Bad News for Duke

[sohotrightnow]

ESPN is having a live chat at 3:30 EST to discuss the issue:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=11363

[jessexy]

are these pics of the victim published anywhere yet? Id like to see what they are talking about with her being "impaired" prior to attending the party.

[Bluevelvet]

there was DNA on the girl, just not blue devil dna.

you may have known that, just making sure though.

Where did you hear THAT? That is the opposite of everything reported to date.

[Danny Hogan]

i could be mistaken but i originally heard it on tv last night:

On Monday, attorneys representing members of the lacrosse team said DNA from 46 lacrosse players did not match evidence collected from the woman.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2404866

what did they collect from the woman in order to test?

[x1dschm]

Everyone is blaming Coach Pressler for not teaching his boys what it means to be a man and the difference between right and wrong. I personally blame the coaches at the youth levels for not instilling the proper ethics and morals in their players.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139536/?nav=tap3

[Bluevelvet]

Danny-
I don't think that you can infer from that statement that DNA from someone other than a Duke lacrosse player was found.
The defense attorneys seemed to imply that there was no DNA from anyone found on the victim including under her fingernails (which is important because she supposedly struggled with her alleged assailants and left broken fingernail extensions behind in the house).
Another point of clarification; DNA could mean hair or skin cells as well as semen.

[Danny Hogan]

hang on, if nothing was found on the victim,
what was the point of the duke players submitting DNA????

it takes two things to 'match'

smokey i ain't the smartest man in the world...but from over here it looks like:

DNA retrieved from victim in exam
Duke players tested to see if it matches any player(s)
No match.

From the chat wrap with the legal expert on ESPN.com;

Bill (Florida): Roger, when a DNA test comes back negative, what does that mean? That there definitely isn't a match? That the test is inconclusive? If DNA samples were mixed together, would that create a negative test?

Roger Cossack: It means that there is no match between the evidence that was gathered and the people that it was measured against. The samples were from the Duke lacrosse team and any evidence from the alleged victim. It means what it says in there is no match. Whether there any samples that were contaminated is another story.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=11363

[jessexy]

hang on, if nothing was found on the victim,
what was the point of the duke players submitting DNA????

it takes two things to 'match'

smokey i ain't the smartest man in the world...but from over here it looks like:

DNA retrieved from victim in exam
Duke players tested to see if it matches any player(s)
No match.

From the chat wrap with the legal expert on ESPN.com;

Bill (Florida): Roger, when a DNA test comes back negative, what does that mean? That there definitely isn't a match? That the test is inconclusive? If DNA samples were mixed together, would that create a negative test?

Roger Cossack: It means that there is no match between the evidence that was gathered and the people that it was measured against. The samples were from the Duke lacrosse team and any evidence from the alleged victim. It means what it says in there is no match. Whether there any samples that were contaminated is another story.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=11363

Booyah!!! case closed against the defense attorney. Danny, are you studying to be a prosecutor? you could put this on your resume'.

[OAKS]

Perhaps the only DNA they found on the victim was her own? Maybe the DNA 'match' was her own? It might just be a less than clear headline. It should have probably been, Duke DNA not found on victim.

[Bluevelvet]

I think you guys are confusing DNA and semen. We are also all trying to decifer what exactly the tests showed from statements of attorneys who may not be releasing everything that they know. But these statements are why I think that there was no DNA found.

Cheshire said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim's body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes.
"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA," he said.

"The truth is if you speak to crime lab directors, they will tell you that in only a relatively small number of cases is there any DNA evidence," said Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project.
Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it's likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.

"The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that -- and that's not here," he said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2404002
I am not advocating for either side on this thread.

[jessexy]

DNA is not just semen. we all know that saliva and skin cells (epithelial) and hair and kidney/liver slices, among other things, can be used to verify DNA. Anybody who watches CSI can understand this. i think that the prevailing thought that semen is the subject being tested for DNA in this case comes from the fact that this is a sexual assault case, as opposed to a murder, robbery, or harassment case. ultimately, to prove any kind of sexual assault happened, the DA will have to produce evidence that shows a sexual assault happened.

[Bluevelvet]

We are trying to argue about bits of information with out the whole picture. So, it is hard to get a handle on what is what.
Reports indicated that they swabbed the victim's fingernails and cell phone. That was obviously not for semen it was to see if any of the suspects had any physical contact with the victim.
The reports indicate that the victim underwent a rape kit exam that indicated that she had forceable sex. That is evidence that she was raped. They don't need DNA or semen to prove a rape. DNA evidence goes to identity of the perpetrator not whether there was a rape. If the victim identifies her alleged assailant that could be enough. But in this case, the DA wanted corroboration and he didn't get it. Now he has seemingly given the defense a reasonable doubt.
Please read the article. That is all we have to go on. Although there may have been a semen swab that did not match any of the players, it seems from the statements that there was no DNA evidence found on the victim to indicate that she had sex. To me, that means no semen, no DNA, no nothing. From the statements, I am assuming that the vaginal swabs from the victim contained no DNA or semen. I could be wrong. We may never know.

[swampthing]

i'm pretty sure you can collect DNA from any cell (i just took a test covering DNA). that's why they swiped her everywhere, b/c they're hoping to find semen, skin, or blood cells which could all contain DNA of the alleged attacker(s).

where does it say she had forceable sex?

[Bluevelvet]

The rape kit exam is to determine if she has vaginal bruising or tearing and other signs of force. That determines whether the sex was voluntary or not. Of course there are defenses such as voluntary rough sex or someone else did it. Or the test was inaccurate or the tester was biased. But, in the eyes of the prosecution, a positive rape kit exam means that there was forceable sex. You can have a positive rape kit exam even if there is no semen or DNA. DNA shows the identity of alleged rapist, not whether there was a rape.
Aggielax24, I agree with you about the DNA. They swabbed her all over hoping to find some DNA that matched one of the players. Danny was under the impression that there was an earlier male DNA sample that they were trying to match and since there was no match; the earlier DNA must have belonged to someone else. I have not seen anything to support that interpretation of the facts.
The defense attorneys said that the DNA evidence was negative. It showed no sex at all. They said that even with a condom there would be some DNA evidence. But none was found.
I could be wrong. None of us really knows what the DNA report really said.

[Bluevelvet]

This is what I think the DA has.
1. Positive rape kit exam showing victim had forced sex.
2. Personal property from victim found in the house, including broken fingernails.
3. Testimony of the neighbor who heard a racial slur and saw the party.
4. Testimony of the other dancer about the behavior of the players.
5. Testimony of the victim.
6. Photo identification of 3 players (according to her father).

This what the defense has.
1. Absence of DNA linking the victim to sex or any lacrosse player.
2. Photos of the victim showing prior injuries.
3. Strange 911 calls before the incident showing it could have been a set up.
4. Testimony of several party goers denying rape.
5. Victim's record of convictions for crimes of moral turpitude.
6. Testimony of other dancer who says victim didn't mention rape in the car.

This a summary. There may be more that has been unreported. There may be things that I have forgotten or left out. This is just a summary for people to see how a case like this might work. I hope that I have not offended anyone. I am just trying to show that there are 2 sides to every question.

If you were on the jury, which way would you go? Guilty or Not Guilty?