NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070412/cm_usatoday/dukerapecaseimplodesrevealingworldofinjustice

It is apparent that the Duke players accused of rape were victims of a hoax perpetrated more by an out of control prosecutor than by anyone else (IMHO).

And yet, while another thread proclaims "justice is served" one might ask if there will be a profound long term impact as a result of this highly charged public case.

Namely, as in the article cited, an effect on whether or not women will be less likely to report a rape (unless they feel they can come up with solid DNA evidence or multiple eyewitnesses who will testify in a coherent manner to the event), and whether or not grand juries will cease to be secret star chambers where a prosecutor can act with impunity to further his own political career.

The damage from the Duke case goes beyond that done to the three students. It might hurt the cause of legitimate rape victims. It could persuade some not to come forward, fearing their allegations wouldn't be believed. It also could lead some police, prosecutors and even jurors to doubt women's true charges of rape. Just 42% of victims, on average, reported rapes and sexual assaults to police from 2000 through 2005, according the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Duke case could set back hard-won improvements in the treatment of sexual assault victims.

If any good is to come of the fiasco, it will be new checks on the power of prosecutors such as Nifong, who appears to have put ambition above the pursuit of impartial justice. The North Carolina State Bar has filed ethics charges against Nifong, accusing him of making inflammatory comments, withholding evidence from defense attorneys, and lying to the court and investigators. Cooper, who took over the case in January, wants the state Supreme Court empowered to intervene quickly if a prosecutor goes off the rails. The students and their lawyers called for more transparency in the grand jury process.

I believe that the first item will defnitely come true - women are going to be even less likely to report a rape, especially if they personally believe that there isn't any credible evidence - i.e., if she's raped by a rapist wearing a condom, and there isn't any evidence of a struggle, and there are no eyewitnesses...

...and the victim changes her story every three months...

The point is, if all she has is her story (even if consistent)...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070412/cm_usatoday/dukerapecaseimplodesrevealingworldofinjustice

It is apparent that the Duke players accused of rape were victims of a hoax perpetrated more by an out of control prosecutor than by anyone else (IMHO).

And yet, while another thread proclaims "justice is served" one might ask if there will be a profound long term impact as a result of this highly charged public case.

Namely, as in the article cited, an effect on whether or not women will be less likely to report a rape (unless they feel they can come up with solid DNA evidence or multiple eyewitnesses who will testify in a coherent manner to the event), and whether or not grand juries will cease to be secret star chambers where a prosecutor can act with impunity to further his own political career.



I believe that the first item will defnitely come true - women are going to be even less likely to report a rape, especially if they personally believe that there isn't any credible evidence - i.e., if she's raped by a rapist wearing a condom, and there isn't any evidence of a struggle, and there are no eyewitnesses...

...and the victim changes her story every three months...

What will happen the next time a woman accuses men of rape, and they are found not guilty, because they have better lawyers, or she gets a conservative jury? Are we going to advocate that she be charged for perjury and thrown in jail to teach her a lesson?

I already raised this in the other thread, but thought it was pertinent to repost here.

I already raised this in the other thread, but thought it was pertinent to repost here.

If there is evidence that said woman intentionally sought to lie to the jury, then, absolutely.

One of the funny little quirks in the American Justice system is that her story alone isn't enough. There has to be actual evidence. Strange but true. *nod*

So.. advice to rapists:

1. Wear a condom.
2. Subdue her first using a taser, so she doesn't get anything under her nails.
3. Duct tape her so she can't resist.
4. Have at it.
5. Make sure no one else saw any of this.
6. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The point is, if all she has is her story (even if consistent)...

One of the funny little quirks in the American Justice system is that her story alone isn't enough. There has to be actual evidence. Strange but true. *nod*

Nifong screwed up.

Not to say that everybody in the area is buying that the LAX players are innocent (see, for example, the recent video ""This is why Duke sucks, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOgC2Qbqh4)" widely watched in the area, which alludes to the case), but we're all pretty sure that Nifong deserves to get canned. Even the ones that are still pretty sure the LAX boys did it.

Unfortunately for Durham, public officials misbehaving seems entirely too common in the city of medicine.

If there is evidence that said woman intentionally sought to lie to the jury, then, absolutely.

What I meant was, (and my question is poorly phrased) is that if a woman accuses a man of rape, it goes to trial and he is found not guilty, on the defence that she consented, or that there is insufficient evidence that the rape occurred, would this be seen as evidence that the woman intentionally sought to lie to the jury about the crime? It's a dangerous road to me.

Nifong screwed up.

Not to say that everybody in the area is buying that the LAX players are innocent (see, for example, the recent video ""This is why Duke sucks, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOgC2Qbqh4)" widely watched in the area, which alludes to the case), but we're all pretty sure that Nifong deserves to get canned. Even the ones that are still pretty sure the LAX boys did it.

Unfortunately for Durham, public officials misbehaving seems entirely too common in the city of medicine.

Nifong was seeking glory and shed all common sense and all reasonable proper procedures.

He saw a case where a poor,struggling minority woman was horribly victimized by a gang of well off,smug and indifferent jackals. And tried to take full advantage of this opporotunity to propel himself upward to elected office.

Unfortunately for him- the whole thing was a charade.

Instead,we have a total lie, a "victim" sodden with the DNA of several other men-NONE OF WHICH ARE AMONG THE ACCUSED.
Several innocent students smeared and tainted with an empty charge hanging on them for 13 months and a coach out of a job,all for no reason other than the failed attempt of a dishonest opportunist, a couple of loud-mouthed racist activists and Nifong-a dopey,greedy sucker.

And racial tension whipped into a froth where it certainly wasnt needed.

So.. advice to rapists:

1. Wear a condom.
2. Subdue her first using a taser, so she doesn't get anything under her nails.
3. Duct tape her so she can't resist.
4. Have at it.
5. Make sure no one else saw any of this.
6. Lather, rinse, repeat.



Well, let's see: For the most part, rapists want resistance. They are usually to arrogant or driven by whatever sociopathic urges are running through their diseased brains to be this careful. But even if they were, they couldn't 'lather, rinse,repeat'. Because that would establish pattern. A jury might not believe one woman's story, but they might believe twenty. So such a rapist would have to conceal his identity and to strike random women with no discernible pattern. Black, white, asian, old, young, etc. And never too many from one geographic area. And never too close to eachother or the rapist's home.

Seems like a lot of work to me. I guess I'm too lazy to be a rapist. :p

Well, let's see: For the most part, rapists want resistance. They are usually to arrogant or driven by whatever sociopathic urges are running through their diseased brains to be this careful. But even if they were, they couldn't 'lather, rinse,repeat'. Because that would establish pattern. A jury might not believe one woman's story, but they might believe twenty. So such a rapist would have to conceal his identity and to strike random women with no discernible pattern. Black, white, asian, old, young, etc. And never too many from one geographic area. And never too close to eachother or the rapist's home.

Seems like a lot of work to me. I guess I'm too lazy to be a rapist. :p

Actually, most serial rapists stick to an established pattern. Serial rapists also strike women they don't know and take steps to conceal their identity. Serial rapists usually strike within their own racial group. And they usually rape within their comfort zone, striking out further as they get more confident. Read John Douglas or Robert Ressler books sometime. You will gain some insight into the erroneous perceptions held by the public about crimes.

Well, let's see: For the most part, rapists want resistance. They are usually to arrogant or driven by whatever sociopathic urges are running through their diseased brains to be this careful. But even if they were, they couldn't 'lather, rinse,repeat'. Because that would establish pattern. A jury might not believe one woman's story, but they might believe twenty. So such a rapist would have to conceal his identity and to strike random women with no discernible pattern. Black, white, asian, old, young, etc. And never too many from one geographic area. And never too close to eachother or the rapist's home.

Seems like a lot of work to me. I guess I'm too lazy to be a rapist. :p
IIRC, most rapes are not committed by serial rapists...

Actually, most serial rapists stick to an established pattern. Serial rapists also strike women they don't know and take steps to conceal their identity. Serial rapists usually strike within their own racial group. And they usually rape within their comfort zone, striking out further as they get more confident. Read John Douglas or Robert Ressler books sometime. You will gain some insight into the erroneous perceptions held by the public about crimes.

Yeah, well that's why they get caught. ;)

Yeah, well that's why they get caught. ;)

I guess you're right there.

So.. advice to rapists:

1. Wear a condom.
2. Subdue her first using a taser, so she doesn't get anything under her nails.
3. Duct tape her so she can't resist.
4. Have at it.
5. Make sure no one else saw any of this.
6. Lather, rinse, repeat.


So? Nobody said life was fair. The criminal justice system doesn't work on catching everyone for everything, anyway, a serial rapist (or killer) is most likely to be caught by a stroke of dumb luck that gets them one or two convictions (which in turn remove them from circulation until they're too old).

And before you accuse me of sexism: that method could just as easily be used on a man, so my ass is on the line here too.

Well, let's see: For the most part, rapists want resistance. They are usually to arrogant or driven by whatever sociopathic urges are running through their diseased brains to be this careful. But even if they were, they couldn't 'lather, rinse,repeat'. Because that would establish pattern. A jury might not believe one woman's story, but they might believe twenty. So such a rapist would have to conceal his identity and to strike random women with no discernible pattern. Black, white, asian, old, young, etc. And never too many from one geographic area. And never too close to eachother or the rapist's home.

Seems like a lot of work to me. I guess I'm too lazy to be a rapist. :p

Not to mention that being tasered does leave physical evidence of an attack.

Well, let's see: For the most part, rapists want resistance.

One imagines that some would get a kick out of the misery of a raped woman who cannot do anything about it.

One imagines that some would get a kick out of the misery of a raped woman who cannot do anything about it.
Oh, yes, shall we talk about frat boys raping passed out chicks at parties now? It's a classic story that gets in the news every so often.

...and the victim changes her story every three months...
Which, in my opinion, is unforgivable and a crime.

It's amazing how people are now going from "charges dropped" to "woman lying" to "no crime occurred" to "women should be taught a lesson not to dare besmirch the name of men."

Those rich boys could have a field day with the 'Durham Dirtbag' if they wanted. Sue her poor minority ass further into the poor house with a Defamation of Character Lawsuit. If I was them I'd do it too. I'm a rather vengeful person though.

I wish I could find it ironic that the outcome of this travesty turned into the victimization of women in rape cases debate. But I can't. This case should have outlined the power of a woman in a rape case where some shoddy accusations and overzealous prosecution were able to persecute a group of students for a year. Yet, the issue is raised of women's defense in rape cases is at risk. Is it just me or is everyone but white males that are victims of any sort of persecution?

Are you under the impression that it is impossible for a white male to be raped and to be afraid to report it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070412/cm_usatoday/dukerapecaseimplodesrevealingworldofinjustice

It is apparent that the Duke players accused of rape were victims of a hoax perpetrated more by an out of control prosecutor than by anyone else (IMHO).

And yet, while another thread proclaims "justice is served" one might ask if there will be a profound long term impact as a result of this highly charged public case.

Namely, as in the article cited, an effect on whether or not women will be less likely to report a rape (unless they feel they can come up with solid DNA evidence or multiple eyewitnesses who will testify in a coherent manner to the event), and whether or not grand juries will cease to be secret star chambers where a prosecutor can act with impunity to further his own political career.



I believe that the first item will defnitely come true - women are going to be even less likely to report a rape, especially if they personally believe that there isn't any credible evidence - i.e., if she's raped by a rapist wearing a condom, and there isn't any evidence of a struggle, and there are no eyewitnesses...
I wish I could find it ironic that the outcome of this travesty turned into the victimization of women in rape cases debate. But I can't. This case should have outlined the power of a woman in a rape case where some shoddy accusations and overzealous prosecution were able to persecute a group of students for a year. Yet, the issue is raised of women's defense in rape cases is at risk. Is it just me or is everyone but white males that are victims of any sort of persecution?

Oh, yes, shall we talk about frat boys raping passed out chicks at parties now? It's a classic story that gets in the news every so often.
Or the use of roofie-coladas?

Or the use of roofie-coladas?

Yeah, don't you find it interesting that one of the accused has an ATM photo of himself a mile away at the time of the supposed attack?

He wasn't even there. And a cab driver is also a witness to that. And he later went to a restaurant and ate.

His DNA wasn't found on the accuser.

Gee, sounds like Mr. Roofie-Colada to me...

I wish I could find it ironic that the outcome of this travesty turned into the victimization of women in rape cases debate. But I can't. This case should have outlined the power of a woman in a rape case where some shoddy accusations and overzealous prosecution were able to persecute a group of students for a year. Yet, the issue is raised of women's defense in rape cases is at risk. Is it just me or is everyone but white males that are victims of any sort of persecution?
Get off it--I don't see anyone here suggesting that what happened to these guys is anything short of shitty. Looking at the repercussions of what happens as a result of this case doesn't diminish that any.

Are you under the impression that it is impossible for a white male to be raped and to be afraid to report it?
Are you under the impression that my post had anything to do with that?

Yeah, don't you find it interesting that one of the accused has an ATM photo of himself a mile away at the time of the supposed attack?

He wasn't even there. And a cab driver is also a witness to that. And he later went to a restaurant and ate.

His DNA wasn't found on the accuser.

Gee, sounds like Mr. Roofie-Colada to me...

I wasn't talking about the Duke accused here--just responding to the post I quoted about frat house rapes, which certainly occur, and are definitely under-reported.

One of the funny little quirks in the American Justice system is that her story alone isn't enough. There has to be actual evidence. Strange but true. *nod*

yes, like this little thing called DNA.

IIRC, most rapes are not committed by serial rapists...

Most are committed by someone who is at the very least an acquaintance.

Are you under the impression that my post had anything to do with that?

Apparently, noting that situations like this may lead to an even further decrease in the number of actual rapes reported is somehow a big conspiracy against white males. I'm just wondering how.

Apparently, noting that situations like this may lead to an even further decrease in the number of actual rapes reported is somehow a big conspiracy against white males. I'm just wondering how.The point was that it seems like everyone but white males can be legitimate victims of persecution.

I wasn't talking about the Duke accused here--just responding to the post I quoted about frat house rapes, which certainly occur, and are definitely under-reported.

There are numerous factors for why they wouldn't go reported.

For one thing, the woman often blacks out and would likely have no memory of the event or if she did it would be hazy at best. Another reason is that in a case like that others would see her as a skank and think she was just trying to make an excuse for why she was in someone's bed. Cases like that have a stigma attached to them. Usually the rapist on those cases is a friend of the victim too.

I'm sure it happens, but I just haven't seen a single reported case at Purdue since I've been here.

nothing can be done about the truth.

the rape charges against these men were unfounded. thats just they way things sometimes turn out.

one could argue that this truth coming out is a GOOD thing because it reminds us that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty for a very good reason. sometimes they ARE innocent.

as for women being unwilling to press charges after being raped... why would finding out that pressing bogus charges will blow up in your face stop a woman from pressing true charges?

There's a hell of a lot of impact from this case, in all sorts of areas.

I live in Durham, and my wife works at Duke. I live about half a mile from the house on Buchanan Boulevard where all of this started. So I've been a hell of lot closer to this thing than most of you - it's been poisoning the air of my city for over a year now. So when I hear outsiders making ignorant comments about this case, it starts my blood boiling.

First of all, nobody is innocent in this case. Everybody involved is guilty of something. The accused rapists may not be guilty of rape, but their behavior both before and during the time of the alleged rape is still inexcusable. They were rich, arrogant jackasses who had alienated much of the surrounding community well before these events took place. If nothing else, this has finally forced Duke University to reign in the more out-of-control elements of its campus culture, of whom the lacrosse team were the most notorious examples. They had a bad public rep well before these events, which is why much of the local community was prepared to believe the charges against them. The damned thing is, now that the charges have been dropped, the rich, arrogant young jackasses who make up far too high a percentage of the Duke student body will feel even more immune to the consequences of their anti-social actions - they can now claim to be persecuted!

The accuser? By all accounts, she actually believed she was raped, and there is evidence to support the idea that she was raped - just not by the men she accused. She should have been more up-front about her confusion and inability to remember crucial details from the start.

And then there's the completely baffling behavior of Mike Nifong. He'd served as an assistant DA for years prior to assuming the top job, and had skillfully handled another media-circus trial a few years prior. He had, prior to these events, an excellent reputation, even among the defense attorneys who had been his opponents. It's been said that he prosecuted this case in the way he did in order to suck up to the politically powerful African-American community in Durham just prior to an important election, but that explanation just doesn't hold water. He already had good relations with the entire Durham community, and was favored to win the Democratic primary for DA - and there were no Republicans even running for the position at the time. (Two Republicans later ran as independents in the general election - they couldn't run as Republicans because they hadn't registered in time. Ironically, the two of them combined got more votes than Nifong, so if only one of them had run, Nifong might have lost.) So why did he do what he did? I can't figure it. It makes absolutely no sense, given his prior record and excellent reputation in the community. How the hell did he manage to bungle this case so badly?

And yes, the Durham community must share some of the blame. We'd heard endless stories about wild, out-of-control Duke students, and we'd all dealt with their arrogance towards us poor townies. So we were more than willing to believe the accuser when she made her accusations. We thought it was high time for those bastards to get what they deserved. Did we rush to judgement? Yeah, we did, obviously. But it was damned hard to believe that a bunch of rich white guys could legitimately claim to be railroaded by an overzealous, racially-motivated prosecuter in Durham, North Carolina. To a native Southerner, the idea was absolutely ridiculous. Hell, maybe it's a warped sign of progress that rich white men are now in just as much danger as poor black men of being accused of trumped-up rape charges.

But we're damned tired of the national news media trying to paint this as a simple, clearly defined issue, because it isn't. Everything controversial in Durham takes on racial overtones - it's inevitable in a city with this large an African-American population - but this time, much of the local white community sided with the black community, so all the stories about this causing additional racial conflict in Durham are misguided. And all of the stories about these "poor, innocent boys" being victimized by an opportunistic black woman are absurd, because the "boys" are neither poor nor innocent.

So go ahead and make your ignorant comments if it makes you feel superior, and then go away and let us put our city back together as best we can. It's been a hell of a year, and I don't want my town to have to go through another one like it.

The point was that it seems like everyone but white males can be legitimate victims of persecution.

I don't see how that follows from anything said here. In fact, you seem to be the only person espousing that viewpoint.


as for women being unwilling to press charges after being raped... why would finding out that pressing bogus charges will blow up in your face stop a woman from pressing true charges?

Rape victims are generally subjected to accusations of "making it up" no matter how much evidence they have or what the situation is. If it isn't "making it up", it's "she was asking for it," and so on.

Cases like this, however rare they may be, increase that stigma in the public eye. If a rape victim has reason to think that she will not be believed or that she will be blamed for the attack, she is less likely to report it - no matter how legitimate that report would be.

Rape victims are generally subjected to accusations of "making it up" no matter how much evidence they have or what the situation is. If it isn't "making it up", it's "she was asking for it," and so on.
Then that is another problem with the DA and police. Jumping to one extreme or the other is going to fuck up everyone.

Cases like this, however rare they may be, increase that stigma in the public eye. If a rape victim has reason to think that she will not be believed or that she will be blamed for the attack, she is less likely to report it - no matter how legitimate that report would be.
The society is patriarchal and its bound to happen that "blamed for the attack" thing will come up somewhere. But all these reasons for a woman not coming forward existed at the same levels as before this circus and I see no reason why this would have increased them.

Then that is another problem with the DA and police. Jumping to one extreme or the other is going to fuck up everyone.

You think the DA and the police are the only ones who say those sorts of things and would affect a victim's decision to report a rape?

The society is patriarchal and its bound to happen that "blamed for the attack" thing will come up somewhere. But all these reasons for a woman not coming forward existed at the same levels as before this circus and I see no reason why this would have increased them.

Ever heard the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If not, look it up sometime.

Ever heard the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If not, look it up sometime.
Do you know where I can find the Muffin Man?
You would have a valid point if the culture was steadily and markedly becoming more accommodating of rape victims and more were coming forward than can be accounted for with population growth.

I don't see how that follows from anything said here. In fact, you seem to be the only person espousing that viewpoint.



Rape victims are generally subjected to accusations of "making it up" no matter how much evidence they have or what the situation is. If it isn't "making it up", it's "she was asking for it," and so on.

Cases like this, however rare they may be, increase that stigma in the public eye. If a rape victim has reason to think that she will not be believed or that she will be blamed for the attack, she is less likely to report it - no matter how legitimate that report would be.

with the already considerable reluctance for a woman to report rape, especially when its someone she knows, i dont see that the result of this one is going to be particularly influential.

the hoopla, speculation, and publicity surrounding the case before the outcome is enough of a lesson in why women dont press rape charges.

I say both the DA and the stripper be charged with filling a false police report, perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and, if we can do this too, obstruction of justice. I hope the Duke lacrosse players sue them for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. I hope both of their lives are ruined.

These people disgust me.

Most people tend not to make connections, so next year if a stripper accuses a football team of raping her without sufficient evidence, and it goes to trial still with little or no evidence, people won't even be a little skeptical. Frankly, if it's true, well that's good that no one makes those connections, but among the skeptics, the football team will be innocent until proven guilty. But among everyone else, they'll be guilty until proven innocent. If they're innocent, it'll be horrible that no one remembers the Duke case.

But the one thing that won't happen is the general public will be skeptical. Things like rape accusations make many people lose their reasoning power (Such as, for example, if there's no evidence for a supposed crime, it shouldn't be taken to trial), instead becoming consumed with so much hatred and disgust they forget they're accusations, not facts. Double the hate factor if it's alledgedly a white man assaulting a black woman or a black man assaulting a white woman. Double it again if the alledged rapist is rich and the accuser is poor. It'll get the lower and middle classes pissed off about it, because they don't want rich people to get away with crimes just because they're rich or a celebrity. That's why people are still pissed off about OJ and Micheal Jackson.

It's sad, but it seems to be how things work.

Do you know where I can find the Muffin Man?
You would have a valid point if the culture was steadily and markedly becoming more accommodating of rape victims and more were coming forward than can be accounted for with population growth.

More people coming forward actually would be the opposite of my point, so I think you're a bit confused here.


with the already considerable reluctance for a woman to report rape, especially when its someone she knows, i dont see that the result of this one is going to be particularly influential.

No more or less influential than other cases of its type - although this one is more recent and thus will be more prevalent in the public mind.

the hoopla, speculation, and publicity surrounding the case before the outcome is enough of a lesson in why women dont press rape charges.

Precisely my point! And every case in which that happens - especially cases in which the victim does seem to be lying/wrong/etc. adds to all of that.

Are you under the impression that it is impossible for a white male to be raped and to be afraid to report it?

Actually, yes. By the definition of rape, woman would have to use objects to rape a man. It's defined as the unwilling insertion of any object into any orifice, or something like that.

Also, what the fuck is a roofie colada? Slang for a drugged drink?

Actually, yes. By the definition of rape, woman would have to use objects to rape a man. It's defined as the unwilling insertion of any object into any orifice, or something like that.

It really depends on where you are. Rape is defined differently from state to state and from country to country.

Of course, that is irrelevant. If rape is defined in such a way, a woman would have to use objects (or her finger/hand) to rape a man. A man, on the other hand, could rape another man using a penis.

One way or the other, it is not impossible for a white male to be raped. And it isn't impossible (or even unlikely) for such a man to be reluctant or afraid to report it.

More people coming forward actually would be the opposite of my point, so I think you're a bit confused here.
I think you are confused at what I am saying. I assume you were stating that this would make a significant impact on rape victims coming forward. I said that is only valid if that was happening significantly more than it had in the past.

It really depends on where you are. Rape is defined differently from state to state and from country to country.



My mistake. Although I wasn't saying it was impossible under that definition.

Which, in my opinion, is unforgivable and a crime.

Apparently, she was a nut. Being crazy isn't a crime. Thank God. :)

I think you are confused at what I am saying. I assume you were stating that this would make a significant impact on rape victims coming forward. I said that is only valid if that was happening significantly more than it had in the past.

And there is no reason to say that. This type of case can have an impact on rape victims regardless of what the trend prior to it was. If things were getting worse for rape victims, this type of case could further that trend. If they were getting better, this type of case could halt or slow that trend. If nothing much was changing, this type of case could make people more unlikely to come forward.

In fact, my point is that cases and situations like this - particularly when they are highly publicized - are a large part of the reason that rape victims do not come forward.

What I meant was, (and my question is poorly phrased) is that if a woman accuses a man of rape, it goes to trial and he is found not guilty, on the defence that she consented, or that there is insufficient evidence that the rape occurred, would this be seen as evidence that the woman intentionally sought to lie to the jury about the crime? It's a dangerous road to me.

The man being found "not guilty" does not mean the jury has judged the woman to be lying or the man to be completely innocent.

A jury has believe 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the man is guilty in order to convict him. There is a looooong scope in between the jury believing the guy to be innocent and believing beyond reasonable doubt he is guilty - hence a 'not guilty' is not a liscence to charge the woman with purjery - they just believed there was not enough evidence to outweigh reasonable doubt.

In order to charge a woman with lying under oath they would, politically, have to be very very sure of themselves. And also she could only be convicted if, like for the man, the jury find her guilty beyond reasonale doubt. Which again in a his word vs her word they could not really do.

In the UK at least one woman has been charged and convicted of perjury, she claimed to her husband that she had been kidnapped and raped over a whole weekend before being released - but the police started to notice some very odd things when collecting evidence, and in the end had CCTV of her in pubs, post offices and clubs with her allegded attacker where she is laughing, kissing and joking with him before and after she claimed the ordeal started along with a dozen or so eyewitnesses to seperate events that she appeared to be very willfully involved with this guy. They dropped the charges against him and presented the evidence to a jury who found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the rather weighty evidence.

So.. advice to rapists:

1. Wear a condom.
2. Subdue her first using a taser, so she doesn't get anything under her nails.
3. Duct tape her so she can't resist.
4. Have at it.
5. Make sure no one else saw any of this.
6. Lather, rinse, repeat.



Sad as it is, if a jury is presented with evidence which basically boils down to:

Her: He raped me.
Him: It was consnsual.

With no other evidence (in date rape DNA is not really evidence if the guy freely admits to having sex but claims it was consensual).

Then the only verdict they can reasonably return is a 'Not Guilty' one. One persons word against another should never lead to a conviction as there is no way you have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the girl is 'lucky' and gets tested very quickly they might find traces of rohypnol which would strengthen a case dramaticaly, although there is still an issue of making a reasonable case that the man on trial was responsible for or knew of the woman taking the drug. Also - sadly the date-rape drug of choice is plain and simple alcohol - often freely drunk by the woman, and very difficult to prove how drunk she was when the rape took place.

No more or less influential than other cases of its type - although this one is more recent and thus will be more prevalent in the public mind.



Precisely my point! And every case in which that happens - especially cases in which the victim does seem to be lying/wrong/etc. adds to all of that.

i dont disagree with you, i just think that with all the crap a woman has to deal with when she reports being raped, this case isnt going to have a huge effect.

if a woman didnt already know what she faced, this case would be a good example for her so she wont be caught by surprise when SHE is treated badly for being the victim of a crime.

And there is no reason to say that. This type of case can have an impact on rape victims regardless of what the trend prior to it was. If things were getting worse for rape victims, this type of case could further that trend.
If there is no change in a trend, there is no impact because it is impossible to measure any impact.

There's no doubt in my mind how these stories perpetuate themselves through the media and the 'net. People (and I specifically include NS General) take the parts of the story that get their blood boiling, rant for a bit, and then go on with their lives. Those people get quoted all over the place, perpetuating the rant portions and ignoring the facts.

Meanwhile, someone takes the time to post an excellent summary of the multiple ramifications of the events, with a genuine insider perspective, and not a soul pays it the slightest bit of attention ...
I live in Durham, and my wife works at Duke. I live about half a mile from the house on Buchanan Boulevard where all of this started.

<snip of excellent summary>
Fellow Durhamite, well said. There were clearly mistakes made during this whole ugly mess, but you can't point to anyone in the case and unambiguously state, "s/he's the one responsible for this". The one-and-two sentence ping-pong posts I've been reading don't begin to have a clue what actually happened here.

I'll extrapolate that to the rest of General, perhaps even to the rest of the internet, and draw the conclusion that the most passion tends to come from the most ignorant. I'd go so far as to add "willfully" before "ignorant" in many of those cases.

There's no doubt in my mind how these stories perpetuate themselves through the media and the 'net. People (and I specifically include NS General) take the parts of the story that get their blood boiling, rant for a bit, and then go on with their lives. Those people get quoted all over the place, perpetuating the rant portions and ignoring the facts.

Meanwhile, someone takes the time to post an excellent summary of the multiple ramifications of the events, with a genuine insider perspective, and not a soul pays it the slightest bit of attention ...

Fellow Durhamite, well said. There were clearly mistakes made during this whole ugly mess, but you can't point to anyone in the case and unambiguously state, "s/he's the one responsible for this". The one-and-two sentence ping-pong posts I've been reading don't begin to have a clue what actually happened here.

I'll extrapolate that to the rest of General, perhaps even to the rest of the internet, and draw the conclusion that the most passion tends to come from the most ignorant. I'd go so far as to add "willfully" before "ignorant" in many of those cases.

Well, you know how it is. It's easier to think about a simple, black-and-white perspective than it is to consider all of the morally vague and messy aspects of the situation. And as is all too common in Durham, this is an extremely complicated and messy situation.

But you know what's funny about all of this? In spite of all of Durham's divisions and its often absurdly theatrical politics - or maybe because of them - people in Durham seem to care more about their city than people do in other places I've lived. I grew up in Charlotte and lived for 20 years in Raleigh, and my experience was that most people in those cities just aren't as concerned or involved as people are in Durham. If something like this had happened at UNC-Charlotte or NC State, I don't think there would have been nearly as much outrage in the general community. But a problem at Duke is seen as a problem for all of Durham. (Which may explain many aspects of our love-hate relationship with Duke University.)

So after all of the news crews have left town to go cover the next major scandal, we'll probably manage to pick up the pieces of this mess and heal some of the damage that has been done to our community. It'll be a noisy process, full of arguments and accusations, but underneath it all will be a genuine concern for the health of our city. And it will be completely invisible to outside observers, because you have to live here to really understand how this crazy town works.