NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/uwire/122606aac.html

Looks like the prosecutor can't claim rape, since the woman had the semen of five men in her, but none matched the three defendants.

And now she claims she can't remember anything.

Cheshire added that the only consistency in the alleged victim's story was that a penis was used in the assault, although the woman now says she cannot remember whether a penis was used or not.

I find it odd that she could have had such clarity of memory for a while, and then when the case collapses, she can't remember.

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/uwire/122606aac.html

Looks like the prosecutor can't claim rape, since the woman had the semen of five men in her, but none matched the three defendants.

And now she claims she can't remember anything.



I find it odd that she could have had such clarity of memory for a while, and then when the case collapses, she can't remember.

Jesse jackson spent all that time for nothing...ohwell.

But, the assault and kidnapping charges still stand. The only reason the rape charge was dropped was because the sheer amount of evidence muddled the case.

But, the assault and kidnapping charges still stand. The only reason the rape charge was dropped was because the sheer amount of evidence muddled the case.

The DNA wasn't muddled. It looks like the prosecution deliberately hid exculpatory evidence, and that's why they had to drop it. The DNA proved the accused didn't rape her.

As for the assault and kidnapping, she's apparently changing her story now, and she's the only witness. Considering her lies about the rape, and the fact that the DNA contradicts her in so many ways:

She said she didn't have sex with anyone for a week prior to the party, yet the DNA of five men were found in her and on her underwear - none of it matching the accused. She later admitted she had sex with other men prior to the party.

How can anyone believe the rest of what she says?

Lacrosse boys probably acted like typical drunken college kids and pissed her off. Then she probably decided to get back at them by claiming rape. At least that's my pointless, baseless, uninformed opinion.

How can anyone believe the rest of what she says?

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?" Pretty sick really. Can't you get your jollies somewhere else? Why would somone expose themselves to the kinds of things that a victim of this nature goes through (your own postings are an apt example) voluntarily? Just for kicks? IF that were the case why did she pick the lacrosse team?

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?" Pretty sick really. Can't you get your jollies somewhere else? Why would somone expose themselves to the kinds of things that a victim of this nature goes through (your own postings are an apt example) voluntarily? Just for kicks? IF that were the case why did she pick the lacrosse team?

The thing is, it isn't "obvious". Her story has changed multiple times, it doesn't cooberate w/ what anyone else has said (even the other strippers) and the DA is still pushing it even w/ faulty/weak evidence.

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?" Pretty sick really. Can't you get your jollies somewhere else? Why would somone expose themselves to the kinds of things that a victim of this nature goes through (your own postings are an apt example) voluntarily? Just for kicks? IF that were the case why did she pick the lacrosse team?

The other dancer present said that the victim was upset about the amount she was getting paid, and said that she would make up something to get the lacrosse team in trouble as retribution for not getting enough money.

Sounds like she didn't have any crime committed against her.

Sounds like fraud to me.

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?" Pretty sick really. Can't you get your jollies somewhere else? Why would somone expose themselves to the kinds of things that a victim of this nature goes through (your own postings are an apt example) voluntarily? Just for kicks? IF that were the case why did she pick the lacrosse team?

well there IS the part where she claimed that at least one of the rapists ejaculated on or in her but the dna evidence exhonerated EVERY lacrosse team member.

there is the part where she picked out 3 men from a photo lineup that included ONLY lacrosse team members.

there is the part where she claimed that one of them had a moustache--but he didnt, that one of them was wearing short sleeves--but pictures show he wasnt.

the part where at least 2 of the 3 men have conclusive evidence that they werent there when the rape supposedly occurred.

the part where she has changed her story over time.

the part where her coworker doesnt back up her story.

other than that, its just being mean to a poor black stripper for obvious racist and sexist reasons.

I knew the rape charges were fake from the beginning. Why, because 1. Her story keeps on changing. First it went from a simple "They yelled sexual stuff at me" to "They raped me". God this woman story changes so many times she could have split personality. Second, first they couldn't find any DNA evidence, but once they did find them, they did not match up. Third, the only witness to this whole fiasco stated that she's going to try to get a book deal out of this, so she's out. Let's face it, this was a case where a pissed off stripper tried to frame three boys because they didn't pay her enough. She probably wasn't that good anyways considering that she probably was drinking that night.

Jesse jackson spent all that time for nothing...ohwell.

As usual.


And where is he now?


And where are the hordes of people that support the innocet Duke students, chanting "No justice,No peace?" in the streets?

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?" Pretty sick really. Can't you get your jollies somewhere else? Why would somone expose themselves to the kinds of things that a victim of this nature goes through (your own postings are an apt example) voluntarily? Just for kicks? IF that were the case why did she pick the lacrosse team?

She was in it for money, pure and simple.

"Rape" to this woman has a different definition than it does to you. To her, its being a sperm depository without getting paid.

There was no crime committed against her.


The crime here is several boys being accused of a really horrible crime by an opportunist that thought they'd be an easy mark.

Some people wanted these boys to be guilty in the worst way. Rich white lacrosse players are easy to hate, I guess.


Now she is carrying the bastard child of a dozen OTHER strangers and wants to change her story and try to glean some cahs from the whole experience.

False charges are pretty damn serious. So is Nifong's actions- all wrongly accused students, as well as the school should be suing him and the accuser.

The thing is, it isn't "obvious". Her story has changed multiple times, it doesn't cooberate w/ what anyone else has said (even the other strippers) and the DA is still pushing it even w/ faulty/weak evidence.

and dont forget-the way the evidence was handled and suppressed destroys the prosections case.

What is really sad is even though the rape charges are dropped, it'll still follow them for the rest of their lives. People will always be whispering "Isn't that the guy accused of rape?" It's going to make life a whole lot difficult for them. If I was in their shoe, I would sue her ass for damage to character, and slander.

What is really sad is even though the rape charges are dropped, it'll still follow them for the rest of their lives. People will always be whispering "Isn't that the guy accused of rape?" It's going to make life a whole lot difficult for them. If I was in their shoe, I would sue her ass for damage to character, and slander.

She doesn't have any money.

Now, the DA is apparently in trouble for withholding exculpatory evidence. If he gets censured officially, you can then sue him (and the government) and get millions.

She doesn't have any money.

Now, the DA is apparently in trouble for withholding exculpatory evidence. If he gets censured officially, you can then sue him (and the government) and get millions.

Well, if the boys are going to have something following them around for the rest of their lives, then she should get one too.

What is really sad is even though the rape charges are dropped, it'll still follow them for the rest of their lives. People will always be whispering "Isn't that the guy accused of rape?" It's going to make life a whole lot difficult for them. If I was in their shoe, I would sue her ass for damage to character, and slander.

yeah-but you can be sure she'll never pay out a cent to anyone, she has nothing except her word-oops-
And if she were to make money on some book or made for TV movie, I'm sure she'll have some witch doctor help her hide and divert it so its unnattachable.


The best these students can hope for is people forget their names and faces.


Which will be tough,considering their names and pictures are clearly posted everytime the story is reported on.

yeah-but you can be sure she'll never pay out a cent to anyone, she has nothing except her word-oops-
And if she were to make money on some book or made for TV movie, I'm sure she'll have some witch doctor help her hide and divert it so its unnattachable.


The best these students can hope for is people forget their names and faces.


Which will be tough,considering their names and pictures are clearly posted everytime the story is reported on.

Oh yea. Considering that I'm in the same state, I am incline to finding her picture, name, and address and just publish it all over the Internet and just make thousands of flyer's and spread it across NC. Let people know who this woman is and what she has done to three innocent boys.

Oh yea. Considering that I'm in the same state, I am incline to finding her picture, name, and address and just publish it all over the Internet and just make thousands of flyer's and spread it across NC. Let people know who this woman is and what she has done to three innocent boys.

You also have the issue of people in her camp struggling to make it a racial issue.
Trying to pit whites against blacks.

All for money.


give it a few years- this stupid bitch will be slipping and falling in stores and finding fingers in her chili.

You also have the issue of people in her camp struggling to make it a racial issue.
Trying to pit whites against blacks.

All for money.


give it a few years- this stupid bitch will be slipping and falling in stores and finding fingers in her chili.

Even though I don't like the bitch, I do feel sorry for her children. :( They never had a chance with this woman being their mother.

Well, if the boys are going to have something following them around for the rest of their lives, then she should get one too.

Not to be rude, but what is there left to do to the reputation of a stripper? These guys were innocent but there chances of even any academic honors are likely ruined. As for her, well like I said, you cant do much to the character of a stripper.

Not to be rude, but what is there left to do to the reputation of a stripper? These guys were innocent but there chances of even any academic honors are likely ruined. As for her, well like I said, you cant do much to the character of a stripper.

Okay. They were on the lacrosse team. So I think we can rule out any chances of real academic honors in any case.

Secondly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a stripper. Like jesus, I'd rather spend time with strippers than priests.

Okay. They were on the lacrosse team. So I think we can rule out any chances of real academic honors in any case.

Secondly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a stripper. Like jesus, I'd rather spend time with strippers than priests.

The stripper that I used to hang out with back in the end of highschool beginning of collage was less of a perv then the priest who ran my elementary school ...

You also have the issue of people in her camp struggling to make it a racial issue.
Trying to pit whites against blacks.

All for money.


give it a few years- this stupid bitch will be slipping and falling in stores and finding fingers in her chili.

I dont know why you used that last example ... the first one is an obvious example of someone trying to make a buck for something that was not the stores fault

But the chilli one really happened
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/24/national/main682925.shtml

The stripper that I used to hang out with back in the end of highschool beginning of collage was less of a perv then the priest who ran my elementary school ...

I've no doubt. No doubt at all.

At least stripping is honest.

I always find it funny when a poor black person is convicted of a crime most people claim that race was probably a factor. When a couple of rich white guys have a charge dropped against them, the prosecution "Must have missed something".

I think this is total bullshit. There is so much evidence this woman is a lying golddigger I hope the entire case is thrown out.

I always find it funny when a poor black person is convicted of a crime most people claim that race was probably a factor. When a couple of rich white guys have a charge dropped against them, the prosecution "Must have missed something".

I think this is total bullshit. There is so much evidence this woman is a lying golddigger I hope the entire case is thrown out.

While she may have been lying how is this "Golddigging" ? I thought these were criminal charges against three students what money was to be made out of this case?

While she may have been lying how is this "Golddigging" ? I thought these were criminal charges against three students what money was to be made out of this case?

The woman was suing for money.....

The DNA wasn't muddled. It looks like the prosecution deliberately hid exculpatory evidence, and that's why they had to drop it. The DNA proved the accused didn't rape her.

No it doesn't. Be careful with words like this. There's an expression "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". DNA alone doesn't prove rape. Likewise absence of DNA doesn't disprove rape.

It means that there is an absence of evidence to prove rape, that's all. Of course, in our system of innocent until proven guilty, absence of evidence is enough.

No it doesn't. Be careful with words like this. There's an expression "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". DNA alone doesn't prove rape. Likewise absence of DNA doesn't disprove rape.

You've also got the fact that she lied about what happened and can't get her story straight now, both of which definitely put all of her claims in doubt. In addition, she tried a similar thing in the past, which fell through because she didn't show up to write a detailed story of the events in question. She has no credibility at all, and when combined with lack of DNA or eyewitness evidence it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these lacrosse players are innocent.

This screams extortion...these guys' lives are nearly ruined because of this criminal, and I really hope they turn around and sue her for this.

The woman was suing for money.....

How so? the information from the article was talking about criminal charges brought by the state not civil ones brought about by the woman.

Last time I knew no money changed hands in a criminal case prosecuted by the state. I thought that was only in civil suits

How so? the information from the article was talking about criminal charges brought by the state not civil ones brought about by the woman.

Last time I knew no money changed hands in a criminal case prosecuted by the state. I thought that was only in civil suits

Think about it Upward. If this has gone through, and if the boys were indicted by a grand jury, then they may feel more incline to settle out of court.

Happy Dance.

Think about it Upward. If this has gone through, and if the boys were indicted by a grand jury, then they may feel more incline to settle out of court.
But it does not matter what they settle with the woman she is not the plantif in this case so there is no official monetary "out of court" settlement

Now if you are proposing she is trying to blackmail that is a different situation ... but personally doubt having a massively public situation like this is the best situation for blackmail ... regardless of what happens I bet her and every one involved finances will have an eye kept on them

But it does not matter what they settle with the woman she is not the plantif in this case so there is no official monetary "out of court" settlement

Now if you are proposing she is trying to blackmail that is a different situation ... but personally doubt having a massively public situation like this is the best situation for blackmail ... regardless of what happens I bet her and every one involved finances will have an eye kept on them

Well considering that these boys were sued with a flaky witness (the stripper's friend) a woman who changes her story constantly (the stripper) and no actual evidence of any rape (DNA doesn't match up), one does has to wonder what this was all about, what the real motive was.

But it does not matter what they settle with the woman she is not the plantif in this case so there is no official monetary "out of court" settlement

Now if you are proposing she is trying to blackmail that is a different situation ... but personally doubt having a massively public situation like this is the best situation for blackmail ... regardless of what happens I bet her and every one involved finances will have an eye kept on them

I think what wilgrove is saying is, if the charges go through on the rape, and it looks like they could be convicted, it might put pressure on them to settle a future civil suit, because they'd already be thinking that there was enough to convict them, it'd be enough to find them liable in a civil claim, so they might as well settle.

I think what wilgrove is saying is, if the charges go through on the rape, and it looks like they could be convicted, it might put pressure on them to settle a future civil suit, because they'd already be thinking that there was enough to convict them, it'd be enough to find them liable in a civil claim, so they might as well settle.

Basically. I love having a lawyer on here. :D

Well considering that these boys were sued with a flaky witness (the stripper's friend) a woman who changes her story constantly (the stripper) and no actual evidence of any rape (DNA doesn't match up), one does has to wonder what this was all about, what the real motive was.

I don't know sense neither the team nor the school were "Sued" in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying she is not lying I am not saying that this may a completely bogus case

What I AM saying is that so far no money is shown to be involved in any way shape or form legal or not ...

I don't know sense neither the team nor the school were "Sued" in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying she is not lying I am not saying that this may a completely bogus case

What I AM saying is that so far no money is shown to be involved in any way shape or form legal or not ...

True. I'm just saying that the whole thing just seem suspicious from the start.

I think what wilgrove is saying is, if the charges go through on the rape, and it looks like they could be convicted, it might put pressure on them to settle a future civil suit, because they'd already be thinking that there was enough to convict them, it'd be enough to find them liable in a civil claim, so they might as well settle.

That is possible sure there is the potential for a civil case in the future but right now no money is apparently involved in any way and it is the STATE pressing the charges and the STATE that is continuing the prosecution not this woman

I don't know sense neither the team nor the school were "Sued" in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying she is not lying I am not saying that this may a completely bogus case

What I AM saying is that so far no money is shown to be involved in any way shape or form legal or not ...

So far, true. However I think what Wilgrove said has some validity to it. If you have a false claim, but you want to try to get some money out of that false claim, don't sue first, because if you lose, you're done. But if you drum up some criminal charges, get them worried, get them scared, get them thinking they might lose, then they may be desperate enough to just settle.

True. I'm just saying that the whole thing just seem suspicious from the start.

That could be but my original contention was to "moneygrubbing" (if I remember right) which I contested because either through accident or design people seem to be under the impression that this trial is about her receiving money for the accusations

Its not

There is potential in the future sure but right now this case is NOT about money (the situation may or may not be but there is no evidence for that, that I have heard anyways)

That is possible sure there is the potential for a civil case in the future but right now no money is apparently involved in any way and it is the STATE pressing the charges and the STATE that is continuing the prosecution not this woman

Well again, true, BUT you could have said the same thing about the OJ simpson murder trial. During the criminal trial there wasn't a civil claim, the civil claim happened after.

In fact, most courts won't even go through a civil suit while there is a related criminal charges pending, usually the court will grant a continuance to allow the accused to focus on their criminal trial.

If they are in fact actually guilty, and there was evidence of that, she'd be stupid NOT to sue, and, in fact, she probably should. The thing is though, typically, most civil suits happen AFTER the related criminal trial.

So far, true. However I think what Wilgrove said has some validity to it. If you have a false claim, but you want to try to get some money out of that false claim, don't sue first, because if you lose, you're done. But if you drum up some criminal charges, get them worried, get them scared, get them thinking they might lose, then they may be desperate enough to just settle.
That is true, but my original contestation was trying to dispel the apparent myth that THIS trial is about money

That was it

I was not trying to predict her future intent rather the realities of this case which people seem to be misunderstanding.

That could be but my original contention was to "moneygrubbing" (if I remember right) which I contested because either through accident or design people seem to be under the impression that this trial is about her receiving money for the accusations

Its not

There is potential in the future sure but right now this case is NOT about money (the situation may or may not be but there is no evidence for that, that I have heard anyways)

It would depend on motives we're not aware of. Again, if this is all a fraud, and she IS in fact forward thinking that a lawsuit is her ultimite goal, getting criminal charges pressed first might be the smart move.

I'm not saying that it's a lie, but I am saying that were it TO be a lie, doing things in this order would be the smart choice.

That is true, but my original contestation was trying to dispel the apparent myth that THIS trial is about money

That was it

I was not trying to predict her future intent rather the realities of this case which people seem to be misunderstanding.

True. If we are to totally remove any speculation about further motives then yes, THIS potential trial has nothing to do, directly, about money. It is a criminal charge. Now again, it may be the smart move in the grand scheme of things but correct, THIS CHARGE is a criminal one, not a civil one.

It would depend on motives we're not aware of. Again, if this is all a fraud, and she IS in fact forward thinking that a lawsuit is her ultimite goal, getting criminal charges pressed first might be the smart move.

I'm not saying that it's a lie, but I am saying that were it TO be a lie, doing things in this order would be the smart choice.

And I was just pointing out the differences between civil and criminal cases which people keep confusing ... you are right I am not arguing with you here but people throw words around like "Sue" and accusing her of actually pressing this case forward when it is really the DA

That is all I am trying to point out

And I was just pointing out the differences between civil and criminal cases which people keep confusing ... you are right I am not arguing with you here but people throw words around like "Sue" and accusing her of actually pressing this case forward when it is really the DA

That is all I am trying to point out

yeah, I saw your clarification and edited my prior post. Right, this trial isn't about money in and of itself, however it MIGHT be a step in a strategy to GET money.

yeah, I saw your clarification and edited my prior post. Right, this trial isn't about money in and of itself, however it MIGHT be a step in a strategy to GET money.

True though I am not sure she has the funding to carry through with it unless there is some pro-bono lawyering going on.

Last time I knew prostitutes do not usually have the cash to back big name lawsuits :p

True though I am not sure she has the funding to carry through with it unless there is some pro-bono lawyering going on.

Last time I knew prostitutes do not usually have the cash to back big name lawsuits :p

Tort claims are usually done on contingency, the lawyer taking a cut of your winnings.

She actually wouldn't have to front anything. The state foots the bill for the criminal prosecution, and in a civil claim she would (absent an atypical arrangement) only pay the tort lawyer a % of her winnings, and only if she won.

It actually doesn't tend to cost you anything (minus sometimes a retainer and usual court fees which is not typically more than a few hundred dollars) to sue someone. It is done this way to in a sense self regulate, if lawyers only take cases where they can win, and thus get paid, it tends to cut down on the frivolous suits, since lawyers won't waste time on a case they can't win.

Arthais101,

Assuming that you followed this case from day 1, like I have, what is your impression about this Duke Rape Case, speaking as a lawyer of course.

Tort claims are usually done on contingency, the lawyer taking a cut of your winnings.

She actually wouldn't have to front anything. The state foots the bill for the criminal prosecution, and in a civil claim she would (absent an atypical arrangement) only pay the tort lawyer a % of her winnings, and only if she won.

It actually doesn't tend to cost you anything (minus sometimes a retainer and usual court fees which is not typically more than a few hundred dollars) to sue someone. It is done this way to in a sense self regulate, if lawyers only take cases where they can win, and thus get paid, it tends to cut down on the frivolous suits, since lawyers won't waste time on a case they can't win.
Interesting to know ... I was trying to be facicous but always nice to learn something :)

Arthais101,

Assuming that you followed this case from day 1, like I have, what is your impression about this Duke Rape Case, speaking as a lawyer of course.

It is difficult for me to give this opinion for two reasons:

1) obviously I do not have access to all the evidence

2) I am a transactional attorney more than anything else, I rarely step foot in a courtroom, and when I do it's civil work, I haven't done criminal work since lawschool

That being said, in my opinion as a non criminal, non trial oriented attorney....I would have hurried the fuck up on the DNA evidence, and when it became clear that there was none, dropped it. In other words, I would have done the same thing ultimitly, but I would have shut the fuck up, kept quiet, and made sure I had some actual evidence before talking to the press like this dumbshit DA did.

The real question should be, "why are you so gleefully piling onto a person who obviously had a crime committed against them?"

What?

The thing is, the criminal justice system is like a machine. And as a machine, it has a process, a series of steps to reach the end result, and you have to go through EACH AND EVERY STEP, you need to follow the whole process:

step 1: does law enforcement have reasonable cause to believe a crime may have been committed?

if yes proceed to step 2

step 2: Based on that reasonable belief, has the law enforcement demonstrated probable cause to procure any and all necessary paperwork and judicially granted authority?

if yes proceed to step 3

step 3: Has the law enforcement, given all necessary and proper paperwork and judicially granted authority conducted an investigation with all due diligance?

if yes proceed to step 4

step 4: Has the law enforcment presented all evidence obtained through their due diligance to the proper state/federal attorney while observing all necessary and proper chains of evidence?

if yes proceed to step 5

step 5: Has the attorney for the government properly and with all due diligance evaluated all comprensive evidence presented to him/her to the point where he/she believes that there is a sufficiency of evidence to bring to trial?

if yes proceed to step 6

step 6: at trial, has the factfinder(s) had a chance to view all evidence presented both by the government as well as all evidence and rebuttal presented by the accused so that the factfider(s) can conclude that the accused is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

if yes, convict.

If at any point in this structure your answer is "no", stop. Go no further. Go back a step and try again, and keep trying until you either get a yes, or can go no further (or double jeopardy precludes).

This case seems to have broken down at step 5. The DA seemed to have made his mind up before all necessary and proper evidence has been presented. In fact, it seems it broke down at step 4, since I wonder, why the HELL a dna analysis in a fucking rape charge took so damned long.

why the HELL a dna analysis in a fucking rape charge took so damned long.

Well, there was 5 different flavours of sperm there. I'm no expert, but I dare say that would complicate the process.

Well, there was 5 different flavours of sperm there. I'm no expert, but I dare say that would complicate the process.

I'm pretty sure the identification rare of DNA isn't exponential based on the number of different strains present.

Well, there was 5 different flavours of sperm there. I'm no expert, but I dare say that would complicate the process.

meh perhaps. Maybe it was proper. That being said, as I mentioned, you don't skip steps, you don't move on until you're done with where you are. You don't start talking about the trial until you are sure you have enough evidence to go to trial.

The DA did the proper choice in dropping the charges. He made the improper choice in discussing it before he made such a conclusion.

I'm pretty sure the identification rare of DNA isn't exponential based on the number of different strains present.

Well 5 strains means there's 5 times more to identify and compare with the DNA from the suspects.