The rape kit did show evidence of sexual assault. While that doesn't mean that it done by the Duke dudes, it does contradict the assertion from the DNA testing that she had not even had sex recently. Also remember sexual assaut can be done with things other than something with DNA.

This statement is so true. Just because there isn't DNA present certainly doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

One of the talking heads on TV, on the Nancy Grace show, said that the findings from the rape kit were consistant with the girl having had sex within three days.

The DNA results don't indicate that she didn't have sex recently, just that she didn't have sex within a span of time that would leave physical evidence.

Rape aside, I am not sure why so many people are ok with the whole team being punished for the alleged actions of maybe three people.

ETA: Also, I believe they said on TV that there are pictures of the lady in question entering the party with bruises already visible on her.

That is not what their attorney said. He said the DNA tests revealed that she had not had sex recently. So that is to what I was referring.

As for the punishment of the whole team. I agree if only a few participated in the alledged assault, then yes they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

BUT it seemed the whole team was there the night in question, and the fact a Black exotic dancer was explicitly ordered from the service, using fake indentities, and misrepresenting the nature of the "party" does seem to implicate the rest of the team attendees in the complicity of the violation of University rules. So I feel the suspension of the season is warranted, whether the rape occured or not.

Now my question is, why were they taking pics the minute she entered the door? Did they already know something? And if the bruises, etc. were a cause for alarm why did they let her enter? Common sense would have said "whoa let's back off from this." I mean who would enjoy an exotic dancer who is dishelved and has physical marrings?

Again I am not taking a stand either way, but both sides have questions they need to answwer.

Now my question is, why were they taking pics the minute she entered the door? Did they already know something? And if the bruises, etc. were a cause for alarm why did they let her enter? Common sense would have said "whoa let's back off from this." I mean who would enjoy an exotic dancer who is dishelved and has physical marrings?

Again I am not taking a stand either way, but both sides have questions they need to answwer. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good point.

Since it seems that most, if not all the team, was at the party I'm ok with the season's suspension because there had to have been a substantial number who knew/saw what happened (or didn't happen); certainly enough to come forward, lawyered up to be sure, and cooperate with the authorities.

Had it been a case where a third or more team members were absent, then I'd definitely feel the school would be wrong to punish the "substantially innocent" for the alleged actions of the "guilty few."

By this logic, any woman who has ever claimed to be a victim of anything criminal is a liar.

Many men have been wrongly imprisoned for rape.
Many women have been raped and had their rapists go scott free.
Let's look at both sides of the issue.

He can't. He has a bias against women and in favor of men when it comes to the legal system.

I agree. No one knows exactly what happened that day but we do know that based on the woman's injuries a rape did occur.

What the fuss? All of a sudden McCoyred is my attorney, and I never even hired or retained an attorney.

McCoyred, I can speak for myself, thank you very much. After 32 years, I think that is one thing I got down pat.

Sheesh!

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I disagree. We don't know that a rape did occur. We know what the woman alledges, we know what the lacross players said (through their attorney). That's it.

Injuries (and I am not sure exactly what they were) are not necessarily a guarentee that a rape did occur, just like the lack of injuries does not mean that a rape did not occur.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that (not necessarily, anyway).

I would say by that logic, such claims would be subject to scrutiny, which having seen all the damage result from abusing the system, is fairly warranted.

I'm looking, trust. That's why I said very little about the case since TonyB's last post addressed to me.

Good point. Like I posted earlier, until we know FOR SURE, she could have gotten her injuries numerous ways.

Hence my skepticism.

I applaud those that are expressing a healthy sense of skepticism/scrutiny as well.

And the skepticism should be applied on both sides, eh?