Friday, December 22, 2006
What The Tighty-Whitey-Righties Don't Want You To Know About The Duke Case
What the Rabid Racists are spamming all over the place today:
Prosecutors dropped rape charges Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of attacking a stripper at a team party,What they're desperately hoping you don't notice:
Prosecutors dropped rape charges Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of attacking a stripper at a team party, but the three still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges, a defense attorney said.There's more:
Cheshire said Friday that the accuser now says she does not know if she was penetrated, which he said led District Attorney Mike Nifong to dismiss the rape charges. Nifong did not immediately return calls seeking comment. "The only explanation for why the whole case wasn't dropped on the eve of the holiday weekend is that the prosecutor believes he does have decent evidence proving that the woman was sexually assaulted, even if she wasn't raped, and that she was held against her will during her time with the defendants," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said. "That's a much easier case to prove than rape."Why wouldn't the accuser not know if she had been penetrated? One word: Rohypnol. Aka "Roofies". People dosed with Roofies will be sitting at the bar one moment, then wake up in some stranger's bed the next, with little if any memory of what happened from bar to bed. (That is, assuming they're allowed to wake up.) And even if it was just booze, merely being drunk as a skunk -- which is de rigueur at frat parties -- would be enough to impair one's memory. But there is possible evidence for Roofies, or other intoxicants besides alcohol, being involved here. Buried deep in another article, this one being on the ever-changing story of another person, Kim Roberts, who the defense is using to trash the Duke accuser, we find this tidbit:
Roberts' story of what happened at the house has changed over several interviews. In April, Roberts told The Associated Press she was not in the bathroom and therefore couldn't say if a rape occurred, but she said those at the party were guilty of something other than underage drinking. In her single police interview, Roberts said the rape allegations were a "crock" and that she was with the accuser the entire time they were at the party, according to documents filed by the defense.
The Duke Boyz are the only ones here saying that nothing at all happened. Even the woman brought in to undermine the accuser's story (and whose own story keeps changing, much more than the accuser's -- but that's not something you'll see emphasized on FAUX News) says that something happened.
Remember all the public second-guessing of the Colorado Michael Jackson trial? The way that Michael Jackson was tried and convicted in the press -- only to be acquitted?
This case reminds me of that one in reverse. This time, it's the accuser who is considered to be the criminal, and whose past history and reputation are being used to convict her in the media. (Oh, and like Michael Jackson, she's black. But of course race has absolutely nothing to do with this, right?)
And Joe: Is DNA necessary for a sexual assault to have occurred?
More blogs about politics.