Reasonable doubt rears its head. From an article in The New Yorker:
It was also learned that the photo identification of the three players Nifong indicted was the result of a procedure so problematic that it may prove not to have been worth the effort. After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers. That process (which Osborn described as “a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers”) seems to have been a violation of the Durham Police Department’s own rules.
I don’t know what happened at the party. But I know the photo IDs are essential to the DA’s case against the three accused Lacrosse players. And this was clearly a bad ID. There are standard procedures for running IDs, designed to protect innocent people from being railroaded; these procedures were ignored, and the ID has no reliability. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how anyone – including those who are sure Mary Doe was raped – could be certain beyond reasonable doubt that these three men raped her.
I’ve said a few times in the past that although I think Mary Doe was raped at that party, I also recognize that I could be mistaken about that. And I continue to believe that many of the arguments supporting the “Mary Doe is a liar” case – that her initial statements to police were jumbled and incoherent, that she’s a stripper, and that she also reported being gang-raped many years ago, for three examples – are not only garbage, but are based in dangerous, harmful myths about rape. All of these complaints are variations of The Myth Of The Platonic Rape Victim – the idea we should imagine a perfect rape victim, and then ask if the complainant’s behavior and statements match what our imaginary perfect rape victim would have done and said. The Platonic Rape Victim’s statements are never incoherent, contradictory or inaccurate; the Platonic Rape Victim is not raped twice in one lifetime; the Platonic Rape Victim is certainly not a stripper!
On the other hand, some of the new evidence – in particular, the recent public statements of the other stripper, essentially accusing Mary Doe of making the whole thing up – seems to be to provide much more substantial reason for doubt.
I stand by most of my past posts on this subject. But I no longer believe Mary Doe was raped that night. (Nor do I believe she wasn’t raped. I’m now an agnostic on this question.)
There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?” I don’t know the answer to the first question. But – especially in light of the bad ID – I think the answer to the second question is “no.”
Pingback: Jury Experiences
Pingback: Slant Truth
I can almost see the next post at the Margins: “Ampgate 2: Barry disbelieves a rape victim”.
My view on this hasn’t changed since the start. In broad terms I have felt the prosecution narrative was more plausible than the defence narrative. That doesn’t mean that took any view on which (if either) would stand up to evidence based scrutiny. Nor have I been willing to undertake that scrutiny, given that the evidence arrives at our table so refined and processed by the media and the various actors in the case, that it would seem to bear as much resemblance to the raw evidence as a pork pie does to a pig.
I will say one thing though. It will be a shame if the case collapses due to police and prosecution procedural failures.
I don’t know how I’d vote if I were on the jury, since I haven’t seen and heard all the evidence. The actual evidence may be (almost certainly is) different from what’s been reported in the media. If the only solid evidence is the ID, though, I couldn’t vote to convict.
Echoing Daran: gutsy move, posting this, Amp. I applaud you.
You might also be interested to know, vis a vis the reliability of the ID, that the alleged victim actually identified another lacrosse player, never indicted, as one of her assailants–but because he was known by the police not to have been in Durham on the night of the party, they encouraged her to continue identifying other players until she had named three additional ones. Transcripts of the ID session that have been posted on the web indicate this.
Was that woman raped? Maybe, maybe not. Was she raped by Duke lacrosse players? Maybe, maybe not. Was she raped by the Duke lacrosse players she ID’d? Maybe, maybe not. Can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she wsa raped by the Duke lacrosse players she ID’d?
No.
It doesn’t look like it at all. In fact, it’s starting to look more and more like those 3 Duke lacrosse players and the woman were all played by the Durham police and an ambitious up-for-reelection prosecutor.
If this plays out the way it looks like it’s headed, the accused three Duke lacrosse players were cheated out of a good chunk of their lives that they didn’t deserve to lose. And, more importantly, the woman involved was cheated out of an honest chance to achieve justice for any crimes that may have been committed against her (a question that’s still open regardless of the future of this particular case), perhaps permanently.
Thanks for the update, Amp. Even if just on that basis alone (and not your expressed opinion on the matter), well done.
You’re quite right about the myth of the platonic rape victim, too. I hadn’t thought about it much, but in reading your exposition on the matter I see your point.
The lineup has been known to be faulty since almost the day it happened.
There haven’t been that many recent new developments until recently.
What makes the other witness’ statements so compelling that you would reject the lineup now, but not earlier? What made you think reasonable doubt existed earlier, but not now?
I didn’t express myself very well. In broad terms, I have felt that the narrative which says “the complainant was raped at the party” was more plausible than the narrative which says “nothing significant was done to her at the party”. I probably shouldn’t have described these as prosecution and defence narratives, since I have never considered the narative which says “these defendents did not rape the complainant” to be implausible.
On the ABC interview by Kim Roberts, her bombshell wasn’t quite what it was advertised to be if you read the transcript where she described the alleged victim’s actions and words while in the car.
Ms. Roberts states that the alleged victim was clearly impaired when she got in the car and was unresponsive with her head down by the time Ms. Roberts pushed and prodded her to get out of the car. Interpretting the alleged victim’s words in response to being shoved as plotting to fake evidence is contradictory to the description of the alleged victim as impaired, acting crazy, unresponsive, etc. The non-responsiveness of the alleged victim is supported by the security guard’s description.
While there are challenges in this case, I think it is problematic to judge the merits of the entire case using the information which has been given to the media.
Also don’t forget the taxi driver who was quoted as overhearing a couple of the players outside the house speculating about whether she would go to the cops and saying something like “she’s just a stripper.”
You will take a lot of flak for this Amp and it’s a brave move.
What is unfortunate is that you in this climate you need to be “brave” to not want to convict people without evidence, and that this willingness to require evidence for a conviction will be considered treasonous to others.
For the record, I’m not at all convinced that I’ll get much flak for this post, at all.
Marcella, thanks for the link, and good point.
The real question on this day is whether or not Nifong has been using this case for political gain. Once the election is over, regardless if he wins or loses, the charges could very well be dropped within the next week.
Oh, Amp will probably get flak from the usual suspects who think all rape victims are lying sluts who deserve it, but who cares?
After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers.
Assuming this is accurate–WTF could he have been thinking?
I have no idea if they are guilty or innocent.
But picture this: You are innocent and you go through what they have gone through up to this point.
I would get a pretty sour attitude towards society in general.
There’s no question it’s accurate, and he was thinking “if I want to win this election, I have to convince the black people in Durham that I will prosecute crimes against black victims, even if the crimes don’t, technically, exist.”
Horrible, I’m sure.
Just like it would be horrible if rape actually happened and in addition to that trauma, the victim has to endure being tarred with the label of a lying slut, who sought to ruin the lives of innocent boys out of pure malice.
I don’t know either whether it happened or not (I do think the evidence is too shoddy to to convict the accuseds, so they should “walk”), but I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how often people have tunnel vision of ignoring the sufferin of either falsely accused men, or women who really have been raped but have to endure the label of “false accuser” in addition to that.
I think both are pretty good reasons to get sour, I’d even say that the latter is probably worse (assuming there is no prison), as it is rape+loss of reputation, vs. loss of reputation, and in the end a just court decision.
Tuomas,
OMG, You and I are agreeing with each other. What? LOL!
Robert, I rather doubt that he believes the rape never happened. You misunderstand the mentality of a lot of prosecutors and police offers who pull this kind of thing. It’s not (for most of them) “Hehehehe, let’s persecute the innocent for political gain”, but “Well, we know they’re guilty. Why screw around with all this namby-pamby ACLU stuff? Let’s just get ‘im.”
I mean, you’re all for wiretaps. You should understand this.
The funny thing for me here is that I had these guys pegged as not guilty from day one, and have become increasingly leaning toward ‘guilty’ as time goes on.
I generally don’t believe things that come from strippers with a history of odd behaviors – I’ll exclude the previous rape accusation, but getting drunk, stealing a car, going on a high speed chase, and trying to kill a copper would indicate to me that she’s a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Of course, as I’ve always said, there’s 2 vile, disgusting, predatory creatures on the college campus. Brad the Athlete and Chad the Frat Guy. Just as I’d bet that Mary Doe has a…’colorful’ background of similar incidents, I’d be more than willing to bet that our privileged athletic pals have a history of predatory behavior on women.
That being said, I’m a little disturbed by the fact that there has been nothing about anybody on the team, save for a homophobic fist fight inside of a DC bar. The Cop Gene(TM) says there’s something here. There has to be something here. We’re talking about a dozen white rich kids who get drunk and hire a black stripper. They ain’t boyscouts, that’s for sure.
So as this case has publicly fallen apart to the point where you’re crazy if you still believe a rape occurred I start thinking to myself: How in the hell did this get through a grand jury?
Nifong is apparently an incompetent boob – but even at that, it would be impossible for him to get the fact pattern (as we know it) through the indictment process. To me, that’s indicative that there is a case to be made here with facts that we don’t know.
In other words, the Duke Kiddy’s defense attorney is putting on one hellova show for us and we’re not quite wise to it yet.
Rachel:
We must repent. The end is nigh!
The Cop Gene(TM) says there’s something here. We’re talking about a dozen white rich kids who get drunk and hire a black stripper. They ain’t boyscouts, that’s for sure.
Nope, it’s not the Boy Scouts. Unfortunately; we’d have a lot better attendance at Roundtable if I could hire strippers! But seriously; so far all that’s here is that a bunch of kids hired a stripper so they could hoot and holler and stare at live T & A. If you can get a couple of dozen people together, nobody has to be rich to raise up enough money to hire a stripper. Unless it’s your position that everyone on the Duke lacrosse team is rich, which I very much doubt. You may think this is immoral, but there’s nothing in hiring a stripper that says “felony”.
So as this case has publicly fallen apart to the point where you’re crazy if you still believe a rape occurred I start thinking to myself: How in the hell did this get through a grand jury?
I’ve been told that any reasonably competent D.A. can indict a ham sandwich. Obviously an exaggeration, but it’s my understanding that in a Grand Jury proceeding, the D. A. can exclude exculpatory evidence, with the exception of the defendant’s own testimony. That would seem to me to greatly enable the ability to get an indictment in a weak case.
mythago, my guess is that Nifong is guilty of being so worried about getting re-elected that he saw what he wanted to see in this case instead of what was there.
“I’ve been told that any reasonably competent D.A. can indict a ham sandwich. Obviously an exaggeration, but it’s my understanding that in a Grand Jury proceeding, the D. A. can exclude exculpatory evidence, with the exception of the defendant’s own testimony. ”
A ham sandwich is actually quite guilty looking if you think about it. Now someone who could indict a chicken salad…
Robert, I rather doubt that he believes the rape never happened.
I also doubt that he believes that, which is why I didn’t say anything like that.
“even if the crimes don’t, technically, exist”. You meant what?
Key word: technically. The rape may well have happened; Nifong knew that he couldn’t prove it. No proof, no crime, from a DA’s perspective. But that wasn’t politically acceptable in the immediate environment, so he was willing to gin up a phony ID in order to cover his political ass.
I bet Sam ‘n Ella could.
The rape may well have happened; Nifong knew that he couldn’t prove it.
Nifong knew he couldn’t prove it before getting the results of DNA tests or interviewing witnesses?
More likely that he figured he had the guys, and the accuser simply needed a little nudge to identify them. This kind of rule-bending is why people later throw tantrums about “guilty criminals getting off on a technicality”–the technicality being prosecutorial or police misconduct. They knew these guys were guilty, right, so why should the bastards walk just because the victim was having trouble with the lineup?
Science tells us that no rape happened. After two sets of DNA tests, no DNA( semen, blood, seminal fluid, sweat, hair, skin cells, condom residue, or interaction of vagina vs anal contamination) were discovered on, in, or on her clothes. After a three man vaginal, anal, and oral rape that is an impossibility. Also the SANE Exam shows no marks of strangulation, no bruising, and three small non bleeding marks on her knee, and foot which were clearly visible as she danced.
While it is said that semen is not always detected in a rape, one cannot extrapolate that to mean in this case, as the accuser described it, we can explain the lack of forensic evidence to prove a rape happened. There is NO Forensic evidence to back up her claims. Add that to the remark that her fellow dancer said it was “Crock” and that she was with her for all but less than 5 minutes it is clear this was a false accusation.
Add the alibi with a Cab Driver, Cell phone, ATM. Food receipts, Dorm swipes that one charged with 100% surety was miles away this case is a travesty.
Remember your initial belief that a rape happened were based upon reports in the Press that the accuser was pretty beaten up and had injuries consistent with rape. Now those reports are false. A great Injustice has been done to three innocent young men.
As Dave Evans said you have been told a bunch of lies.
Marco2006:
That’s true, but he could very well be one of the liars. The defendants will have a chance to challenge all of the evidence in criminal court and if as you claim, there is evidence proving the defendants’ innocence, they will will be found not guilty.
One would hope so.
One would also hope that they would be acquitted if there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt.
But it seems to me to be rather strange to assume that juries only ever convict on the basis of evidence while complaining that they often acquit on the basis of prejudice. “Women don’t lie about rape” is just as much a prejudice as “women do lie about rape”, and it’s certainly not clear to me that a juror’s opinions are more likely to be informed by the latter than the former.
Daran, you are straying into generalities. Marco2006 claims that there is undeniable evidence of the defendants innocence. Since plenty of rape cases end in a not-guilty verdict, especially for defendants who can afford the best defense teams as is the case here — this case isn’t likely to end with guilty verdicts based on the idea that “women don’t lie about rape.”
Right now I’m more interested in when this trial starts than when it ends. Any word on that? This story has completely fallen off the media’s radar screen, but there’s going to be a lot of buzz when (or maybe even if) this trial starts.
Everything that I’ve seen locally points to this trial beginning next Spring.
As to this:
My initial belief that a rape occurred was because 30+ men bought two women for the sole purpose of having those women perform sexually for them at an all-male party.
And, following up on Q Grrl’s statement, the men who ordered the women used false names and a false story, and the men at the party intimidated both women enough that they made to leave only minutes after arriving, and that there are multiple reports of racial insults and sexual threats, and that as soon as the two women left the premises, the entire house full of people cleared out, and a few hours later one of those who had attended the party sent an email to the others which said “there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off”.
I find it possible to consider the innocence the three individuals indicted, without doubting that the victim was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom.
Thanks for the info, Qgrrl. I’m perfectly willing to believe that this woman was raped. I’m even willing to believe that this woman was raped even if the act(s) did not generate the kind or amount of evidence that will support a guilty verdict in a court. But based on what I’ve heard I’ll have to wait until the trial to see if I actually will believe either of those statements.
My initial belief that a rape occurred was because 30+ men bought two women for the sole purpose of having those women perform sexually for them at an all-male party.
I would guess that the percentage of strippers who get hired to dance at a stag party or frat party or similar event who are then raped is very small. I say that to support the statement that just because someone hired a stripper or two for a party is no reason to assume that the strippers were raped.
And, following up on Q Grrl’s statement, the men who ordered the women used false names and a false story, and the men at the party intimidated both women enough that they made to leave only minutes after arriving, and that there are multiple reports of racial insults and sexual threats, and that as soon as the two women left the premises, the entire house full of people cleared out, and a few hours later one of those who had attended the party sent an email to the others which said “there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off”.
All of which is consistent with someone being raped. All of which is also consistent with a couple of strippers showing up at a party with a number of drunken college students, leaving because drunk fools were yelling racist insults, and then people leaving and lying about what happened because they smelled trouble a-brewing and didn’t want to get involved. Hey, I lived in a fraternity house when I was in college. It wasn’t exactly Animal House (MIT isn’t exactly Duke or Enormous State University), but I saw enough smart kids do stupid stuff when they were drunk. I’ve seen parties empty out because someone was stupid enough to scream insults at a cop when he drove by, and no one wanted to be around when the cop circled around at the end of the block and came back. Yeah, everything that you cite is consistent with what has been alleged, but there’s lots of other explanations.
From the News Observer
Lacrosse Player Sues Duke
“DURHAM — A former Duke lacrosse player has filed a civil suit against Duke University and a professor, charging that the teacher unfairly gave him a failing grade after an escort service dancer said she was raped at a lacrosse team party.
An attorney for Kyle Dowd, who graduated from Duke last year, filed suit in Durham Superior Court on Thursday. Dowd and his parents, Patricia and Benjamin Dowd, are suing Duke and Kim Curtis, who is listed on Duke’s Web site as a visiting assistant professor in political science.
Curtis, who specializes in political and feminist theory, would not comment Thursday. Duke officials also declined to comment.
The suit said Dowd and another lacrosse player — neither of whom was charged in the sexual assault — were in Curtis’ “Politics and Literature” class last spring.
Before the scandal broke, the suit said, both players were passing the course. But after the rape case made news, both players failed the final assignment, the suit said, and Dowd’s final grade was an F. The players were the only ones to receive F’s, the suit said.”
FYI: the two accused students who have yet to graduate have been invited to return to Duke by the school administation as students in good standing; there’s a link to that story on the above page.
RonF, do you know if this lawsuit is alleging that the lacrosse players’ course work didn’t suffer and that it was only the grading that changed? Or are they alleging that Duke’s response to this case caused them to be unable to perform in this class and that by turning in something for their final assignment they should have gotten at least a D on that assignment?
“RonF, do you know if this lawsuit is alleging that the lacrosse players’ course work didn’t suffer and that it was only the grading that changed? Or are they alleging that Duke’s response to this case caused them to be unable to perform in this class and that by turning in something for their final assignment they should have gotten at least a D on that assignment?”
The actual complaint can be found in many places on the Internet – you can read it yourself.
The professor flunked two students who were on the lacrosse team (she had also been very vocal about her dislike for the entire team). The problem was that based on the prior, midterm grades in the class, and based on the grading scheme announced at the beginning of class, the students (mathematically) couldn’t have flunked, even if they had failed the last exam. The fact that this “oversight” only happened to players on the lacrosse team was probably not a coincidence.
Pretty nasty stuff if true.
Here’s a link to the lawsuit story.
Note that this professor was one of the leading lights in sponsoring an advertisement in the local paper supporting the complainant in this case and condemning the lacrosse team. Seems wrong to do that when two of the accused are in one of your classes.
I’m curious what her argument about the grade was.
I have found that students frequently don’t understand grading procedures in my class even though they are clearly written on the syllabus.
Being an academic it also seems unsual that someone would go through the court system like this. The typical process works like this. 1) The student appraoches the professor directly asking about the grade (There is no mention of that here.) 2)The student then goes to the department chair/dean or the faculty appeals board depending on the school (clearly this happened, and the student won an appeal for a D. Had he gone directly to the faculty member of chair it could have been changed there.)
I would suspect the lawsuit won’t go anywhere since a faculty board has already heard the case, and universities are allowed to create these procedures. What I find particularly interesting is that they don’t want the grade changed to A or B or C. They want the grade converted to Pass. My guess would be that they are asking for this to raise his GPA enough to graduate–I have seen this–students wanting to convert grades to pass fail after the fact so they have a high enough GPA to graduate.
If she did mark their grades down because they were on the team that’s pretty greazy, but I want to hear her side of the story and the faculty review board transcript. These kinds of situations are exactly why I try to save exams and grade sheets and enter grades into an online spread sheet as they are completed because students frequently want their grades changed. It’s becoming an epidemic.
Ok, I went and read the complaint. I’m not sure if the instructor graded by percentages or letters only, but if she graded by letters only then the student received two Cs and two Fs (all worth 25% each), which does equal a D. If she used %s then you would have to know the exact percents.
The report is a little misleading because this student missed an entire month of class, not just six random days. Per the instructions laid out in the university handbook cited in the complaint, he could have approached the academic dean and probably gotten his absences excused since he was in a very serious legal predicament. I personally would have excused some of those absences (although I’m am a little suspicious that he just happened to have to meet with his attorney every single time this class met for a month. From the perspective of a teacher, I probably would have tried to arrange something to give an incomplete or make up the work.). However, he did manage to turn in the final paper. I’m curious if the material for the final paper wasn’t very good since he hadn’t been to class for the last month (which is likely when that material was discussed).
Anyways, it is fairly clear that they F was not correct, but whether or not their are grounds to change the grade and give the guy $10,000 dollars is a different story.
BTW He was able to graduate on time according to the complaint, so my point about graduation is moot.
Oops, my bad $60,000
The complaint is here.
There’s a lot that’s missing about this case, such as the actual quality of the papers turned in by the two lacrosse players – were they drastically worse than the other 40 students’ papers (none of which got Fs)? Did Professor Curtis spell out attendance policies explicitly or comment on Dowd’s e-mailing her about the situation and his missing class?
This looks like an easy case to settle with a change of the grade to “Pass” and an apology (but only a token payment to the student and his parents).
If it *was* true that Curtis gave the two lacrosse players Fs out of spite because of the scandal, that’s misconduct on her part – she’s charged to grade work and grant credit with a modicum of impartiality. But if the students turned in papers that were pieces of crap (possible, due to the scandal being a distraction) the paper grades may have been justified.
I’m a bit surprised that the lawsuit has been discussed, but that the rape charges being dropped hasn’t. Hmmm ….
This is the NY Times coverage of the case which includes a number of bombshells, in my opinion, about the case, including problems with the DNA evidence.
Initially I believed the rape occured exactly as was described in the media. Three Duke lacrosse players, drunk at a frat party, raped the victim. When they started turning up with alibis, I thought that perhaps it was someone else on the team and that the victim simply failed to identify the correct three players, but that surely a rape had occured.
This quote from the DNA Witness Jolted Dynamic of Duke Case convinced me that there was no rape, by anyone, at the party.
Perhaps I was blind, or perhaps the lack of recent news in the media about the case made me miss the reports about the faulty police lineup, but at this point I believe the case is one of political opportunism on the part of DA Mike Nifong. Presented with a case that would help him win votes amongst women and minorities, Nifong, in my opinion, advanced a case which should have been dismissed soon after it began.
Forget the trial against the Duke players — if I were on the jury in the potential prosecutorial misconduct trial against Nifong, I’d vote “Guilty”.
“Rachel S.”
You wrote this on your blog “Rachel’s Tavern”, some months ago:
“I encourage people to put up the story on their blogs, and put pressure on the University to investigate the team and level some sort of disciplinary actions, and of course this legal system also needs to do its part to put these men behind bars. I think one way people in the blogosphere may be able to help, in addition to agitating for the full force of the law to come down on these men, is by setting up some sort of fund to help this young woman pay for college (if anybody knows how this can be done). ”
http://www.rachelstavern.com
What was your basis for encouraging people to “agitate the full force of the law” against the lacrosse players?
Just curious.
We don’t know if other people got F’s on their papers, but we do have the attorney claiming that no one else received an F in the class.
Q1Checkride–I stand behind my statements.
Rachel S., if you had these two young men in a class of yours, would you think it proper for you to sign a statement such as the We are Listening statement that this professor signed? Remember that the activities of the protestors that this statement commends includes putting up posters around the Duke campus labelling these three young men as rapists.
The professor who is named in the lawsuit participated in one of the earlier rallies, there is a photo of that. I saw one picture of some protestors rallying around 610 Buchanan with a banner that says “Castrate them.” All this before a single shred of evidence to indicate guilt of any of the 46 players was produced. Something tells me this lawsuit is the tip of a very big iceberg-one that could bankrupt the entire city of Durham and Duke(they’ll just raise tuition to compensate for that:)
If Nifong has to get a conviction here-there is no way for him to back out of this. Should be pretty interesting to watch this unfold.
Ron, I think the email was fine. The email itself is fairly neutral, and I don’t doubt that many students were upset by all of the problems on the campus at the time. It is not at all unusual for a professor to extend her or himself to the students in a time if crisis on campus.
I have done it myself, and I would do it again.
RonF, I read the We Are Listening statement that you seem to find objectionable. What that statement shows is that activities which you denouce (wanted posters) are rooted in a pattern of negative treatment and a pattern of dismissal of those who complain about that negative behavior. Taking problems seriously and working to reduce the problem is IMO the best way to defuse vigilantism.
Abyss2hope, what I’m addressing here is that a) a group of students denouce a trio of people accused of a crime but not proven to have committed it by putting “wanted” posters up for them, and b) a professor who has two of those students in one of her classes comes out and publicly supports those protestors. Now, is that proper action by that professor or not?
Rachel S., the statement that I read seems neutral, but I’m considering it in the context above, wherein the actions of the protesting students were publically known to be uncritically accepting the accusations of the complainant. In that context, if you had the accused students in your class, would you publically support those actions?
An awful lot of people posting here seem to not know about something called “discovery.” Defense lawyers, like Perry Mason of old, can drop unexpected evidence aboout the case at the time of trial. They are NOT required to tip their hands to the prosecution, other than giving a list of witnesses they wish to testify, and even then additions can be made later.
In contrast, the DA is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the defense with the evidence ahead of time. If you review the “discovery” you quickly find that Nifong has ….nothing. Worse than that, he CONSPIRED with the head of a lab to willfully CONCEAL evidence that OTHER MEN had sexual intercourse with this woman. This is on the basis of sworn testimony by his own witness.
So guys, not only is there no there there, when it comes to evidence to convict, NIFONG HIMSELF MAY WELL GO TO JAIL and will almost certainly be disbarred for perpetrating this little hoax.
Snort.
Here is another prism to view this mess through:
Someone explain how Nifong is not guilty of perpetrating a racially motivated hate crime against (at least)three innocent people. If you are having trouble figuring out where I got “racially motivated hate crime”, just read the 17 page NC bar motion….
I’ll bet no one can.
George, you seem to be confusing discovery in civil cases with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Q1, you bet nobody can read 17 pages? It would help if you’d bothered to provide a link, or if you’d pointed out which of the (helpfully numbered) pages or paragraphs support your claims that Nifong acted out of racial animus. I assume that you’re going to reference Nifong’s statements about the accuser’s race, which is a rather odd way to suggest that Nifong hates whites….
Q1checkride:
Innocent until proven guilty. A concept that many Duke supporters seem to believe in on a selective basis.
The cheerleaders on both sides have been taking a selective view of the presumption of innocence.
Yes.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence as to the guilt of the alleged perpetrators, you don’t put up posters calling them rapists, you don’t harass them, you don’t campaign against them publicly, you don’t post on your blog about how you think they’re all guilty. Period.
If you do this, you are not presuming innocence.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence for the accuser, you don’t call her a liar, you don’t speculate on how she was asking for it, you don’t engage in victim blaming or ‘all women are liars’ rhetoric, you don’t post on your blog about how the accuser made the whole thing up. Period.
If you do this, you are not presuming innocence.
If you do one of these but not the other, you are a hypocrite, a mere cheerleader for your side, and all of your ‘presumption of innocence’ rhetoric can be safely ignored.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of these people out there, on both sides of the issue.
Well, as has been pointed out in these threads, there’s a difference between presumption of innocence in a legal proceeding and holding an opinion. Legally, a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is not dissonant to say “There’s no way to prove this woman guilty of [x], but I’m convinced she did it.”
You can be convinced that Nifong is guilty of a hate crime without being able to prove such in a court of law. You can be convinced that these three guys sexually assaulted or raped this woman without being able to prove it in court. The question becomes what evidence or testimony backs up your opinion, or whether you are seeing what you want to see instead of what’s there. After these cases are disposed of, there will be people who will think (if someone is convicted) that the defendants were railroaded, and there will be people who will be convinced that the complainant was denied justice. I personally am in no rush to judgement, and I think that the progress of this case so far has shown the wisdom of that approach.
*nod* Good point, Ron.
I guess I’ve got no problem, on some level, with debating the guilt or innocence of the accused . . . after all, if blog comment threads aren’t designed for offering half-formed opinions ons incomplete information, what is?
My problem is with folks who post about how the accuser is a money-grubbing liar, oh but for the love of god, we need to presume innocence for the accused. Or, on the other hand, posting about how the guys are rapists who you believe to be guilty guilty guilty, but don’t you dare suggest that the accuser is lying.
If you’re going to set a standard, set it.
If you’re not, don’t.
Yep. That’s why I’ve been advocating from the beginning, “Don’t presume that these guys committed a rape just because a woman accused them”, and “Don’t presume that this woman’s lying just because she’s a stripper”, both of which are positions taken by partisans of one hue or another.
Right now, the only injustice I’m sure happened was that various sanctions were taken against the Lacrosse team in general (and these 3 kids in particular) before anyone knew what had happened. No action should have been taken by the school before the legal proceedings had finished. We may find later that other offenses and injustices have taken place, but we don’t know. Yet.
RonF, some actions should have been taken by the Duke administration regarding the lacrosse team since they were violating rules that night — and the ones under 21 who were drinking were violating the law. That’s true whether anyone at that party is guilty of sexual assault or not.
What rules were they violating? (Not saying they weren’t, just asking.)
As for the alcohol, it’s not Duke’s job to enforce NC law.
Right, Abyss2hope, I’d forgotten about the underage drinking and such. Given that people had admitted that, the people involved would fairly be subject to any sanctions that Duke has regarding underage use of alcohol by students and student-athletes. I would presume that some kind of hearing would be required. That leads me to ask whether the sanctions that the team and the members thereof suffered were in line with the offenses they had admitted to under Duke’s administrative codes. I doubt that Duke tosses out every underage student caught drinking. And I’ll bet they don’t even have a rule against hiring strippers, especially since this was not on Duke property and it’s not against the law.
There may have been prior offenses, etc., but overall my guess is that the punishment that was accorded these three, and to the team as a whole (a goodly number of whom were nowhere near this event) was not because of underage drinking; it was due to a presumption of sexual assault and rape, a presumption that now seems to have been unfounded. I say the presumption was unfounded; it may yet prove that some kind of sexual assault actually happened, but it was and still is premature to presume that it happened.
Robert, I believe that it’s not unusual for a school to have rules that say, essentially, “If Student A has broken Law B, then student A is subject to the following sanctions, ….” Use of alcohol by underage students, and especially underage student-athletes, is commonly included in these. So is sexual assault, and felonies in general. But from what I’ve seen, these sanctions are not imposed until the offense has been adjudicated under the law first. It seems that the Duke administration caved in to public pressure and rushed to judgement. It seems that Duke now thinks so as well, since they have re-admitted the two students who had not yet graduated as students in good standing.
RonF,
Here’s a link to the new Duke Lacrosse team standards that was part of reinstating the Duke lacrosse team. The decision to suspend the Duke lacrosse team definitely related to the lacrosse team’s history of discipline problems.
From the Duke lacrosse review:
This shows that the alleged gang rape was the last straw and not the first and only straw.
Should the past behavior of an alleged perp or an accuser be relevant when evaluating their treatment around an incident like this?
I do understand the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ syndrome, but if it just ‘coincidentally’ turns out to be something that they’re accused of that there’s a huge media firestorm around, that makes me uncomfortable.
Myca, past behavior doesn’t and shouldn’t impact criminal charges, but many people are alleging that the suspending of the Duke lacrosse team was based solely on this one woman’s report of what happened to her. That’s simply not the case.
Well, let’s turn it around.
What if the accuser had been an employee of the college who publicly accused the lacrosse team of rape and was summarily fired by the college? Then, as her charges began to look more and more plausible, the college rehires her, while simultaneously releasing evidence that in the past she’d been cited for being late to work several times.
But, whatever their other justifications, she hadn’t been fired until she accused the team of rape.
Seriously, what would you think? I would think that she had a hell of a case for a lawsuit.
I find it implausible that these boys were expelled for some other reason, just as I would find it implausible that she’d been fired for some other reason. Let’s not be coy.
Myca, the question would be why she was not fired for extensive tardiness earlier, especially if other employees had been.
Well, yeah.
I mean, look, I’m torn on this.
Seeing a bunch of jocks get their comeuppance is something I’ve been hungering for for . . . golly . . . forever. And yeah, I don’t doubt that as star athletes, they’ve received special treatment galore, and something to offset that isn’t a bad thing.
On the other hand, it seems pretty plain to me that they weren’t expelled for drinking, wild parties, and generally being jock assholes (which they should have been), they were expelled because of the rape allegations, probably in part because they were prejudged thanks to the media firestorm (which they shouldn’t have been).
It’s like the line about O. J. Simpson about how they ‘framed a guilty man.’
It’s not the outcome I’ve got a problem with, it’s the idea that it’s cool to take action against someone based on something like that.
Sure. My point is that the issue is not only “were they treated unfairly?” but whether the unfair treatment was actually the withdrawal of special favors.
*nod*
Okay, that seems reasonable.
If their ‘punishment’ for being accused of rape is that they don’t get to get away with all the crap they they likely got away with before, I’m not weeping for them.
I can live with that too. Suspension of extra-systemic privilege is an appropriate consequence of even a wild/unfounded allegation; “you guys got these perks when everyone loved you. you didn’t live in a way that kept everyone loving you, and now you don’t have the perks, either.”
I actually think of it more like the administration suddenly thinking “Oh shit! Everyone’s watching! We need to mind our p’s and q’s and play everything 100% by the books.”
But yeah, one way or the other, no big deal.
Now, if the professor failed them unfairly over this, I think that actually is a big deal, but that’s a separate issue.
If their ‘punishment’ for being accused of rape is that they don’t get to get away with all the crap they they likely got away with before, I’m not weeping for them.
They should be punished if they were rapists. They should be punished for breaking whatever rules or laws they broke, commensurate with the offense.
There shouldn’t be punishment for being accused of anything. And they shouldn’t be punished for being rapists if all they actually did was underage drinking and act like jock assholes.
Right . . . but they should be punished for underage drinking and act like jock assholes.
If they were able to break the rules with impunity before and now they’re not, that doesn’t bug me, because they shouldn’t have been able to do it in the first place.
O.K., so then how many other Duke students have been expelled in the last few years for underage drinking and acting like jock assholes? If there have been some, fine. If not, then they’re not being dealt with in an equitable fashion.
Here’s someone not pleased with the readmission of the two accused students.
Duke Fallout Continues as Top Black Professor Resigns From Race Committee
“The decision by the university to readmit the students, especially just before a critical judicial decision on the case, is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship,” says Dr. Karla Holloway, the William R. Kenan Jr., Professor of English and Professor of Law at Duke. “I could no longer work in good faith with this breach of common trust.”
So, the decision to expel the students prior to any judicial decisions on the case was acceptable, but the decision to backtrack and wait until there was a judicial decision on the case before punishing the students is a breach of common trust?
I wonder what this professor would have thought if the tables were turned and three black male students had been expelled upon the accusation of rape by a white woman, prior to any trial or conviction? I obviously don’t know for a fact, but I suspect his reaction would have been different.
I flat don’t agree that those students should have been expelled before their case was heard in court and a judgement reached. I think Duke did the wrong thing, and that they tried to make up for it once they realized their error. I think the original expulsions were a breach of trust.
This is a difference between “innocent until proven guilty” and “I think they did it”: the administrators at Duke would have every right to believe as they chose, but as a corporation it was wrong of them to take the corporate action of expelling these students until they had been proven guilty. I think this professor is dead wrong, and if this is the kind of attitude she brings to issues of racism, then this committee is better off without her.
It’s not Duke’s job, but it is their responsibility, on many levels, the least of which is Duke’s relationship with the communities surrounding it’s campuses. Duke has increasing pushed student drinking off campus, restricting student’s abilities to have kegs on campus and reducing the number of legitimate bars that are on campus. Duke is a wealthy, self-sustaining campus which offers students the opportunity to meet the majority of their day-to-day needs on campus. Their is a Chick-filet on campus. A McDonald’s. An Armadillo Grill. A barbershop, first class gyms, etc. Just about the only thing students cannot do on campus is drink in designated, legitimate areas.
The other thing that Duke refuses to do is to allocate land and housing to Greek organizations. They don’t want the liability.
So student’s grab up rentals that surround campus and party. And they do party. And Duke knows this. I lived across from the lacrosse “house” for 7+ years. Not the one on Buchanon, the blue house on Markham. Over the years, both Duke officials and specifically the former lacrosse coach were approached by town residents in an attempt to air grievances and to find a solution to the excessive partying, the subsequent trashing of the neighborhood, the public urination, the loss of parking, hell, the loss of sleep. Duke balked. Period. I personally was told by a Duke parent of a lacrosse player that if I didn’t like his son’s behavior, I should move! I was told in not so many words that his son’s one year tenancy in the lacrosse house was more important than my neighborhood, my service to Duke, etc.
Over the years, female undergraduate students developed a stealth system of alerting other females that sexual assualts had occurred at lacrosse parties or in the lacrosse house. The women would come in the middle of the night and toilet paper the trees – an act which is usually seen as a prank, so it flys below the radar, unless you know what the symbolic act means. I myself busted up a lacrosse party that was so large that the party goers could not fit in the house. They spilled out into Markham Ave., drinking in the street and drinking on the wall that surrounds East Campus. The cops were tired of coming to this house, and when I mentioned that there was underage drinking going on (evident by the sheer amount of students *walking* back to East Campus which houses all the first year students), the cops sent not one car, but six. They surrounded the house and blocked off both entrances. They let students out one-by-one. Two hours later, they had written 61 citations for underage drinking.
61.
That’s a hella lot illegal activity.
That was the lacrosse team.
And Duke’s response? Nada. Nothing. Zilch.
Shortly afterwards, maybe five months later, there was another party, same house. I called campus cops this time. They arrived – safely ensconced BEHIND the wall surrounding East Campus. I went over to talk to them, suggested that they do something, and as we watched students walk by us within 20 feet, with open beer cups, I mentioned that there was probably underage drinking.
The cop, doing ABSOLUTELY nothing, said, “Yup.”
So, when exactly are town residents supposed to assume the innocence of the lacrosse team? Of Duke students who party too much, too hard, and with illegal consumption by and serving of underage students? When Duke parents, Duke officials, the lacrosse coach, and team captains refuse to acknowledge what they are doing, when all of the above assume they have the privilege (and money) to live an Animal House fantasy, why does the onus fall on the community to ASSUME innocence? Everything these young men did, over many years, points directly away from innocence – and directly away from accountability, whether social or legal.
If Duke is going to attract these types of students, coddle them, push their illegal activities off into the community, it therefore has a huge fucking responsibility, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. Duke courted these young men, ensconced them in an atmosphere that told them they were mature young gods, looked the other way when trouble arose (which it frequently did), and then foisted the 1-2, if not 3 partys-per-week arrogance of these young men onto the town of Durham.
And you know, contrary to the outsiders here who might claim that Duke still doens’t have a responsibility in these matters — Duke finally got off its ass and has bought the majority of the large, five-bedroom, absentee landlord houses around East Campus to, guess what? – curb the activities of the students Duke origianlly pushed off campus. So, yeah, even Duke admits they have a certain responsibility. They even happend to have just bought the Buchanon house, maybe a month before the March 13th party. Unfortunately for them, the lacrosse team members had a binding lease on the property.
I’m betting that if the members didn’t have such a large house where they could live frat-style, if the house had been further from campus, the reaction of locals to this fiasco would not be such a rush to public judgement.
But as the saying goes: you sleep in the bed you make.
These young men are not, and were not, dewey eyed virgins. They were, and are, privileged, pamperd young men with a fairly long history (in Durham) of illegal activity, public nuisances, who purchased a woman for sexual titillation and provided alcohol to underage students on anything but a minor scale.
You would think, on those items alone, that Duke would be ashamed to call these students their own.
Given that information, Q Grrl, then yes; Duke should have done something a long time ago. My first thought is that consequences for underage drinking should have led up fairly quickly to game and season suspensions from the team and loss of athletic tuition waivers – not for the first offense, but fairly quickly. Duke does have a responsibility to the community it is part of.
My son lives in one of the lacrosse houses at his university. They have parties. “Squalor” would fairly describe the inside of the house. But the outside is reasonably well maintained and they don’t trash the neighborhood. Yes, they have parties, and I’d be stunned if there wasn’t underage drinking going on. But not to the extent of what you’re talking about, where there’s cars and people all over the streets, etc.
For one thing, the local cops make arrests when that kind of thing happens (you can read about it in the papers). For another, at this school the lacrosse team members don’t get athletic tuition waivers. Also, when you buy a keg in this town the buyer has to show their Drivers’ License. The liquor store records it, and if the cops come on a scene of underage drinking and find a keg, they trace it back to the purchaser and charge them for serving alcohol to underage people.
So, I’m not going to defend what these kids have done that you quote above. Duke has neglected their responsibilities. Bust the kids for the drinking and other such things. Bust Duke for abusing the community.
why does the onus fall on the community to ASSUME innocence?
I’m not going to ask you to assume they’re innocent. You are free to assume whatever you like. But we don’t punish people based on assumptions in the United States. What I’m saying is that before they have to suffer the legal consequences of having commited rape or sexual assault, it should have to be proved. Instances of underage drinking and spreading around trash and having loud parties and blocking the streets create an environment where I’d say sexual assault is more likely to occur, but it is not evidence of sexual assault.
Should repeated instances of underage drinking and breaches of the peace have led to warnings, fines, game suspensions, suspension from the team and other school sanctions, up to and including expulsion? Yes, proportional to the number and extent of the violations. That kind of behavior should be stopped, not encouraged or ignored. But to go from nothing to expulsion is an attempt by Duke to cover up their own sins by taking advantage of these particular students’ sins. The first time those kids are arrested for underage drinking, they should get the same punishment as anyone else gets for their first arrest for underage drinking. They shouldn’t get a punishment based on offenses that there’s no legal record of.
The “TP” system is interesting. Do they TP other places where such things may have occurred? I imagine that there are “football houses” and “basketball houses”, etc. at Duke? Or is there something about the lacrosse culture at Duke that is different from the football or basketball or other teams’ cultures?
Is this the first time that anyone has filed sexual assault charges based on what’s happened to them at a lacrosse party? I realize that a lot of times, women don’t file complaints about such things because of the “he said/she said” issue or because of the way that women have often been treated when they try to bring such charges, but I’m wondering what the history is here.
who purchased a woman for sexual titillation
Well, now, they purchased her services, not her, services she was free to sell or not, as she chose.
And frankly, when I was in college, there were a lot of virgins that had chipped in to hire a stripper or had stuck a dollar in her G-string at one point or another.
Yeah, I know, “dewy-eyed virgins” is a figure of speech. But I couldn’t resist. After all, the non-virgins have generally figured out how to convince someone to take their clothes off without having to pay cash. It’s the virgins that are more desperate.
I guess my problem is with the formulation that, “these guys were real assholes, look how they acted in the past, they’re probably guilty of rape.”
I have a problem with it because it seems a little too close to “that girl’s a real slut, look how she’s acted in the past, she’s probably lying.”
I’m not even saying that that’s what you’re saying, Q Grrl, it’s just that . . . if we’re going to evaluate how likely something is based on the character of the people involved, that when we get into all the slut shaming and victim blaming and evil crap like that that I’d rather avoid.
Well, but her “services” were her naked body. Unless you know a neato way of separating the person from the body, they purchased her.
Myca: I’m not buying your argument. I absolutely believe that prior criminal behavior is relevant to judging a person’s character. You’re acting as if these young men were raped and I’m holding them responsible based on their past forays into law breaking. What I’m saying is that these young men have a public record of ignoring boundaries, whether social or legal, and that I therefore believe it is fair to assume they would do so on a personal level.
No, I’m acting as though they’ve been accused of an extraordinarily horrible crime and you’re assuming that they’re guilty based on their past history of common, widely committed crimes. The vast majority of people who engage in underage drinking do not rape.
And what I’m saying is that it does not follow, any more than ‘the accuser changed her story, therefore she’s making up the entire rape out of the whole cloth because she’s a money-grubbing liar’ follows.
I absolutely believe that prior criminal behavior is relevant to judging a person’s character.
Unless, of course, that prior criminal behavior is something you don’t think should be illegal, or is something you think that the criminal was forced into in some fashion, or…
DURHAM — A Washington, D.C., judge has cleared a misdemeanor assault conviction from the record of Collin Finnerty, a suspect in the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case.
Robert: judging doesn’t mean that you always find a negative. Duh.
Well, but her “services” were her naked body. Unless you know a neato way of separating the person from the body, they purchased her.
Her services were to allow them to look at her naked body while she danced. If I purchase a car, I can do with it whatever I want within the law. If I hire a taxi, all I get to do is ride in it for a while. Getting to look at her naked body while she danced is a long ways from “purchased a woman”; what they got to do was very highly constrained, both in what they could do and how long they got to do it. I buy something, it’s mine, and I get to keep it. They didn’t get to keep her.
RonF:
Unfortunately, for many people these two are seen as no different which puts many dancers at higher risk for sexual assault and is also why many dancers bring a bodyguard. If those who hire dancers aren’t used to respecting boundaries, the potential for violence goes up, especially when the customers are under the influence.
Abyss2hope, I’ve read the thread, I know the context, and I know that in a thread with the genders exactly reversed across the board, you would be livid.
I don’t (of course) think that rape is ‘especially bad’ for men. That’s awful. Denying that doesn’t have to involve the converse either.
Minimizing rape is minimizing rape, period. Many of these comments were not sarcastic. “Now they know how it feels” makes me fucking ill.
When we discuss why male sexual abuse victims feel uncomfortable with feminist discussion, it’s shit like this which you are currently laughing off that’s why.
Grr. Sorry, wrong thread. Amp, if you could delete that, I’d appreciate it. I’ll post the right place.
Unfortunately, for many people these two are seen as no different which puts many dancers at higher risk for sexual assault and is also why many dancers bring a bodyguard.
Yeah, drunks can get out of hand, which is why dancers bring along a bodyguard. But that still doesn’t add up to “hiring a stripper” = “purchasing a woman”.
In that case, shouldn’t we be emphasising the difference, as Ron has, rather than using the inappropriate language of purchase, as Q Grrl has.
They hired her.
After all, the non-virgins have generally figured out how to convince someone to take their clothes off without having to pay cash. It’s the virgins that are more desperate.
RonF, I know you were trying to be funny, but it doesn’t work that way.
It’s true that in a logical, absolute sense, they did not “purchase a woman”. It’s also true in a real-world sense that some men who hire a stripper think they bought her, that it’s OK for them to grope or rape because a) she deserves no better and b) they paid her money. That is, they bought her, rather than paying to be entertained by her dancing naked for a fixed period of time.
This is true, and so very fucking depressing.
Guys, Daran, Ron, I understand your point, and I do think that there’s something to be made of the distinction, and maintaining that paying for a stripper =/= buying a woman . . . but Mythago’s point is well taken.
Although it’s not the same thing there are plenty of people who think of it as being the same thing, and not forgetting that mindset is important.
Actually, I think that that’s an element of male privilege . . . we can afford to forget that that mindset exists.
Goddammit, that’s awful.
Mythago:
This belief is reinforced every time people react to a stripper’s report of sexual assault with the statement that she couldn’t have been raped, she’s a stripper. It’s also reinforced every time stripper and whore are used interchangably.
RonF, the way strippers are treated isn’t linked to the man’s sexual desperation. Demeaning treatment comes from disdain not desire.
It’s also true in a real-world sense that some men who hire a stripper think they bought her, that it’s OK for them to grope or rape because a) she deserves no better and b) they paid her money. That is, they bought her, rather than paying to be entertained by her dancing naked for a fixed period of time.
If that’s true, I’d say that it applies to damn few men. And in this particular case, so far we have no proof that it applies to the young men involved. I make no pre-judgement, though, and accept the possibility that it could turn out that way. I’m waiting to see what happens if and when the remaining charges come into court.