drop your socks and grab your ________ you shall provide DNA samples. This order is also inclusive of all males who have ever seen the young pure lady doing her stripping act, and to those who have ever even thought of watching her strip. So let it be written, so let it be done. Long live the Durham DA!"
Yeah; and it's even more weird; he hasn't said a word since a week ago Friday, so you can see how MUCH he was on TV at first.
I draw your special attention to paragraph f:
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client, or participate in the application for the issuance of a search warrant to a lawyer for the seizure of information of a past or present client in connection with an investigation of someone other than the lawyer, unless:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Rule 3.6 that is referenced in the section relating to prosecutorial misconduct is as follows:
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) the information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
(A) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;
(B) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(C) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
(D) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).
(e) The foregoing provisions of Rule 3.6 do not preclude a lawyer from replying to charges of misconduct publicly made against the lawyer or from participating in the proceedings of legislative, administrative, or other investigative bodies.
No, actually it is the exact opposite of the Kobe Bryant scandal. In that case the girl was actually raped
___________________________________________________
And you know this how? The woman in that particular case had the "dna" of two maybe three men on her when she claimed that she had been raped. She selectively outcried afterwards.
You might say you believed she was raped. And she might have been. But the chances of making a case when she was a walking sperm bank was slim to none. But she got her nuisance money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.