typo: walla for voila (I'm guessing)

The DNA of the lacrosse players did not match whatever may or may not have been under her fingernails. The defense attorney's job is to take that single fact and craft it into proof that no rape occured.

here is one way--if there happened to be DNA from more than one person in the samples that they tested, none of those samples would match with one individual, but rather an amalgamation of several individuals. People who do DNA tests frequently get to see their own patterns, as DNA is so easily contaminated.

This is not proof that no rape occured, especially considering that the medical examiners have nothing to gain by supporting this woman. The whole thing makes me sick.

David's right on that one. The defense attorney is not there to actually produce any truth except by presenting one perspective hopefully in an equal measure to the prosecution's presentation.

i can't see, especially with the revelation of the late-night email of one of the accused rapists, how this case could actually get thrown out.

further, as is mentioned in the comments section in blac(k)ademics, it's likely that, if a gang rape was actually committed, condoms were used, thus reducing the opportunity to procure dna evidence.

yeah, and marie, the word is definitley "voila"... i've seen people use "walla" other times on the web and find it completely infuriating (still love you, though, sami, but c'mon...)

in any case, the case still hasn't been even close to resolved. it's just as possible from our, unqualified, perspectives, that she's lying as that they're lying (unless someone here has more direct information.)

what we do know, though, is that the lacrosse team was insular, protective and mocking regarding a very serious allegation, which is completely unconscionable...

further, according to this, duke students have been buying laX shirts at record rates, which is a pretty disturbing reaction to rape allegations.

in all, there's no saying whether or not the students in fact raped this woman. however, there's no question that an e-mail went out detailing some very serious violent undertones and that the campus and team response has been, at best, glib, which is sick...

I find it interesting that the lacrosse team would have had the results thrown out if they'd been positive, but since they're not...

"Perhaps this community can begin to heal," Smith said at a news conference with other defense lawyers on the steps of the Durham County Criminal Justice Center after they received the DNA results.

I think it's very, very unlikely that the Durham community is going to heal from this.

As for walla... it's an Arabic word that can be used in a number of situations. If you get the proper inflection and tone, it's very expressive.

There are ways to separate out the different bits of DNA recovered from a crime scene. Otherwise, how would they be able to separate out the victim's DNA from the assailant's? I have to run to work (DNA-related, no less) but may be able to post on this later.

Also, I hear that there are further DNA tests pending. It's always possible that this is a false report, and this evidence makes that more likely, but I am thinking that the defense lawyer's input shouldn't be given so much weight.

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12241326/from/RSS/)

"Forty-six members of the lacrosse team submitted DNA samples to authorities, and defense attorneys said Monday the fact those samples didn't match evidence taken from the woman should exonerate their clients.

But Nifong dismissed that stance Tuesday during a public forum at N.C. Central.

"It doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind," he said, noting that is common in sexual assault cases.

It's really disheartening to see an article like the one that was posted but it doesn't mean that anyone is getting away with anything. Rape cases have been proven before DNA testing became common practice and they will continue to be proven without it.

Actually, they didn't say no DNA was left behind, they said the tests were "inconclusive."

From the NY Times:

After the DNA results came back Monday, Mr. Nifong said he would pursue the case because he believed a sexual assault had occurred. Additional higher-level DNA tests, done at another lab, were expected back as early as this week, he said.

Also:

“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.

And of course, as with anything, there is a small chance that she is lying. It just doesn't seem very likely. At all.

I have to agree: they are defense attorneys, it is their job cast an aura of doubt. However, we need to realize that most of news is coming from them ("defense attorneys for the accused say..."). For example they are misrepresenting the DNA; it was inconclusive, http://www.hendersondispatch.com/articles/2006/04/12/news/opinion/opin01.txt (finally, another news source reports that). It is being retested and there will be further DNA results.

The defense says they have "time-stamped photos"/videos/whatever; but they also basically urged the case to be dropped. While maybe they do have visual evidence of her being injured beforehand, maybe the DNA (all of it) won't show up (though that doesn't always mean much), maybe she is lying, her fake, glued-on fingernails were broken off, her stuff left behind, a rape kit was done and gave results. Hell yes, it seems shady. Maybe this is a pre-emptive strike by the defense indeed. I don't know if she is lying, I don't know if those guys did it, I don't know if even there were more people at that party and she misidentified her rapist(s) (cross-culture misidentification is a problem in rape) if she was raped. But we can't take what the defense is saying as the be-all, end-all; like in all cases, that is what they want.

It remains to be seen what happens.

Felix:
'A "victim" with a funky history (stole a car and led the cops on a high speed chase a year or two ago).'
- Do you think that only people who never engage in any criminal activity get raped? If not, what has her prior conviction for car theft got to do with anything?

'And one other thing that I can't get past: If you were going to commit a physical crime (rape, assault, murder, whatever) would you do it in front of 46 of your drunk college friends?'
- Yes - people do. If they didn't there wouldn't be any gang-rapes. And there are. Even if it eventually turns out that there wasn't one in this case. This kind of reasoning looks like it relies on the implicit assumption that only pervy weirdos rape people. Which just isn't true.

I have question. If a non-match of DNA doesn't exonerate the players of rape, then what is "project innoncence" about. I thought Project Innocence was "proving" people to be innocent by virtue of a non-match of the DNA.

One thing we know for sure is that a crime was committed that night. Either she was assaulted, or she filed a false police report, accusing 3 innocent men of rape. I just hope the DA will go after whoever is guilty with the same crussade-like determination he is showing now.

It was totally a typo--hehe sorry.

According to urban dictionary:

"Walla" is a word used by ignorant people (particularly Americans) who simply don't know any better.

Ignorant American is ME!

ps-Manju, welcome to our site. I can't wait to meet you Jessamyn has said you rock.

And I second what she says. The whole point of DNA evidence is to prove dis-prove. The fact that they can find no match is HUGE. Again this is potentially speculation, if further testing is to be done...

I've found that the operators of this site can be horrible sexist in the way that they can ignore things or lower the importance of things regarding one sex, while blowing out of proportion the importance of things regarding the other sex. And here I was thinking feminists were seeking equality. Boy was I mistaken.

Samhita, I applaud your post. It is important that people understand that many times, these cases are thrown out, even when a crime is committed. This happened on my college campus, and an athlete kept a scholarship for over a year after pleading guilty! It wasn't until he attacked a second time that they finally threw him off the team and off campus. I'm not going to respond to the lame posts here about how the site is being one-sided because the point is to look at both sides, and that's what is happening. The case may be thrown out, and the survivor's personal life will be strung around in the media for the whole world to pass judgement. I worked at a rape crisis center for a while as well, and these things almost always turn out badly for a survivor who has the strength to come forward. These things happen regularly, and abuse of women is not only a personal attack; it's a systematic oppression men do not inflict upon themselves.

Samhita:

Can't wait 2 meet u 2. But I'm a 39 yr old male, right-wing, NY based, former Ibanker (current slacker and lyricist). And I don't know Jessamyn. But I do rock.

I have a problem comparing this case to those of Kobe and Michael Irvin. Those were multimillionaire professional athletes, who do in fact have deep pockets. I doubt these lacrosse players have much to be paying out, and I don't really see how a person would be able to go after Duke for it...

And since this team sounds very insular, and knowing college guys myself, I don't think it is that strange that no one would tell. I think it'd be hard to tell and not have the other 45 guys figure out who did, and exact punishment for the 'betrayal.' And if this all happened in a bathroom, there wouldn't even have been room to do it 'in front of' 43 people.

Maybe they are chimeras, where there are two sets of DNA (Thank you, TLC.). Doctors and scientists can be stupid.

Just realized there are a lot of Jessicas in the world. The above one is not me. Though I did see that TLC show on chimeras. Crazy shit.

The first post by Felix in this thread contains the name of a rape accuser who has not herself made her name public, as for as I know. I'm all for not deleting troll posts, but that part should really be erased.

Besides the DNA, one thing that should give us pause is the fact that the defense has maintined, even b/f the DNA test, that NO sexual activity, forcible or otherwise, occurred.

This is highly unusual. Normally, defense attorneys would not preclude themselves from using a line of argument (ie, ok they had sex but it was consensual) unless they were really confident that their clients are innocent and no DNA matches would be found.

Just to clear the air on this, the rate of false reporting for rape is 2-3%, which is THE SAME AS OTHER FELONIES. Thus, aside from all the sexist overtones, it is purely statistically just as ridiculous to question her rape allegations as it would be if people were instantly coming up with all kinds of alternate theories about what happened if she had come out of that house with stab wounds and accused them of attempted murder.

Felix, I have not laughed at or insulted you in terms of your general credibility or your personal attributes. However, your last few comments have taken this to such a puerile and inflammatory level that I think it's in everyone's best interest if I just stop responding to you after this post.

If you want to see my statistics, they're easy to find if you just google "false reporting rape statistics" or some such. Of course, there are also alternate statistics as well, although most of those seem to be from distinctly partisan sources that cite their alternate statistics amidst diatribes against the vast feminist conspiracy that is, of course, ruining everything for everyone.

That said, I think where I personally came across that statistic was here: http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php which seems to be a decent resource, as it cites all its sources at the bottom.

"However, your last few comments have taken this to such a puerile and inflammatory level that I think it's in everyone's best interest if I just stop responding to you after this post"

Really? I've found everything that felix has said to be completely reasonable so far.

I run a court accompaniment program for the rape crisis center in Philadelphia. I attend or supervise about 1500 court cases a year.

That said, it is UNCOMMON for DNA evidence to be found at all. If they used condoms, if they pulled out and ejaculated on the floor - or if they didn't ejaculate at all (also not uncommon, because rape isn't all that sexy) - you wouldn't expect to see DNA evidence.

It's also RARE that injuries are found to the vagina. As the nurse examiners often explain to juries, the tissues of the vagina are similar to the tissues of the mouth. You bite your cheek and twenty minutes later, you don't notice it. Vaginas are made to withstand penises. So it's a big deal that the nurse found injuries.

The worst thing to happen to rape cases in this decade is shows like CSI that make people believe that there's a mountain of physical evidence in a "real" rape case. That's just Hollywood.

Finally, a warning about those ridiculously high statistics about "false" reports of rape. The FBI consistently reports about 8% of rapes are "unfounded." Unfounded means that they don't believe a crime occured. I think Felix's stats are complete rubbish. First, in 1983, people were much less likely to give a rape victim the time of day. Don't compare 1983 stats to 2006! Rape law and the prosecution of rape law was extremely different back then (remember, rape law only BEGAN changing in the mid 1970's - and in several states, it's STILL a lesser crime for a husband to rape a wife). And I bet that if you had a copy of that report, it might say that there was no arrest for that case, which is not the same thing as "the rape didn't happen." Finally, Linda Fairstein isn't the head of the Manhattan Sex Crimes unit - she WAS the head. Years ago. And if you read any interview with her where she discusses her work, you'll get the impression that that quote was made up. She's very pro-victim's rights.

I think people misunderstand the criminal justice system. It can't tell you what happened. Unless she was unconcious, the victim KNOWS what happened. It can just say whether or not there's enough evidence to send someone to jail. So when a judge says someone's "not guilty" that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Our criminal justice system is constructed to let some guilty people go free to prevent innocent people from going to jail.

There's a historical prejudice against rape victims that they're making it up and that they need to do more than other victims to prove that they're telling the truth. If anyone wants to know what a rape trial's "really" like, most courtrooms in this country are open - go sit in one and get educated. You might be shocked.

felix,

you've certainly got one point i agree with... and that's that none of us knows what happened... there's no point in convicted anyone in the media or public life until all the facts have been seen in court.

however, i'm afraid that, on just about every other count, i find it really hard to find you sensible.

for instance, your "FBI" statistic is pretty ridiculous. i mean, i've seen it before and written about it before... i've never seen it on an actual fbi- or government-related source, only on

this DOJ study, on the other hand, states a few things that clearly undermine your "statistic":

The FBI does not separately track false reports; it tracks only the total number of unfounded reports. The category of "unfounded" consists of both baseless cases�in which the elements of the crime were never met and false reports. In 1998, unfounded rape reports accounted for 8 percent of total reported rapes; however, this number is questionable. Some police officers incorrectly think that a rape report is unfounded or false if any of the following conditions apply:

• the victim has a prior relationship with the offender (including having previously been intimate with him);
• the victim used alcohol or drugs at the time of the assault;
• there is no visible evidence of injury;
• the victim delays disclosure to the police and/or others and does not undergo a rape medical exam; and/or
• the victim fails to immediately label her assault as rape and/or blames herself.

so, yeah, i'd like to know where i can verify that 40% of rape allegations are "false," because it appears that the FBI has not and could not (because they don't seperately record "false" reports) report such data.

one place i found that had, almost word for word, your FBI statement was The Father's Manifesto... and, actually, word for word, both of your bullet points are echoed here, a "Conspiracy Theory" person on a thread about how, apparently, these (mythically) rampant false rape accusations are a push down the path to (oooooh) communism!

further, i've read the fairstein quote many times... and it's certainly gotten some circulation on the web – in fact, it's just about the only thing she's said that's gotten that much circulation. with all due respect to the high-profile prosecutor, it's not very qualified and there's plenty of qualified statistics that contradict it, soo...

that's about it.

i mean, really, no one's guilty until there's proof. i'm all for giving these kids a fair shake and, as i stated above, none of us on this board (to my knowledge) actually know of the guilt or innocence of the duke lax team.

however, there's a big leap between stating that it's too early to proclaim guilt and trying to "prove" that half of rape survivors are lying... especially when the evidence for such an inflammatory statement is highly tenuous if extant at all.

further, and i'll say it again, my issue, at this point, is not so much that i think any of these kids are guilty, but i think the response of the team was reprehensible... from the violence to which the leaked e-mail has referred to the arrogant way in which team members have responded to very serious allegations...

peace and blessings

Felix: Are you an idiot? What are hoping to PROVE here? You are arguing with a group of zealots, many of whom are employed by institutions whose FUNDING (and therefore whose jobs!) DEPENDS ON over-emphasizing the extent of sexual assault on women.

Do you really think any of them will admit "You're right, much of it is a hoax"?

Or just today, another whackjob chick confessed to a fraud, in Kansas:

Yeah, that proves it. The 16 year old. Like the boy who lied to FOX news about almost being picked up by a kidnapper a couples years ago here in Metro-Detroit. Or the man that took off on his sick kid and collected money pretending it would go to him.

- A “Washington Post� investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

Yeah, and what percent constitutes as "many"? Funny, they have statistics for everything else in that study. It would be more representative if they had.

- In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

Wasn’t that right out of Warren Farrell’s book? Yeah, there was controversy surrounding that, such as the women being chastised for their “behavior� (ie., drinking before it allegedly took place) when they were questioned by some superiors who heatedly suggested to them that they imagined it, participated willingly or whatever due to drinking. Others were doubted because they wanted female-only officials to deal with them. Lie detector tests can read only what the person believes, not what actually happened. Given what they probably endured prior, I wouldn’t be surprised at the results either from being shaken or that they also convinced themselves it didn’t happen but had to go through anyhow. I wonder what the method was of the “independent investigators� and the information they were given.

But, whatever.

-According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (“Archives of Sexual Behavior,� Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

What/where exactly was he studying the former? Was it national? The latter sure isn't. Like you said below, recanting doesn't amount to it never taking place.

Becca provided a number which further provides sources, FBI figures, as far as I know, put it nationally between 2 and 9%. The only person on this thread who said anything close to "women never lie in rape" has been you ... when you've basically accused people here of saying as much. You're arguing with a hypothetical person in a knee-jerk, reactionary way expecting discussion of this case to be conducted on your terms by throwing out a red-herring of rape-lie statistics.

- According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions."

A DNA-backed exoneration study over a 15-year period showed 120 rape exonerations. About 90% of those were not based on false accusations, however, but known witness/otherwise misidentification, mostly due to cross-racial identifying. The remaining apx. 10% were not accounted for, which excluded factoring things like unknown misidentification and degraded DNA. (http://www.truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm is one such report of it).

Not to mention the rape-murders ... which made up most of the 20% of 199 murder exonerations. But, of course, the MRAs never pay attention to that as it isn't really about injustice to them, it's about undermining action taken regarding violence against women and not wanting to hear about how some men do bad things to women and that its a huge problem. Can't do that when the woman is dead (dead woman? NO PROBLEM!). Pretty soon the MRAs and the rest of the lunatic fringe will be accusing dead women of lying and actually convince themselves they are "using logic".

Anyhow, I was watching some news channel this morning, and some coorespondent was talking about the case, what he thinks the defense will use for it. Oh, there is no "video", apparently, there are just some photographs. According to the guy Abrams or whatever, two shows her walking up the porch steps and one of shows red dots which apparently is her newly painted nails (as if she painted her nails as she went up to the house). He emphatically voiced that the defense will use this to explain her nails being in the bathroom ... she was doing them. Now, I don't really know what the hell is supposed to be explained with that. If she is doing her nails for her dance, why does she then take them off? I've worn fake nails; it's a pain to get those bastards off unless they come off on accident, which hurts like hell. Doesn't make much sense. Or if they were her real nails, why would she do them outside and then throw fake ones down in the bathroom? Paint her nails and then put fake ones on but leave others on the floor? Whatever.

He then says another one "seems" or "appears" to show her smiling. I emphasize that because in his attempt to show what he believes the defense will use for their case, he was so quick and taking liberties with that nails thing (which I still don't understand) so for me it speaks volumes that he says it "appears"/"seems" she is smiling after the rape allegedly took place (then again if she was, I don't really see what that proves). He then describes the clothing worn by the party attendees, which is shorts and short-sleeve shirts. Apparently, the DA said lack of scratch-marks (from fake nails?) visible on the men could be due to frumpy (my words) clothing. To the guy reporting, this will be a blow (it couldn't go on their chests?).

Oh, and, not one mention of bruises being on her as she walked up, which was something the defense was going to use. That made me curious as well. But, its just one dude.

Just a suggestion...don't feed the trolls.

felix,

you are right about one thing. most of the people here at feministing are (surprise) feminists!

however, your idea of what constitutes a feminist is pretty twisted by your own projections. the vast majority of feminists don't believe that women never lie with regards to rape. just as the vast majority of people realize it's absurd to argue that half of rape cases are "false" accusations.

further, there are plenty of feminists on both sides of the fence who would distance themselves from frierdan and solanis. so what? there are plenty of christians who are not anglicans. where's the mystery?

or how about this - does the involvement of certain republicans in the recently brought to light lobbying scandals mean that all republicans were involved in them?... or even thought they were defensible? absolutely not.

so how about you start dialoguing with real people as opposed to your idealized "feminist"?

cheers!

Samhita quotes:
"how can there be evidence that she was raped, but no DNA?

I would ask, how can she have been reaped without there being DNA evidence?

Someone above wrote:
That said, it is UNCOMMON for DNA evidence to be found at all.

The problem in this case isn't that there is no DNA evidence... It's that it doesn't match the players, if I understand it correctly.

Here's one idea: maybe she was raped but it wasn't the Duke players that did it.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=3708

okay, also... i tried to post this before in a longer post, but it all disappeared, so please... allow me to clarify some figures... and i'm not making fun of your name, felix, so why you gotta make fun of people's names?

from the USDOJ Community Oriented Policing Services and based on FBI figures

The FBI does not separately track false reports; it tracks only the total number of unfounded reports. The category of "unfounded" consists of both baseless cases in which the elements of the crime were never met and false reports. In 1998, unfounded rape reports accounted for 8 percent of total reported rapes; however, this number is questionable. Some police officers incorrectly think that a rape report is unfounded or false if any of the following conditions apply:

• the victim has a prior relationship with the offender (including having previously been intimate with him);
• the victim used alcohol or drugs at the time of the assault;
• there is no visible evidence of injury;
• the victim delays disclosure to the police and/or others and does not undergo a rape medical exam; and/or
• the victim fails to immediately label her assault as rape and/or blames herself.

just figured i might as well clear up some numbers... especially since the numbers you've posted i haven't found anywhere but on MRA sites... i'd love to know where they're really coming from, aside from Ananda Answers or this forum post about how false rape allegations are the first step on the road to *gasp* communism!

while looking for the actual report that is implied in the 1996 statement turned out to be a wild goose chase, i did run across this:

In 1996, more than two-thirds of rape/sexual assaults committed in the nation remained unreported. (Ringel, C. (1997, November). Criminal Victimization in 1996, Changes 1995-1996 with Trends 1993-1996, NCJ-165812, p.3. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.)

okay... i found it! i found it! read the parts you left out:

Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.

It must be stressed that the sexual assault
referrals made to the FBI ordinarily involve cases
where (1) identity is at issue (there is no consent
defense), (2) the non-DNA evidence linking the
suspect to the crime is eyewitness identification,
(3) the suspects have been arrested or indicted
based on non-DNA evidence, and (4) the biological
evidence (sperm) has been recovered from a place
(vaginal/rectal/oral swabs or underwear) that makes
DNA results on the issue of identity virtually
dispositive.

it's funny how, out of context, things can be twisted to mean something entirely different than what they originally were all about.

funny in that nausea kind of way.

peace and blessings

In light of the resident troll talking out of both sides of his mouth, fallacious reasoning, and general flying off the handle (which he'll predictably continue), I'd say he proved my point.

Moving on...

The problem in this case isn't that there is no DNA evidence... It's that it doesn't match the players, if I understand it correctly.

It was inconclusive. However, supposing they did find somebody else's DNA, however, does not rule out rape as people interact frequently, her job requires it on a huge level, etc. etc. Supposing they found none, it shows nothing either. As in, it doesn't mean she is lying, but it doesn't mean isn't. I don't know.

As for the possibility that it wasn't the Lacrosse players, I thought of that; they did lie about their identities to her, for example saying they were basketball players. We don't know who all was at the party. But we need to remember that we are hearing most of this stuff from the defense, who was urging the case to be dropped because there was "no DNA" (which, there was, and it was inconclusive; they misrepresented it. Please read up-thread and post it on that blog if you need to.).

Maybe she lied, maybe she didn't. But given the behavior of the defense and the general hush-hush nature of the case, I'm questioning, like you, whether them not having raped her (if they didn't) means she wasn't raped at that party at all. If, in fact, she was raped.

Can anyone please tell me why Felix is considered a troll? As far as I can see, he's only trying to get you to question the articles that come up on feministing rather than believing them blindly. Is that such a crime?

Zajj: Are you not seeing his ridiculous ad hominem attacks? The namecalling and outright mockery while completely failing to address most of the issues brought up by perfectly reasonable argumentation on the parts of others here? How is that the same thing as some kind of legitimate questioning, or asking for background information?

To everyone else: If you read the information in the link that I posted, the 2% figure is the percentage of rape reports that are actually *determined* to be falsified. This is a different statistic than what is being referred to as 8 or 9 percent elsewhere:

" The rate of false reports of rape is approximately 2 - 3% which is no different than that for other crimes. This is different than the 8% of reports which are unfounded. This means that in 8% of the rape cases reported the investigators or prosecutors deemed that the case was not prosecutable for any number of reasons. "

Yes Becca, but I've seen the same things being said against Felix. Do the attacks only matter if it's against people who share your viewpoint?

I would like to know everyone's opinion now that it has come to light that one of the men was not in the house at the time the attack was suppose to be taking place.

According to the ABC affiliate, the man was in a cab which took him and another man to a fast food restuarant and then back to his dorm. Where the security device on the front door shows him entering at 1246. He also placed two calls on his cellphone to his girlfriend, who lives out of state while the attack was suppose to be taking place.

The cabbie has said he picked the guys up before 1220pm and dropped them off at their dorm at 1245.

According to the pictures of the party, the young women arrived at 1200.

The ABC affiliate travelled the route to verifiy the timing several times and has confirmed it. They claim the man would have only been in the house with the woman for no more than 20 minutes. There are pictures of her, not in destress after he had left the party.

It is beginning to sound more and more that at the very least, she is not sure about the identity of her attackers.

Come on people, the DNA testing was done at Duke University Medical Center. What do we think the results are going to be? We know what the statistics/percentages are of parents/families that will hide/destroy evidence that will incriminate themselves/their child? They (Duke University/Board) already condone atheletic clubs hiring strippers and hate mail as a collegiate activity? These displayed behavioral characteristics are far from "Opie - esque", rather instead something far more dark and seedy. If we let this obvious crime be overlooked, will there be more of the same?

I have worked as a detective, and been trained specifically in sexual assault investigation, so I have some occupational experience, training, etc. in this area. With that out of the way...

I absolutely agree with Alan Dershowitz, that rape is underreported (a smaller %age of reported rapes are reported to police vs. most other violent felonies) *and* a higher percentage of rape allegations are false than most other crimes. Also, it's more complex than that. If somebody is making a false burglary report (usually for