But, privilege isn't a very hard word to spell.

I don't think I'm lucky at all. I, and generations before me, worked hard for everything I have.

Fate is real, but so is free will. What some call "destiny" is a dance between them.

"Lawyers representing Duke lacrosse players... said they have photographs depicting injuries on the body of the alleged victim prior to the time of the reported assault" Duke Chronicle

They also have conflicting testimony from another stripper/hooker/escort there.

Of course nobody knows who's telling the truth so who knows. Now it's just a big PR war.

-Rudey

And now they're saying that DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke lax team to the alleged rape:

DNA test clears Lax Team

And from what they said this is DNA from all over the body. So fingernails, hairs, anything were checked and not just for semen. They also found no traces or latex or lubricants down there.

Today some dick wrote into the NYTimes a nasty editorial about the LAX kids and it was like "I don't mean to stereotype and pre-judge and innocent before guilty, but they're rapists". If this wasn't true, what then?

-Rudey

Well I'm just glad we sentenced them to death before we had the results in.

Just as some made accusations of rushing to judgement on the team, are we now assuming they are innocent a little prematurely?

According to the story in the link above:

"District Attorney Mike Nifong has said he would have other evidence to make his case should the DNA analysis prove inconclusive or fail to match a member of the team.

"I believe a sexual assault took place," Nifong told The News & Observer of Raleigh on Monday. "I'm not saying it's over. If that's what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed."

I guess I'll wait to see if anyone is charged -- and after that, whether there is a conviction.

It's innocent until proven guilty in America so yes we assume they are innocent. China may do things differently.

The DA has poisoned the environment by stating the rape as a fact, saying he had DNA evidence, saying he would withhold the DNA evidence, and then saying he has other evidence.

DNA is pretty damn important evidence. DNA has been used to free several men who were falsely accused of rape.

And the DA is so sure but he hasn't even charged anyone with a crime.

-Rudey

That's a good point, although I think my context is a little different.

Mine is simply that nobody knows what the totality of the evidence is and we probably aren't wise to decide either way with the very limited knowledge we have.

Yours, then, is quite simply wrong.

The rule is clear: the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case, and the defendants (who have not yet even been charged) operate under the presumption of innocence.

There is no need to 'decide either way' if there's limited evidence - it's pretty clear which 'way' you should 'decide' . . .

well you can f off.

and rudey, so can you.

I recognize that there are so many other factors to life that make our dreams come true, and our work is just a small part. You can be self-centered and darwinistic if you like, but realize your view is just that.

I second that - luck had nothing to do with where I am today, and it won't have anything to do with where I am in the future.

Also, we're talking about labeling a group of people as "rapists" here; it may be wise to to stick with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

I guess we'll disagree on this one then.

I can make a personal decision any time I want to. It doesn't matter to anyone but me in the long run, but it is mine to make all the same. My point is that I don't know enough yet to make that decision.

Presuming a person is innocent does not make it so -- nor does presuming guilt.

Proving the later is up to the prosecutor and the final decision on whether he has proven it is up to the jury if charges are brought and the case goes to trial. What I believe makes no difference in the end, but again, everyone is entilted to an opinion and to share and argue it.

I think that's true. In many jobs (maybe not all), things like being in the right place at the right time or having met the right people somewhere along the line can open a lot of doors.

On the other hand, a piece of bad luck can sometimes ruin what might have been a great career.

Few people become "great" without hard work, but luck often helps.

At least that's my experience.

What are you talking about? Listen it's OK if you got through the system on luck and others feeling sorry for you. I didn't and your sorry ass remarks are self-centered since you try and push your ridiculous belief on me and think that's the actuality.

I knew a girl that didn't even take the SATs and got into Stanford and she was a 2 time Olympic athlete. She earned it by making money for the school through the athletic program. I hope for your sake you had something to bring to the table.

-Rudey

Presuming someone is innocent does make it so to the person presuming it.

Can I randomly call someone in here a rapist and then all of a sudden they might be a rapist without any evidence? I mean so what if the DNA evidence says I'm wrong.

-Rudey

You think that our justice system and the media operate under the same guidelines???

In a perfect world, maybe. In the real world, people are going to jump to conclusions based on prejudice. The lines were drawn in the sand before the story even broke, people lined up according to their prejudices -- racial, classist, etc.

If that weren't true, jury selection would be done by picking names out of a hat. The system hopes that by selecting 12 people with the input of both attorneys that the prejudices of those jurors will be balanced out.

I haven't taken a survey or anything, but I'm guessing that there's a fair chance that most of the people who already seem to know that this girl is telling the truth also seem to know that O.J. is innocent.

I don't believe in luck. Someone isn't going to luck into becoming a basketball star, nor is someone going to luck into producing a literary work.

I think it has more to do with having knowledge that you worked hard to gain and applying it in a beneficial time.

So what are you saying, exactly?

Thanks for the lesson on prejudice and pre-trial publicity, KT, but that's literally what I deal with every day of the week in my professional life - the media can (and does) do whatever it wants, but that does not at all make it correct or consistent with the instructions and rules of the court.

That's why attitudes like Delt's are so dangerous - if he's doing it, that means most of the jury pool is as well. And believe me - no matter how the case proceeds, two things are certain: it will be nearly impossible to kick stealth jurors for cause, and the prosecutor will certainly know how to scream "BATSON!" at the top of his lungs. This point relates to the below:

LOLOLOLOLOL

Again, with regard to the concept (or, perhaps, the ideal?) of voir dire, you're essentially correct ('balance' is probably less correct, but more realistic, than the ideal), but my point was relating more to discussion and the concept of guilt, rather than specific application to the court.

The media generally is not bound by the rules of the court. You know that though.

As for DA's attitude, is it dangerous? Maybe. Most people jump to conclusions with no evidence to base those conclusions on. That state of mind is only "dangerous" if people aren't open to changing their position when presented with new evidence.

I'm saying that the issue has already been decided by most in their own minds based upon their personal prejudices.

I would expect a criminal trial to never even take shape. From what I have heard, it would be extremely detrimental to the DA's career if he continued to push for one.....mainly because he asserted rape and claimed he had solid evidence. Civil Trial maybe though.

Presuming someone innocent doesn't mean they are innocent -- it means they must be treated (by the law, not necessarily by public opinion) as though they are innocent, even if they are in fact guilty.

I agree. I think Delt's attitude is the natural human attitude. Meaning that of course the jury pool, as a whole, is forming and re-forming opinions as the "story" develops.

You're right that the task of the DA and the defense attorneys is to find jurors with an open mind. And it also points up why the DA should have been keeping public comments to a mimimum.

By 'attitude' I meant that Delt was 'writing off' his willingness to assume guilt before charges have even been filed, not that he actually formed an opinion on the case - I agree that it's human nature to use information to form an opinion in this sort of situation (in fact, I'd love to quote Hastie & Pennington right here, but there's no need to nerd up this thread - it turns out you've identified the fundamental pathway through which 'jurors' make decisions).

Since most research shows that pre-trial publicity will help the DA win the case, and since most people feel (incorrectly) that the DA's job is to win the case, it's easy to see why such comments are made - it's disingenuous and damaging to the ideals of the system, but easy to understand . . .

She told you to F off dude. LOL

I love this girl

Where was I being self-centered and darwinistic? I was just merely pointing out that you might want to learn how to spell if you want to preach about education and its importance...especially in medicine you dont want to write on someone's chart that they have a herniated lumber disc, do you?


Edited to fix my spelling mistake..a function thats there for a reason

lol at "dawinistic" followed by a comment telling people how to spell ;)

lol @ the poor grammar and sentence structure in this "Sentence" of yours.

-Rudey

Ask her for a boob shot and let's just get this over with.

-Rudey

I don't think I want to try.

So far I am 0 for 3 when asking GC girls for boob pics. Well, actualluy, maybe 1 for 3, but I didn't really ask HotdamnImaphimu for the boob pics. She just kind of had them as her default pic on her myspace

LOLOLOLOLOL

I agree, and it's as a lawyer that I worry about the damage to the system.

OK. I'm confused.

What I'm saying right now is that things are confused enough that I'm not ready to make a decision -- allthough it's my (or your) right to make one, I think it would be premature.

Sorry, I don't think I've been clear either - what I'm saying is that I disagree with your feeling that presuming innocence is somehow 'making a decision either way', which you're obviously not willing to do (make a decision, that is) without more facts.

I applaud the latter, but disagree with the former - and that sort of feeling is what I'm decrying.

Otherwise, I completely agree with MysticCat's opinion - even though that agreement is pretty ironic, all things considered.

OK. That makes sense.

I guess I'm having trouble with the word "presume" when you take it out of black and white (certainly no racial pun intended) on a page of paper and move it into conscious everyday thought. It seems to me that if you presume either way, that in itself is a decision. But that's not worth arguing about -- and also not that easy to explain.

Bottom line is that I can't figure out who's really doing what to whom in this case.

I read an article in the Washington Post this morning that said the woman is able to identify the men who allegedly attacked her. A half hour later, I read an AP article in the Washington Times that said she is NOT able to identify the men who allegedly attacked her.

Does anyone have a definitive answer on which it is?

It's not entirely clear, but it appears that may have she said sometime last week that she could identify one of the men.