Reply #82: oh yeah - she's a real money grubber

[mzteris]

no price too high to pay for having your name and your children's name and your entire family's name dragged through the mud on national tv. Everyone knows you're a "stripper". Everyone knows your past. Your entire life - your entire sex life - is examined in minute detail for the world to see. Yes sir. She's a real gold digger alright

(sigh)

If you read through this thread - you will see that every one of your remarks have been addressed.

The timeline "discrepancies" - do more to add more time for the rape to occur. There was time for the rape to occur. More than enough. (Only Reade Seligmann *may* have time alibi.)

The only place you've heard there is "no matching DNA" is from the Defense. (And DNA is NOT the holy grail. This is real life, not some tv drama. Read about DNA and it's actual role in cases.)

Conflicting statements/changed stories? The first woman (not "stripper" please, your prejudice is showing) did not know about the alleged rape.

That the 2nd woman "changed her story" - is entirely consistent with rape trauma. (Read about it.) Especially is she was drugged.

Criminal records? So if the players have one, why bring this up? What does that have to do with it? Need I remind you which has the VIOLENT criminal past?

The 911 call - again the first woman did not know about the alleged rape. She WAS pissed and yes - they DID yell racial epithets. So what's wrong with the call? She was reporting their racist behaviour. Did she lie? No. Did she leave out the part that she had been at their party? Yes. But the overall kernel of what she was reporting to the police was true.

What "testimony" that one of the accused wasn't even at the party? There has been NO TESTIMONY. The trial hasn't started yet. And yeah, Reade Seligmann WAS at the party. Where do you get that he wasn't? Even he admitted that he was AT the party.

Further testimony: again - there has been NO TESTIMONY. And of course they said "nobody had sex with the accuser." But they're not under oath, are they?

DNA tests: Oh - you've seen a copy?

I posit you don't believe her because she's "just a stripper" (a poor minority one with a (gasp!) criminal record... put up against a bunch of privileged white male ATHLETES (GOD'S CHOSEN, doncha know) why would you possible believe some poor stripper?


Sarcasm aside: admittedly this case isn't airtight. The police screwed up big time. The prosecution didn't seem to be handling it well. The line up - IF what the Defense is saying is true (and maybe it is and maybe it isn't) - was screwed up.

Could she be lying? Maybe.

Could she be telling the truth? Maybe.

Based on typical behavior by drunken group males - I'd say the odds are somebody probably did something. IF they did, there's still the question of whether she ID'd the right guys or not.


The fact that you reject out of hand everything she says, and embrace without question everything the Duke's say - well - that says a lot more about your preconceptions than anything else. You might want to re-examine WHY you have this knee-jerk reaction.