Posted on 05/17/2006 10:06:43 PM PDT by freespirited
I am not sure that is true.
It was the only source that matched what they found.
They tested three men. Could that mean they found three or more different types of DNA in her?
three? They tested the entire lacrosse team, more than 40 young men. This seemed extreme to me unless there really was no sex in that house that night and they thought they were proving their innocence.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I should have said they tested three men not on the lacrosse team. The testing was done after the team members submitted their samples.
And in fact they didn't test the entire lacrosse team, only the members who were white.
Given that we don't have all the facts, no one in their right mind should be convinced one way or the other.
I don't see how. Just because she's a stupid drunken tramp doesn't mean she's a liar.
of her accusation when there is no physical evidence of a rape,
That we know of. We don't have all the facts, though.
and one of the defendants whom she positively identified has a time-stamped security photo substantiated alibi.
According to the defense's timeline. We don't know what the prosecution's rebuttal to that is. Maybe it holds watter, maybe it doesn't, but there's no way anyone can know that at this point.
It's not rational to judge a case before you've heard both sides and before you've seen all the evidence.
All that proves is that she had sex with her boyfriend at some point before she danced in front to the lacross team. It doesn't rule out the possibility that the lacross boys wore condoms when they raped her. This would not be the first time such a thing happened, you know. These are smart kids; it's very plausible that they took steps to cover their tracks.
Also as evidence for rape, there's that SANE nurse's report -- the one that's been brayed about incessantly by Wendy Murphy and the other talking-head feminazis. It's been quoted as stating findings "consistent with rape..."
I agree, it doesn't prove rape, but it gives reason to suspect it.
The evidnece available to the public now is clearly not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped. However, you don't have access to all the evidence. Rational people, unlike you, wait until they see all the evidence before forming an opinion when the evidence they have in front of them is not conclusive either way.
Did you, O Rational One, "wait to see all the evidence" before even forming an opinion in the OJ case?
And btw, even superior people like you occasionally jump to unfounded conclusions. For example, you conclude that I was "conclusive" about this case. Read the post again.
That statement truly stretches credulity.
The accuser claims anal, oral, and vaginal rape. Even with condoms --and I must say the notion of oral "rape" with a condom borders on the laughable-- all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.
If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.
The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them. No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).
I didn't make up my mind until the DNA evidence came out. That was conclusive.
For example, you conclude that I was "conclusive" about this case.
No I didn't. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Why? It's happened before.
all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.
And other experts say not necessarily.
If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.
Other cells or fluids might have been left behind (in fact they were), but it's perfectly plausible that there wouldn't be sufficient quantities to get a conclusive DNA match. And in fact, that's exactly what happened.
The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them.
In the absence of other evidence, yes. However, we do not know what other evidence the prosecution has. All I am saying is that we wait and see. If nothing new comes out, then I agree, these guys should be acquitted. If the DA takes this case to trial without more evidence, he should be impeached. But I'm withholding judgement until I see what he has. I suggest you do the same.
No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).
I know the difference between the two words, thank you very much.
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.