Two players have been arrested in the Duke lacrosse case. From the NY Times:
Two Duke University men's lacrosse players were arrested today and charged with rape and kidnapping in a case involving a woman who has accused three team members of attacking her at a party last month.
Sgt. Andre Mims of the Durham County Correctional Facility identified the two players who has been arrested as Reade Seligmann of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty of Garden City, N.Y
Both men are sophomores.
Court officials unsealed the arrest warrants in the case this morning. The warrants, issued on Monday, noted that the men had agreed to turn themselves in at 5 a.m. today, and set their bail at $400,000. The warrant said that a court appearance was scheduled for 9:30 a.m., but by that time Mr. Sigelmann had had been released on bond.
For what it's worth - One of the two men, Reade Seligman, was a high school team mate of Ryan McFadyen, who, also per the Times,
had sent a crude, threatening e-mail message hours after the alleged attack. McFadyen was given an interim suspension when the email became public on April 5, the same day Duke President Richard H. Brodhead canceled the lacrosse season, accepted the resignation of the coach and announced a series of campus investigations.
Their Delbarton team was a powerhouse, apparently.
As to the case itself - my guess is that once the District Attorney gets past his election situation in early May, the wheels will fall off. My sources in New Jersey assure me that there is nothing to this, but who knows?

Play Ball.
====
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Ryan McFadyen plays defense.
===============
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 10:59 AM
And Reade scores.
============
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 11:00 AM
I tell you what, if this DA is using these boys to get re-elected, he needs to be publicly humiliated, jailed and the keys tossed.
Posted by: Sue | April 18, 2006 at 11:01 AM
The indictments probably have nothing to do with the "alleged" rape, but rather go to the e-mail.
The standard hockey experience, the "third man in" thing, or in this case the third (pardon the pun) blow.
Posted by: Neo | April 18, 2006 at 11:22 AM
LaShawn Barber has this observation:
Update III (11:17 a.m.): According to the search warrant, the accuser said three men named Adam, Bret, and Matt raped her, but Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were charged with the rape. Hmmm…
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 18, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I love your latent racist hope that the dirty, black stripper is punished for trying top bring down the good old boys of Duke.
Do you know that this "striper" is also a student and a mom? You are all nausiatingly part of that anti-PC backlash from the nineties based on white-opression.
Bottom line, and please deny this if you can...None of you have any idea whatsoever what the fuck happened (including me) But its fun to point out your bias for a change.
Boo YA!
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 11:39 AM
You are right. You don't know what happened. And like I said, if the DA is using this to get re-elected then shame on him. Otherwise, I have not commented. You, however, don't mind reverse racism, do ya?
Posted by: Sue | April 18, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Oh yeah sue I love it! Its the best!
Give me a break...
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Hit the Bit just can't help galloping down the stretch, blinders on.
====================================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Admit it though...you want the DA to be wrong
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 11:45 AM
More to the point is this little tidbit of information: one of the guys she accused is known to have left the party early and was not there. This, combined with the fact that there is photographic evidence that she had bruises she claims were caused by the assault before she said it happened, and other details (like no DNA evidence) make this a very poor case for the prosecution.
Black woman blogger LaShawn Barber is all over this case in careful detail:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/04/17/no-indictment/
By the way, Hit the Bid: you werent there and don't know the details either, why do you assume she's telling the truth? Bias against whites, or rich people, perhaps?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | April 18, 2006 at 11:46 AM
All I am doing is calling you guys out for your blatent bias against the DA and the accuser
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Chris...are you really citing "evidence" to me from a blogging site? please email it to me when it is a court document. thanks
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 11:48 AM
You don't even know what race we are. Or who our spouses are. Or who are grandchildren are. Or who are nieces and nephews are. Get over yourself. If racisim is calling the DA a schmuck if he is using this to ge re-elected, then so be it. However, I would say the same thing if the boys were black and the girl white or they were all the same color.
Posted by: Sue | April 18, 2006 at 11:50 AM
All you are doing is projecting, HTB. You haven't much idea about 'our' racism, you labeller, you.
=======================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Assholes know no color boundary.
Posted by: Sue | April 18, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Like oreos, generally paler on the inside.
==========================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 12:02 PM
See look how defensive you guys are getting! I was right! You do all want this to be farsical media pushed ploy by a greedy stripper!
Look, this a website for folks like you, of a more conservative mindset. I could sit here all day and have fun, but I only wanted to raise my point that there is latent racist hope on this issue that 1)the women is a low life money grubber who is 2) trying to besmirch these elite atheletes/students and that 3) the over agressive DA (ronnie earl-ish to you all??) and 4) the all to complicit liberal media defending the victim ( oh woops thats a conservative thing to do!!!)
I don't think you are all racist so much as suckers for that post-PC backlash from the 1990s so commonly voiced in defiance on Fox News and other crack-pot outlets.
You will be happy to know I will not interrupt this post again, and you can all resume your fun excercise and sorry for ruffling your feathers.
Best to you all, and be sure to stop in sometime for some iced tea!!!!
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 12:03 PM
You are so busy projecting you haven't even read my first posts, or if so, your bigotry is blinding you to what I said.
Sensitive? Yeah, to the liberals keeping the black folk dependent and needy. Ya'll Raw Pit Codger.
=================================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Hit the Bud...your bong awaits
Posted by: windansea | April 18, 2006 at 12:08 PM
I don't think that DA wants to be hanged with a garland of spiral chemicals.
======================================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 12:10 PM
So the DNA results match none of the players and the DA's response is that he can prosecute without DNA evidence. He does it all the time. But in this case there is DNA evidence. Will it just be thrown our because it doesn't support HTB's conclusion that white kids are rapists?
Posted by: Dan | April 18, 2006 at 12:12 PM
LOL. Ronnie Earleish? You mean an incompetent DA? Yep. That is me. I hate imcompetent DAs. Because in case you haven't noticed, Delay and Earle are both white.
Posted by: Sue | April 18, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Admit it though...you want the DA to be wrong
Admit it though...you WANT the DA to BE RIGHT!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 18, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Dukies! Dukies!
(go tarheels)
Posted by: Gendarme | April 18, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Shit. This hits a lot closer to home than I had realized a day or two ago. I am originally from Garden City. My nephew, who just graduated HS last year, played on the Lax team there (Finnerty did not play for GC though; he went to the private school Chaminade). My niece's boyfriend is one of the guys on the now-disbanded Duke Lax team (he is not one of the accused and as far as I know was not at the party). She knows both of the guys who were arrested.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Gendarme, I've looked at this timeline and I can't see anything about UNC at all.
Posted by: Interrobanger | April 18, 2006 at 12:33 PM
DING DING DING.. This post gets the award for most retarded defense of the duke players to date. Your sources in NJ? Who are you, the fucking director of the CIA?
Posted by: Awarder | April 18, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Mr. Nifong says he has identification and a V who claims no consent, so he has enough to get to a jury. On the plus side, filing of charges should give lax players some rights to discovery. No doubt they want to see the med exam report. I suspect a high blood alcohol level, possible other evidence of intoxicants.
Perhaps Duke and other med schools should rethink how they train the nurses and MD's who do med exams in cases of alleged sex assault. It seems best to just record objective findings. Leave out comments about how the "affect" is consistent or not consistent with having been through a rape. Also leave out characterization of the observed injuries, if any, as consistent or not consistent with forced sex. The injuries are what they are. Let the jury decide what must have happened. Here, it looks like the MD and nurse came up with "false positive" med exam test results for rape.
I suspect the folks that sign up to do "rape kit" exams (should be "alleged rape kit" or simply "med exam") are naturally biased toward finding sex assault. Then, over time, I suspect they are trained and groomed primarily by DA's and police to become still more biased.
More broadly, it seems to me that Durham does not appreciate what Duke does for undergrads, or how property values in Durham are probably bolstered by having 6400 Duke undergrads.
Perhaps Duke should announce a plan to move undergrad slots elsewhere - say 25% to Redmond, Washington, and 25% to the San Francisco or San Diego area. Melinda Gates is a Duke grad, I think, and the Gates family could certainly seed a great undergrad campus away from the "we love to hate Duke" crowd in Durham.
With communications as cheap as they are now, and getting cheaper, well-endowed private universities can and should branch out geographically. Why not have Duke lead?
Duke already has away-from-Duke programs in places like Mexico, New York, etc. Princeton, Duke, Harvard, Yale etc. all encourage junior year abroad (or away from the home school).
From Durham City council sessions, one would think there is no underage drinking or noise at UNC or other colleges, only Duke. Duke needs to find and develop more facilities and programs away from the vocal and prominent "Duke folks are jerks" crowd in Durham.
Why not rotate the undergrads to places like NYC, Redmond, Mexico City, SF, San Diego, Dubai, London, instead of parking them in Durham for 4 years? Use the extra dorm space in Durham for students that are over 21. Or turn them into hotel space for academic conventions, married student housing, etc. Duke takes a huge hit in "beauty contests" before prospective top faculty and students because it is in Durham. Why not change that with infrastructure elsewhere?
Posted by: cfw | April 18, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Continued --
Duke already has away-from-Duke programs in places like Mexico, New York, etc. Princeton, Duke, Harvard, Yale etc. all encourage junior year abroad (or away from the home school).
From Durham City council sessions, one would think there is no underage drinking or noise at UNC or other colleges, only Duke. Duke needs to find and develop more facilities and programs away from the vocal and prominent "Duke folks are jerks" crowd in Durham.
Why not rotate the undergrads to places like NYC, Redmond, Mexico City, SF, San Diego, Dubai, London, instead of parking them in Durham for 4 years? Use the extra dorm space in Durham for students that are over 21. Or turn them into hotel space for academic conventions, married student housing, etc. Duke takes a huge hit in "beauty contests" before prospective top faculty and students because it is in Durham. Why not change that with infrastructure elsewhere?
Posted by: cfw | April 18, 2006 at 12:38 PM
We award the Pulitzer Prize for humour to awarder. Don't you have sources in New Jersey?
=================================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Quit writing stuff about me guys/gals!! I told you I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore! Gosh!
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 01:02 PM
From the Light Hitter:
But its fun to point out your bias for a change.
I question the phrase "for a change".
Posted by: TM | April 18, 2006 at 01:05 PM
How come Hit the Bid puts "stripper" in quotes?
Posted by: Other Tom | April 18, 2006 at 01:05 PM
I bet on the Grey Mare,
I bet on the Bay.
But a dancin' and a prancin'
Came the Noble Stewball.
==============
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 01:05 PM
According to the search warrant, the accuser said three men named Adam, Bret, and Matt raped her...
In my casual youthful association with young troublemakers, using an alias (or everyone using the same name) was pretty common. I doubt kids have gotten stupider, and the use of fake names has been discussed in this case as well.
Posted by: TM | April 18, 2006 at 01:07 PM
The lacrosse players tired of making love to a stick, and fell in love with a stripper.
============================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 01:09 PM
Ok I apologize for this but....
If by "fell in love" you mean allegedly anally, orally, and vaginally rape her..then totally! Thats awesome!
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 01:35 PM
I think the veil is pierced.
================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 01:37 PM
she wore a veil?
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 01:41 PM
Uh, it was the one you've donned.
======================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 01:43 PM
Hey I stopped wearing a veil years ago!
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 01:44 PM
You are blind to this one.
================
Posted by: kim | April 18, 2006 at 01:49 PM
This Duke case reminds me of the Kobe Bryant debacle, with a Tailhook undercurrent.
As with Bryant, we have the racially/sexually/politically charged case with absurdly weak evidence. That evidence woul dget better if the DA could get some Duke party attendees to testify, but they haven't yet, and what will prompt them at this point? Civic duty? A (remote and unrealistic) fear of an obstruction indictment?
The Tailhook wrinkle is that *maybe* some of these guys will try to transfer to other programs, and be advised that their new school has no interest in accepting non-cooperating players.
But even there - if one or more of the players goes to the DA and says, well, I was drunk, I wasn't paying attention to who was coming or going, and I saw nothing - how do you disprove that, or fault him for not being forthcoming?
So, based on what we have so far, this case is sadly lacking in evidence. For example, she seems to have picked her assailants from phots. However, she was, by accounts, drunk, shaken up, on roofies, or something when she left - won't that undermine her credibility as an eye-witness?
Well - maybe the DA drops it, or maybe he goes to trial and lets the jury decide that, whether something bad happened or not, they can't convict anyone on the slim evidence. That, too, was my view of the Bryant case - the DA hoped that someone else would give the public the bad news that a crime could not be proven.
Posted by: TM | April 18, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Mark my words, these boys will be found innocent.And I hope they'll go after the accuser, DA, and Durham fr defirmation.
Nifong claims the boys are “stone walling”, but when the accusation was made, the police questioned the three boys who lived in the house for over six hours, not one asked for a lawyer. When the entire team was told they had to submit DNA samples, they didn’t call their parents or fight the warrant.
The boys cooperated completely. These aren’t the actions of guilty boys. Only when their parents witnessed the circus-like atmosphere created by District Attorney Mike Nifong, the boys were advised to remain quiet.
Nifong nationally proclaimed that he will indict the entire team for aiding and abetting. He doesn’t care whether anyone is innocent or guilty, or if he has to bulldoze over 50 boys to get to one. Nifong portrayed all of these boys as rapists while claiming that they’re hiding information because the only information they have is that the rape never occurred, and DNA evidence supports the boys’ story, and the second stripper coincides with the boys account of events, but it doesn’t matter.
Because of Nifong, these boys have already been convicted in the media. Their reputations destroyed as their names and pictures are widely distributed with hate slogans labeling them as rapist.
Nifong will get an indictment to avoid facing the racial tensions he stoked to near riot levels, then he will leave this “powder keg” to the next elected DA to handle the fallout, and when this case presents itself to be unfounded and accusations of “white privilege” force racial tensions to explode, I predict Mr. Nifong will be somewhere far far away on vacation.
When we think of a single mother, we picture a woman struggling to support herself and her children. Laura Grissim [Letters; April 14] plays on this stereotype to portray the Durham rape accuser/stripper as a stereotypical working single mom.
It’s amazing how just by claiming a person to be a “mother” puts a “halo” on her head. Ms. Grissom claims that some women have no other option to provide for herself and her children which paints a picture of a selfless martyr, but this is misleading especially regarding this particular “single mom”. This single mom and her children live with their grandfather so the threat of being homeless or hungry is unlikely. This single mom has been arrested in for larceny and evading police, which doesn’t fit the mold of “martyr”. This single mom arrived at the party inebriated and was found drunk and disorderly in a parking lot, but looking at this woman as an individual instead of a sexist stereotype reveals a more realistic picture of this single mom which dims her halo.
Ms. Grissom goes on to rants that criticizing this woman “hinges on blaming the victim”. This single mom is not a victim. This single mom is an “accuser”. There’s enough evidence to question her integrity and whether a crime actually occurred. I find it hypocritical that Ms. Grissom so easily gives this “single mom” the benefit of the doubt while condemning a group of boys who happen to be on a sports team. People should avoid stereotypes and focus on each individual, including the “accuser”, as a person.
The actions of District Attorney Mike Nifong have been reckless and irresponsible in playing out this case before the national media. This has inflamed racial stereotypes throughout Durham which makes it more important that everyone take a step back and let the police do their job. If this woman lied; thus exposing Nifong as a fool, then she should be prosecuted for this crime, which have destroyed these young boys’ lives and reputations. Being a “single mom” shouldn’t be an excuse to condone this type of behavior.
Rape shields were created in the 1970s to protect the alleged “victim” from having her reputation ruined by baseless assumptions, unfair judgments, public humiliation, and character assassinations, but any of this could describe what’s happening to every member of the lacrosse team.
Irresponsible “special interest groups” have held protests everyday holding the name and pictures of anyone on the lacrosse team, to having their pictures and hate slogans pasted all over school. The actions of these groups against these men are nothing short of harassment and unfair character assassination.
The boys are being tried in the national media before there is any charge are made. Nifong stated that someone else could have assaulted the 27 year old stripper, yet he publicly damned the men’s lacrosse team and only the men’s lacrosse team as gang rapist, and still not knowing whether or not the “alleged victim” was telling the truth, or if the three men sought are on the team, Nifong claims the team is stonewalling to protect its own.
In response, daily protest are held with hate comments made directly to the lacrosse teammates, pictures of the teammates with rape slogans are plastered all over Duke’s campus, and now gang members are driving by the east campus threatening students.
Nifong’s circus-like antics to perform for the national media has put the whole campus in danger.
Nifong proclaimed in the national media that the DNA sweep of 46 boys would find the guilty and clear the innocent. DNA tests prove that the boys of the lacrosse team were telling the truth, but Nifong wants to go ahead with the case only weeks before his election against a woman and a black man. There should be laws in place to prevent unscrupulous politician like District Attorney Mike Nifong from bulldozing over 47 innocent boys just to bask in the international media spot-light.
THe news that there’s no DNA evidense to link the boys to the stripper is not as curious as there’s no DNA to suggest a crime was ever cmmitted! Where’s her DNA?
Stripper claims: three men raped her on the bathroom rug,
Fact:
• No vaginal or seminal fluid, no skin, blood, or hair were found anywhere in the bathroom, bath towels, bath rug, door handle, bathroom floor, basin, water faucet handle, etc.
• A man cannot take off a condom and not get DNA from himself or the female on his hands and not transfer it to everything he touches?
• Accuser claims she was vaginally penetrated; accuser claims she was panicked and thought she was going to die; Where is her vaginal fluid, urine, or blood anywhere in the bathroom? Does her body defy basic physiology capable of keeping any ejaculate from spilling out?
• Accuser claims she was anally penetrated; Where’s her fecal material or scat smears in the bathroom? Does the accuser have inhuman anal sphinter control that prevented any of the ejaculate from dripping out?
• Accuser claims she was orally sodomized; where is DNA from her saliva and tears? Did she lick up every drop and swallowed any evidence?
Stripper claim bruises were result of an attack from three boys:
Fact: Time-stamped photos prove stripper arrived bruised and cut while drunk.
Nifong stated that a condom was used, if this is true than where is the spermicidal lubricant evidence? Where are the condoms? Where are the condom wrappers? Where is the empty condom box?
If no DNA material were present on the stripper, than why were DNA samples taken? The District Attorney vigorously claimed that these DNA evidence will clear the innocent.
The second stripper stated that she didn’t notice any rape, and when they got back in the car the “accuser” didn’t mention anything about being rape.
We have to consider the fact that this may be a common “false accusation of rape”, and she must be prosecuted for the harm she’s done to these men and to the entire Duhram community.
I was surprise of how many false rape accusations have been made by several independent surveys reveal that 42% to approximately half of all accusations made are false. Most cases involve divorce battles involving the custody of children, some for revenge for withdraw of affection, monetary gains, an excuse for infidelity, or misidentification.
• According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States are later deemed 'unfounded,' meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime.
• Howard County Police classified one out of every four rape allegations as unfounded in 1990-91.
• The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers says around 600 teachers a year are falsely accused - a trebling since the 1989 Children's Act.
• Citing a recent USA Today article, discussing the miracle of DNA and FBI studies of sexual assault suspects, DNA testing exonerated about 30% to 35% of the more than 4,000 sexual assault suspects on whom the FBI had conducted DNA testing over the past three years.
• Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40% of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994).
• 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over 25% of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test or after they had failed it, that no rape occurred.
• 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.
• Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about 50% simply did not happen."
Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for It seems that every feminist wants thise stripper to have been raped because if she was, this is good as gold when political groups lobby the government for more money for women-only programs, but what feminist don’t want is to lime-light the problem of the flase accusations of rape that occurs more frequently that is known.
Posted by: Nice Guy | April 18, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Nice try Nice Guy...talk about trying the case in the media...you're trying this one in the "new" media. Good work scoop. Maybe thesee men at DUke raped her...maybe they didn't...but this women was raped...that is a fact.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 02:57 PM
"every feminist wants thise stripper to have been raped because if she was, this is good as gold when political groups lobby the government for more money for women-only programs, but what feminist don’t want is to lime-light the problem of the flase accusations of rape that occurs more frequently that is known."
Wow dude...thats pretty fucked up. think about what you wrote for a second. Oh wait I get it!!!!!! "nice guy" is an ironic nickname. Ok carry on.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 02:59 PM
hit the bud...it's a fact she was raped?
were you there?
Posted by: windansea | April 18, 2006 at 03:02 PM
but this women was raped...that is a fact.
No, it's not a fact yet, because it has not been proven yet. Facts "consistent" with rape (bruising, etc.), mean that it's POSSIBLE she was raped, NOT that there isn't any doubt. Funny how you state in your first comment:
None of you have any idea whatsoever what the fuck happened (including me)
Yet, now you know for a "fact" that she was raped. Care to enlighten us to the source of your newfound wisdom?
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan | April 18, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Windansea. Yes it is a fact she was raped...she was brought into a hospital shortly after "a rape" occurred and a Rape Nurse examined her and concluded she could not have gotten those internal (vaginal and anal) injuries from normal sex...look at the records.
that is fact...now whether or not the Duke players at the party did it or not, I have no idea...or even if the rape happened at the house.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 03:09 PM
Inspector Gadget...the conclusion was reached by a professional that her injuries were consistent with rape...that corroborates (sp?)the statement she gave that she was raped. Again...not necessarily by the duke boys ( and no that does not mean Bo and Luke).
Thank you.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 03:11 PM
what's "normal sex"? And if she'd had sex with a number of people in a short time I expect you'd see the same sort of bruising even if it weren't rape. I recall that was the testimony of experts in the Kobe Bryan case.
Posted by: clarice | April 18, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Ok thats just a stupid comment clarice.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 03:40 PM
1)"If"
2)"I expect"
3) "I recall"
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 03:42 PM
HTB do you feel like the branch your sitting on is being swaed off underneath you? Cuz CNN and the AP are bth reporting that both boys have exculpatory evidence that shows they were not at the party. This includes multiple witnesses including a taxi driver and get this, an time stamped ATM receipt. Now how far out have you climbed?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | April 18, 2006 at 03:51 PM
Opps Gary! You would have me except for the fact I never said the DUke boys raped her!
SOrry small point there, but I felt I "owed" it to you to point that out. Hows the saw?
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 03:57 PM
Maybe you should use the saw to rip off your flesh, eat it and then Jizz in your spandex? Maybe you should do that?
To all the wonderful people of Just A Minute...I have no idea if the duke boys raped the women...maybe they did, maybe they didn't. BUT, you are all, in your hearts hoping they didn't do it. Conversely, you also hope that this stripper/mom/student is full of shit and you hope that this uppity prosecutor gets whats coming to him.
Problem is, a women was most likely raped.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:02 PM
Hit the Bid,
Reading through the multitude of comments you have made on this thread, I think this is a fair summary of where you stand.
1) You believe the woman was raped.
2) You don't have any reason to believe that she was raped at the party, other than that she says she was raped at the party.
3) You don't have any reason to believe she was raped by the three boys she claims she was raped by, other than her claim.
I infer from this that you find her to be inherently credible, with absolutely no reason to doubt her word. Further, you find anyone who does doubt her word to be racist.
So I assume that if I present a possible other scenario, you will call me racist. Despite not knowing a single thing about me. Perhaps I am wrong in this assumption, and you will not. Let's find out.
Perhaps what went down was that these college boys decided to hire a stripper. Why? Because they are stupid college boys. Who shows up? The woman making the charge, and her friend. Why? Because they are strippers.
Perhaps the woman making the charge not only would strip for money, but would perform sex acts for money. Perhaps this is how she ended up in a condition that led the professional to say her physical condition was consistent with a woman who had been raped. As it happens, she has prior arrests for prostitution on her record.
There are allegations, which seem credible based on what we know of the reports by the officers who first were involved, that the woman was acting under the influence, and not just slightly. Perhaps they were too intoxicated to perform. Perhaps the strippers had been portrayed to them, when they made the booking, as being extremely hot and these women were not. But for whatever reason, the boys decided that they were not going to let them perform, and hence they would not be paid.
Perhaps the girls did not like this. Perhaps the girls felt the reason they were going to be denied the payday they thought was coming was because one was black and one was latino, and not white. Perhaps this pissed them off. Perhaps they decided that they were going to make the boys very sorry.
It seems to me that the scenario I just described fits the situation as we know it pretty well. Yet, somehow, I bet that you will reject it out of hand. Why? Because you want to believe the woman. Maybe I am wrong, and you will admit again what you led with-- that you don't know what happened. Maybe I am wrong, and you will wait to see what evidence comes out before making up your mind.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:05 PM
No, Gerry, I believe it because a rape nurse said her injuries were consistent with being raped. Nice try though.
Whats so morally wrong with a stripper? Its perfectly legal and these guy--yes I went to college too and have been on many sports teams--paid for ther service.
The Duke men and the women stripper are on the same moral plane...you have to admit that. She offered a service, they paid for a service...they are the same.
Also, why don't You mention the previous assault of one of the boys indicted by the grand jury?
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:11 PM
I'll see your nice try and raise you one. Saying that her physical condition is consistent with having been raped is not the same as saying she had been raped.
But more importantly, saying that her physical condition is consistent with being raped is not the same as saying she had been raped at that party by those boys.
You believe she was raped. I can understand that belief. I can understand being skeptical of it, but I won't hold it against you if you do not have that skepticism.
However, you have immediately jumped from "she was raped" to "she was raped at that party" and "she was raped by those boys."
Do you have anything at all to base your belief that her physical condition was caused at that party other than her word?
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:16 PM
"You will be happy to know I will not interrupt this post again........"
by Hit the bid at 9:03 AM.
One of the sad facts of life is these type of statements are almost never made in good faith.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 18, 2006 at 04:16 PM
"She offered a service, they paid for a service"
Actually, is there any evidence at all that she actually did her stripping performance?
Is there any evidence that she was paid?
There is evidence that she went there because the boys booked a stripper. Ergo, there is evidence she expected a payday. If, for some reason, this did not occur, would it not give her a motive for deciding to cause problems for the boys?
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Oh Barney! Have I just ruined you day? Awww I'm sorry. I feel your existential pain.
One of the sad facts of life I guess...
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:20 PM
Maybe you should use the saw to rip off your flesh, eat it and then Jizz in your spandex? Maybe you should do that?...HTB
I thought the Oklahoma Hannibal Lecter was in custody for the unspeakable death of a 10yr old girl.
Many think that had someone paid attention to that "demon's" web posting this horror could have been prevented.
Maybe someone should be looking in on HTB - if its got a site. Same fantancies in sight.
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 04:21 PM
"Also, why don't You mention the previous assault of one of the boys indicted by the grand jury?"
Because it was not relevant to the point I was making, which is that you are taking the woman's word at face value when perhaps that is not the wise thing to be doing.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Gerry,
You just keep on speculating my man! Scan the web and tv! scan the web and tv! Gotta find exculpatory evidence! You are a tool. Ergo, you are not a non-tool.
Have fun watching cable news all night. You are proving to me this obsession with the over learned lesson of post-PC backlash bias...you got the bug!
I am inclined to believe she was raped, by someone(s)...you are all inclined to believe that the Duke boys probably didn't rape her...and you irrationally--no no in an "unhinged" manner--cling to that notion.
I say its possible she was raped before she got there or after she left. Its also possible that Gerry and Barney Frank have something going on on the side.
According to a professional, who examined her, the girl was raped...Oh and there is nothing morally wrong with strippers or those that pay to see women strip, or try to pay to see women strip.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:28 PM
Various thoughts: Duke Medical School and Hospitals are among the nation's finest. The medical evidence will be a major factor in the case if, in fact that was where she was taken (is that so?). One of the boys indicted has been in trouble in D.C. recently according to a posting on Drudge, if true. It was for gay baiting apparently. That won't help here. There are a lot of disturbing things about the statements from the second dancer. Audio tapes with the police and 911 make one wonder if they are serious. Anyway, none of us knows what happened and an investigation is in order. I wish the culture would not condone the downright disgusting type of behavior displayed by the young men here. We license so much these days. I'm old and old fashioned enough to believe that we decline as a country when we don't expect higher standards. Eventually things start to fall apart and either, as in this case, an innocent person is hurt terribly or several innocent people are tarnished forever. Neither result should make any of us happy. Let's expect more from people. I'll stop preaching now.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | April 18, 2006 at 04:30 PM
"Maybe you should use the saw to rip off your flesh, eat it and then Jizz in your spandex? Maybe you should do that?...HTB"
Larwyn...that was referencing an email sent around that night by one of the Lax players from Duke. I'm not into that sort of thing...I prefer role playing from any one of Andrew LLoyd Webers musicals though. (thats not true)
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Hit the Bid,
Actually, I don't have to scan anything. The truth will come out, with or without my effort.
It is irrational to doubt her story? Why didn't you say so in the first place! String them up! Draw and quarter them!
But I am glad we cleared up any doubt. You believe these boys are guilty because she says they are and because she had a physical condition that was consistent with being raped. If that condition was consistent with anything else is irrelevant to you, and any doubt anyone else has is irrational.
I don't think this case is going to end up the way you think it should.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Actually, Hit, we're happy to see you- being as how you're mouthing every Tawana Brawley slogan imaginable. Those folks became real scarce after the truth came out- and there's a lot more truth available in this case than there was back during Tawana's 15 minutes of fame. Please, keep on vsiting and ranting.
Posted by: tkr_0710 | April 18, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Gerry, I posted no less that 1 billion times that I don't think the Duke boys--either Bo or Luke--did it anymore than you think they didn't.
I think it is irrational to doubt her story about rape itelf though...and you are right we will find out at somepoint.
Conservatives are lauded for jumping to the defense of the presumed guilty, why am I not lauded for jumping out to defend the victim...I mean you guys would laud me right? guys?
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:39 PM
In all seriousness, who's Tawana Brawley? Ok wait give me a second to google her....
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Ok got it. thanks for playing tkr.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:43 PM
Lets just get a rope eh HTB?
Oh wait you dont know the facts but it s irrational to doubt her story. And any evidence in the public domain is of no consequence... cling to that irrationally if you must. It does seem to be about all you have going for you, so make it work for you.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | April 18, 2006 at 04:43 PM
Gerry, I posted no less that 1 billion times that I don't think the Duke boys--either Bo or Luke--did it anymore than you think they didn't.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 01:39 PM
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 04:45 PM
"I posted no less that 1 billion times that I don't think the Duke boys--either Bo or Luke--did it anymore than you think they didn't."
First, as I mentioned up-thread, the situation is closer to home for me than I ever would have known, so I have personal reasons to have the beliefs I have about who is telling the truth. I would never go so far as to think that anyone should believe the same thing I believe on that basis, but I do believe that the boys are being falsely accused.
That said, I do not buy for one second that you "don't think the Duke boys--either Bo or Luke--did it". I don't think you are even entertaining the idea that they did not. And your comment there displayed something I believe you were projecting on to others. You, sir or madame, are a bigot.
"why am I not lauded for jumping out to defend the victim"
You want to be lauded for rushing to judgement? If these boys are being falsely accused, then you have not exactly been defending the victim.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:46 PM
Yeah and give us the link to the actual email you site.
I know it said to "murder and skin her" - but I have no recollection of the rest.
HTB, WE HAVE SEEN YOUR RAGED REACTION TO SOMEONE QUESTIONING A POST IN A COMMENT THREAD.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW VIVID YOUR RANTS AND EMAILS WOULD BE IF YOU WERE ACCUSED OF A CRIME YOU DID NOT COMMIT!
Thought ever crossed your errrr..mind?
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 04:48 PM
I withdraw the bigot assertion on the basis that HtB was just making a bad joke.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Last time I checked, there was still a presumption of innocence in this country. Duke's lacrosse players have seen their names vilified, their season canceled, and a good coach fired for something that may not even have happened. Yes, their behavior that night (as on many other occasions, no doubt) was deplorable -- excessive drinking, hiring a stripper, disturbing the neighbors, general rowdiness -- but such behavior is tolerated routinely on college campuses all over the country, especially on the part of our scholar-athletes.
If Duke's President -- or any other college president -- had chosen somewhere along the way to crack down on college sports by enforcing academic standards, suspending or expelling athletes for breaking campus rules, insisting that athletes graduate at the same rate as the rest of the student body, and generally treating college players like the students they ostensibly are rather than the unpaid professionals they have in fact become -- then I would be 100% supportive. But in the case of Duke's lacrosse team, President Brodhead's knee-jerk response to a stripper's accusation of gang rape was to fire the coach and cancel the remainder of the lacrosse season -- a response fueled by the assumption that rape goes hand-in-hand with drunkenness and a general lack of judgment and self-control, particularly when it comes to privileged white kids, as well as by an over-eagerness to defuse a potentially ugly racial situation, because God forbid we should ever confront the fact that not every crime involving whites and blacks is a racial crime. (There is in fact a racial angle here in that the lacrosse players apparently requested a white stripper and initially turned away the black stripper who showed up -- but that doesn't strike me as a prosecutable hate crime.)
I agree that the behavior of these young men is far from exemplary, and they may even deserve to have had their season canceled -- but not for something they didn't do. Yes, two of the team members have been indicted, but there are extenuating circumstances -- like a DA up for re-election.
What if the case is eventually dropped, as is not unlikely, or the accused are found not guilty? What do we tell the players, or their coach, or their parents? How do we give them back their season, and restore their good names?
And Tom, I'm worried that you've been reading the NY Times too long -- are you really saying that canceling the season was justified because lacrosse is a sport for middle class white kids? So if it were a sport played by predominantly underprivileged youth, Duke's reaction should have been different?
Food for thought: What if it had been a largely black, #1-ranked basketball team accused of gang-raping a white stripper who was a part-time student with two young children?
Posted by: JMW | April 18, 2006 at 04:52 PM
JMW--
Your point about the tolerance afforded to big-time college athletes are good ones. And I really have no idea if the Duke Lax team needed to be reigned in any more than any other typical college kids. Maybe they did. However, the "enforcing academic standards" part I think is misplaced here. It is my understanding that the average GPA of the team was something like 3.4.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 04:56 PM
I want to take exception to this clown .. Hit The Bigot.
I made a post this morning and I return to see that two posts later this Hit The Bigot clown posts that everyone posting is a some sort of racist. I went back and reread TM's post and the others theat preceded mine and found no mention of Cracker/Yellow/Orange/Red/Black/White. This is followed by Hit The Bigot claiming racism.
Hit The Bigot might think that a 5 cent gumshoe internet investigation that lead to certain knowledge that there was a rape by these clowns at Duke means something. Well it doesn't. That's why they have real professional investigators to do these things.
If you must persist, I understand the OJ might need some help looking for his wife's killer.
Posted by: Neo | April 18, 2006 at 04:58 PM
"What do we tell the players, or their coach, or their parents? How do we give them back their season, and restore their good names?"
Or their jobs. At least one boy on the (former) Duke team, a kid who was not charged with anything at all, had an offer of a summer job with Salomon Bros. rescinded.
Posted by: Gerry | April 18, 2006 at 05:01 PM
"why am I not lauded for jumping out to defend the victim"..HTB
Knowing they much prefer "words"
to figures.
Try to wrap your head around this:
If actually 3 members of the team ARE GUILTY.
That is 3 of 49.
This is ~6%!
~94% HAVE BEEN TRIED AND HANGED BY THE LSM AND ALL THE ETHNIC & WOMEN'S STUDIES GRADS.
94%!
WITH ONLY 2 INDICTED (WHO WERE NOT EVEN THERE)
But lets pretend that Karl Rove has
apprenticed these lads in "mind rays"
AND THEY ARE GUILTY
96% ARE VICTIMS OF BEING SMEARED NATIONALLY!
That may well be a clue why you are not being lauded!
Be a Man and be as good as your word..."last post" promise.
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 05:01 PM
"Maybe you should use the saw to rip off your flesh, eat it and then Jizz in your spandex? Maybe you should do that?"
HTB, I realize that one of the Duke Lax team members made that statement in an email. I found it offensive then and extremely uncalled for in this forum. I live in Oklahoma, maybe sawing bodies and eating flesh is a joke to you and others because you are all caught up in this incident and have no regard how a 10 year old girl was murdered here in Oklahoma. If you want to get all righteous, try getting righteous about child sex offenders and murderers in our midst. We will find out what really happened at that party soon enough.
Posted by: jc's justice | April 18, 2006 at 05:06 PM
HTB,
"Oh Barney! Have I just ruined you day? Awww I'm sorry. I feel your existential pain."
The thrust of my comment is merely that you are dishonest, which you didn't bother to deny.
In doing so however I have apparently hit an existential nerve of yours. Forgive my insensitivity.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 18, 2006 at 05:12 PM
Oh please Jc's justice..this is a forum about the incident and the American instinct to rush to judgement...what your friends here don't admit is that I am right...most here are rushing to defend the players.
If I went to a liberal website, they would probably be rushing to attack the players.
And I tell them as I tell myself, no one knows yet.
what I know is that the women was raped according to a rape expert. Since I am squatting on your sie, pissing you all off, I am saying to you that you are rushing to defend the players because you are sick of the MSM and iberals rushing to fulfill their agenda of taking it out on the white folks.
Neither of you are better. However, I am better than all of you for being rational and giving my wisdom out for free.
I do apologize for lying this morning and saying that that was the last post I was going to leave, but I felt I owed it to all of you to break my word...Intelligent liberal elites like me, who went to boarding schools, rowed crew, went to liberal arts colleges, have masters degrees and work in washington have a duty to bestow knowledge upon you all whenever we get the chance.
It has been my pleasure. I consider every one of you my friend, and I can't wait to see you in here tomorrow.
Posted by: Hit The Bid | April 18, 2006 at 05:16 PM
Hit the Bid
Would I be right in guessing that you haven't spent a lot of time following these threads? I'd be curious to know if you can tell when you're avtuallt engaging with regulars here and when you're just spinning your wheels with other drop-ins like yourself.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 18, 2006 at 05:19 PM
CNN'S REPORTER is using all the words she can taken from, handcuffs, etc etc.
After a 2minute report with all inflamed - she then mentions:
'
"they have proof they were not at the party"
CNN and the rest of the LSM will do everything to tilt the story to benefit of DEM DA and the LEFT'S
VICTIMS until they go completely off the story when too much news is to LAX players' benefit.
THEY MAKE ME SICK, SICKER EVERY DAY!
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Now that I think about it HTB is a regular poster over at John Cole's site ( balloon Juice ). We all know that DougJ haunts that place too. In fact given the last post of HTB I would bet a lot of money on HTB = DougJ. He just wants to stir up stuff. Later he will quote you out of contest back there and claim to own you ( or is it pwn3d?).
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | April 18, 2006 at 05:25 PM
"have masters degrees and work in washington have a duty to bestow knowledge upon you all whenever we get the chance."..htb
Work????
In Washington????
On whose dime are you posting your nonsense?
Hope it is not the TAXPAYERS!
Anyone backtrack the source.
A Duke lad lost his summer job.
Turnabout seems fair play.
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 05:26 PM
This strikes me as the opposite of the Tawana Brawley case. TB's story was largely implausible and the evidence was largely her testimony. This story is entirely plausible and there seems to be considerable evidence, going both ways, from the perspective of a casual observer.
The TB charade lasted quite a bit of time due to the lack of evidence, despite the implausability of her story. While we may never know what really happened at Duke, the chances are much greater that there will a consensus view that was lacking for years after the TB 'crime'.
Posted by: Sweetie | April 18, 2006 at 05:32 PM
giving my wisdom out for free
The same wisdom as a cigar store (wooden) Indian.
Posted by: Neo | April 18, 2006 at 05:33 PM
HTB
you are rushing to defend the players because you are sick of the MSM and iberals rushing to fulfill their agenda of taking it out on the white folks.
You have contributed nothing except an assertion of bigotry. Justice is blind. Have you forgotten?
The worm turned from pro-victim to pro-accused when the DNA came back negative. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Take your own racist bigotry back where it came from...the other side of the blogosphere. Who believe that just because someone is non-white, they are therefore victims of racism...simply by existing!
Posted by: Syl | April 18, 2006 at 05:33 PM
JOHN GIBSON's MY WORD
Hope we can get transcript.
Two boys lives are now ruined.
Expect details of their whole lives, their families', down to whether they eat Cheerios or Wheaties......
"ACCUSER"'s details off limits.
but John gives quite a few.
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 05:35 PM
One wonders just what it is that makes Hit the Bid feel that he is elite--is it that he went to boarding school? Rowed crew? It appears that he got to be an elite the easy way. (As an "intelligent liberal elite," he "lied to us this morning." How elite of him!)
He wants us to "admit" that we hope the prosecutor is wrong. Admit? I boast of such a hope, for if he is wrong that means that this woman wasn't raped by the men she has accused, and indeed may well not have been raped at all. Does he hope the prosecutor is right? He does not say, but though we may not be elite we can draw our own conclusions.
As a prototypical liberal, he cannot imagine any basis for others to hope the prosecutor is wrong except that they are racists. His credentials as a civil libertarian, after all, have their limits: he can't imagine that we are offended by a grandstanding prosecutor granting something on the order of forty hours of interviews about a case that at the time had not even been presented to a grand jury, and then holding a Q and A in a packed auditorium at the university where the complainant is a student.
Hit the Bid is my kind of "elite liberal": self-righteous but painfully dumb.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 18, 2006 at 05:35 PM
"I am better than all of you for being rational and giving my wisdom out for free"
I think you've priced your service appropriately.
Posted by: Sweetie | April 18, 2006 at 05:37 PM
"priced your service"
If the TAXPAYER??? question had
him scurry out of here.
Maybe one of our "techies" can backtrack his posts.
Might keep some others of his ilk away.
THE TWO BOYS WERE NOT EVEN THERE.
Posted by: larwyn | April 18, 2006 at 05:44 PM
Off topic, Hit The Bid, but whaddya think of Ambassador Joe? I think Colin Powell is the guy really behind getting Plamegate rolling...how about you? Think Fitz might splendidly prosecute these Duke boys? C'mon, tell us what you really think of Bush's plan to sponsor democracy all over the world (don't forget to cite historical precedents). Make my day, please!
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | April 18, 2006 at 06:21 PM
If the indictments were sealed, do we actually know what the two boys were charged with?
Posted by: mariner | April 18, 2006 at 06:24 PM