Monday, June 19, 2006

GOP: Say NO To Prosecuting Rapists

The Durham, NC Republicans have announced a challenge to the current District Attorney because he's prosecuting the Duke LaCrose rape case.

So the GOP DOES stand for something...blocking rape prosecutions!


Joe said...

That case has been cluster-fucked from the start. The actions of the prosecutor need to be looked at hard.

Polly said...

If the case is bogus, it will get tossed. it's been amazing to see talk-radio so wrapped up in a criminal defense case! I can't WAIT to see them jump into action when a black person gets wrongly accused of rape! i guarantee they'll swoop in to save the day!

Joe said...

The accuser has a history of claming rape. Her story changed many times on this one; was it 5 men or 20? She's been all over the globe on that one.

The accuser was only given a photo line-up of Duke players. No fillers were used.

No DNA evidence to tie any of the Duke players to raping her.

The other stripper that was with her that night said that the rape charge was "nonsense". That she was with the accused for all but five minutes that night. No window for a 30 minute rape.

And at the time of indictment the DA held back very important medical evidence. At that time the DA said the medical records showed the accuser has sign and symptoms of being raped. The only thing is that the medical records say the exact opposite. There were no injuries consistent with rape (this according to the sexual assualt nurse who examined her).

There is a lot about this case that make her claims weak. Photos, ATM recpits, taxi driver's statement.

But the DA was in the middle of a tough primary and no doubt the "tough on crime" stance helped him.

I don't think the GOP is rushing to challenge him because he is prosecuting white men accused by a black woman. I think they are challenging him because he appears to have tainted a major case and plus its politics.

At this point I would not be surprised to see the charges either reduced, dropped, or a plea bargin reached.

Polly said...

The history of claims comes from when she claimed to have been raped and her father actively quelshed it. doesn't mean it did or didn't happen. means the dad didn't want it pursued.

The line-up issue isn't standard procedure in most places, but isn't out of line, especially when the number of attendees at the event (where an incident took place) is small and knowable. not out of line at all.

the other dancer later admitted that she was away long enough to know to not know if it had actually happened. The accusing victim was intoxicated and that clearly explains a lack of knowledge when it comes to how many attacked. I am not sure how much familiarity you have with vitims of gang rape and their resulting ability to recall intricate details, but this isn't off from the norm. additionally, the other dancer also noted that the victim appeared MUCH more intoxicated than she should be after just drinking on drink.

As for medical records held back, those are required to be released at a prescribed time (which, as i understand they were, not held back). what it showed was that the vaginal walls were swollen consistent with rape. the thing you are probably thinking about here is that it is far from being as conclusive as the DA made it out to be. there is a lack of DNA evidence, but that has no bearing if condoms were used, if there were unknown 3rd parties, or if 3 dimensional objects were used.

I think the case is going to be hard to prove, in part due to the racial issues and the kids having money for attorneys. if it were poor folks (white or especially black) they'd easily go to jail on this sort of evidence. getting to the truth here seems like it may just be impossible. that, however doesn't mean she was raped.

Doesn't mean she wasn't either.

My over-arching point is where's the right wing radio machine the other 1000 times this happens a year when the accused is black. no where.

Joe said...

The only thing I read about the other dancer is that she said she was away from her for only 5 minutes. But that was a while ago when I read it. If you have a link where she recants that please let me know.

The accuser changed her story on the number of men that raped her. At one time she said it was as high as 20. That doesn't help her credibilty. And no I don't know that ins-and-outs of gang rape victims. So I'm not sure if this is par for the course in group rapes. Though I could see how it could be. I'm just going off of what has been reported thus far.

The assualt nurse that examined her said her injuries were not consistent with rape. Just that the vagina appeared to have "trauma". The kind of trauma that can be associated with sex, menstruation, and other things. The accuser admitted having sex multiple times in the days before the Duke party. At one session for a man and woman she used a vibrator. It seems like it would not be hard to create reasonable doubt about this tramua.

As for the DNA, I read in the New York Times where the accused told police that no condoms were used. If that is so and she was raped then there would be DNA evidence. At the very least you'd expect a few pubic hairs from the rapists to found and moderate to severe vaginal tearing if it was a gang rape (even if a condom was used).

I agree that this case will be hard to prove. But I don't think it will be so much the racial issues (although that won't help) as much as it will be the defense's ability to create doubt.

One interesting thing I read was a statement from a local black student. He said that this white guys should be found guilty even if they did not do it. Why? To make up for past wrongs against blacks. It is sad that some want to convict them because they are white while some automatically declare them not guilty because they are white.

I agree about poor people and minorities getting the shaft in the criminal process. Money makes the world go round and its sad how many people just flat out get railroaded.

I can't comment on talk radio since I quit listening to those jackasses years ago.

Polly said...

much of what i've read recently is an advanced copy of next week's Newsweek. When i said that it was going to be hard to prove due to racial issues, i meant in that it would be hard for a white male to get convicted of raping a black stripper...generally put.

As for DNA, this boils down to hairs, if there was no ejaculate. not necessarily helping the case for the DA, of course. i'm curious what the more recent statements of the other dancer would be, if any.

Mostly, I wish this wasn't happening.