Entire Duke lacrosse team cleared by DNA

[Cylinder]

From the Sports Illustrated article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/04/10/duke.lacrosse.ap/?cnn=yes):

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.

No charges have been filed in the case.

"No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman," said defense attorney Wade Smith.

"Failed to connect" is a poor choice of words here, since the DNA evidence excludes any team member tested from being the donor of the exemplar. There is a small error probability with a positive test - one in a certain billion may share the same alleles for that particular marker - but exclusion is certain - that is the donor does not share those alleles.

This woman needs some prison time if she fabricated this story. These young men (with the exception of the stupid emailer) had there lives upended and real damage done to their college careers and personal life over this nonsense.

Disgusting.

[Rob Lister]

While I don't doubt the facts presented in the story, I would point out that the person relaying the facts is the attorney for the accused.

48hour rule applies.

[Cylinder]

While I don't doubt the facts presented in the story, I would point out that the person relaying the facts is the attorney for the accused.

48hour rule applies.

I agree with the caveat that this is a specific empirical claim - not a he said/she said matter. This attorney could have suffered vapor lock during the presser but barring that...

[Rob Lister]

I find that when the attorney for either side says anything, the truth turns out to be almost nothing like what they said.

This could be different, and if the Prosecutor actually drops the charges I'll actually believe it...

Not that I necessarily think they are guilty anyway. There's a certain persumption of innocence I try to maintain.

You're right though, if it is demonstratable that she made it up, she should go to prison -- not that she likely would though.

[Cylinder]

I find that when the attorney for either side says anything, the truth turns out to be almost nothing like what they said.

I agree with that and your general sense of caution - don't get me wrong. OTOH, this isn;t a claim that they were all having tea and cake with their favorite gramdmother at the time of the incident. Citing DNA results that excludes team members as donors is more than compelling - it is absolute. It could be that the defense counsel is lying about this finding. There could be some bizaree mix up in chain of custody of the samples. Or...

[Charlie Monoxide]

At least we haven't heard from Al Sharpton ......

Charlie (yet!) Monoxide

[Kerberos]

From the Sports Illustrated article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/04/10/duke.lacrosse.ap/?cnn=yes):



"Failed to connect" is a poor choice of words here, since the DNA evidence excludes any team member tested from being the donor of the exemplar. There is a small error probability with a positive test - one in a certain billion may share the same alleles for that particular marker - but exclusion is certain - that is the donor does not share those alleles.

This woman needs some prison time if she fabricated this story. These young men (with the exception of the stupid emailer) had there lives upended and real damage done to their college careers and personal life over this nonsense.

Disgusting.

If you read the artcle you'll see that they didn't have DNA sample known to be from the aledged attacker(s), so this does not prove anything with 100% certainty.

[slingblade]

If you read the artcle you'll see that they didn't have DNA sample known to be from the aledged attacker(s), so this does not prove anything with 100% certainty.

I read the article, and didn't see that. Can you point it out specifically, please, in case I somehow missed it?

[Kerberos]

I read the article, and didn't see that. Can you point it out specifically, please, in case I somehow missed it?
It's not said explicitly, but a of of the statements in the article don't make sense if there was a DNA sample from the attacker.

"Cheshire said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim's body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes.

"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA," he said."

Notice it says "could be" not "was".

""The truth is if you speak to crime lab directors, they will tell you that in only a relatively small number of cases is there any DNA evidence," said Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project."

also "Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the DNA results don't mean that Nifong can't go forward with the case -- but the test results make a successful prosecution much harder."

If they had a DNA trace which the players didn't match then quite clearly this would mean that the case couldn't go forward.

Of course the defence attouney says that there would have been traces if her story was trye, but while that might be so, I'm less inclined to trust him on this than on a purely factual claim like a DNA match/mismatch.

[Zbu]

I smell a case of semantics leading to a false conclusion with this story. Or as I like to call it, 'Journalism nowadays.'

[chulbert]

"Failed to connect" is a poor choice of words here... They're precisely the correct words. The DNA test results do not prove team members couldn't have done it, but instead failed to prove they did do it. Or in other words, they may have raped her but they didn't leave any DNA behind. Given that, according to Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, "only a relatively small number of cases is there any DNA evidence", I'd say the test results don't mean a whole lot.

[atari24]

This woman needs some prison time if she fabricated this story. These young men (with the exception of the stupid emailer) had there lives upended and real damage done to their college careers and personal life over this nonsense.

Disgusting.

Meh. They're only athletes.

[Ian Osborne]

On a point of order, if no DNA was found on the alleged victim, why did they take DNA samples from the team when they had nothing to match it to anyway? Am I missing something here?

[drkitten]

On a point of order, if no DNA was found on the alleged victim, why did they take DNA samples from the team when they had nothing to match it to anyway? Am I missing something here?

They had samples to match. They just didn't get the kind of matches they were hoping for.

From above : "Cheshire said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim's body, including under her fingernails." So this means that they dug some of the gunge from underneath her fingernails, and tried to match it against the team DNA. (More accurately, of course, against the DNA of the individual team members).

The woman had gunge under her fingernails, of course. We all do. And the gunge had DNA in it -- the woman's, plus DNA from assorted other people and things that she's handled/touched since the last time she scrubbed for surgery.

What it didn't have was DNA that matched any member of the team.

Which means either that she wasn't assaulted in the first place, or that the person who assaulted her managed to do so without leaving DNA under her fingernails. (E.g. she didn't scratch him all that seriously during the assault.)

[BPSCG]

[yechhh...]
Semen sample? From the victim, I mean.
[/yechhh...]

[Cain]

Rush was right: she's a ho.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

[nightwind]

It is not at all unusual for false allegations of rape to occur. This is a well known trick by those "in the know" to use against those that they have it in for, or in some way want to get some gain. They just use the states limitless resources against the so called "perpetrator(s)". Just like using false allegations of child abuse is used more and more in child custody cases. The people being accused are suddenly put on the defensive, and the accusers get to sit back and watch, and snicker.

Unfortunately, punishment for the false accusers never even closely approaches that of those falsely accused, if found guilty. And that is why false accusations are becoming more and more popular.

[casebro]

From the Rush link above:

"CALLER 2: Oh, no, I'm saying -- the apology was good.

LIMBAUGH: I regret that you heard me say it. "

Just as a sample of taking things out of context.


Every "exotic dancer" I ever talked to beyond "Nice Weather" brought up: a) how lonely she is, b) how she could use a few dollars. Prostitutes? I don't know, I wasn't that lonely, and didn't have the cash to find out.

But if the women at Duke are prostitutes, arent' the boys just shoplifters? Hmmm, consenual, for money, but the boy's didn't pay? You do know how to make a hormone? Don't pay her!

[Beerina]

1. So did the coach resign too quickly?

2. How does one get raped by 4 men and not have any DNA from them? All four were careful to wear a condom? Not one left a pubic hair on her anywhere?

[BPSCG]

1. So did the coach resign too quickly?

2. How does one get raped by 4 men and not have any DNA from them? All four were careful to wear a condom? Not one left a pubic hair on her anywhere?See post 15.

Do rapists ever wear condoms? I must confess to total ignorance on this issue (thank FSM).

[ChristineR]

Rapists who have heard of DNA tests quite often wear condoms.

[wastepanel]

I'd like to point out to everyone (trying not to be graphic here) that the full circumstances that unfolded in this "alleged" rape have not been revealed. I'm wondering if "items" were used instead.

I know I'm sounding crazy here, but did anybody watch Nip/Tuck with the carver? Alot of college guys, popular television show...who knows? Somebody may have come up with a plan.

I'm not ready to jump on either bandwagon though. I've had friends that have been raped, and others falsely accused. I've been on both sides here.

[ChristineR]

Media reports made it sound like she had injuries that could not be faked. Of course said injuries may not have been inflicted by the Duke Lacrosse team, but if they found no DNA from anyone of interest, then they're pretty much right where they were.

[Furious]

1. So did the coach resign too quickly?


Well, what hasn't been in dispute is that the LaCross team had a party and two strippers showed up. Also, this appears to be a team party, not just a couple of the players doing stupid things with people they shouldn't. Nothing particularly illegal about that in itself, but it still reflects poorly on the team, the coaching staff, and Duke to allow themselves to be put into this position.

I know boys will be boys, but even though I think the LaCrosse team didn't rape the stripper, I do think the situation can be viewed as inappropriate and stupid.

He also might have wanted an easy out as well, I don't know. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, its not going to be easy to recruit LaCrosse players to Duke anytime soon.

[Art Vandelay]

Seems to me that lacrosse players were rather generous to give samples in the first place (or was there a court order?). "We'd like you to give a DNA sample. We're going to test it against every single piece of DNA we got of the complaintant, so there's a good chance that they'll be a match even if you didn't do anything wrong. And if there isn't a match, we're still going to consider you a suspect."

[Number Six]

I think this whole affair is the inevitable flip side of college athletics becoming so big. There's just no stopping it all because demand for the entertainment is so high.

Duke is an academically acclaimed university and yet I'd bet money that half these guys wouldn't have even been admitted to the school were they not lacrosse stars. Instead they were not only admitted but they were given a scholarship! And these are guys that play in the obscure, non-revenue sports that few even care about.

Some of this is being painted as "spoiled rich kids treating poor folk poorly" but I think that is a small part of it. I think this could've happened anywhere athletics rules and in fact it probably does happen anywhere athletics rules. And I think athletics pretty much by defintion rules anytime a school is Division I in athletics.

This may sound crazy on the surface but I want you to stop and think for a minute about what would happen if there were a conflict at Duke between their basketball coach and their President. Does anyone even know who Duke's President is? Does anyone care? I guarantee people know who their basketball coach is. He makes several times as much per year than does the Duke President. If the Duke basketball coach makes way more money than the Duke President and also has way more support amongst the general public and Duke alumni then who is in control?

BTW this isn't meant as a slap at Duke at all. As I said earlier, it's an inevitable consequence of big time athletics. The point I made about about a conflict between the President and a basketball coach (or a football coach) pertains to a hundred other schools as well.

I don't know if a rape took place but let's put aside that issue for a minute and suppose someone told you the lacrosse team at Duke (or the X team at Y university) had a party with strippers. Would you be surprised? I certainly wouldn't.

[zakur]

Court records show larger team problem (http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060410/NEWS/204100304/-1/State)

RALEIGH - The warning signs of a Duke University lacrosse team skidding toward disaster are scattered through the courthouse records of Durham and Orange counties – and have been for at least the past seven years.

Speeding down I-40 while drunk. Urinating in public. Using an adult’s ID to buy a case of beer while underage. Kicking in the slats of a fence after an argument with a girlfriend.

Since 1999, records show, 41 Blue Devil lacrosse players—about 31 percent of all players on the roster from then until now—have been charged with a variety of rowdy and drunken acts.

Of this year’s squad of 47 players – their season canceled, their coach exiled and their university shamed – roughly a third have been charged with similar misdemeanors.

[BPSCG]

Seems to me that lacrosse players were rather generous to give samples in the first place (or was there a court order?). Couldn't someone refuse to give a DNA smple on the grounds of the 5th amendment?

[wastepanel]

Couldn't someone refuse to give a DNA smple on the grounds of the 5th amendment?

If a warrant is issued, they don't have the 5th amendment to back them up. The 5th protects individuals from incriminating themselves, not from refusing to give up vital information.

If the players all VOLUNTARILY gave up their DNA, then (9 times out of 10) it means:

(1) They are innocent and know that there will be no consequences.

(2) They know that there is no possible way for DNA to be found.

(3) They go along and hope that the results are inconclusive.

[BPSCG]

If a warrant is issued, they don't have the 5th amendment to back them up. The 5th protects individuals from incriminating themselves, not from refusing to give up vital information.Is that an established principle of jurisprudence, or is it just your opinion? Not trying to be snarky here; it just seems odd to me that compelling someone to give up a piece of his person in order to be used as evidence against him is not considered being a witness against himself.

[Kerberos]

Is that an established principle of jurisprudence, or is it just your opinion? Not trying to be snarky here; it just seems odd to me that compelling someone to give up a piece of his person in order to be used as evidence against him is not considered being a witness against himself.
Of course it's an established principle, have you never heard about people being convicted on DNA evidence? that would practically never happen if you had a right to refuse and certainly we'd have heard about it if you had such an outlandish principel as the right to refuse DNA testing in you laws. It's possible and even likely that somebody once tried to refuse DNA testing on those grounds but quite clearly and quite appropriatly it was refused. You might as well let people refuse fingerprinting or witness confrontations. I'm seriously suprised that you would consider DNA testing a violation of the fifth ammendment.

[ChristineR]

You need a warrant, just as you did for intimate examinations of a someone's physical person before DNA.

[zakur]

From FindLaw (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_courtroom/self_incrimination.html):

The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does ensure that a defendant in a criminal case cannot be forced to testify and "be a witness against himself or herself". But it does not apply when a defendant is fingerprinted, or made to provide a DNA sample in connection with a criminal case. In other words, a defendant may not refuse to submit to these procedures by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege.

From Forensic-Evidence.com (http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Biol_Evid/BioEvid_dna_jones.html):

Those who find DNA collection unconstitutional point to the Fifth or Fourth Amendments. Some commentators have argued that a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right not to act as a witness against themselves provides a basis for refusing to give a genetic sample (Morin, 2002). However, courts have limited the right against self-incrimination to a suspect’s oral testimony, and physical or behavioral characteristics are not testimonial. In Boling v. Romer, for example, a federal appellate court found that requiring DNA samples from inmates was not compulsory self-incrimination because DNA samples are not testimonial in nature.

The Fourth Amendment provides a more substantial challenge to DNA testing. Under the Fourth Amendment, suspects have a due process right against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a result, a warrant must be issued to conduct a search and probable cause must exist before the warrant is issued.

[...]

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that all people shall be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A governmental action is a search or seizure within the scope of the Fourth Amendment if the person invoking its protection can claim a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place search or the item seized. Courts have found that obtaining a biological sample, such as saliva, for DNA analysis can be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment (see, for example, In re Shaddie Clark Shabazz). However, the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those deemed "unreasonable." The general rule is that the question of whether a particular action is unreasonable is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests...

[wastepanel]

Is that an established principle of jurisprudence, or is it just your opinion? Not trying to be snarky here; it just seems odd to me that compelling someone to give up a piece of his person in order to be used as evidence against him is not considered being a witness against himself.

If a warrant is issued for the DNA, that means a judge has found that there is enough evidence to allow the police to obtain the DNA. It's basically the same as a search warrant for a house or business.

The police won't go around just taking random DNA samples. They have to present the current evidence to the judge, he/she has to see that the evidence is pointing at the individual, and that the DNA is vital to the investigation.

If anyone could refuse warrants, there would be no criminal convictions. All murder weapons, burglary tools, drugs, etc. would be kept at the individual's residence (where the police could not get to them).

[BPSCG]

From FindLaw (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_courtroom/self_incrimination.html):



From Forensic-Evidence.com (http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Biol_Evid/BioEvid_dna_jones.html):Thanks - that answers my question.

[geni]

Interesting. A suggested name of the accuser appears to be floating around various sites. I wounder how long this journalitsic thing of not nameing the accuser will last.

[Art Vandelay]

Interesting. A suggested name of the accuser appears to be floating around various sites. I wounder how long this journalitsic thing of not nameing the accuser will last.I already saw a tabloid claiming to have photos of her.

If a warrant is issued, they don't have the 5th amendment to back them up. The 5th protects individuals from incriminating themselves, not from refusing to give up vital information.But what if the vital information incriminates them?

Of course it's an established principle, have you never heard about people being convicted on DNA evidence? that would practically never happen if you had a right to refuseWell, there's a difference between allowing the collection of DNA, and requiring someone to provide it. It's a bit like the difference between the police searching your computer, and them requiring you to tell them what's on the computer.

and certainly we'd have heard about it if you had such an outlandish principel as the right to refuse DNA testing in you laws. What's outlandish about that?

You might as well let people refuse fingerprinting or witness confrontations.On'es face is publically available information.

It's basically the same as a search warrant for a house or business. There's quite a difference between someone's property and their bodies.

The police won't go around just taking random DNA samples. Actually, there was a case where all the police had was the perp was a black man, and so they tried to get DNA from every black man in town.

They have to present the current evidence to the judge, he/she has to see that the evidence is pointing at the individual, and that the DNA is vital to the investigation.So do you think that the judge issued a warrant for the entire lacrosse team?

If anyone could refuse warrants, there would be no criminal convictions. All murder weapons, burglary tools, drugs, etc. would be kept at the individual's residence (where the police could not get to them).Oh, please. If someone has enough foresight to make sure all the evidence is hidden in their house in the anyone-can-refuse-a-warrant-world, then surely they would have enough foresight to not leave it laying around in the real world. It's not like everything can be hidden in one's house, anyway, unless one restricts all of one's criminal activity to one's house.

Furthermore, there is a difference between a normal warrant, which simply allows the police to look around, and this sort of warrant, which requires an affirmative act from the accused.

[Kerberos]

Well, there's a difference between allowing the collection of DNA, and requiring someone to provide it. It's a bit like the difference between the police searching your computer, and them requiring you to tell them what's on the computer.
No it's not really, saying that people have to tell what's on their computer constitutes testifying against themselves. saying that the police has a right to take a blood sample if they have adequate reason to suspect you comited a crime for which DNA evidence is or could be availiable does not.

What's outlandish about that?

It would seriously hamper the police's ability to solve a number of serious crimes and it involves a rather bizare interpretation of the concept of "testifying" against yourself.

[QUOTE=Art Vandelay;1606419]On'es face is publically available information.
Not in all cases, and more importantly while I might share my face with anybody I meet I certainly don't share my fingerprints. Do you also think fingerprinting is a violation of civil rights.


There's quite a difference between someone's property and their bodies.
True but the police can also search you body without consent, including a caverty search which personally I think I'd find significantly more unpleasant than having a blood sample taken.

Actually, there was a case where all the police had was the perp was a black man, and so they tried to get DNA from every black man in town.
And what did the courts say to that?

Furthermore, there is a difference between a normal warrant, which simply allows the police to look around, and this sort of warrant, which requires an affirmative act from the accused.
It does? I'm not sure how sitting still (or failing that being strapped down) while they take a blood sample can be called an affirmative act. It's not like we're asking the supect to take a blood sample himself, and deliver it at the station, something which would, civil rights considerations aside, be pretty damn stupid.

[geni]

Interesting:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0428061duke1.html

[Cylinder]

MSNBC also reported tonight that the same woman also accused her ex-husband of rape and that claim was designated by the police as a "false claim."

[The Central Scrutinizer]

bump

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7068705/?hpt=T2

[Beerina]

Ya know, when Mike Tyson was accused of rape, and went to jail, his most vociferous defenders around here were women. I suppose deep pockets people have to be extra careful as "Go up and hope he ****s me and claim it's rape" is apparently seen as a viable business model.

[Ziggurat]

bump

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7068705/?hpt=T2

Bump again. This time, she succeeded.

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/apr/14/7/durham-police-crystal-mangums-boyfriend-passes-awa-ar-947226/

[casebro]

There is a good argument to be made that an accuser's mental state out to be considered in trials. Mangus is obviously out of control, bat guano crazy.

[Nursefoxfire]

Bump again. This time, she succeeded.

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/apr/14/7/durham-police-crystal-mangums-boyfriend-passes-awa-ar-947226/

I wonder if Nancy Grace will pop up to defend her innocence now? :rolleyes:

[AlBell]

There is a good argument to be made that an accuser's mental state out to be considered in trials. Mangus is obviously out of control, bat guano crazy.
Is Stage V crack-whore a legal defense now?

[Joey McGee]

I wonder if Nancy Grace will pop up to defend her innocence now? :rolleyes:

Nah the emotional parasite business is booming these days she's got way better material on the dock :covereyes

[Mister Earl]

I remember that whole nancy grace bit. I remember thinking "SHE used to be a judge? Good grief. Here she is, talking about these guys as if they were already convicted. What the heck?"

[Joey McGee]

I remember that whole nancy grace bit. I remember thinking "SHE used to be a judge? Good grief. Here she is, talking about these guys as if they were already convicted. What the heck?"

And she has never apologized. And the night they were cleared someone else hosted the show. Which means she is beneath contempt, a cash cow for CNN and nothing more. If you watch her show and listen carefully, you can hear the groans coming from the producers. Ok that last bit is perhaps my imagination.

[Ausmerican]

I remember that whole nancy grace bit. I remember thinking "SHE used to be a judge? Good grief. Here she is, talking about these guys as if they were already convicted. What the heck?"

Not a judge. She used to be a prosecutor, which is bad enough. Also taken to task for prosecutorial misconduct a couple of times.

[Joey McGee]

The filth that Nancy is really known for is lying about her fiance's murder in order to further her career. Her existence is a lie, and CNN knows it. A lot of really obvious, unchallenged lies. She claims stupidity. If you simply observe this article by the Observer (http://www.observer.com/node/51941) you will probably agree with me that she and all of her enablers are sick people

Ms. Grace told Tim Russert in 2005, was this: “[H]e was, I guess you would say, mugged by someone—he didn’t even know him—and shot five times.”

“All this for $35?” Mr. Russert asked later in the interview.

“Thirty-five dollars,” Ms. Grace replied. “Thirty-five dollars.”

Ms. Grace also told Mr. Russert, “The man that murdered Keith was a repeat offender, and I thought the system had failed Keith.”



Keith was killed by a former co-worker with no criminal record.

“I shot that dude because he was one of the ones that got me fired from my job,” he said in his confession.

Her success is a stain on the record of humanity.

[Mister Earl]

Not a judge. She used to be a prosecutor, which is bad enough. Also taken to task for prosecutorial misconduct a couple of times.

I stand happily corrected. *hat tip*