I've waited to respond to this one, hoping that the decision to take it to the GJ might have been made by now. There are two reasons for a DA's taking a case to a GJ to try to get charges levied, instead of filing an information or criminal complaint on his own: first, the DA gets to use the GJ proceedings as a discovery device, to question and obtain information from the potential defendant and others, who are not allowed representation by counsel while so testifying. Second, doing so can insulate the DA from charges that he pursued a case without foundation or for political reasons. If he can convince a GJ to bring charges, he's off the hook if those charges don't result in a conviction and at least temporarily insulated from claims his prosecution was politically motivated while the case is pending. But since it's the DA's decision whether to go to the GJ anyway, many disregard that "shield" and hold him accountable either way. We'll see what happens here next week, but here's the latest development in the case. Whatever its outcome, it's clear that police questioning of witnesses represented by counsel and/or without a warrant is highly improper and if instigated by the DA, could lead to severe disciplinary charges against him.

The timing is suspicious, too; I've seen various government agents pull such stunts before, on, or over holidays when clerks' offices are closed, as is now the case here. But they usually backfire: I once handled a case on behalf of a former beauty queen who was arrested by a jilted INS agent over a 3-day weekend on bogus charges, and we ended up collecting a nice settlement from them.

[ April 14, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

The 911 calls are interesting because the police officer that responded to it apparently noted nothing about alcohol. The officer reported they literally had to pry her fingers from the parking brake. And apparently the rape specialist did not make note of it either (and in a situation of rape, I would imagine if she even appeared to be under the influence it would be noted). So if she was "passed out drunk" she seemed to sober up pretty quickly. Not to mention the pictures the defense has show her to be standing and such. So I don't know how you go from standing around and then being 'passed out drunk' in a matter of minutes.

Also, the defense has apparently not shared their evidence of the pictures showing she had her injuries before hand with the D.A.

Once again, if you are 100% innocent, why wouldn't you be showing something that would possibly clear you? They are either trying to a) play chicken with the DA or saving them for trial.

Just my legal mind, but if I was soooo innocent, I wouldn't be holding back things like this that could clear me, especially when it's a very public case and obviously not the most positive situation you are in.

Here's another perspective on the whole alcohol thing, with a suggestion to investigate a potential culprit that's usually overlooked. Link to op-ed.

Great link, Illini guy!

No one mentions much the point: women (and men) need to use common sense and be more aware of crime-prone situations. And traffic! I just heard of two people who were hit by cars recently.

Common sense

There could be an indictment today. Here's an op-ed.

Duke lacrosse scandal a wake-up call

As this thing drags forward I am growing more and more sick to see how this is playing out in the media.

We have the DA who is up for reelection, who in my opinion is trying to make this case the foundation of his reelection campaign. Why else would he grandstand so much and make so many bold judgement statements before all the evidence is examined?

I also don't like people making this a race issue. A woman was alledgedly raped ( a UNEXCUSABLE CRIME) And to me thats what this should be all about. Now however the media and attention seekers alike have made this into a racial issue.

Would the community and the media be as all over this as they are if this woman was white.. In my heart of hearts I think not.

That all being said I am not here to side with the LAX players nor the alleged victim. What I am here is on the side of justice and due process.
I am tired of us trying a case in the media before it ever gets to court.

If they are guilty then they should pay dearly. Unfortunately if they are innocent the damage is done to their reputations going forward.

People like Nancy Grace, Jesse Jackson etc should shut the hell up and stop telling people what to think. Does the media and activists have a seeing third eye that the rest of us are lacking?

I hope this case moves faster to a conclusion, guilty or not, so we can move forward.

I agree that the media coverage has largely ranged from bad to disgusting. Nancy Grace? God, what an argument for retroactive abortion she is!
Equally disgusting, and unfortunately all too common, is that ANY negative rumor about the woman (i.e. she was falling down drunk) is automatically assumed true and spread on TV and Internet. None of us saw the woman or administered alcohol tests. We don't know if she was drunk or sober at the time. And of course her state of inebriation has nothing to do with the question "did these man rape this woman?" But I can guarantee you that a lot of people will repeat as "fact" that she was falling down drunk (and presumably therefore deserved to be raped or was making it up or both).
As for avoiding certain situations: sure there are high risk situations. But plenty of women have been attacked in their own homes with the doors locked. Sadly, there is no place and no action that a woman can take that will guarantee she won't be raped.

goduke, a few things to point out...

A) It's been a month (or over a month) since this has happened. If the DA makes bold statements like "I'm still going to pursue the case cause I think a crime happened" after the DNA results came in, don't you think he may have a little more evidence a month after the crime that we may just not know about?

You are complaining about the media portraying it as a racial issue? And you don't think it is? There were reportedly racial slurs said at the party (something like thanking your grandpa for my cotton shirt), there was a 911 caller who complained about being called a n***** outside the party, etc. And you absolutely know that as has been said, if this was 2 white girls and a bunch of black men, chances are there would have been people in jail that same night.

C) As for Nancy Grace and all the talking heads on TV, I agree that they are very annoying and when you talk about a case that doesn't even have charges and you don't know the evidence and the case, all it is is speculation and you aren't going to get anywhere with that. It's very annoying and it's not good when it comes to getting a fair trial. But where were all these people complaining about how they have been perceived as guilty when it came to the Natalie Holloway case? Nobody was saying how the media was totally taking sides on that case.

If I responded I would say the same EXACT thing about the Halloway case. Girls disappear all the time but she just happens to be pretty and the media seizes on it. Same thing with the Lacey Peterson case.. 3 other women were killed that same time by their husbands and got no national media play because they were not percieved "attractive enough".

This story is sexy because it is priveledged kids from Duke University vs. a local Durham woman.. The haves vs the have nots.

As far as the prosecuter goes... go back to Tawana Brawley back in NYC and how at the end of the day EVERYONE who was crying racial injustice and that it was an airtight case got MAJOR egg on their face.

AGAIN I do not pretend to sit here and defend these players nor do I sit here and defend the alleged victim. I just want justice... But I am naive most of the time in this country to think that justice is blind and getting to the truth is what will always happen.

So for the record if they did something wrong to this woman then they should be punished. And on the flip side if this is some sort of rouse (which I am not saying it is) then she should be punished also.

What ever the case may be lets move it forward already.

I respect everyone on here for their views and I hope we can all have a rational discussion as this goes forward.

ABC is reporting that a grand jury issued indictments against 2 Duke players today. Of course, you can take that with a grain of salt since it's not all that hard.

However, defense attorneys were stating there were no indictments against them earlier.

A close analogy to this case may be that of Kobe Bryant. The similarities include racial difference, sexual history of both the alleged perpetrators and the victim, the relative difference in income (though much greater in the Bryant case, still a factor here) and the changing attitudes toward this type of case since the OJ Simpson trial - the fact that both parties are still alive being the critical difference. As with those cases this one will be tried by media hype regardless of what we desire.

[ April 18, 2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Today Show just reported that two team members, both sophmores, have turned themselves in to authorities.

Collin Finnerty was involved in an assault in DC earlier. Go back a page to find the article from the Blade; it was posted in this thread April 13, 2006 06:58 AM.

Player in tussle in D.C.

[ April 18, 2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Very interesting - I was having doubts about the veracity of the charges. But the DC incident shows that Finnerty is a gay basher and has a propensity for violence. Disgraceful that he only received community service on the assualt charge. Gay bashers are criminals in the worst sense.

What's a nice Jewish boy like you, doing in a place like this?

So far, the only thing that's changed since last week is that the indictments have been unsealed, but haven't revealed much, and at least two of the players have been charged and bailed out. At this point, it's unclear if they were arrested or surrendered. If arrested, I wonder why the DA didn't first allow them to surrender, as is usually the case where defendants are represented by counsel, and which saves the taxpayers the time and expense of casting the police as bit players in the DA's morality play. Let's all try to remember that now that charges have been filed, these defendants, like any other, are innocent until proven guilty.

The DA was appointed last year (after 30 years as an attorney in the DA's office, usually not the sign of a bright lightbulb); and is up for election this year.

No way in hell is he going to have it appear that he was soft on this case.

Getting an indictment out of a Grand Jury is usually pretty simple - and much quicker than in this case. Getting this to trial will be far more difficult - and time consuming.

Apparently he, the DA, also has no DNA evidence and the identification was done through phtographs.

Anybody want to make a bet that this case drags on through the first week in November, and is settled quietly the third week in November?

R

Meanwhile, while I can hardly dignify him with the term "media" in any form, the hate-spewer Michael Savage referred to the woman as black trash and the case as part of the lesbian feminist communist conspiracy to destroy white males.

I did not realize that the Durham DA was a lesbian, let alone a communist.

Since the men have been named, and one of them has a recognizably Jewish name, will Savage defend him? Or only the man with the Irish name?

Someone earlier mentioned that had the woman been white, the reactions would have been different. I completely agree. I've been reading some blogs that say that the woman is trash and probably deserved it. My God, what in the world is the country coming to? Some media outlets are painting her as a bitter woman. Funny, the same outlets probably paint Natalee Holloway in a whole different light. Big surprise.

Right, except that this women, who has two CHILDREN!, strips for a living - she parties and then goes and takes her clothes off for a bunch of strangers...That kind of stupid decision making combined with a bunch of moronic drunken str8 guys who'd actually be stimulated by a stripper, it's a receipe for disaster and a very bad decision by a woman much less a woman with a child!...

And it's beginning to appear that all involved are pretty sketchy. One of the defendants arrested for assault...the woman has a record that includes assault on a government official and driving while intoxicated...A lovely group to be sure...

[ April 18, 2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

So what, she's a stripper. Big deal. I'm sure everyone knows someone who has had to do something to make ends meet. At least she has a job and isn't living on the street.
Please, all you see is the job she has............so are you saying she got what she deserved? So, anyone who is a stripper or exotic dancer realizes that part of the business could mean rape?

Am I wrong to read that in what you posted. :mad:

One incident makes him a gay basher? A set of slurs makes him a gaybasher? I make slurs against straight guys all the time........so I'm a straight basher? Again, people we only have what the media is dishing to us.......everyone is entitled to their opinions, but no one is guilty until proven so.

Tonka, a set of slurs may not make someone a gay basher but a homophobic-based physical assault sure does.

Would she be trashed if she was white? Well, ask a woman in Colorado. A woman who charged William Kennedy Smith. Although the trashing would be different. Unfortunately, except when a rape case is used to whip up hatred against men who are more pariahs than the women are (for example Scottsboro, where of course there never was a rape), any woman is going to have her life taken apart as proof that she is making the whole thing up and besides it's all her fault.

Why is it reprehensible for this woman to strip for pay but not reprehensible for men to pay to watch her?

It should not need to be said but sadly, it still does. There is no time, no place and no circumstances that makes rape OK.

Because unfortunately........Straight Men still think they rule the world. Her job shouldn't matter, which is what my point is. And even is the perpetrator was African American and the woman was the same..what would happen? Even though she wasn't raped Anita Hill would have some arguments for this forum.

I'm just so tired of the media tainting a case by trying people in the news. I work for law enforcement and trust me I have to hear about bad press all the time.

But I don't know what I expected from this group....we seem to have issues with prejudice ourselves. frown

I think the fact that there is a lot of "non-facts" floating around, it's hard to really gauge the case.

Most of the info is not coming from 'officials' but from friends, family and people representing the 2 sides.

The attorneys have been saying that they have the pictures that show she was not with it when she arrived, but the other stripper has done a couple interviews and she said the girl was fine when she arrived and didn't notice any marks or bruising on her when she arrived. He said...she said.

The defense allowed a reporter to see the pictures, but apparently not the DA. Um ok.

Now the defense for the 2 men charged now are saying they weren't even there when it supposedly happened. However, once again you go back to the fact that if they have proof that they weren't even there as they say they do, why would you NOT share that with a DA investigating the case to CLEAR your name instead of getting charged with rape in a VERY public case!? I know there are always tactics used in a defense to maximize the effectiveness, but if it's as clear as day that they weren't there as the lawyers are now saying, why you would let this all go on while hiding their evidence that they weren't there....I just do not get that.

Although you can't really ignore the coincidence that one of the two men she ID'ed happened to be the one with a previous 'violent' crime.

Sure you can. If it's anything less than a felony and is in limined out before trial, and you're a juror or one of the lawyers trying the case, you'll have to or you'll have committed reversible error.

The DA is going to have to prove anyone he goes to trial against guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. From the evidence disclosed so far, he's got an uphill battle ahead of him - as well as an election campaign. Rob's right that this may indeed be a case of "The Convergence of the Twain."

Tonka - read more carefully! The previous poster was comparing this situation to Natalee Hollaway. Obviously anyone can strip for a living if they so desire, male or female, but I find it incredibly stupid for a women with two children to go to a rowdy drunken "frat-type" house environment late at night to strip - I mean, are you kidding me? And this whole stupid argument that she's just trying to make ends meet? There are plenty of other ways to take care of one's kids that don't include danger to your life and getting drunk and taking your clothes off. That's just my opinion-call me conservative but please! Of course she didn't deserve it, as no one does, if it happened...but that doesn't mean she's an innocent either as her spotty record indicates...We won't know until more facts are released...Everyone is innocent until proven guilty...

Why do I waste my time reading the p & r threads. Someone in one of the other threads is railing against people who care about the environment calling it "crap" and referring to fellow Outsporters as "you people" and now this statement...

I've about had it.

For those that keep bringing up a re-election, it was reported on the news this morning that this guy isn't really even facing tough competition. So the need for him to use it as politics is not really there.

And I have a feeling we don't know much of the evidence as of right now. The D.A. has said very little other than he just believes from what he has investigated so far he thinks a crime occurred. He has said the rape doctor backs him on it as well, but really no details. I would imagine the more in-depth DNA samples he's awaiting results on are the DNA found inside of the bathroom. We don't know what kind of DNA it was and how recent it was left...and I would go out on a limb to say that's what they are looking at.

As for the kid's previous problems gmg, I'm not saying it's important when it goes to trial, but just that a girl ID's a guy as a guy who committed a sexual assault...and he happens to have at least one prior incident involving assault, that it's a bit intriguing don't you think? You can't ignore that the one guy on the team with a more serious record happens to be the one that's also being charged in this case.

I never claimed that I wasn't just as guilty as others.............I just hope that I'm not as bigoted as my father.

Illini, intriguing, perhaps; interesting and coincidental, yes; but admissible, no.

Re: the election, I wonder if it's too late for a challenger to enter the race against him? Now THAT - and how he'd pitch his candidacy - would be intriguing! :cool:

Never said a word about it being admissable.

Well, I think since everyone's giving their opinion that I come from the hockey boards and give mine as well.

I firmly believe that this is not about rape at all, but rather about extortion. Either way after all this is over, more than likely the woman will file a civil lawsuit and seek millions of dollars in damages from either or both of the players or the university. My question is that when the players win this court case will they and Duke University sue the woman like they should for destroying their standing as student athlete, possible loss of scholarships from not having a season, and try to get money for loss of revenue for not having the games played.

One thing that I can say that really comes across in the media of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News, is how racist the community of Durham and North Carolina Community College is against Duke University. Granted Duke University is an elite school or is shown in that light, but it just seemed like a matter of time before the University was involved in something like this.

I guess the next thing to do is continue to watch this unfold.

I don't think it should matter whether or not the woman had kids. I also don't think that just because she strips to make a living makes her a woman with questionable character. Would I try to find a better way of living? Yes, but that's just me. By the way, Ms Deblazer you mentioned that a white woman was just as likely to be trashed if she was the accuser. I agree with you but I also believe it would never be to the extent that an ethnic woman would face, especially if the accused is also a person of color.

This story blew up into a national phenomenon because everyone knows those guys probably shouldn't have been at Duke in the first place. I hope this sparks a discussion at Duke, Stanford, and other top schools that still give out athletic scholarships about whether that practice should continue. (It shouldn't.)

[ April 19, 2006, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: golfer 22 ]

It's also turned into a national discussion about student athletes, their status and behavior.

Over the last several days I have seen news articles refer to a 1995 study found that while athletes make up 3.3 per cent of the male students in the US, they account for 19 per cent of reported sexual assaults at universities. With discussion with various experts and talking heads about why this is. Usually the attribut it to star treatment and a sense of entitlement. Personally I think that is only scratching the surface.

I wouldn't hold out hope for anything constructive to happen there. Football and basketball players at state schools have been raping women, doing drugs, and all sorts of criminal things for years. Marcus Vick is proof that, frankly, no one cares -- nobody actually believes the football program at Virginia Tech is anything but a minor league for the NFL.

Duke and Stanford, on the other hand, still like to brag that even in nationally-ranked programs, they have student-athletes in the traditional sense of the word. This is the final blow to that myth. We are going to get a national discussion about (white?) student athletes at private schools that offer scholarships -- and that's it.

[ April 19, 2006, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: golfer 22 ]

Well said, Jayhawker! The only thing missing from gofer's post on this entitlement-bred "Achilles factor" is any data to support the contention that these guys didn't belong at Duke in the first place. I've a problem with that on two counts: first, I haven't seen anything stating what kind of GPAs these guys are maintaining, and I assume it must be at least a "C" because they're allowed to play sports; for all we know they might be on the Dean's List. Second, with all due respect to Blue Devils everywhere, Duke is a good school, but it's not a great school. It's no Stanford in terms of selectivity or academic reputation, and it does not regularly appear among the top ten ranked universities. Please don't take that as a slur, Dukies; it's just a fact.

As for chargerhockey's speculations, assuming they turn out to be true, this woman is probably judgment-proof; i.e., she has no assets worth pursuing. Still, there is a school of thought that all wrongdoers should be pursued to the limit, if for nothing else than to tar them with a judgment and possible bankruptcy to follow them thru their lives as their wrongdoing as marred others'. The only problem with this is finding a lawyer who will take on this Quixotic task; most have more lucrative things to do. Still though, IF she turns out to be nothing more than an extortionist, I believe both the individuals involved and Duke could pursue claims against her for the quantifiable damages done to their reputations and accounts.

If you checked your facts, you would know that the women were told they were going to a bachelor party with 5 men.
We can debate whether or not women should srip for a living. But it is irrelevant here. The issue is: did these men rape this woman? Period.

She is not charged with a crime. She cannot be innocent or guilty.

Yeah, except a woman who is raped who although charged with no crime is "not as innocent as her spotty record indicates".

That's totally false. Duke is #5 in the most recent US News rankings -- tied with Stanford -- and has been in the top 10 for years. The same people who apply to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc., apply to Duke.

And from what I've seen at my school, which is similarly situated to Duke, the lacrosse players are some of the dumbest kids on campus. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would have gotten in without lax is charitable at best.

[ April 19, 2006, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: golfer 22 ]

Golfer 22, I don't think it's that people don't care about these attacks; I think many people are too intimidated to try and file charges against male athletes because of the repercussions it would bring. The fear alone is enough to stop most people from bringing up charges.

It was reported last night that while they only needed to post $60,000 for bond at the time to get out of jail, both players posted the full $400,000 bond by a cashiers check. You have to be a very very wealthy person to come up with that in that short of time...or they prepared for it in advance.


Also, when it comes to the DNA in the bathroom, at first it was suspected the 2 that would be charged were the 2 that lived that and thus it was made a big deal that if you live there, you'd be leaving your DNA there all the time. Has anyone seen anything about whether the 2 DNA matches they found in the towel/floor are the same as these 2?

The first alibi the defense provided with regards to the photos seems to be false. Newsweek reported that the defense's claims and the actual pictures do not line up. The 2nd dancer also says that the defense's story is flawed.

It's interesting that they are so quickly using another alibi with the receipts/ATM camera. Once again, if it was so 'obvious' as the defense makes it out to be, why you would not be at the DA's office ASAP is beyond me. And the one thing with alibis is if they are proven not to be an alibi, it really hurts your case.

I don't think their GPA can prove anything. If they were brought to the school to win sporting events, then the grades are irrelevant. Coaches are notorious for pestering professors, TAs, and instructors over student athlete grades. Entitlement rears its ugly head again.

Gofer, You're right, at least as Duke's u-grads go, and I stand corrected. As I said in my erroneous post, apologies in advance to any Dukies who may have been offended, but who, I admit, clearly know better.

But I doubt that the lacrosse coach at Duke has that much influence over his players' grades - and I'd still like to know if these two fit the "dumb jock" stereotype or not. Were/are they in any honor societies? Some journalist or other will get us this info soon enough, I believe/fear, then we can all proceed to judge anew.

Personally, I consider their grades in the same category as the woman's dancing: irrelevant.
Whether they were good or poor students or anything in between has nothing to do with whether these men raped this woman. I sure don't want to start assuming that bad students are more likely to rape than good ones or the reverse. Even if statistically correct it would have no bearing on this particular instance.
The only way it could be relevant is if teachers and professors regularly gave them a pass on poor work because they were athletes; in that case it could be argued they are used to not facing consequences for their actions. That has some bearing, but still, not deciding. I mean, it's probably true of a lot of athletes, especially male, and still most of them don't commit rape. Because you can be privileged and still feel some sense of personal responsibility. Or not.

Not to mention that just because you have the grades to get into a school, doesn't mean you're a good student once you're in school.

I knew plenty of great students in high school that really sucked in college cause of pretty much not being forced to go to class, the partying, etc.

The only thing that is clear in this whole mess is that there is not a single angel among these people. Every single person has a flaw in their character, including Seligmann, Finnerty, and the woman involved. It seems clear to me there will be no convictions in this case. Whether that's right or not is something we'll probably never know.

MdB, I actually agree with your last post. I only brought up grades because someone had earlier suggested these guys didn't belong at Duke. I agree, their grades are irrelevant to the question of guilt, but I am curious how these guys are doing academically. Not because it absolves them in any way; rather, because it could show that even the best of students contain fatal flaws. At least, that's been my experience with some of these so-called "Golden Boys" - and Girls.

On a side note of the character/academic discussion, Syracuse's athletic director came out publicly and said he will not accept any transfers from this Duke lacrosse team.

Munson man, when you say everyone involved has flaws in their character you are describing the human species. We all have flaws in our character. We have all made mistakes. We have all done things that are wrong. And unfortunately when a woman claims to be raped all those flaws, mistakes and wrong actions are dragged out.
Again, not relevant.

Am I the only one who sees the Syracuse coach's comment as gratuitous grandstanding? Or is piling on an integral part of that sport?