Today’s big news among the she’s-a-liar crowd is the revelation that Mary Doe, who says she was raped by three men at a Duke lacrosse team party, had sex with her boyfriend – as the DNA evidence proves.
Call me a weirdo, but I don’t think that proof Mary Doe has had sex with her boyfriend changes anything. Nor does this prove she wasn’t raped at the party, by people other than her boyfriend. (Not living like a virgin doesn’t magically make someone rape-proof.)
But isn’t it impossible for her boyfriend to have left traces of DNA if later rapists did not? Not as far as I know. Maybe her boyfriend left much more evidence behind (not all men produce the same quantities). Maybe the rapists wore condoms. The truth is, we don’t know. I have my opinion, and other folks have theirs; but to think anything’s been proved at this point, before both sides bring in experts who are subjected to cross-examination, is foolhardy.
***PLEASE NOTE***
The comments on this post are open to feminist and pro-feminist posters only. If you’re not a feminist and want to leave a comment, you may do so at the identical post on Creative Destruction.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
At this point, nothing has been proved, neither her allegations nor the jocks’ innocence.
Pingback: ESPN editorializes for Duke lacrosse players at PunkAssBlog.com
By itself it proves nothing. It just introduces more reasonable doubt when the question is asked of the SANE nurse, “Is it possible that these indication you say are consistent with rape could be explained by recent concentual sexual activity?”
I haven’t said anything about this until now, but I think these threads are really distasteful and I just wish you’d stop posting about it. It is just sick that a rape trial is being treated as a spectator sport.
On the one hand we’ve a group of people who’d just love to see some sex workers using privileged white boys sent down for rape. On the other hand we’ve another group of people who’d like nothing more than to have the way the criminal justice system treats rape fall apart in the full glare of the media. This has turned into a gladitorial contest by proxy in which everyone is desperately looking to have their world view vindicated.
There’s nothing important about rape, society and the legal system that can’t be discussed in the abstract. Cheering on one side or the other while an actual case is in progress, for the ultimate prize of being able to publicly get one over on your political opponents, is just totally inappropriate.
Do we really need to discuss the results of this woman’s vaginal examination and its implications for her recent sex life? Just reading this post made me feel unclean.
Gee, Nik, I’m sure you’ll go to all the wingnut blogs who are calling her a bitch and a liar and slut and get them to stop too, huh?
I kind of always hoped you lot were better than the wingnuts.
Rape needs to be talked about, Nik. Individual cases need to be talked about. You can’t change the prevalent ideas of a cultire in silence. Silence is exactly what the dominant culture wants about rape, and about women’s experiences in general. Sure, it’s distasteful – coverage of rape cases is always horrendous, and vicious, and you can’t talk about one honestly without acknowledging that. Amp has fone a pretty good job of remaining neutral, which is very difficult with so awful a crime.
If you think rape cases shouldn’t be talked about, what are you doing on a feminist blog?
I’d feel a lot more comfortable about this news if the DA had stated this fact in his court request to get DNA from the players. Instead, he said that any DNA that was matched would “show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.” It seems like he has really botched this case for the victim by not ruling out the boyfriend’s DNA in that filing.
Nik:
For me, the reason I’ve blogged on details of this case has nothing to with scoring political points. I’ve blogged on this case because of the dangerous myths that harm not just one person who very well could be a true rape victim, but that if left unchallenged will harm many rape victims.
These dangerous myths and mean spirited attacks have been marketed as absolute truth by people who claim to be against “real” rape. Some of these people have stepped over the line IMO into slander of this alleged victim. Even though I came to this topic as a rape survivor, before I post I remind myself that at least some of the lacrosse players are innocent.
The side I’m cheering on is the side that wants to give rape victims a fair shot at justice.
I completely agree. The fact there is no DNA evidence doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped, as does little or no bruising. The lawyers are doing their job of protecting their clients but the public forgets this and takes what is reported as truth. The Kobe case was sort of the same thing. The alleged victim was railroaded before she was even in court. I personally believe the occurance of false rape allegations is higher when the accused is a celebrity. Even so, I don’t believe the higher occurance is significantly higher than in non-celebrity cases. Also, everyone needs to remember coming forward and filing rape charges is very hard on the victim and the vicitim is treated how the accused rapist should be treated (even though it has gotten better).
I continue to be puzzled as to why the Duke case keeps getting lumped in with infamous celebrity cases. Mary Doe has acused men who are socially at the top of the heap on campus, certainly. But it seems ridiculous to call them celebrities in the way that someoby like Bryant is.
I may be off base here but I think at least some people are forgetting that not all DNA evidence has to do with semen. People are constantly shedding skin cells, hairs and all manner of other things.
Just a reminder that rape convictions were to be had before DNA. Even if you do have seminal DNA that doesn’t say boo about consent which is usually the bugaboo.
As far as the boyfriend goes; it proves nothing and should be excluded. Especially if there is a decent “shield” law.
I’ve been noticing that some in the blogosphere are saying that finding DNA from the boyfriend means she had sex with him around the same time as the alleged attack. This assumption is absolutely incorrect.
DNA from sexual contact can persist for days.
This goes back, of course, to old ideas of women as property, and a woman’s virginity as property, and rape as the theft of someone else’s woman’s virginity. People think these things — “Well if she had sex with her boyfriend, of course she wasn’t raped” — and don’t even stop to wonder why it works that way in their heads.
I find it odd that Ampersand thinks the fact that the accuser’s boyfriend’s DNA was the only sample found on her person should be readily dismissed. It is of course neither weird nor unusual that a woman would have a boyfriend’s semen in her, nor does this prove she wasn’t raped. But it is relevant directly to interperting the evidence of mild vaginal and anal trauma, along with considering role of the the 3 other men she admitted to having sex with within days of the party where she claims she was attacked. Other potential causes of damage are part of determining whether trauma evidence came from a rape or these other
I think the DNA issue, itself, is far more problematic for the prosecution. First, the accuser herself told the examining nurse that the accused rapists had used their penises with no condoms, no fingers, nor obects to rape her. Even if her boyfriend ejaculated, and none of the players did, even microscopic amounts of semen scraped skin from a brutal penetration, prejacutory fluid, saliva, pubic hairs with the root attached would have created a mixed sample. There was no mixture; the lab found the boyfriend’s DNA and his alone.The fact that her boyfriend’s DNA was the only sample present proves dispositively that the attack could not have occured as she charges. Even if she were mistaken, and condoms were used, spillage and leakage of seminal fluid, fecal smears, and of course hair, as well as skin scraped from the beating she claims they inflicted upon her, would have left DNA markers on her person as well as the bathroom.
A general predisposition to favor victims of rape, which I have, and women of color victimised by white men, which I have, is no excuse for for torturing reason and evidence to call for convicting the players in this case. There are too many cases that require no such gymanstics to latch on to this one like grim death.
The woman actually issued a statement to the police saying she did not have sex with anyone else for a week before the attack. The presence of her boyfriends DNA, as well as the other 3 men, basically is an attack on her credibility, not on her sexual life. The opposition that the accuser faces is more on the lines of “once a liar, always a liar”, rather than “not virgin, not raped”.
Ampersand, as a rape survivor, what do you think this vehement support for the accuser will do to the credibility and supportability of future rape victims if this woman, who is very strongly supported was found to be lying about the entire episode? In the name of goodwill for the real rape victims do you think it is justified to pursue legal action against her?
There are people who believe in her today, even when evidence purported by the prosecution is seen crumbling. Is there anyway these people will be able to believe that she was lying even if it is proved in the court of law? If she confesses, it will be “she was pressured into doing so”. There seems to be absolutely no way people are going to change their minds, regardless of law.
What exactly is pro-feminist so as to qualify to comment?
Do I believe women are “equal”? Sure. Except of course those things that are physically unequal, none of which are reason for patented double standards across the board. If a physical quotient is absolutely essential to question, on a case by case basis, then certainly descry differences as needed. Otherwise genetalia and voice pitch are irrational reasons to discriminate.
Anyway, it’s disheartening to see that any filter need be used for debate/discussion other than that of being uncivil.
As more the intellectual type than a sportsman, and having seen my share of mentally damaged women (not saying this woman is or isn’t) I have no one to support for or against. In college I was acquainted with the sportsmen type, and by and large most felt a sense of privilege and entitlement. I’ve also known my share of women of the type to swallow a bottle of asparin for attention. As an outsider to this case it would seem we have both characters center stage. The gentleman aren’t likely bible toting christians innocently enjoying a game of whist, while the woman hasn’t struck me as the most “together” woman on the face of the planet.
One aspect that I have not heard commented on to any satisfaction is was there a no touch policy understood? If there was, and it can be demonstrated that they did, beyond reasonable doubt, then proceed with the lesser charges. If touching was allowed, and they did, and there is no DNA evidence from any of the players beyond touching, and given the half dozen shifts of the story, then it is not in the interest of justice to pursue sending even meatheaded jocks up the river for potentially 40+ years.