Entire Duke lacrosse team cleared by DNA

Cylinder · 10th April 2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

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 · 10th April 2006, 05:57 PM

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 · 10th April 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10th April 2006, 06:23 PM

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 · 10th April 2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10th April 2006, 07:40 PM

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

Charlie (yet!) Monoxide

Kerberos · 10th April 2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

From the Sports Illustrated article:

"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 · 11th April 2006, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

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 · 11th April 2006, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

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 · 11th April 2006, 06:43 AM

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

chulbert · 11th April 2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

"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 · 11th April 2006, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

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 · 11th April 2006, 08:47 AM

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 · 11th April 2006, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 11th April 2006, 09:42 AM

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

Cain · 11th April 2006, 09:50 AM

Rush was right: she's a ho.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

nightwind · 11th April 2006, 11:48 AM

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 · 12th April 2006, 10:13 AM

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 · 12th April 2006, 11:01 AM

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 · 12th April 2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

See post 15.

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

ChristineR · 12th April 2006, 11:36 AM

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

wastepanel · 12th April 2006, 11:39 AM

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 · 12th April 2006, 11:45 AM

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 · 12th April 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

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 · 12th April 2006, 03:31 PM

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 · 12th April 2006, 11:56 PM

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 · 13th April 2006, 05:37 AM

Court records show larger team problem

Quote:

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 · 13th April 2006, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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 · 13th April 2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 13th April 2006, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by wastepanel

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 · 13th April 2006, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 13th April 2006, 08:11 AM

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

zakur · 13th April 2006, 08:24 AM

From FindLaw:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · 13th April 2006, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

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 · 13th April 2006, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by zakur

From FindLaw:

From Forensic-Evidence.com:

Thanks - that answers my question.

geni · 28th April 2006, 08:22 PM

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 · 28th April 2006, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

I already saw a tabloid claiming to have photos of her.

Originally Posted by wastepanel

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?

Originally Posted by Kerberos

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

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

You might as well let people refuse fingerprinting or witness confrontations.

On'es face is publically available information.

Originally Posted by wastepanel

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · 28th April 2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

What's outlandish about that?

[quote=Art Vandelay;1606419]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.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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?

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

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 · 1st May 2006, 05:15 PM

Interesting:

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

Cylinder · 1st May 2006, 05:28 PM

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."

10th April 2006, 05:45 PM	#1
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,874	Entire Duke lacrosse team cleared by DNA From the Sports Illustrated article: Quote: 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.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

10th April 2006, 06:17 PM	#3
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by 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. 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...
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

10th April 2006, 06:38 PM	#5
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by 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. 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...
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

10th April 2006, 07:40 PM	#6
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	At least we haven't heard from Al Sharpton ...... Charlie (yet!) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

10th April 2006, 11:02 PM	#7
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Cylinder From the Sports Illustrated article: "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.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

10th April 2006, 05:57 PM	#2
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	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.

10th April 2006, 06:23 PM	#4
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	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.

11th April 2006, 12:06 AM	#8
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Kerberos 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?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

11th April 2006, 02:03 AM	#9
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by slingblade 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.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

11th April 2006, 06:43 AM	#10
Zbu Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 466	I smell a case of semantics leading to a false conclusion with this story. Or as I like to call it, 'Journalism nowadays.'

11th April 2006, 08:12 AM	#11
chulbert Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 725	Originally Posted by Cylinder "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.

11th April 2006, 08:28 AM	#12
atari24 Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 105	Originally Posted by Cylinder 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.

11th April 2006, 08:47 AM	#13
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	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?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

11th April 2006, 09:28 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by 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? 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.)

11th April 2006, 09:42 AM	#15
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	[yechhh...] Semen sample? From the victim, I mean. [/yechhh...]
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

11th April 2006, 09:50 AM	#16
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,940	Rush was right: she's a ho. http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

11th April 2006, 11:48 AM	#17
nightwind Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 398	Team 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.
	__________________ "A Wise Man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can see from the top of a mountain" "Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious." - Alan Minter, Boxer

12th April 2006, 10:13 AM	#18
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,802	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!
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,802	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

12th April 2006, 11:01 AM	#19
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	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?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

12th April 2006, 11:18 AM	#20
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by 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? See post 15. Do rapists ever wear condoms? I must confess to total ignorance on this issue (thank FSM).
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

12th April 2006, 11:36 AM	#21
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	Rapists who have heard of DNA tests quite often wear condoms.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

12th April 2006, 11:39 AM	#22
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574	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.
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574

12th April 2006, 11:45 AM	#23
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	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.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

12th April 2006, 11:48 AM	#24
Furious Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 295	Originally Posted by Beerina 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.
Furious Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 295	__________________ Total noob

12th April 2006, 03:31 PM	#25
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	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."

12th April 2006, 11:56 PM	#26
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017	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.
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017

13th April 2006, 05:37 AM	#27
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	Court records show larger team problem Quote: 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.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

13th April 2006, 06:55 AM	#28
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 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?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

13th April 2006, 07:31 AM	#29
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574

13th April 2006, 08:00 AM	#30
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by wastepanel 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.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

13th April 2006, 08:09 AM	#31
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim Last edited by Kerberos; 13th April 2006 at 08:11 AM.

13th April 2006, 08:11 AM	#32
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	You need a warrant, just as you did for intimate examinations of a someone's physical person before DNA.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

13th April 2006, 08:24 AM	#33
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	From FindLaw: Quote: 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: Quote: 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...
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

13th April 2006, 08:31 AM	#34
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574	Originally Posted by BPSCG 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).
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574

13th April 2006, 09:55 AM	#35
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by zakur From FindLaw: From Forensic-Evidence.com: Thanks - that answers my question.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.