NC - Two Duke Lacrosse Players Indicted

[Summerskye1]

If this goes to trial, character will become a huge centerpiece for both sides.

And if all the State has is this women's word and a medical report that indicates she had vaginal trauma consistent with sex, then unless the State seats a favorable jury composite, I suspect the young men will be acquitted.

Since when is vaginal "trauma" consistent with sex? Are you privy to the sexual assault examination medical reports in this case? Was it the medical examiner's opinion that either the AV was violently raped or else she just had some sex? Because the news sure makes it sound as though the medical exam revealed the presence of injuries consistent with rape.

 

[Summerskye1]

If there is no DNA and you only have a medical report and her testimony, the two "boys" can say it was "consenual" but rough.........

The ship has already sailed on that line of defense, though, wouldn't you think? I'd expect it to be quite difficult for the boys to change their stories so significantly this far into the publicity circus. I realize that in theory, none of this pretrial stuff should be considered by the jury, but nevertheless I would expect it to be nearly impossible for the boys to 'credibly' pursue a defense of consensual sex after everything the defense has been arguing so far.

IMO, consensual rough sex will never wash as a defense in this case. I mean, the AV allegedly ran out of the house in fear after a party guest suggested that she use a broomstick as a sex toy. Who would buy the idea that she immediately thereafter decided to head to the bathroom voluntarily with two or three young men for violent sex?

 

[JDB]

From what I have heard none of the three sent the e-mail. Also there is alot of questions about the AV that need to be answered. Such as if she was raped why was she found in a parking lot drunk. Why do the time stamped pictures back the defendants. I am not saying they did not do this but we have not heard all yet.Just a thought here what if the Av left the party and then between her leaving and found in the parking lot the Rape happened by someone that was not at the party. In other words taking advantage of a very drunk woman.

 

[nanandjim]

Don't know if these photos of the two arrested lacrosse players have been posted.

Here's a link to the article. Apologies if it has been posted already.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14365802.htm

 

[Bee Charmer]

Hey there, Bee Charmer. Thanks for the name. :blowkiss: The lacrosse team does seem like they are out of control, don't they?? I guess that only time will tell if there is enough evidence to convict. I also think that they will probably arrest the third guy, but who knows??

I am wondering if the DA could be offering the third man immunity for his testimony against the other two? :blowkiss:

 

[Bee Charmer]

You cannot introduce previous crimes or convictions.......so any past criminal convictions cannot be entered as evidence at trial, unless the judge rules it can be...and that is a difficult burden as it has to be "similar" fact circumstances.

Too prejudicial and bias for the jury........you are "judging" the defendent on the case at bar...the case before the judge and jury.

The two "boys" will "claim" that the sex was "with consent", but rough.......I put money on it.....the rallying cry of rapists........

That would be a huge change in their story then, imo. Their attorneys have consistently said there was no sex that night.

 

[Jean]

Duke Rape Indictment (From--The Smoking Gun)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0418061duke1.html

 

[BhamMama]

In other words taking advantage of a very drunk woman.

I finally found this quote. Wanted to post it because it differs so much from what some are saying.

According to ABC, the security guard said she smelled alcohol on the driver, but not on the alleged victim, who, she said, "couldn't talk at all. ... She was out of it.

http://tinyurl.com/q672p

 

[Summerskye1]

It's quite interesting to me that these two defendants are roommates and lived in the dorm right next door to the lacrosse teammate who wrote the offensive email. And, all three are from the NY/NJ area. I guess I'm wondering whether these two defendants are the two guys referenced by nickname in McFayden's email.

I guess the thing I find most interesting is that if the AV was truly making this all up and was randomly selecting photos out of the lineup, what are the chances that she'd pick these two, who happen to live in the same room, come from the same part of the country, and are in the same year at school? It would be an even more unlikely coincidence if these two boys are indeed the ones referenced in McFayden's email...

Finnerty and Seligmann share a room in a Duke residence hall, next to lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14365802.htm

 

[Wudge]

Since when is vaginal "trauma" consistent with sex? Are you privy to the sexual assault examination medical reports in this case? Was it the medical examiner's opinion that either the AV was violently raped or else she just had some sex? Because the news sure makes it sound as though the medical exam revealed the presence of injuries consistent with rape.

The reported "degree" of vaginal trauma was?

 

[Wudge]

But...the grand jury saw the available evidence and decided to indict. Do you think that they indicted because of the dancer picked the guys out of a "line up?"

My exercise partner, who is an attorney, is livid about this case. He agrees with you. I just do not know what to think. I guess that we will have to see the evidence before we can truly decide.

I just hope that justice is served in this case, whether that being that the boys are freed or are convicted.

I also agree with you about the circumstances of why the DA is pushing forward with this case. It seems to me to be a win-win for him. He is passing the ball to a jury and letting them decide. He is also getting a lot of free publicity/face time and doing what his "constituents" would want him to do... I did notice that these boys are not "local." So, that also plays into his thinking, I would assume...

Grand Jury proceedings are one-sided only. The defense is not present nor heard.

 

[Bee Charmer]

Grand Jury proceedings are one-sided only. The defense is not present nor heard.

Actually, that is not true in all states. In California, I believe the law requires the DA to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

 

[Wudge]

The DNA testing results were not "fundamentally exonerating," as you put it. They were neutral as far as I am concerned. Neither exculpatory nor inculpatory. It sounds to me as though you would have expected useable DNA to be found in 100% of legitimate rape allegations. WHAT RESEARCH IS YOUR EXPECTATION BASED ON?

UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME some scientific, statistical, or otherwise academically accepted research that says that the absence of DNA evidence after a rape is correlated with a false rape allegation, then I WISH YOU WOULD STOP behaving as if you know this to be the case.

I also don't get why this D.A. is supposedly so swayed by the fact that 45% of the population is black. What is the racial composition of the other 55% of the community? What % of the community is madeup of Duke affiliates?

In a gang rape, absence of any DNA and of any signs of condom usage would not only be highly exculpatory evidence, it would fundamentally be looked upon as exonerating evidence. By itself, the total absence shouts out as: lack of proof beyond a reeasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, in a rape trial, witness stand performances, venue and jury composite can trump all.

 

[Details]

Thus far, her story has been matching up with the statements of others, and the photographs. The security guard who found her seems an especially good witness towards her not being actually drunk but drugged. I wonder how well the defense claim that they can alibi these two guys will hold up? That'll be interesting - they claim that there are ATM reciepts and a cab driver who will alibi them... but then again, that comes from the same defense attorney who claimed that there was only a 7 minute gap in the photos, proving their innocence.

 

[Wudge]

Actually, that is not true in all states. In California, I believe the law requires the DA to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

In all states, the Grand Jury is strictly a prosecutorial tool. A few states allow for a defense attorney to be present during GJ proceedings, but any presentation of exculpatory or exonerating evidence is left to the conscience of the prosecutor.

Scream along with me: fox in the chicken coup.

 

[Summerskye1]

In a gang rape, absence of any DNA and of any signs of condom usage would not only be highly exculpatory evidence, it would fundamentally be looked upon as exonerating evidence. By itself, the total absence shouts out as: lack of proof beyond a reeasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, in a rape trial, witness stand performances, venue and jury composite can trump all.

I see that you ignored my request for statistics, research, or other evidence to support your argument re: the significance of the lack of DNA evidence. No prob - I will just assume that you couldn't find any.

 

[Wudge]

I see that you ignored my request for statistics, research, or other evidence to support your argument re: the significance of the lack of DNA evidence. No prob - I will just assume that you couldn't find any.

Yes, I did, for this is an alleged gang rape, and I do not research the intuitively obvious or do windows either.

The reported absence of "any DNA or any evidence of condom usage" is, at the very least, highly exculpatory, and the defense will present the lab's findings as exonerating evidence.

 

[Details]

The defense will present a series of photos with a 27 minute break right where the victim says she was raped as highly exculpatory too. They'll present "It doesn't fit, you must aquit" as highly exculpatory - but the question is - is it really?

 

[Summerskye1]

Yes, I did, for this is an alleged gang rape, and I do not research the intuitively obvious or do windows either.

The reported absence of "any DNA or any evidence of condom usage" is, at the very least, highly exculpatory, and the defense will present the lab's findings as exonerating evidence.

Hey, it's your prerogative, just as long as you realize that what is "intuitively obvious" to you may, in fact, be scientifically inaccurate in the real world.

 

[mic730]

I believe this case is headed exactly where it belongs - in a courtroom with a prosecution and a defense. Even though I have followed this case closely I have absolutley no opinion on what happened and who is telling the truth.