Oh my goodness, raped & choked... It don't matter, she was a criminal!

[sproutster]

http://www.wral.com/news/8513890/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news

<snip>
The severity of the allegations raises questions about each individual involved in the events that transpired on March 13 and March 14, including the alleged victim.</snip>

Well there ya have it. A criminal case from two years prior - time served, fines and probation - But it leads us to WHY those poor boys raped her.

...bleh...

[paul_fromatlanta]

1. "raises questions about each individual involved in the events" but ...

They only detail the history of the victim.... hmmm

[Solly Mack]

2. I know! I heard that on a news clip and literally screamed at the TV

[qanda]

3. Oh, how truly sad

When will she be charged with the crime of being raped while having a past?

[tsuki]

4. Let's face it. Freepers cannot control themselves, so it will always

be the woman's fault. :sarcasm:

[bluemarkers]

5. one of the lawyers

have said the victim was not raped. His clients are innocent. He also said that about Ann Miller who later confessed to poisoning her husband.

wral should have a large number of stories on this topic.

in North Carolina, very few of us go to Duke. It is a rariety. There are a few nicknames, but since they disparge other states I won't repeat them.

just fyi.

[johnnie]

6. "Alleged victim"?

What the hell is that? Man, that's just plain low.

[kay1864]

27. Sorry, no, that's journalism

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[bloom]

31. It's not saying that someone in particular is guilty

to say a victim is a victim and has been found to be one through medical exams.

To pretend that she isn't a victim is a lot of crap, IMO.


Journalists don't verify EVERY piece of information that they write through a judge and jury before writing it.


Just like someone who is murdered isn't alleged to be dead.

[kay1864]

38. Good point..

But how does a medical exam confirm rape, as opposed to say, rough sex? I thought rape just meant lack of consent.

Also, it's not quite just like someone who is dead. The death is not in dispute, but the murder is.

In this case, the sex (IF there is medical evidence of sex, which I think there is here) is not in dispute, but the consent is. If a female does give consent, then she isn't a victim, but rather a consensual sex partner.

(For the record: I believe she was in fact raped by the lacrosse jocks. But I could be wrong. And if I'm writing a story about it, I'm going to stay neutral until the court case is finished.)

[bloom]

40. The medical evidence

is that she was raped.

There would not always be such - but there is in this case.

So I can't see any reason for news outlets to suggest that that is in dispute. What needs to be proved is who did it.

[kay1864]

42. Like I said...

How does a medical exam confirm rape? (I'm asking because I really would like to know)

[kay1864]

45. Here's what I found about this case...

March 23: In accordance with a judge's order, 46 of the lacrosse team's 47 members are told to report to a lab for DNA testing. The order says medical records and interviews of the accuser showed she had "signs, symptoms and injuries" consistent with being raped.

However, "consistent with being raped" is not the same as "confirmation of rape". Hence the need for a journalist to remain neutral.

(I have to sign off now, so please don't be offended if I don't reply for several hours)

[TahitiNut]

56. "alleged corpse"

:rofl:

[Tight_rope]

37. More like "Guilty 'UNTIL' you 'PROVE' your innocents!

[SomewhereOutThere424]

7. It's because rapists make the laws

Whichever laws are most severe and least severe can always show you two things. Whoever writes the laws fears certain crimes most and commits certain crimes most.

Unfortunately, everyone commits a crime some way or another...an internet spammer/freeper/troll would make internet laws incredibly weak. So, it's always been my view that all of these increasingly weakening laws to protect rape victims and abused children has a lot to do with those who originally created the laws to 'protect' them. This, to me, is only more fuel to the fire. If this had to do with downloading MP3s the RIAA wouldn't be questioned for their 'severe allegations'.

[EllieGreen]

8. Outrageous!

So, she stole a car and led the police on a high-speed chase in 2002, so she deserves to be gang raped?

This has NOTHING to do with this case. Why is this important?

Oh, I forgot, some nice up-standing Christian white boys raped a woman of color (a stripper!), who has a criminal record. The boys are obviously innocent! :sarcasm:

[LilyLibber]

15. Of course!

They have irrefutable logic, don't they? :sarcasm:

This is absolutely grotesque. The 2002 incident is COMPLETELY irrelevant. More "blame the victim" BS. :grr:

[Jersey Devil]

22. Actually, her conviction would be relevant at trial

A conviction for a felony can always be used to impeach a witness' credibility providing it is not too remote in time (like many years ago). This is NOT the same as bringing up a victim's prior conduct with respect to her sex life or dating, etc. A prior conviction of a witness would be allowed in evidence in any case no matter what the charges are.

[EllieGreen]

24. It is my understanding...

...that past criminal convictions can be brought up if it has something to do with the nature of the case.

For example, if she was convicted of filing false charges of rape.

Also, if this is the case, then how come convictions can't be brought up if it is the defendant?

At least, this is how the law works in Georgia. I'm not sure in NC.

[Jersey Devil]

28. A defendant's convictions certainly can be brought up but

only if he testifies, which he doesn't have to do under the 5th Amendment. By definition, a witness always testifies so when he/she does a prior criminal conviction is permitted to generally impeach credibility. It does not have to be for something similar to the issue at trial.

Here's the federal evidence rule:

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

(a) General rule.

For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness,

(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and

(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

[EllieGreen]

32. Rape case tried on the federal level?

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

First, the above applies to Federal courts, not state ones.

Second, the part I have quoted (if this case did go Federal) above could certainly be used to exclude her conviction in 2002.

[Jersey Devil]

35. No - but since state evidence rules are almost always similar

I used the federal rule as an example. I doubt that NC state rules are much different.

[EllieGreen]

43. Hmmm....

yes they are different. Georgia is on this issue. Several different states are.

[Jersey Devil]

44. Well, OK, I suppose they could be but

I doubt someone convicted of felony theft would be shielded from having to admit that in court no matter where it is. But since I don't know for sure I take your word for it.

[EllieGreen]

48. Because it has nothing to do with the case...

...and the issue being decided in this case. It unduly prejudices the jury.

[Jersey Devil]

51. Here is the NC evidence rule

Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.

(a) General rule. – For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony, or of a Class A1, Class 1, or Class 2 misdemeanor, shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross‑examination or thereafter.

(b) Time limit. – Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than 10 years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated herein is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

(c) Effect of pardon. – Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if the conviction has been pardoned.

(d) Juvenile adjudications. – Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.

(e) Pendency of appeal. – The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible. (1983, c. 701, s. 1; 1999‑79, s. 1.)

http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_8c.html

[EllieGreen]

55. And she was not convicted of a felony.

You are re-framing your argument.

According to the article linked above, she paid a fine and got probation. NO mention of a felony conviction.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue in this case. It would not be admitted into evidence because this is NOT a theft issue.

Why are you so intent on vilifying the victim?

[Jersey Devil]

60. Let's agree to disagree

We're beating a dead horse here.

[EllieGreen]

62. I can agree to disagree....

...but I will not sit down and shut-up when people misrepresent the law.

Did you read the rest of the evidence code or just that little part? I finally got onto the site, and the more I read the NC code, the more it only allows for convictions to impeach a witness if (1) the issue at question (in this case, rape) is the issue of the case in which the witness was convicted and (2) if there have been several convictions on the same theme (1 conviction, on theft (not a felony) 4 years ago is not a "pattern").

If I seem to harsh, it is just because I'm sick to death of the blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to rape.

[bloom]

26. I don't know if that's true - but I know that generally the prosecutor

cannot bring up prior convictions of the accused (unless the accused brings it up somehow). So that would seem pretty unbalanced.


Like a jury does not hear that a child molester was convicted 10 times of the same thing. Each time it's like (s)he never did anything. Juries don't usually know that, btw.

[Jersey Devil]

29. They do hear of the Defendant's prior convictions if he testifies

and sometimes if the prior convictions prove a pattern of conduct very similar to the one he is being charged for at trial. See my post above with the federal rule. State evidence rules are usually the same or very similar.

[bloom]

33. Not around here. N/t

[Jersey Devil]

36. Where's "around here"?

I am in NJ and not familiar with NC rules of evidence but this is something so basic I doubt it would be different in NC or your state, wherever that is.

[bloom]

39. ...

Indiana

Around here evidence that shows a defendants truthfulness or not - like convictions of perjury, theft, fraud could be admitted

Bringing up other prior convictions (unless they are proving identity- modus operandi or something) - is not allowed. Unless the defense brought it up first.


And that's the thing - some people might assume that such things would be brought up - because it speaks to the defendants character and all. It can't. Not here. It might prejudice the jury or something. At least that's supposed to be the idea.

[Jersey Devil]

41. Yes, that is the rule in most states

In the Duke rape case she stole a car - theft, a crime that involves dishonesty. Therefore, it is relevant to a witness' credibility.

Your other statement is partially incorrect: "Bringing up other prior convictions (unless they are proving identity- modus operandi or something) - is not allowed. Unless the defense brought it up first."

The question is not whether a defendant "brings it up". It's whether he testifies or not. If he doesn't testify the convictions can't be used (unless, as you said, it establishes a pattern, which is a rarity), but if he does testify the prosecutor can cross examine him about prior convictions.

[EllieGreen]

46. No it is not.

Her conviction for theft has NOTHING to do with whether or not she is truthful about her rape. It is *not* relevant, even in the federal law you posted--it unduly prejudices the jury.

[Jersey Devil]

54. Argue that with the NC legislature

See the NC evidence rule posted above. Evidence of a prior conviction for a crime of dishonesty (auto theft) can indeed be used to impeach a witness' credibility and is something a jury can consider. In fact, NC allows proof of any prior felony and some misdemeanors and doesn't even require that it be a crime involving dishonesty.

[EllieGreen]

57. Once again...

the rule has nothing to do with this case. She was not convicted of a felony and this has nothing to do with the case.

[bloom]

50. "most states" might be different

I don't know why you think you know - but like I said around here the prosecutor can NOT cross examine him about prior convictions - unless the guy started talking about them himself.

[Jersey Devil]

52. I posted the NC rule of evidence above

Take a look at it.

[EllieGreen]

58. And it does not apply. n/t

[EllieGreen]

59. And that is the rule even in fed cases.

Me thinks this is a case of "blaming the victim...."

[Jersey Devil]

61. Look, I am just trying to explain why it would be allowed at trial

I am not "blaming" anybody. You may disagree with it, but the law allows it.

[EllieGreen]

63. NO it does not.

You may not like the fact that the "blame the victim" game can not be used in a court of law, but tough.

Go back and read the entire web page you linked to. Go back and read the part of the federal law you actually quoted that says convictions that have nothing to do with the case at hand can not be brought up because it would "unduly prejudice the jury."

[warrens]

9. How do we know she didn't rape THEM?

Hmmm? Perhaps she forced them to hold her down while she had her way with them? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

I can't wait for those DNA results to come back.

[aikoaiko]

10. the last shoe to drop will be when they find someone who had sex

with her (consentual, not for money sex that is) after stripping for him.

Then all the doubters will say, "See, she does this all the time".

The prosecutors need to flip a lacrosse player.

[sproutster]

12. Oh you are so right. :( I don't want to believe this crap either.

[sproutster]

11. My head is exploding, just as it did with the gal who was videotaped.

I am wondering if we are not part of this problem. Are we being too docile? I am so upset about this. I was brought to tears on one thread, and I know we are surviving, but is that enough? Yes there may be different court laws and some protections there - But what about the scum planting these stories to bury these women? Who can we address?

[bloom]

21. addressing

notice my post #16. Wral wouldn't have to be giving the defense attorneys a platform. People could let them know and boycott their advertisers.

I wonder if they will have editorial writers supporting the rapists - suggesting they shouldn't get more than 2 years or some kind of nonsense - since they are such "nice" young men or some such crap like the LATimes did with the OC rape case.

[sproutster]

25. I wrote a letter - fat lot of good that will do. Sorry, I'm trying not to

be negative.

I am writing in response to, "Alledged Rape Victim Had Past Brush With Law."

Specifically: The severity of the allegations raises questions about each individual involved in the events that transpired on March 13 and March 14, including the alleged victim.

What you never address is exactly WHAT a TWO YEAR OLD conviction with time served, fines and probabation has to do with being RAPED BY THREE GUYS?!

I would LOVE to see a article in response to this story with detailed reasoning and analysis of the above record of the victim and what that has to do with rape.

This story is disgusting and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Women on your staff, way to stand up for your sisters. Rape is RAPE is RAPE. One woman in three, and yet you allow this filth to be published.

[bloom]

30. I think it's good for them to hear it anyway.

I wonder if we gave the defense attorney hell - if that would help. People could picket them. :evilgrin:

Signs like "Don't victimize the victim" or something.

It might have more of an impact than picketing large corporations.

[etherealtruth]

13. Oh well, in that case ...

...she deserved to be gang raped :sarcasm:

I've had more traffic viloations than I'd like to admit ... do I deserve to be ___?
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[yardwork]

14. The stories are being planted by the defense attorneys of the accused

Meanwhile, the victim has nobody to defend her. I give credit to the Durham police department and DA's office for moving forward on the case, but their job isn't to defend her. She's going to be revictimized by everything in her past.

How many of us could withstand the scrutiny of an expensive defense attorney with private investigators rooting around in our past? No wonder so few victims of rape press charges.

[bloom]

17. The TV station and their web site

wouldn't have to be an arm of the Defense Attorney - printing all kinds of crap.

Prosecutors are ethically prevented from doing crap like that (or so I've been told). So there really isn't balance.


But - we could give the station hell. Local people, esp. I'm glad to hear that local people have been protesting - I think it makes a difference in cases like this - with defense attorneys like this.

[yardwork]

20. You are exactly right. Our justice system isn't balanced

I'm local and I'll protest the biased coverage. Thanks for giving me that idea!

[bloom]

16. It's interesting to notice how 2 news outlets are reporting the story.

@ WRAL.com - a local TV station - are the ones with the stories like:

Attorney: Tempers Flared, But Exotic Dancer Wasn't Raped

NAACP Calls For Quick Investigation Into Duke Lacrosse Allegations

Alleged Rape Victim Had Past Brush With Law

Committee To Probe Duke Lacrosse Culture

DNA Results Could Shed New Light On Duke Lacrosse Investigation


While @ newsobserver.com (the local newspaper) there doesn't seem to be negative stories about the victim or stories that seemed designed to exonerate the rapists or suggest it didn't happen:

Manager: Scanty info delayed search

Durham's portrayal bugs council

Saunders: Durham is deeper than that

What is the obligation of someone not involved in a possible crime to tell what he or she knows?

15 players had prior charges

Frustrations boil at Duke

DNA tests ordered for Duke athletes

Dancer gives details of ordeal

[dogday]

18. She has already been attacked once, what's another attack?

typical dirty tactics..Cause someone has a record or has been in trouble does not negate the fact if they are attacked by someone... That is a boat-load of ca-ca.....

[bunkerbuster1]

19. Reminds me of the Glen Ridge case: Sympathy for the rapists

"It's such a tragedy," remarked one of the parents at a graduation party Lefkowitz attended after the ceremony. It took Lefkowitz a moment to realize that the man was not talking about the victim, but about the boys who had raped her. "They're such beautiful boys and this will scar them forever."

more at

http://www.salon.com/aug97/mothers/guys970813.html

[vikegirl]

23. I thought 1/3 of the players

had "brushes with the law" also.

Why not report their crimes?

God.

[Samurai_Writer]

34. This is why most women don't report rape

Because they are just 'raped' again in the media and courts. Every little thing from their past is brought up, whether it is relevant or not. No matter what the man has done, it's always the woman's fault.

[Catherine Vincent]

53. I agree 100%....

:mad:

[Blue_Tires]

47. i said when this story was first posted

that the Kobe Bryant "smear the victim" tactic was gonna come hard and fast...

[DanCa]

49. This world gets darker and sicker every day.

Well the sun ever shine again?