Two high-profile cases of rape allegations against college athletes. One local, one national. But the similarities between the two are uncanny. The national case involves the Duke University lacrosse players whose charges of raping a stripper were dropped this week. The local case unfolded more than a year ago when six UTC football players were accused and later cleared of raping an 18-year-old student.
Locally, "All of them lost their scholarships," said lawyer Jerry Summers, who advised the football players following the incident. "They were suspended from school before they were ever tried." The players were accused of gang raping an 18-year-old female student in an on-campus apartment. These players, Summers said, lost their dignity.
"There's always going to be people who say, 'I remember him. He was charged with rape at UTC in Chattanooga.' So the stigma is there, it doesn't go away," he said.
Like the Duke case, the UTC accuser coed was a flagrant, highly promiscuous, attention whoring, exhibitionist slut.
Like the Duke case, a vile woman & her amen corner, camp following, feminist fomenters calculatingly took advantage of each & every rape shield provision within the law to further their twisted agendas.
Like the Duke case, shallow-minded & conformist UTC faculty members, gleeful that the event occurred so they could make sanctimonious public pronouncements under the aegis of their university positions, shamed & revealed themselves to be vacuous pretenders.
But unlike the Duke case, some of the football players admitted to having sex with the coed skank in front of many other people that night. Not one Duke lacrosse player engaged in ONE SINGLE ACT that could possibly be construed as sexual by anyone in the universe excepting those brilliant Duke faculty members of color, the Duke 88 -- long may they be remembered for the brainless charlatans they were, are, and always have been.
Post by spinsandbarks on Apr 13, 2007 9:22:52 GMT -5
It should be noted that the original "article" is a one-source, one-sided, fact bending, self-serving advertisement for the lawyer of the accused athletes who says something like "They will never be able to escape the stigma or regain their dignity..."
What chance do they have when the ex lawyer marks the anniversary every six months?
Sigh...since you've declared another Skankfest, you'll need to add to the lineup those six guys who had group sex with an underage freshman, plus one who watched. I assume they hadn't lost their dignity yet, but were well on their way, the next day they shared skank stories with their buddies, who shared it with their buddies, and so on.
I'm not really making light of this, but when people want to have a wreath-laying-hang-the-whore rededication ceremony, I will point out that everyone made bad choices and everyone suffered the tragic consequences.
It should be noted that the original "article" is a one-source, one-sided, self-serving
It should be further noted that the original accusation (the one that started this whole thing) and the subsequent prosecution (The one that started this whole thing) was also one-source, one-sided and self-serving.
I am not so much concerned for the players themselves. They seem to have the resources and the education to turn this around.
What I am concerned about is that the next time a true rape (Usually one-source, one-sided, but not so self-serving) occurs, the victim will be viewed through the reflection of this case.
Post by spinsandbarks on Apr 13, 2007 12:55:22 GMT -5
The case was thrown out because of lack of any real evidence one way or the other, but it was clear the situation was out of control. A split-second is all it takes, and no one gets out alive, no matter what side is being served.
The case was thrown out because of lack of any real evidence one way or the other.
You are kidding me, right?
The defendant is not required to present any evidence to anyone at any time. Until lawfully convicted, he/she stands INNOCENT.
The whole "Can't prove a negative" thing!
The burden is on the prosecutor (For the state) whose job it is to make sure that there is evidence of a crime before any charges are brought before any judge or jury.
This is why we investigate shit before we go to a Grand Jury, based on allegations, supported only by someone's word! This is also why rape victims should immediately report the rape so that evidence can be obtained. Evidence (See Locard's Theory) prevents the she said, he said problem.
Prosecutors who file charges on a whim (Or for some political agenda) should be subject to the same sentence that the alleged crime would carry. Just disbarment is too good for this idiot.
The case was thrown out because there was not one scintilla of evidence available to even possibly support that probable cause that a crime had occurred.
When you have a "victim" whose story changes 5 or 6 times, just during the initial investigation (If you can call it that), little bells should be going off. When you have DNA evidence that exculpates the suspect(s) that should also set off the little bells. Little things like concrete alibis and the complete lack of physical evidence tings some little bells, too.
In this case, the Bells of Notre Dame were ringing from the get go.
Shifting the burden to require anyone to prove one's innocence is a slippery slope indeed.
By STEVE HARTSOE, Associated Press Fri Apr 13, 8:34 AM ET
RALEIGH, N.C. - Despite an apology from the prosecutor who pursued rape charges against their clients, the lawyers for three exonerated former Duke lacrosse players were weighing a lawsuit against him, and legal experts said their case could have merit.
Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's issued a carefully worded apology to the players on Thursday, but it may not have been enough to prevent the former players from suing him.
So far, attorneys for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty have not said whether they plan a civil action against Nifong. But they have not ruled it out.
Prosecutors generally have immunity for what they do inside the courtroom, but experts said that protection probably doesn't cover some of Nifong's more questionable actions in his handling of the case — such as calling the lacrosse players "a bunch of hooligans" in one of several interviews deemed unethical by the state bar.
Post by spinsandbarks on Apr 14, 2007 14:07:00 GMT -5
I was always referring to the UTC case in response to Kordax' rerant and a fake article that rewrote facts for no other reason than to promote a business...I thought your comments were about the UTC case as well, but I see now you were talking about the Duke case.
I was never meaning (or able) to discuss the legal stuff of the case, and in my last post I was probably using incorrect language to reference all the varying accounts of the UTC incident that came out in the court hearing.
What I am concerned about is that the next time a true rape (Usually one-source, one-sided, but not so self-serving) occurs, the victim will be viewed through the reflection of this case.[/b]
As in it's time to do away with all aspects of all rape shield laws? Had this woman's name & her pathological history of leveling false accusations been identified from the start just like the lacrosse victims were identified & scutinized, the HUGE injustices done to these men would never have occured....