Powered by TypePad

« Ford Pardoned Nixon! | Main | Democrats Want Their Constituents To Sicken And Die »

January 04, 2007



I totally agree with Mr. Sowell's premise.


It's one example of why I respect Sowell (who first introduced me to the view that AA was bad for everyone) and why I don't respect the NYT.


Victor Davis Hanson today:

Why, when we are bombarded with cries that our freedoms are being eroded by the Patriot Act or wiretaps, do few civil libertarians complain of two egregious examples of government overreach: the scandalous abuse of prosecutorial power by the Duke "rape" case District Attorney, or the Inspector Javert-like Special Prosecutor who still pursues Scooter Libby, when we know the identity of the real leaker, and Joe Wilson (of "frog marched" fame) is reluctant to testify in a case that grew out of his own lamentations?

It goes on. Shout it from your rooftop!


Gary Maxwell

"Cooling out the mark" I believe is the appropriate phrase. Since its a phrase that grifters and scam artist coined, it does seem quite applicable here. Why dont the marks ever get mad? Its usually that their embarassment that they were had and were exceedingly stupid, which overwhelms any other emotion. Unfortunately, I have yet to detect any such emotion from the Sylvias of this world ( or the NAACP of NC either ).


Well...looks to me like Nifong won the battle (got elected) but will lose the war (disbarment). Couldn't happen to a slimier fella!


You have summed it up perfectly.


Just one minute!

Being a local, where you all know us bacco roaders are rampaging bigots (sterotype), this case isn't so simple as Sowell says.

First running for DA in Durham is not Broadway and bright lights. Whole lot of Durham is not the champaign crowd. Dogcatcher might be a more glamorous job.

What this case is about is sloppy procedures. There are 10 more characters ready and willing to do what Nifong did for whatever odd reason (nationally, Fitz, eh). If the NC Bar doesn't get its act together, there going to be more in future.

So maybe Sowell is inadvertently doing a con job of misdirection here.

It's about the NC Bar and justice system woes. Nifong is the wrong trail, the red herring.

Patrick R. Sullivan

It's the Great White Defendant Syndrome, JJ


It's hard not to notice that the disaster in Iraq is hardly mentioned on this blog anymore. What's wrong losers? In for a penny in for a pound no? Are you not going to lend your support for "the surge" - classic losers strategy - in Iraq to help BushCo save face. Come on what's a few more dead US troops compared to BushCo's ego.


5 of 10 on the troll meter, BTW.

Tom Maguire

"Cooling out the mark" I believe is the appropriate phrase.

Groan - I believed that as well, but SpellCheck cast the deciding vote in favor of "of" (since corrected).

It's hard not to notice that the disaster in Iraq is hardly mentioned on this blog anymore.

Anymore? That point could have been made about this blog at almost any time in the last four years. Fortunately, one or two other outlets provide coverage.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Ann Coulter has the definitive answer to guys like BTW:

The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" — all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies — exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

....In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam's throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.

It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus delicti of which wouldn't have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How's Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)

Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.

Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America's word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally." He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam — no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. Within a month of Ford's last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.



Have you ever heard of off-topic? Apparently not. And just what is the NudeErection plan for Iraq? 56% of Americans believe the Dems have no plan whatsoever.


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1107413/>Duke Lacrosse Accuser Gives Birth

...rumor has it the baby looks like Nifong!


From the published transcript of The Mclaughlin Group of 29 Dec 2006:

Mclaughlin "Okay, the most overreported story of 2006..."

Lawrence O'Donnell "The Duke Lacrosse team criminal case. Let it just run it's course, we don't have to be following it every day."

Lawrence O'Donnell appears to have a different opinion from Professor Sowell concerning what constitutes justice in this country. Why am I not surprised.


Apropo of the shameful nature of the Paris Peace Accords; Negroponte, our new DAS(S)
formerly DNI, proconsul in Baghdad,UN
Ambassador, US Ambassador to Mexico, Honduras (during the Contra interregnum)
et al; who opposed these surrender terms.
Kissinger exiled him as consul general
first in Guayaquil? and then Salonika; he's
one who knows the price of 'cut and run'



"Have you ever heard of off-topic? Apparently not."

That's the point dimwit! The topics have changed. Run
as fast as you can BushCo. Iraq can run faster.

"And just what is the NudeErection plan for Iraq? 56% of Americans believe the Dems have no plan whatsoever."

Americans believe that nobody has a "winning" plan because their is no "winning" to be done. You are quite the simpleton aren't you.


You are quite the simpleton aren't you.

No match for you.


This has been a most interesting case. It is not exactly the analog to the type event "man bites dog" but it has the same shock and incredulity value.

In particular some sayings, comments, quotes have come about that whether new or redone old ones really make the point.

"we can get a jury to free OJ, why can't we convict 3 White Devils." (that is my favorite)

from a local student at the black college,
"doesn't matter if they are guilty, send the 3 rich white Duke guys to prison for past offences to the black community."

Mr Nifong is going down in history as the "do not do this" example for lawyers and prosecutors for generations.

Indeed I saw a new word was out. "to Nifong someone"
... meaning to falsly accuse and to railroad, and I mean really falsely accuse and to really, really railroad.

It goes along with the words "Borked," "Bobbited," and "Lewinskyed."


Nice excuse BTW. In other words you elected a whole bunch of new Dimocrats who ran on solving Iraq, but you are already saying that you can't solve it. Wunnerful. 56% of people feel that the Dems HAVE NO PLAN for Iraq, not that they don't have a way to win. NO PLAN whatsoever. Get over it. 8 hours gone and no changes. 92 to go. Better get moving.

Gary Maxwell

BTW the first of what is likely to be numerous suits has been filed against Duke University by one of the lacrosse players. This is not one of the falsely accused but another member who has taken aim at one of the Gang of 88 who is being charged with grade retaliation among other things. This professor has a far left publishing record and has said some stuff that sounded to my ear like she thinks we deserved 9/11. Ward Churchill is alive and well at Duke? I hope this sends a chill down the Trustees backs, and they start acting to rein in some of these morons maskerading as academics.

Gary Maxwell

The Duke Econ Dept has put out a statement mentioning the ridiculous ad the Gang of 88 took out and their signed statement and calling for an investigation into Nifong. They also went to great lengths to state they welcomed the student athletes including lacrosse players into their classrooms. One might say a little late, but in the fantasy world that is academia, this is an earth shatering event. Good on ya, Econ.

Gary Maxwell

K C Johnson just keeps cranking out good stuff. He states that the only evidence of assault of any kind that exists is the accusers id. He then runs through the photo ids and has a few startling points to make. As has been stated before the accuser is all over the place. One time she is 100% certain of someone being at the party next time its less. But one player she is consistent on, Brad Ross. She has said at least twice that she was 100% sure he was at the party. ONLY ONE minor problem, he was not even in the US at the time of the party. Its hard after reading that to not conclude that she just winged the whole thing and is not even very cunning and must have a memory deficit from too many prescription drug and alcohol binges.


Okay, maybe you can all enlighten me while the whole country is so darn fired up on this case as a travesty of justice before the trial even takes place.

This is what I found on what the defense says about the timeline:


She slaps one of them for suggesting the alleged victim use a broom as a sex toy, according to Ekstrand. Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains. The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile.

This is what the accuser said according to her written statement that was leaked:


We went into the bathroom and shut the door."

"Dan knocked on the door and asked if we wanted a drink. We said yes. He gave us a drink and we continued to talk."

"Nikki and I started crying."

"We ran out to the car screaming and crying."

"Nikki told me that they were sorry and that they were going to give us $1200 if we stay. Nikki and I got out of the car and went back into the house. As soon as we got back into the house, they were more excited and angry. They were screaming, 'We’re going to f you black b*tches"

"Nikki and I started to leave again, and three guys grabbed Nikki, Adam, Matt and Brett grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other."

"The boys hit and kicked me. Matt grabbed me and looked and me and said sweetheart you can‘t leave. He grabbed the back of my neck and said I‘m going to kill you (BLANK) (BLANK) if you don‘t shut up. They started kicking me in my behind and my back. Matt hit me in the face while Dan and Brett kicked me." .....

The similarities are that both sides agree the girls were in the bathroom previously. The question remains, did they go back out to the car and come in again? The defense does not mention this. However the defense also does not mention what happened between 12:00 and 12:20. So this is not contradictory. I believe I read Kim Roberts stated they went out to the car and then went back in. Between 12:00 and 12:20, when they allegedly went back in, Kim Roberts say they may have been separated for short amounts of time, say about 5 minutes - so in other words she cannot discount whether or not Precious was pulled into the bathroom briefly during that time. An assault could have occurred during this time - but obviously for a shorter duration than 30 minutes. Or another way to look at it is - what DID take place between midnight and 12:20? So far - no word from the defense.

Do we know for sure that Kim Roberts did not open the door to the bathroom and pull Precious outside before they left - perhaps without realizing what if anything just took place?

Anyway, so far I don't see this horrible travesty of justice. The fact that no DNA was found does not rule out anything - an object could have been used, or a condom, and saliva or anything she drank afterwards may wash away evidence from oral sex. That fact that DNA was found in her from other guys she had sex with previously does not rule out anything - we know she's stripper for god's sake - she's no choir girl - but even hookers can be raped.

Some things to consider to strengthen her case. What everyone agrees on is that Precious was in a very altered state upon leaving and fell on the porch. Do people really think she hatched this "clever" plan while she was bombed out of her mind? In fact, she never called the police - the police came to her. You think she was clever enough to plan that in her altered state?

I don't know, I just don't see the outrage. Obviously there are many weaknesses to the case, the lineup foremost among them (although that was not her fault), but there does seem to be opportunity for the rape to have occurred, and the accuser gave a compelling statement which cannot at this point be completely discounted. Because the account cannot be completely discounted, Nifong would be derelict in not bringing this to trial. We should let the jury decide. Again, where is the outrage?


Not feeding the troll, and I advice--beg--everyone else not to either.


Gary, that post on the lineup is magnificent.KC is writing a book on the case with Stewart Taylor. It should be dynamite.


Yes, Clarice, to have a dissenting opinion in this case is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. Oh the humanity!!


Okay I tried to do a search on what Kim Roberts has to say about the timeline. I couldn't really find specifics other than a few quotes from her interviews. Does anyone have this?

The question is did they both go out to the car and return? What happened during this time and the time they left again. Also, the accuser did go back into the house to get her purse and was alone in there for about 10 minutes. What does the defense say happened during this time?

There are two time periods where any assault may have occurred - between 12:05 and 12:20, and between 12:20 and 12:30 when the accuser was alone in the house. Both time periods have their problems.

In the first period they would have to come out from the bathroom, go out to the car, get talked back in, and then be separated and have the assault occur during that 15 minutes. Say seven minutes to go out to the car and return. Say eight minutes for the assault. In the second time period, I believe I read somewhere the accuser made a call at 12:24 (will find link later) for one minute- so it would either have to be before or after the call for 5 minutes.

Both time periods are very short for such an event, but not impossible for a shorter assault - no more than 5 minutes.



Nobody in their right mind (pun intended) elected elected the Dems to "win" in Iraq. There is no winning -- dimwit. The learning curve can't be that steep so I have to assume that you are severly mentally challenged or just waking up from a 6 year sleep


Okay found my own info. Here's a detailed timeline: http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-lacrosse-rape-timeline.html

...about 12:20 a.m., Kim Roberts leaves the house and goes to her car. From her police statement:
I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom, grabbed my bag and exited the house with my dancing gear on. I went to my car, wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone.

((Did the girls go out to the car together at 12:20, or was there a brief lag where Roberts went out first. As she says above, she went to the car, not wanting to leave the accuser alone. If she hadn't left the accuser alone for a brief period, she wouldn't have likely said that.))

shortly after 12:20 a.m., Accuser follows Kim Roberts and goes Roberts' car for the first time. Kim Roberts police statement:
the first time Precious came to the car she left because she felt there was more money to be made.

((But Bissey the neighbor says)) "I noted that the skimpily dressed woman had exited the car, saying something to the effect that she would go back into 610 to retrieve her shoe"
(( So a little bit of difference there in reporting of the motive ))

My conclusion - the only likely time period for the assault to have occured was after Kim Roberts left the bathroom before 12:20. Perhaps there was a short time period, maybe 5 minutes, where Roberts left the bathroom and went to her car, with the accuser still in the house, and the players went into the bathroom without Roberts noticing. Then Roberts may have then returned to the house and retrieved the accuser from the bathroom shortly afterwards.

If you follow that train of thought, I see that there is short window of opportunity there that basically fits with everybodies' statements - other than the length of the attack. The dancers went to the bathroom, come out of the bathroom, the accuser is separated from Roberts when she goes to her car, accuser is alone in the house for a brief period - possibly in the bathroom, and Roberts then returns to get her out of the bathroom.

It could work. I still don't see the outrage.



@ sylvia

I'm going to regret this:

The DA Nifong has not defined precisely what happened.

Nor has he defined precisely when it happened.

Nor has he defined precisely in what order it happened.

Nor has he defined precisely who is supposed to have done what to whom at what time.

Simply put: you cannot build a timeline from what few bits and pieces exist. For one thing a number of camera-cellphones were in the house and took date/time stamped photos. These photos do exist as a few of them have shown up, but not all of them. And any single photo can and will blow your supposed timeline out of the water.

Which is why I haven't bothered defining a timeline and why Nifong doesn't dare.


True, but for fun, I want to explore it. A few things on the list don't make sense to me from Kim Roberts report.

(Defense) They claim the accuser was polishing her nails in the bathroom between 12:10 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. - - not being raped

... The neighbor, Jason Bissey, has finished his shower. Bissey's police statement:... At this point, anywhere from 12:20 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., I observed 20 to 30 young men in the alley ... it appeared that he was having a conversation with whomever was in the vehicle at the time.

Kim Roberts - I changed my clothes in the car where some of the boys were coming to my window asking me to talk to them. I was told by one of the guys that Precious was passed out in the back and could I please do something with her. ... Within minutes, she was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. ....She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there. ...so in my opinion, she was talking crazy.

about 12:30 a.m. Accuser returns to the house. Jason Bissey's police statement:
12:41:32 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is seen getting into a black Honda Accord helped by a partygoer. The accuser is in the passenger seat.

Okay, it now seems to me that the accuser was alone in the house, while Roberts was changing in the car, from between 12:20 (maybe a few minutes before) till about 12:30. The reason I think this now is because the neighbor said it could be as late as 12:30 and the defense says the accuser was in the house till 12:30. If you give or take a minute, that could mean the accuser was alone in the house for about 12 minutes. That would be enough time for a short attack to take place.

What doesn't make sense is that Roberts said the accuser was helped out to her car the first time - before she wanted to go back in and make "more money". So why would she have to be helped out to the car the first time - but then on her own steam walked back to the house at 12:30? It's more likely the accuser was helped out the second time after she fell. I think its possible that Roberts went into the house to get her the first time, right before 12:30, and just didn't mention it.


"The fact that no DNA was found does not rule out anything - an object could have been used, or a condom,"
None of which have been found.

"and saliva or anything she drank afterwards may wash away evidence from oral sex.
That fact that DNA was found in her from other guys she had sex with previously does not rule out anything - we know she's stripper for god's sake - she's no choir girl - but even hookers can be raped."
Highly selective solvents these only eliminate the DNA of alleged rapists but not customers.


Peter- the DNA was found in her vaginal area- not as far as I heard, in her mouth. However, if that is not true, feel free to correct me. That would be consistent with all the evidence being cancelled in her mouth - and condoms or an object used vaginally in that incident.

By the way, it seems clear from this timeline and from all the phone calls that Seligman didn't have anything to do with this. The accuser probably got him mixed up with someone else- a good candidate would be the guy who lived there and sent the email about skinning the strippers alive, as he looks a little like Seligman. But the faulty lineup was the mistake of Nifong.

I wouldn't blame her if she got them mixed up. I had three young male students who moved in next door last August. They are all tall, muscular, wear the same type clothes, like jeans and dark color, outdoorsy, zippered pull-overs, and wear a lot of baseball hats. I still can't tell them apart. I even had a 10 minute converstion outside with one of them a few weeks ago, but it was dark, and even now after that I would be hard pressed to figure out which one he was if they were all standing together.

However, I find it strange that we have all this leaked information about Seligman, but not one word leaked by the defense about what the other two were doing at that time. A little interesting.


You're terribly confused Sylvia,the absence of evidence is what counts in a court of law.
Good to see you have some "tall muscular "male company in these dangerous times.


Okay last word on this (for now). I find Roberts version has some holes and I kind of wonder now about her credibility.

First Roberts said she never left the accuser alone -it now seems that she left the accuser alone while she went out to the car to get changed for at least 5 to 10 minutes - maybe more if she went out before 12:20. She said the accuser said - let's go make more money, when the neighbor heard the accuser talk about going back in to get her shoe. She talked about the accuser being helped out to the car the first time - yet the neighbor saw the accuser go back to the house on her own at 12:30. A call was made of the accusers cell phone at 12:26, yet the accuser came out to the house without her purse and presumably her cellphone. She made the call and then ran out a second later without it?

Something doesn't make sense. Then Roberts suddenly cries in the interview when she gives the statement, much later, that the accuser said "go ahead put marks on me." Was she crying because she REALLY felt sorry for the accuser, or because she felt guilty saying it. Apparently Kim Roberts went back inside to look for the accuser's purse, and if she did, why didn't she find it? The Lacrosee players took the purse? Or did Kim Roberts find the purse and take the money, like the accuser said. Kim Roberts taking the money would be a motive for her to not to give an completely accurate account of what happened. In conclusion, something seems a little suspicious to me.


"Good to see you have some "tall muscular "male company in these dangerous times."

Yeah, they're cute (but young). But too bad I can never tell which one I spoke to. I don't even know which one to wave to when I drive by- it's kind of embarassing to wave to the ones I never spoke to, but I kind of give a half wave just in case. And I definitely don't remember his name.


Waving at strange men can get you a bad name.


Sounds like you would make an excellent witness and probably are as good as Precious in photo I.D. {she said sarcastically.] In my mind what Precious experienced was the downside of her chosen profession.Because of her multiple sex partners she appears dazed and confused and unable to focus on anything but making more money. Filing a rape accusation against three lacrosse players seems a good way to go to achieve notoriety and big bucks. Chaos reigns in her life that has been completely derailed by her life's choices.


In my mind what Precious experienced was the downside of her chosen profession.

See that idea seems to be behind the, in my opinion, misplaced outrage in this case.



@ sylvia

Okay last word on this (for now). I find Roberts version has some holes and I kind of wonder now about her credibility.

Considering that Roberts has provided three different descriptions of what supposedly happened that night and tried to contact a PR firm to cash in on any fame resulting from this case, I think that's a massive understatement.

Another point that needs to be made is that you're depending on the time sense of a multitude of different people. This is assuming that these people were referring to a clock/watch on a regular basis *and*, this is important, that these various clocks/watches were synchronized.

Prior to reliance on computer PC clocks for timing and scheduling it was a regular problem in quite a few offices, that I worked in at least, where clocks would differ in time by up to 10 minutes. So even if these various people were in fact referring constantly to whatever timepiece was available, doesn't mean that what one person thinks is 12:30 is in fact 12:30 or even remotely the same as anybody else.

On top of which this is a pointless exercise because the DA Nifong has yet to actually put forward a theory of the crime. While the LAX players have been collectively charged with a set of crimes the DA has resisted all calls to actually define how the crime supposedly took place. The reason for this is clear as the last time the DA put forward a theoretical timeline it got shot out of the water when the defense released timestamped camera-phone photos showing the accuser wasn't actually doing what the DA was propounding.

*shrug* but hey, what floats your boat.


PUK has cleared up the no evidence mystery rather nicely"Highly selective solvents these only eliminate the DNA of alleged rapists but not customers" Dang, I wished I'd considered that possibility.


Okay something else doesn't add up. There's a picture of the accuser on the porch, presummably going out to the car, with a purse. Yet Roberts said she didn't have her purse in the car- and in fact the purse was later found in the bathroom.

So either the picture's time stamp was doctored. Or Roberts was giving a wrong or false statement about the accuser not having a purse the first time. Or the accuser had her purse the first time, went back to the porch, and dropped the purse there while she was carried from the house. It's my understanding that the neighbor said she didn't actually go back into the house again. If that's the case, how did the purse get back into the bathroom?

But the defense said she did go back into the house even though the neighbor and the pictures show the accuser on the porch the whole time around 12:30. If she did go in for a second, why would she go to the house, and instantly drop her purse in the bathroom? And why couldn't Kim find it there in the bathroom when she went to look, but it was there the next day?

I don't know - it just doesn't make sense. Someone is not telling something.


Well I agree with you here for once Ed that it seems to be very difficult to put together a timeline here from the snippets we know. Something is definitely not adding up.



@ sylvia

See that idea seems to be behind the, in my opinion, misplaced outrage in this case.

Completely wrong.

The outrage is because a runaway prosecutor misused his prosecutorial powers, some of the most destructive in America, to pursue a case in order to support his re-election campaign. Do you really have any idea how much this is costing the families of those LAX players? The figure I heard was $80,000 a month. And I frankly doubt that's for all three combined. When you add in the billing hours for the lead and assistant lawyers, researchers, secretaries and paralegals the costs can go through the roof. And Nifong was able to impose this massive expense with nothing more than a few strokes of a pen and a deluded grand jury.

Now consider if this "crime" had not happened in a Duke own property but instead had happened in a family home of one of the LAX players. Nifong would have been able, under state forfeiture laws, to charge the property with being involved with the "crime" and then seize the property and put it up for auction.

And yes that's pretty much how it works. The property is treated as a suspect but, since it's not a person, it doesn't get any Constitutional protections including state paid for defense representation. So there you are. No home, no equity, nothing for collateral to get a home loan to pay for lawyers and the possibility of ending up 20+ years in prison and on a sex crimes list for life.

And yes this stuff actually happens.

So this is why I'm concerned about this case. I don't give a rat's ass what the accuser did for a living. What concerns me is that Nifong, with absolutely ZERO evidence, has chosen to pursue a politically motivated case that can incur massive amounts of personal damage **even without a trial**.

It doesn't matter who has what skin color. What matters is a runaway prosecutor who was allowed to run rampant and unrestrained for months while the supposed safeguards did nothing to restrain him.

And yes, that really does bother me.



@ sylvia

Well I agree with you here for once Ed that it seems to be very difficult to put together a timeline here from the snippets we know. Something is definitely not adding up.

*shrug* consider that one of the accusations made by the accuser, amongst many, is that the second dancer "Kim" stole the accuser's money. Keep in mind that the accuser got paid $400 cash for dancing, very badly from what I understand, about 10 minutes. On top of which the party at the LAX house was the last stop on a night that included a few previous stops.

So is the accuser correct in that Kim did steal the accuser's money? Is this a drug filled fantasy? Did Kim steal the money and is putting forth a lie in order to cover up the theft? Or are all these people simply talking out of their ass?

The problem is that none of these people have put forward a testimony in a courtroom while under oath. Until then, it's really all just BS.

Gary Maxwell

K C Johnson saying what I said yesterday in a post this morning. Except that when K C says it it has a punch and a certain resonance. Its short so I will just reproduce it here in full:

"By the way: anyone who doubts the significance of the Economics Department's action, and the courage of the individual professors in signing the statement, need only look at the Davidson post below to get a sense of the atmosphere that continues to exist in some quarters of the campus. It would have been much easier for the Ec professors to remain silent and allow the Group of 88 to monopolize the campus climate.

Throughout this case, we've consistently seen people who should know better doing the wrong thing. Yesterday, it was refreshing to see a group of professors step up and do the right thing--just because it was the right thing to do."


Davidson's "justification" is more crap, isn't it?
But considering what has taken place in the groves of academe, it is no surprise that she is utterly unable to see her error, continues to cling to the false narrative in which everything is judged on class, sex and race, and is utterly baffled that her conduct causes outrage in the real world.


"In my mind what Precious experienced was the downside of her chosen profession."

One hesitates to ask what the upside of her chosen profession is.


"On top of which the party at the LAX house was the last stop on a night that included a few previous stops."

Chance to pick up more DNA,thank goodness for those solvents.

locomotive breath

I sat (stood actually) in the courtroom on Dec 15 as DA Mike Nifong's expert witness Brian Meehan admitted under oath that Meehan and Nifong agreed to withold exculpatory DNA evidence from the report given to the defense. That's against the law. Even if these guys are guilty as hell (they aren't), even if there is a ton of incriminating evidence (there isn't), that purposefully medacious act, all by itself, should be enough to end this case.

Unfortunately, in Mike Nifong's Durham, it's not.

Gary Maxwell

In case anyone refuses to read tripe or could not make it through the entire rewrite of history that is Professor Cathy Davidson op ed today in the N & O here is a choice bit near the end:

"Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring. They deliberately misrepresent the faculty and manipulate the feelings of those who care about the lacrosse players in order to foster their own demagogic political agenda. They contribute to the problem, not to the solution."

She is talking about right wing bloggers as she makes clear just above the portion that I quoted.

One might be tempted to point out to Ms Davidson that the faculty who signed the Group of 88 rant did a pretty good job on their own of making themselves look "ridiculous and uncaring." They dont appear to need any help in that regard.

And if social justice is based upon a well functioning rule of law ( and not mob rule by a tyranny of the immediate majority ) which has at its heart blind justice, then how in the world does calls for anything other than for the accused to be given the presumption of innocence not contibute to the problem?

The stats are that of the 88, 69 were permanent faculty. Virtually none of the signers were from the hard sciences and fully 84% of the permanent faculty signers make their living in one of the race or gender based studies or describe their work in such terms.

I am told Davidson is also Assistant Provost at Duke, thus a senior administrative official. It may be worse than we ever thought in Academia.

Gary Maxwell

BTW I fact checked Professor Davidson on some basic "facts" she uses. The official poerty rate is 12.6% not 18% in 2005 per the US Census Bureau and their website. Further the Census Bureau reports that 85% of Adults over 25 report having at least a high school diploma so her 30% failure to graduate is more crap.

These indicate that the learned professor is being fed erroneous information and she is not even able to check basic facts. In the world she lives in, the injustices that she wants to focus on are 50% and 100% higher than reality.

The true social disaster is that we are entrusted our brightest young people to such a person who is apparently incapable of determining fact from fiction.


I feel sorry for the three children of Precious. Perhaps the concerned citizens of Durham and NiFong's office can start a fund for them. She obviously is going to come up empty-handed in her lastest grifting scheme.


Okay, I've been googling a little to see what I can come up with. Saw this interview transcript with Bissey on MSNBC


And at that point, I went inside to take a shower. And when I came out, .... And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside. And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley.....

And at that point, the young women were coming back out of the house, getting into the car and driving away.

**And info from the warrant:
During a search warrant on 610 North Buchanan on 3-16-2006,.... The victim's make-up bag, cell phone and identification were also located inside the residence during the search warrant. Finally a pile of twenty dollar bills were recovered inside the residence totaling $160.00 consistent with the victim claiming $400.00 cash in all twenty dollar bills was taken from her purse immediately after the rape.


In many ways, Bissey confirms Precious's version of the events - not the less specific versions of Roebrts or the LAX players.

The girls come outside, and are talked back inside. They must have stayed inside for a few, but at a certain point, by her own words, Kim must have went outside by herself to the car to get changed, maybe around 12:15-12:20, and contrary, to what she said before, left the accuser in the house alone for a few minutes. After his short absense, Bissey then comes out again to see the two women coming out of the house together, which means, just as the accuser said, Roberts must have gone inside the house, maybe to fetch Precious out- again contrary to what she said. They must have come out around 12:26 as at that point the accuser said she made a call from the car with the cellphone she had in her purse (as the picture of her exiting confirms).

The accuser must have gone back inside around 12:30 to, in her words get her shoe - contrary to what Kim Roberts said she said. She must have gone in shortyly from 12:30 to 12:37, contrary to what the defense implies that she never went back in, and left her purse in the bathroom as she was carried outside to the car. Otherwise - if she didn't go back in as the defense AND Bissey said said, how would the purse been carried back in there?

The only other way is if Kim Roberts took the purse from the car, that the accuser left in the car when the accuser went back in to the house, and then Roberts put it in the bathroom herself when she said she "went to look for it" in order to cover the fact that she took the money from it. This would square with the fact that $400 were missing from the purse, and why Roberts was "unable" to find the purse in the bathroom when she went back in to "look for it". Also this would make sense why the accuser thought the purse was in the car with her, even though Roberts said she didn't "see" it there.

So so far from her police interview - Precious's version seems to be the one closest to the truth! And Robert's version seems full of holes- which makes me wonder why. Anyway, for shame that you are all prejudging this case and prejudging the accuser guilty of extortion and lying before you even have all the facts.


Now if only we can find the solvent that ate up all the defendants' DNA and left instead the DNA of four other men in her genital area and panties though she said she'd had no sexual contact with any other men for a week prior to the incident and did not clean herself or change her clothes from the time of the incident to the time of the examination and swabbing.


Okay Clarice, to round out my timeline -

The attack, if it occurred, must have occurred between, say, 12:13 and 12:26 when the accuser made her cell phone call. It's obvious it could not have occurred for 30 minutes - however that can be explained by people not being aware of time during such an event. A short attack seems more likely to me than a longer attack anyway. If it happened, it's more likely it was some impulsive act, more like a harassing joke to them, rather then some planned attempt to get actual sexual pleasure out of it.

As to DNA, in my opinion, an object was probably used vaginally. That would make sense to me in the sense that a Duke guy would be smart enough to worry about VD and use an object instead. If her head was held and view was obstructed, and she was under stress and high, it may not be possible to tell the difference. She did state that one guy came in her mouth. For Clarice, a good way to test this theory is, since everyone goes on about how promiscous she was and how many men she slept with before this, if the DNA from other men was found in her mouth and not from the Duke players - that would lead one to believe that she was lying about the Duke guy coming in her mouth. If NO male DNA was found in her mouth at all - that would lend support to the idea that DNA evidence does not survive in the mouth.

So far, I don't see anything definitively disproving this case yet.


You are rooting around in the leavings and ignoring the bigger picture:She was wrong in her identification of these men; there is no physical evidence (an utter impossiblity), she told several, mutually inconsistent stories which all are impossible to be true; in sum, there is no evidence to suport her claim and not a single bit of credible evidence on which to go forward with this case.

D*U*M*B* does not spell Rosebud.


She was wrong in her identification of these men;

She may have been wrong in the ONE ID - we don't know about the others. That does not in itself prove that the rape did not occur. Like I said, I have three male neighbors I've seen dozens of time and I still can't tell them apart. Not everyone is good with faces - especially if you have 40 guys in one place with similar ages, fashion, and builds. I agree that proving which ones were actually involved may be problematic and could lead to the case being dropped- as no one wants a mistake made here.

there is no physical evidence (an utter impossiblity),

I have heard many times over the years from the crime shows I watch that most rape cases do not leave DNA. Most rapists do not actually come in their victims (if I feel energetic, I might try to google that). She may have scratched a guys shirt, and object may have been used. The only question left is the DNA evidence from others guys from oral sex- which I believe we don't know.

she told several, mutually inconsistent stories which all are impossible to be true;

She told inconsistent stories to the police and the nurse the first night. She was by everybodies agreement in an altered state that night. Also rape victims might not tell the full story right away. In addition - do we even know what exactly she said to these witnesses , after all we are just going by what has been leaked, and who knows how accurate that is.

So far, I still don't see it. The outrage is WAY out of proportion to the facts we have so far. I feel I am practically the only one in the country who sees this.


Sometimes--and this is one--when you are marching to a different drummer, he is playing the wrong tune--in this case one utterly devoid of reason.


Sometimes--and this is one--when you are marching to a different drummer, he is playing the wrong tune--in this case one utterly devoid of reason

Clarice, take it from me, I have a lifetime of seeing things differently than others- and a lifetime of usually being right when all is said and done. That just comes with thinking for yourself and using actual facts and logic dispassionately- not groupthink, to come up with your ideas.


Not this time.


Not this time.

I doubt that. I seem to be the only one here interested in actually investigating the timeline, and the DNA issues - everyone else here seems to spend their blog real estate on railing against Nifong and how horrible he is. I think I may have a greater chance of a having a more well-rounded approach.


I think we are being polite by ignoring you as much as possible. But, I promise if the evidenc bears you out, I'll be the first to congratulate you on your brilliant deductions which none of the rest of us finds share.


I'll be the first to congratulate you on your brilliant deductions

These are hardly brilliant deductions. These are just the facts of the case as we know them so far. I am just the only one around here that actually bothered to think about them.

I think the smoking gun Nifong has in this case is the purse. Pictures showing the accuser leaving with her purse and the fact that the accuser made a call from the car with the cellphone in her purse at 12:26 shows the accuser had the purse in the car. And if the accuser never went back into the house after that - how did the purse get back into the house, where it was found the next day? As there were only two people in that car with the purse- Kim Roberts must have took it back in. That impeaches all of Robert's credibilty as a witness- giving more weight to the accuser's.

In addition, we assume that Roberts went out to the car by herself at first to change by her own statement and by the fact that Bissey saw one more conservatively dressed dancer. - That contradicts the defense statement that both women were in the bathroom together the whole time. If both women were not in there - where was the accuser in the house for these 5 to 10 minutes, and who was she with and what was happening? So far, we have not heard any explanation from the defense.

Precious is the only one who gave a more complete and accurate version of the comings and goings of the dancers that night, as compared to the statements of Bissey. Why then is everyone so quick to discount what she said about the 10 minutes or so when she was alone in the house with the players?


"I think we are being polite by ignoring you as much as possible"

By the way, I think's it's funny that everyone here wants to endlessly discuss the smallest details of other cases such as the Libby case, even going so far as to examine the typeface of documents for days on end in the hopes of obtaining the smallest bits of clues, but to compare stories from the witnesses from the Duke case in the most basic way to try and figure out where the accuser was and what happened before we judge her a national outrage - nah, sorry, we're just not interested. We're just going to ignore that stuff.

If that doesn't show bias, I don't know what does.


I suggest you go to Durham in Wonderland. On the right side of the blog are references to other blogs. One of them is to a forensic examiners. There is lots of useful info there, including something else you are wrong about:A thorough discussion of the differences to be found in internal tissue when a hard object (like a broomstick) is used to penetrate instead of a penis.

In fact, a poke thru the archives ar DIW would straighten out a lot of misconceptions under which you labor.

Yesterday a more thorough discussion of Professor Curtis revealed that Dowd was not the first instance of retaliatory grading by her.


Okay Clarice - ok I read your blog.Here's some info:

Sexual assault with an object is rare. In fact, I can't recall a single patient of mine who has claimed violation with an object. Most rapes are committed by persons known to the victim, often a date, or a former boyfriend or husband. They usually don't use objects. ..Except for the sadistic type, stranger rapists usually don't use objects either. The sadistic type of rapist likes using objects to torture their victims....Rape does not always leave genital injuries. It often doesn't. Just because there are no genital injuries, does not mean there was no rape. ...However, objects used in assaults cause immediate damage. It's hard to get around that fact. Objects injure skin and tissue. In fact, studies done have shown that significant anal-genital injuries are more often caused by objects, than by penile penetration. ... We are talking about extreme force being applied to sensitive tissue with an inanimate object.

Well you and the blog are in error for several reasons. First of all, most rapes she has seen are not stranger rapes - hence leading to more vaginal rapes. The other kinds are sadistic rapes - where an object is more likely to be used. In sadistic rapes, I doubt small penis size objects are gently inserted into the vagina - if that were the case they wouldn't be very sadistic, would they. The sadistic rapes would use the objects to cause pain and injury.

No I believe the Duke case would not really fit either castegory, in my opinion it's more like a "prank" rape. We don't know the force that was used to insert the object- it's possible that not much was used at all. And trust me, if no extraordinary force was used in the insertion of a smaller cylindrical object- no injuries occur. If that were the case, every woman with a dildo all over the country would be rushed to the hospital on a regular basis.

And, so much for the expertise of the nurse you quoted:

So, I have to ask :
If a Medical Director, with many years experience in both trauma and sexual assault, as well as other FNE's with years of experience too, couldn't be sure that what they were seeing was diffuse vaginal edema, how could someone with only seven months nursing, and almost no SANE experience be so certain?

There would be no way to determine by a vaginal exam if a smaller object was used that was not used for the purpose of causing extreme pain and damage.


So you are suggesting that a sex toy used by a woman herself or by her lover should be leave no different physical evidence than, say a broomhandle, used by someone raping the subject?
I think I'm keeping my money on the forensic expert's opinion.

Rick Ballard

"I think I'm keeping my money on the forensic expert's opinion."

What? You're picking an expert over a nitwit grinding a dull axe with a bar of soap? Incredible.

Try the lefty solution - open yourself to idiocy.


There's a limit to the amount of idiocy I can open myself up to,Rick.
BTW it's a bit off topic but did you notice that TM 's banner notes that he's Time's 2006 Man of the Year. Since that mag is definitely in its death throes, it will be definitely of historic note.


"So you are suggesting that a sex toy used by a woman herself or by her lover should be leave no different physical evidence than, say a broomhandle, used by someone raping the subject?"

Again Clarice, it depends on the FORCE that was used. It's as simple as that. We can't ASSUME that severe force was used in THIS particular case, when we have no evidence to suggest that it was. You are assuming it was used in this case because SOME writer had an idea that we have seen SOME "sadistic" rapists use severe force in SOME cases in the past. This case is not some other case- it's this case - period, and we have to go by the circumstances of this particular case. I think I'm the one dealing with idiocy here.


We can't even assume ANY force was used because there is no evidence any of the defendants even touched her, let alone penetrated her with anything.
Check out DIW's post a day or so quoting from the line up transcript.


To add to that, I mean not to get graphic here, but since we know the assault could not have lasted more than 10 minutes, maybe closer to 5, the assault could just have consisted of the boys wrestling her into place, inserting the object anally and then laughing and pointing to the other guys and then taking it out and then repeating the process vaginally. No one ever claimed that this was a sadistic assault intended to cause pain and physical damage. Such a type of an assault, which in my opinion is the most likely type of assault if it happened, would not leave any physical evidence at all.

And by the way, as I was googling this case, I saw some snippets about the lineup. The accuser was not only pointing out the accused, she was also pointing out the young men, maybe about 5 others, who were in the master bedroom with her right before the assault began. If this a true master bedroom, the bathroom was located within the enclave of the bedroom - maybe with the bedroom door closed. This might explain why there were no witnesses from the larger group of guys in the living room.

It will be interesting to see in court if the other guys she identified as being in the master bedroom were actually confirmed to be in the master bedroom with her, or not in the general party with the others. Also the fact that there were 5 or more guys in the masterbedroom at the reported commencement of the attack might explain the inconsistencies in the number of men she reported to the police on the first night. Who knows if they also maybe were joking and jeering about sexual acts to her. She might have considered them all part of the same group.

Anyway, there is so much to defend the accuser with in this case. I will be also interested to hear what a true lawyer in court can do with this case. You all may be surprised.


This case is not going to trial.
The line up violated state law and good sense.
The judge will throw out the lineup and, ruling that it so tainted the process, bar her from making an in court identification.
Then Nifong (if he indeed has not been replaced as prosecutor) will have to produce evidence. Andhe has none.
At that point the case will be dismissed.


Well Clarice, I guess I agree with you there. The line-up was tainted and it probably will get thrown out because of that. Too bad Nifong didn't run a better line-up, because I think it would have been helpful for this to go to trial, and to clear the air for once and for all.


Sorry, did a little more googling in this case. I'm a Duke -iac now. It seems more likely that Reade, nicknamed "Adam" by the accuser, and who was the one supposed to have engaged in oral sex, was most likely a misidentification and more likely to be Matt Nash, one of the co-captains and residents of the house. His semen was found in the bathroom floor, coinciding with the accuser saying she released semen from her mouth onto the bathroom floor. He is not disimilar looking from Reade. (Actually to tell the truth, from the photos, there ARE a lot of guys who look really alike there - especially the dark haired guys). For some reason he was cleared by the defense - but I'm not sure if this was correct and if Reade and he were somehow mixed up.


His semen was found in the bathroom floor, coinciding with the accuser saying she released semen from her mouth onto the bathroom floor.

Semen DNA was recovered from her mouth. It did not include any of the LAX, BUT it did contain DNA of other people.


Semen DNA was recovered from her mouth. It did not include any of the LAX, BUT it did contain DNA of other people.

You got a link for that?


That just comes with thinking for yourself and using actual facts and logic dispassionately- not groupthink, to come up with your ideas.


Bottom line, if Nifong was so sure of his case, why did he hide the fact that the woman had DNA inside her body cavities that matched anyone and everyone but Duke Lacrosse players? That's a pretty basic in prosecution 101.

Rick Ballard

Precious better hope that she doesn't get fined by the EPA for running an unlicensed Hazardous Waste Disposal site.

I suppose she could argue that she was attempting to become a seminarian - the Durham jury pool might buy that one.

hit and run

I suppose she could argue that she was attempting to become a seminarian

Since this has mostly been a faith-based initiative from the start, a little theological training may be way past due.


I know I'm jumping in as the thread is dying again, but in reference to the damage that could be caused by penetration with an inanimate object; I'm seeing some underlying assumptions here that are either amusing or really far fetched. Specifically, Sylvia's contention about sending all those women to ERs discounts the nature of the situation. Without being too graphic, in the case of consensual penetration, it would seem fair to assume there is going to be lubrication of natural or artificial variety employed on either the object or the woman or both. In the "assault" no such assumption can be warranted and dry object being inserted into dry vagina will, as the saying goes, "leave a mark" unless great time and care is taken and the penetration is very shallow. Given the time constraints on the "assault" taking that much time is highly improbable.

So, my question would be, if, as Sylvia contends, there was penetration possible without obvious tissue damage; which assumption are we working with? Did Precious "come prepared" to engage in vaginal [and anal] sex, or did she have the great good fortune of encountering the most solicitous group of "gang assaulters" ever?

Hmmm, OK, one more question: I wonder if there was any testing done on the swabs for the presence of lubricants?


As an object lesson in "news" reporting, Liestoppers has an "ad" for a neat class in how you can be a former DA TV star, shredding the kookie women cavorting on tv spreading legal nonsense and fake facts (i.e. Wendy Murphy) and DIW an equally good piece on defense counsel speaking up for Nifong by making up stuff about practice and procedure in N C in order to assure favorable plea bargains for their clients.

The financial opportunities for mendacious lawyers is huge and the willingness of "news" shows to keep employing them underscores again that for the most part TV news shows are a gladiatorial type entertainment--rather like world wide wrestling.


"there was penetration possible without obvious tissue damage"

I would say it depends greatly on the width of the object used whether there was potential for damage. For instance women insert tampon applicators all the time (and not always gently) without lubrication and there is no damage. If, say, a toilet plunger handle or even a broomstick was used, and it was not completely jammed in, and put in at what I would maybe term a 'normal' force level, I doubt there would be much damage or signs. And there was some edema of sorts according to the nurse. But anyway, consult your local gynecologist for more info on that.

Also I saw an unattributed stat that up to 80% of rape cases have no DNA. If you all search for it, I'm sure you'll find a similar stat.

And also I was thinking, how do we know yet Nifong doesn't have a witness? It would have been in discovery, sure, but the defense has not released all of the discovery- so we don't really know what's in it. The defense has not released any info at all about what the accuser was doing while she was in the house alone or who she was with. Nifong may not have witnesses to the rape, but he may have witnesses to say he saw the accuser in the bathroom with three others, or he may have narrowed down by witness statements the 5 guys who were in the masterbedroom with the accuser right before the alleged attack. Again, we don't know a lot about this case still.


Or--to follow the general theme of your remarks, an invisible pink unicorn may have been watching from the bathroom light fixture.


So Clarice, you think the stripper was alone in the house for 10 minutes, and all the boys did during this time was they left her gently alone, so she could have her privacy, nobly disregarding the fact that they paid her $400 for her services? You don't even think they tried to talk to her or go in the room with her during this time? At minimum, someone must have been with her during this time- and we should figure out who it was. Get out in the real world girl.


I think speculation unsupported by fact is pointless.I think we have different ideas about young men. I do not imagine that attractive , bright young men are so obsessed with sex that they felt compelled to engage in group sex with a not particularly attractive, utterly out of it skank like the accuser.

It may have been considered a fun spring break idea to drink and watch strippers dance--rather like women go to Chippendales--but I don't imagine in either case that left alone for a few minutes the viewers would engage in forcible sex.


"I do not imagine that attractive , bright young men are so obsessed with sex that they felt compelled to engage in group sex with a not particularly attractive, utterly out of it skank like the accuser."

Well then there's a lot you don't know about men. (not all men of course). It wasn't about the sex- it was about the power.

Rick Ballard


The appropriate response is "not even with rented equipment".


Two passing thoughts:

Assuming the "assault" was unplanned and in a bathroom, the most likely cylindrical object to be close at hand is a plunger handle or toilet paper spindle. Neither is huge, but they are large enough to be mistaken for a penis and pretty definitely larger than a tampon aplicator.

Second, "obvious" is a variable term that depends on the observing conditions and the observer. Damage to the lining of the vagina that may be completely unobserved by the owner can become "obvious" to a trained observer with a speculum and a high power light.


Ah yes, back to that well-known legal principle--All men are rats. And all claims of rape--or "99% of them"--are valid.

In the meantime, wouldn't ya know, an unending stream of members of the fair sex are being hauled into court for having sex with underaged pupils. (and getting little more than a tap on the wrist for it.)Certainly the womens study groups are busily researching under federal grants how middle school male students sexual prey on their teachers as we speak.


I agree Kaz. Well good luck speculating ya'll.


Yeah - but Clarice - you know all those MSNBC/Perverted Justice shows where they do stings on the internet on wanna-be child molestors? They say that everytime they go online with bait, they are hit up- so so far maybe hundreds of times, all over the country. You know how many times they have been hit on by a woman? None. Exhibit A right there. Anyway, later.

hit and run

"I do not imagine that attractive , bright young men are so obsessed with sex that they felt compelled to engage in group sex with a not particularly attractive, utterly out of it skank like the accuser."

Well then there's a lot you don't know about men. (not all men of course). It wasn't about the sex- it was about the power.

There's a lot you don't know about these particular men. You don't know what "this" was about. You don't even know what "this" is...that is, what really happened.

But of course, if your worldview is that all young white college athletes who party and hire strippers are also all kidnappers and sexual offenders, then maybe you have convinced yourself that you do know what happened and therefore you do know that "this" was about the power?


You got a link for that?

Page 4/5 of the defense motion on DNA

On April 7th, DNA security produced DNA extractions as follows:

15773 Sperm fraction from cheeck scrapping from rape kit
15774 Sperm fraction from oral swabs from rape kit
15782 Epithelial fraction from cheeck scrapping from rape kit
15783 Epithelial fraction from oral swabs from rape kit


Exhibit A right there.

Objection. Irrelevant. Sustained.

Sheesh again...


therefore you do know that "this" was about the power?

Of course. And has about as much relevance as her Exhibit A which I already threw out. ::grin::


"15773 Sperm fraction from CHEECK scrapping "

TopSecret - I don't know who this DNA Security is - but they need to start using 'spellcheeck' in their reports.

hit and run

And apart from the legal irrelevancy of Exhibit A, it is simply unknowable that there have been no females that have hit on the persons doing those stings. Maybe it is knowable and maybe it is true that no females have been stung on those shows, but that's not what she claimed.

But would she claim that if you set up a sting whereby persons posed as strapping energetic adolescent boys looking for older women that there would be zero hits?

To paraphrase from her words earlier....Well, then there's a lot she don't know about women (not all women of course and certainly not the fine upstanding respectable women at JOM, who are obviously on the right side of the bell curve on any meaningful social, intellectual and moral scale)

The comments to this entry are closed.