DNA Match Found in Duke Lacrosse Case

DURHAM, N.C. -- Tissue found under the fingernail of an exotic dancer who claimed she was raped at a Duke University lacrosse party may match a player who was there, the Durham Herald-Sun reported Thursday.
Analyzing the tissue, scientists concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing, several sources told the newspaper. Scientists also ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources.
If accurate, the fingernail tissue match would offer the first DNA evidence potentially linking the dancer and an alleged attacker.

more.....



http://www.nbc17.com/news/9195862/detail.html

one way and those who believe the other. sigh. more fighting over unknowns.

news that proves your point better than you do.
no one knows the whole truth yet.

Unless we have some one here participating in this thread that is an expert in DNA profiling AND has access to the techincian's notes it is all speculation.

I say let the Victim and the Accused have their day in court

it was all speculation to see hundred of news stories saying "No DNA!" . it would be only fair to see a hundred reports of "Yes DNA!".
if just to show what a waste it is to speculate.

It has all been playing people's emotions from the very begining.

and not dispositive by any stretch, it confirms at most that one of the 46 lacrosse players was present and was scratched by the alleged victim. I don't think that the defense has ever suggested that the lacrosse players at the party did not have some contact with the "escort." The issue is whether the "escort" was raped during her visit to the home, and that is a question of fact that will largely turn on the credibility of the witnesses, the accuser, and the defendants.

"Unless we have some one here participating in this thread that is an expert in DNA profiling AND has access to the techincian's notes it is all speculation."

I don't recall you saying this when the first round of DNA tests came up negative.

It seems that a partial DNA test is often as an exculpatory tool. This appears to be true in the Duke case as well.


Thus while a match may or may not be significant (more on that later) a MISMATCH certainly is and thus from the info we have so far, it would appear that 45 of the players came up as mismatches. One did not. (No link. Sorry. I found a page yesterday that discussed mismatches and partial DNA tests in general but do you suppose I can find it back today? Nope. But the gist of it was the mismatches are significant in that they can be used to exonerate the accused. I'm guessing that's what happened here.)

As for a partial match, we don't have the particulars yet on exactly what they found but I'll throw this out there for some background info:



So, from that it would appear that the actual SEQUENCE that matched (and the probability of finding that same sequence in, say, a random portion of the population) is an important determining factor with regard to just how good of a "match" it is.

Partial DNA matches are often used to determine whether or not two people are related. These types of matches sometimes come up in cases where they have a person's DNA on file from a previous offense. If that person isn't the guilty party, the partial match may point to a relative of that person, mainly because they share genetic material and thus have some DNA sequences in common. An example of such a case can be found here:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002108.html

I couldn't find any information regarding the odds of others in the general population sharing the same partial sequences but since partial DNA tests were used to identify the 9/11 victims, I would venture to guess that they are fairly confident that a partial match in the case of relatives is a good indication they that have correctly identified the person in question. Partial matches are also used in geneology to determine whether or not two people are related so again, it would appear that they have at least some degree of confidence in the test.

Now, depending on the specifics involved, it may be that a partial DNA match in and of itself may not be enough to convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe a partial match is more commonly used ALONG WITH other evidence rather than as a standalone mechanism to implicate someone.
Here is one example:



The last line is significant. Given a large population, "1 in 6,800" could match thousands. But used in conjunction with other evidence, that number can be greatly narrowed down such that other "matches" are excluded and the partial match, along with other evidence, can be used to implicate the suspect.

Taking all of the above into consideration, here is how I see the results of the partial DNA tests as they apply in the Duke case.

1. It would appear that a partial match might be used to implicate a.) the actual person or b.) a relative of the person. Since none of the players mentioned their dads or uncles were at the party, it's more likely that the partial match belongs to one of the guys that was at the party and not a relative.

2. The scientists concluded the sample was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of the players. That's all the info we have so far. They didn't give the number of loci, the odds of finding this same sequence in the general population, etc. but the use of the term "was consistent" leads me to believe they gave it a pretty high "score" as far as partial matches are concerned. They didn't say "may be consistent" or "is possibiliy consistent" or other such qualifiers so I think that would indicate that they are pretty confident that the partial match is a good one.

3. I believe the partial match is significant in that it ruled out 45 players and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one. Now, if the odds of finding that same match in the general population, is, say 1 in 5000, some may say "Hey, it could be anybody." Yes, but it wasn't just "anybody" at the house. We know that the player was at the house AND that a test comparing his DNA with material found under the fingernails resulted in partial match. Now, if the circumstances were different and, say, the girl had been attacked by some random, unidentified stranger in a park, without any other evidence it would be a lot harder to narrow it down. But it wasn't a random attacker. The identities of those in the house were known and the DNA under the fingernails resulted in a partial match with one of the players.

A lot of the above is just my take on the matter and I'm sure I'll be flamed for it regardless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

..but if you say "1 in 500" and you have 46 suspects, then the odds of a partial match to one of those suspects is about 1 in 10.

Then there is the question of contamination of the sample in a bathroom trashcan.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Analyzing the tissue, scientists concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing, several sources told the newspaper."

This is not the same as

Report: DNA Match Found in Duke Lacrosse Case

was left out of the headline.

better to sell papers and get web hits.

Given the racial implications of this case I think it very irresponsible. I am hearing on other forums Internet Hate groups are having a jump in rising membership. But yet it won’t stop newspapers from exploiting the situation to sell papers.

I feel bad for the victim
I feel bad for the accused.

I haven’t attempted to pass judgment in this case but I am very disturbed the heights to which some will go to slander, prove their point either way in the case.

And for those lined up to profit politically in this case I have greatest contempt

If the lacrosse players were black basketballers, this would be a sports-page-only story. People who say it's not about race are the same ones who said the OJ case wasn't about race.

Us? Or the players who yelled at a black woman who was viciously gang-raped that she should thank her grandfather for their cotton shirts?

Your damn right that things would be different if these were, in your parlance, "black basketballers"...they would have been hung already.

And why "black basketballers"? You do realize blacks can do more than dribble a fucking ball, right? For example, they can play lacrosse....as can be attested by the sole member of the Duke lacrosse team not under investigation for gang rape.

That's all I said. Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Fact: black on black crime does not make front pages.

It is about race, but it is also just as much or even more about sexism, violence against women, and elitism/classism -- both real and perceived. Perhaps even more so, it has turned into a national round table about how rape victims are still treated by the media and defense lawyers in 2006.

It would still be getting loads of national coverage if the woman was white. It is getting more coverage because of the inherent racism in the idea of a bunch of "comfortable" white men gang-raping a black woman...

And, if this was a bunch of black athletes are Duke raping a black stripper, it WOULD be all over the news.

And, if this was any elite pro black athlete raping anyone, it would be all over the news. It always is, regardless of the color of the victim.

This case is so very, very much more than rape.

you probably think it wouldn't have mattered, because in your book it's not about race, it's about domestic violence.

I'm sorry, but that's naive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but whatever.

It's about the class divide, rich and poor.
It's about men and women.
It's about "good" vs "bad" women, in this case strippers and how they are viewed.(Could be a drunk woman, a woman who went to a man's room, whatever make people wonder)
It is also about race.

Divisions of all sorts.

"Partial DNA Match Found in Duke Lacrosse Case" would be accurate, but wouldn't sell.

It also means people have to think in terms of probabilities and statistics. Reporters generally took English, not math.

would be more comfortable charging someone who had some DNA evidence when the victim identified him - but wasn't 100% sure.


"Sources say the third player is the same person who was identified with '90 percent' certainty by the alleged victim in a photo lineup. That lineup was conducted by police weeks after the March 13 off-campus lacrosse team party where the alleged incident took place.""

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1948939&page=1

Its not a DNA match. The article doesn't even suggest the staistical possibilities like 1 out 6 persons carry these DNA markers, or 1 out of 200 carry these DNA markers.

Not to mention we do not have access to the technician's procedural notes. Was the sample contaminated. Was evidence of contamination present in any other samples?

My point is once we reach Partial Profiles we reach the point of exponetially increasing the chances of false positives.

Now add all that to a fingernail found in a trash can along with what else that could have contaminated the sample.

Without slandering either side try debating those facts.

Or choose to feel vindicated with some false sense of justice - its your choice

interesting tonight.

We should have a “most misleading headline” contest. I think this one would win the prize.

but unlike the lack of DNA people. i never said it did.
:hi:

and was/is more important, since we start off with the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

that's as logical as saying something proves "less than nothing".
meaning: not logical at all.

The lack of DNA supported that already held presumption.

The fact that DNA may have been linked to one of the accused means nothing. It is most likely from innocent contact.

as in "most likely from innocent contact."
whatever.

Having it is the exception.

Innocent contact from under fingernails? My, my...

Nice pink triangle, btw... as a lesbian, I am sooooo glad of your solidarity in this. You know, against hate crimes, and judging someone on their background or perceived public "badness." It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Too bad one of the accused gay bashed that guy in DC, huh? He got beat up and was called lots of homophobic name... but who cares. The guy probably asked for it... or the bruises and blood were from innocent contact.

"That guy" has a name, you know. This is how Bloxsom's - the victim's - OWN ATTORNEY characterizes what happened:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/410490p-347227c.html

"This was a case of some words of male bravado being shouted across the street to two guys walking home after dropping off one of their girlfriends," he added. "It was not a case of gay bashing. That does not diminish it as incident of violence."

Obviously, the guy who was punched in DC needs to fire his attorney and find someone who knows more about what happened.

Of course, this DNA report indicates that it wasn't Finnerty's DNA found on the nail retrieved from the bathroom trashcan, so the relevance here to Finnerty is... what?

and busted lip.
that's a quote from the same article, so why would you support the argument this is not a bias crime?
the facts are not in dispute at all. "male bravado" means anti gay slurs. why post deceptive BS and leave out the facts?

"Bloxsom and a friend were walking through Georgetown early on Nov. 5 when Finnerty and two pals yelled derogatory anti-gay slurs at them, according to Washington police reports.

Bloxsom, whom Royer said is not gay and has a girlfriend, shouted back, and Finnerty and his friends crossed the street and attacked the two men. Bloxsom suffered a bruised chin and a busted lip, according to a police report filed two hours after the incident."

that the victim was hetero matters not, except that it means this duke player assumes two guys alone together equals gay. so, he's a violent and homophobic fucking idiot, that's what it means.
and your point was....

If you have an argument with Bloxsom's lawyer, then go argue it with him. The victim's own lawyer says it wasn't a bias crime, but a bunch of guys shouting at each other across a street. The victim is paying someone to say that. Why, I can't imagine. But I have no idea why you and others insist on calling the victim a liar. I guess it must be a matter of context, but it is sad to see others engage in smearing the victim here. Don't you believe the victim?

Idiots of Finnerty's ilk shout all sorts of things when they are picking a fight outside of a bar at 3 AM. What's truly bizarre about bringing up Finnerty in this thread - which relates to the partial DNA match - is that the partial match from the sample retrieved from the bathroom trashcan was NOT to Finnerty. In point of fact, the partial DNA match under discussion here EXCLUDES Finnerty:

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-733878.html
At the same time, scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the 45 other students whose DNA was tested, according to sources.

I'm just sticking up for the victim in the DC incident against this drive-by smearing and calling him a liar.

you know what the truth is, it fits the definition of a bias crime.
why the charade?

Again, you'll have to ask Bloxsom's lawyer why he said it wasn't a bias crime. I'm not playing charades, I'm just posting a link to what Bloxsom's lawyer said about the incident.

The way it sounds to me, Finnerty and his friends called Bloxsom and his friend gay. As noted in other reports, Bloxsom told Finnerty to stop calling him that. Finnerty and his friends crossed the street and hit him. Bloxsom objected to being called gay - on the police report it said he told them to stop calling him "gay and other derogatory terms", so it sounds as if you had a collection of homophobes yelling at each other at 3 AM outside of a bar in Georgetown. Finnerty is charged with simple assault apparently because he threw the punch.

Why is Bloxsom's lawyer trying to "hide it" as you put it - I HAVE NO IDEA - THOSE WERE HIS WORDS NOT MINE. The victim's lawyer says it wasn't a bias crime. You are calling the victim's lawyer a liar. The two of you have an argument, all I did was post the link.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6252

"Prosecutors did not treat the attack, which resulted in misdemeanor simple assault charges against Finnerty, as a hate crime. Stephanie Bragg Lee, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, said the circumstances didn’t warrant hate-crime status.
“It was an argument between two young guys who were sizing each other up,” she said. “Both sides had an equal portion of discussion, so we felt it wasn’t specifically a hate crime. So we waived the option there.” She added attorneys consider hate crimes on a case-by-case basis, and aren’t necessarily warranted by name-calling, even when the words used are anti-gay. She said attorneys considered all the facts when determining whether a hate crime occurred, and the circumstances in the Nov. 5 attack didn’t justify it."

FWIW, here's the hate (actually "bias-related") crime definition from the DC Code:

(1) "Bias-related crime" means a designated act that demonstrates an accused's prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act.

What does the prosecutor, police and victim's attorney know about this case? We got us a lynchin to do.



:sarcasm:

always appreciated.

all the people at the party, the DA has put together a pretty good minute by minute timeline of what happened at the affair.

There are probably discrepencies that he's trying to figure out from one drunk person's memory and another's.

they didn't cal it a hate crime because the victim got mouthy, and was not in fact gay.
they didn;t think they could make the charges stick, so they didn;t bother. that's how the system works.

no one disputes that this incident started with anti-gay slurs. that gives you intent.
attempts to reframe the comments as male "bravado" are totally misleading, no mater who says or repeats it.

...it would be interesting to know what was said.

Bloxsom's issue appears to have been with being called "gay" - i.e. he considered that characterization to be insulting. Some reports say he wanted them to stop calling him "gay", other reports say "anti-gay slurs". The effort that Bloxsom has put into getting out the "I am not gay" message, suggests that he would indeed consider it an insult to be called "gay" - which apparently results in one homophobe punching another homophobe.

I wasn't there, and neither were you. All we know is that we have a rare circumstance where the victim, the defendant, and the prosecutor ALL agree.

Is Finnerty a violent asshole - absolutely.

Is Bloxsom homophobic - probably. He doesn't want this characterized as a hate crime, and apparently finds that characterization to be a smear against him, which is why he's paying someone to say he's not gay.

So smear away.

of the lacrosse team.
maybe it doesn't matter what this team does, if they do it to shady characters, huh?

I already said that Finnerty is without a doubt a jerk. In fact, if you bother to read, I called Finnerty a "violent asshole".

You think that puts me on Finnerty's "side" somehow?

You are the one who insists on calling Bloxsom a liar.

have a crime committed against them. Everyone else did something to cause it...

Bloxsom was attacked by Finnerty - a violent asshole - in an unprovoked assault.

Who said Bloxsom caused it?

Bloxsom, Bloxsom's lawyer, Finnerty, and the prosecutor, all say it was not a bias crime.

Call him a liar if you want to. But it is still a mystery why you brought Finnerty into this thread on the DNA partial match to someone other than Finnerty.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bloxsom felt insulted to have been called gay.

He's entitled to his feelings on that subject.

I don't see that as "sliming" him. Crikes, he's paying someone to tell the press he's not gay.

If you read the story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/410387p-347227c.html
D.C. bash victim dragged into media circus

It's pretty clear that Bloxsom would greatly prefer to be left out of the story, and he's hired an attorney to make sure that references to him, like those in the linked story, include lines like "Bloxsom, whom Royer said is not gay and has a girlfriend".

So what Bloxsom considers to be "sliming" might differ markedly from the context into which he came up in this thread. That's the freakin' point. HE - the victim - DOES NOT WANT IT CHARACTERIZED AS A BIAS CRIME.

Was it a bias crime? Quite possibly. But Bloxsom apparently is offended by that suggestion.

Do you think you can discuss this without making personal remarks?

cherry picking facts, twisting what people say and exclaiming they are calling people liars when no such posting occurred.

that's not personal, that's pointing out the facts.
you're the one posting inflammatory nonsense completely reframing what other posters said. it's intellectually dishonest and a waste of time.
i said not a single thing about you personally, but nice try!
:hi:
seeya!

We didn't have Girl Scouts where I grew up. All we has was 4-H. So according to you, as a virginal 4-H'er it was all MY fault because I wasn't a Girl Scout? Yes, us 4-H'ers raised livestock to exhibit at the fair but I was just a damn kid. How the HELL was I supposed to know the bull was going to freak out and do THAT to me in the middle of the goddamn show ring?? Good gawd that was embarrassing enough as it was but christ, did ya have to bring it up on this forum and THEN imply it was my own goddamned fault? Yeah, that would NEVER happen to a Girl Scout. Girl Scouts are soooo far above 4-H'ers. We had that thrown at us the whole time growing up and yet here it is, years later and I still hear the same crap. Fuck it. From now on, I'm just going to claim I was in the Girl Scouts and be done with it. Fuck 4-H.

BTW. Dad ended up selling the bull. I wanted him to keep it but he sold it anyway. Bummed me out big time.

:sarcasm: Or maybe just sick humor. Take your pick.

We were warned to stay far, far away from you and your deviant livestock...

One of the things I've noticed about threads related to the Duke rape charges is that a lot of posters on all sides of the issues have a tendency to make assertions of fact when they are really offering up an opinion, often completely speculative in nature. The post claiming that Finnerty's assault on Bloxsom fit "perfectly" the DC Code's hate crime definition is another example.

In order to know whether Finnerty's assault on Bloxsom fit the statutory definition of a hate crime ("perfectly" or otherwise) you'd need to know exactly what transpired -- what each person said and did. Unless you have access to information beyond what has been reported, you have only the sketchiest, vaguest idea of what was said and done. While I could easily describe a set of facts that was consistent with what has been reported and that would "fit perfectly" the hate crime definition, I could just as easily describe a set of facts that was consistent with what's been reported but clearly was not within the hate crime definition. In either case, I'd be speculating. The purpose of my post was to point out that the one group of people who do know the facts of what happened -- the DC cops and US Attorney's office -- elected not to pursue a hate crime charge in this instance and have publicly stated that, based on all the facts and circumstances, it wasn't a hate crime (i.e., didn't fit the definition). Your post acknowledges that they didn't think they could make a hate charge stick, which is an odd thing to say if what occurred fit the definition "perfectly."

Finally, it appears that you may misunderstand the concept of "intent" as applied to a situation like this. The legal issue would be whether it was Finnerty's intent to attack Bloxsom because of Bloxsom's sexual orientation or FInnerty's perception thereof. As the police spokesperson indicated, use of an anti-gay slur is not in and of itself conclusive proof that an attack is a hate crime. Again, with equal ease, I could describe a set of facts where Finnerty's anti-gay slurs would be evidence that his intent was to attack Bloxsom based on Bloxsom's actual/perceived sexual orientation, and a set of facts that suggest a different motivation for the attack. Since none of us know the facts, none of us can know the answer.

onenote

meaning more than just the word gay.( although another poster was trying to make it sound like a one word attack, gay!!, LOL)
he initiated an episode of violence with these slurs.

read the definition of a bias crime, and you tell me, from what is known, how doesn't it fit?

that the won;t pursue it is another matter entirely. happens all the time. hiding behind the lawyer or police, doesn't negate the facts of the incident.

The court record says that Bloxsom told Finnerty to stop calling him "gay and other derogatory terms". "Gay" was one of multiple derogatory terms used.

Now you are accusing the victim of "hiding behind the lawyer".

Unbelievable.

You DO understand that it is the VICTIM'S lawyer who has characterized this as an incident of "male bravado" and "not a bias crime".

Apparently there are two definitions of "sliming" at work here. I would think that if the victim would be demeaned or insulted by the suggestion, then the victim is "slimed". Bloxsom is putting his money into having this thing NOT characterized as a hate crime.

Not only has the discussion gotten silly - but it gets to the root of how the situation in Georgetown escalated to the bunch of guys yelling at each other at 3 AM outside of a bar.

refusing to look at what happened and leaving it to his much biased (and edited) words.
it matters not what the lawyer or the victim says. they- and you- can't revise the definition of bias crime, just because they don;t want it applied to them.

What we have is a disagreement of definition:

it matters not what the lawyer or the victim says. <...> just because they don;t want it applied to them.

I guess, then that we can define "smear" as:

1. Something that the subject would find insulting or demeaning.

or

2. Something that an objective hypothetical person should find to be insulting or demeaning.

I was going with definition number 1. If it bothers the victim, then its a smear. As applied here, the victim doesn't want this characterized as a bias crime.

You are going with definition number 2. Objectively, someone should not be offended by the truth, so even if the victim is offended by characterizing it as a bias crime, it is not a smear. In that sense, the victim's feelings don't matter.

All Bloxsom needs now is Fred Phelps showing up at his house with the signs. The sad thing is this quote, "Everybody in the family was glad this was over with. Jeff was able to move on," Bloxsom's attorney Chip Royer told the Daily News yesterday. "Now all of a sudden, it has picked up a much different context as a piece of a much larger news story."

paid off by the defendants lawyer, or a young republican trying to seem race blind) he decided to claim he wasn't offended by being called "insert racial slurs here" didn;t want the crime prosecuted that way... well it wouldn't change the facts of what happened at all.

(or maybe you do know all the facts, in which case I wish you'd share them). Let's take two scenarios:

Finnerty sees two guys walking down the street and yells..."Hey look at the f*gs! Let's go beat them up." Bloxsom says "who you calling a f*g, you f*ckfaced asshole!" Finnerty responds..."I don't take that kinda crap from some silly f*g" and assaults him.

In that case...pretty clear evidence of intent.

But now try this version:

Finnerty sees two guys walking down the street and yells.."Hey look at the f*gs. Aren't they pretty!" Bloxsom yells back "Who you calling a f*g" Finnerty responds,"I'm calling you a f*g,pretty boy." Bloxsom responds, "I'm no f*g and I dare you to come over and call me that to my face, you f*ckwad". Finnerty responds,"F*g or not, anyone who calls me a f*ckwad is getting their ass kicked." FInnertry attacks.

In this case...the evidence would suggest that the assault wasn't based on FInnert's perception of Bloxsom's sexual orientation, but rather was based on the name/dare from Bloxsom.

What actually occurred? I have absolutely no idea, and neither do you. But you insist on making assertions as if you do -- even as you admit that the cops/prosecutors concluded that they couldn't make a hate crime charge stick based on the facts of the case.

Let me add that what little I do know about what transpired suggests to me that Finnerty is a homophobic asshole. But there simply isn't enough information about what transpired for me or you or anyone else (other than the authorities who know the facts) to reach a conclusion as to whether the attack was motivated by the homophobia or by something else.

onenote

you thinkk he just wanted a date or something?
subconsciously, it would seem that way, LOL. .....
but, i've seen this lots of time at 3 am, i damn well know what the intent is.

These kinds of idiots will shout gay slurs at someone they don't actually believe to be gay, on the assumption that the recipient will get angry at the accusation that he is gay.

If he called him a m-f'er, it would not necessarily be an expression of belief that the target was guilty of incest.

Bullies like Finnerty can be like that. I've seen drunken idiots at 3 AM shout all sorts of things at people.

I've even seen DU'ers do it at noon.

Oh well.

and completely excusable if the person is drunk? interesting theory.
i think that the perp may well feel that way/ use that as an excuse. i don;t however think that makes him right- or any less guilty of bias.

I have friends, who know I'm gay, use the term "that's so gay" without thinking about it. I register my displeasure with it but I know it's a slip and part of "popular" culture. It doesn't mean I'm going to swear out a hate speech complaint. My partner's niece uses the same term without thinking.

Unfortunately, gay and fagot are used by people that don't necessarily think the person they are insulting is gay.

That's why I defer to the police, victim and victim's attorney on this.

if any of those example were followed by physical abuse, you might actually have a point. but you don't!
bias crimes are not intended to limit free speech, but thanks for trying to muddy the waters with examples that mean nothing.
:hi:

But don't let that stop you from accusing me of "muddying the waters." Just trying to have a discussion....ON A DISCUSSION BOARD.

you said it, i didn't.
but you know better. you're just playing... whatever.

....using "gay/fagot" as a general pejorative and seeing real-life gay bashing(my friends and I chased them away). There is a difference. You are way off base.

had nothing to do with the kind of encounter that ends up with a face getting smashed in. that's muddying the waters.

speech is free unless you can prove in court it's threatening- what you described is not in the same league, sorry. i can't say the experiences you recounted are at all relevant. :shrug:

"face getting smashed" to the actually reported "bruised chin and cut lip".

We're talking about a one-punch encounter here.

Now before you go off and say that "you think it's okay to hit someone"? No. It's not okay. In fact, Finnerty will be tried for what happened. That is good. Violence of any sort is deplorable.

Even if Finnerty's alibi at Duke holds up, he was STILL violating the terms of the diversion program. He claims he was at a Mexican restaurant and bar. He wasn't supposed to be out at that time near anywhere where alcohol was being served.

Is it excusable to call someone a m-f'er?

No, it's not. Particularly not when you go across a street and punch him. But it still doesn't mean you believed he f'd his m. It is also not excusable to call someone a c-s-ing m-f'er, but it doesn't mean you believe that the person in question ever s'd a c. Is c-s-er a "gay slur"? Arguably, it might be. But it gets used a lot in other contexts, that's for sure.

Where on earth do you get "completely excusable" out of anything I said?

A drunk violent, and thoroughly unexcusable, jerk - i.e. Finnerty - who is looking to pick a fight, may say any number of things to someone in order to pick a fight.

It is inexcusable and utterly abhorrent. What on earth in any of that would make you characterize what I said as making it "completely excusable"?

Some people - and inexcusably so - use various sexually-referent terms as all-purpose insults. In one of the previous threads here, I've had "Oh, so you're a LAWYER" flung at me as if the speaker believed it to be some kind of insult. It was, in that instance, a true statement - but the intent was for it to be an insult.

I just find it astounding that you don't care how the victim - Bloxsom - obviously feels about this being characterized as a bias crime.

But I'm not going to attempt to define "rules of etiquette" for what violent jerks like Finnerty might or might not say when out spoiling for a fight in the middle of the night. Nothing about what happened is "excusable".

those statues go?
from your reasoning i'm thinking no one could - or should be prosecuted for hate crimes.
if the perp, and lawyers like you want to argue slurs are devoid of meaning- that is exactly where this is leading.
not enforcing hate crimes.

You keep leaving out the victim here.

Look, many years ago I was in a car going down a one-way alley into a parking lot, late at night. Another car came barreling the wrong way down the alley and ran right into the front of the car in which I was a passenger.

I got out, looked into the headlights as that car backed up, and shouted, "What the H- do you think you're doing?"

Out of the car rambled two very large, very drunk, members of the UD football team. As one of them picked me up by my throat and pinned me to the wall, I'm pretty sure he used what would be characterized here as an "anti-gay slur". Considering the circumstances, in which my girlfriend was by then also shouting at them, I never really thought that this was a bias crime or that the "anti-gay slur" was, for this guy, at this time, simply being used as anything other than an all-purpose insult.

Okay? So I have at least some experience with this class of moron, and your continued suggestion that I am at all sympathetic to people of this particular ilk is absurd.

There are certainly waaaaaaay too many instances where animus against perceived sexual orientation is the motivation behind a violent crime. That does not mean every assault where someone calls someone a particular name is a hate crime. Sorry.

and again, you avoided answering my question- you leave it up to the attacker to explain his state of mind...
might as well not have the law at all.

"yes, officer we were out beating-up fags".....most criminals are idiots and implicate themselves.

An accomplice ratting out a cohort...."we went out looking for fags"...

and let the guys who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut off easy.
oops, that's pretty much how it already works, huh?

I used to work with some real gangster types. They really admired O.J. for lawyering up and keeping his mouth shut.

If anything you can learn from a stupid show like cops, it is how often people rat themselves out.

I keep coming back to the point that we don't know what transpired that night. You're assuming that because Finnerty directed anti-gay slurs at Bloxsom, the attack was a hate crime. But if all Finnerty had done was yell anti-gay abuse at Bloxsom, that wouldn't be a hate crime. There had to be an assault. And none of us know exactly what led up to the assault in terms of exchanges between Finnerty and Bloxsom. Maybe the events unfolded in a way that would lead one to conclude that the reason for the attack was Finnerty's belief/perception that Bloxsom was gay. Or maybe it was something else altogether, influenced by how Bloxsom responded, for instance. No matter what words Bloxsom used, it wouldn't excuse Finnerty's physical assault on him, but it may very well have been why the police/us attorney chose not to treat the assault as a hate crime.

onenote

including letting finnerty off the hook soley because the victim is waving a girlfriend in everyone's face.

i would think though if their contact was initiated though hate speech, that would qualify. to say that after that the victim became obnoxious and gave the attacker other reasons to attack him sounds.... well, it's debatable as to whether you are blaming the vic at that point, isn't it?
saying he provoked an attack by responding verbally?

justify Finnerty attacking him, imo. However,without knowing the full extent of the exchange between Finnerty and Bloxsom, I can't make a determination as to whether reason Finnerty attack Bloxsom was his perception/belief about Bloxsom's sexual orientation or something else that occurred between them during their confrontation.

onenote

if you accept that these people would never have met, and no altercation occurred unless unless finnerty and friends decided to pick on this guy, call him names.... and it ends in the guy being physically victimized.
well, i have to wonder how much what happened in between matters. you know what i mean? at what point do we say the victims behavior is relevant, if it starts with a verbal assault and escalates to the physical, how fair is it to put responsibility on the man who is attacked? is the crime less because her responded to remarks made to him? would it matter if her repeated similar biased remarks so we were able to determine the victim is also a bigot?
i don't have answers, but something doesn;t sound right.

of assholes. Guys calling other guys "gay" is a huge insult in the sports world. Quite frankly, if I was an asshole of Finnerty's level, and I wanted to start a fight with some gay guys because I was a homophobe, I'd probably choose to call them something other than "gay." Now maybe the report has been cleaned up some, but if I called a gay man "gay" I would expect that it wouldn't illicit much of a response. Now if I called a straight guy "gay" I think the response would be different.

You've essentially made half of every 6th grade playground fight a hate crime.

just "gay"? what an assumption to make.
it was slurs, so that discounts just the word gay and it was plural. multiple slurs. but go ahead and say it's okay because everybody- even kids do it, huh?
and the reason it bugs me, believe it or not, is i've met plenty of these assholes, way too many, and people (like you) are giving them the idea this BS is okay.
good god, the sample size is getting bigger by the minute.

...there are bullies in this world who get their kicks by picking on other people, any people, for any reason.

If some idiot flings a random insult your way because he is spoiling for a fight, how you respond is your choice. You can ignore the jerk and walk away, or you can get in his face and respond in kind. The latter course of action may result in someone throwing the first punch. It might be you, it might be the other guy.

As far as the law is concerned, two people can shout at each other all they want - the person who throws the first punch is the attacker. That person, in this instance, is Finnerty.

That's why you see these ridiculous "macho man" confrontations between belligerent jerks where they get inches away from each other's face, puff out their chests or bellies, and holler their heads out. Each one is waiting for the other guy to throw that first punch, so that whatever you do after that is "self defense". It's a ridiculous ritual.

He is going to take the rap for an assault charge.

I am sorry that the victim disagrees with your interpretation of events, but you really don't care about him, do you?

Nobody said Bloxsom "provoked an attack". Bloxsom's lawyer describes it as a couple of guys yelling at each other on the street. You don't know what they said, or how the event escalated.

defendent to explain how his DNA got under a victim's fingernails if he claims he wasn't even there. A lot depends on what he has claimed so far.

Stop that, yellowcanine. That's far too much thinking. Next you'll be wondering about the exact statements of each and every one of the players there and then you won't be scrutinizing only the woman who said she was raped! We can't have that! It would be un-American. Go stand in the no-thinking corner, please. They have jackets over there now and everything.

based on only a "partial profile." From the original piece:

"A DNA expert said Wednesday that one way a DNA report sometimes says DNA is "consistent" with a particular person is when there's a partial DNA profile of fewer than all 13 genetic markers commonly used in testing kits.

In that case, the number of markers available determines the reliability of the match, said Theodore D. Kessis, owner of Applied DNA Resources in Columbus, Ohio.

"It really depends then upon how partial is that profile," he said in a telephone interview. "A lot of people are of the opinion, including myself, that if it's supposed to test for 13, it should get 13, and something less than 13 is starting to hinge on the reliability of the result.

earlier in this thread re: partial DNA matching. Here's a direct link to make it easier as it's sometimes hard to find individual posts in these long threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2277256&mesg_id=2281352

The other thing I've been wondering about is whether there was other stuff found in the trash can, that could have contaminated the nail -- like used tissues, or whatever.

I would assume they would have taken the entire trashcan and its contents in as evidence so they could test against all the various possibilties of contaminants and thus rule some out and possibly include others in as the case may be. Also fingernails, fake or real, generally have a concave surface which I would assume is the most likely place from which they would take a tissue sample. A concave surface is relatively "protected" compared to, say, a convex surface, so tissue there might be less likely to be contaminated.

Also, I don't believe this has been brought up, but I believe initial reports stated that her fingernails were found on the floor in the bathroom? I could be wrong on that but it puzzled me when I first read that her nails were retrieved from the trashcan as I don't believe I had read anything about that prior to the recent report regarding the DNA samples taken from the fingernails. Like I said, I could be wrong so if anyone can correct me on that, please feel free to do so.

But that's from the defense so take it FWIW. They're inferring that the DNA on the nail could be just from someone picking it up and throwing it in the trash. They also say it could come from other materials in the trash. Even more, they're saying that those nails may actually still have the adhesive strip on them - as in they were never applied.

Here's what I find curious - if this is something where the claim is that the DNA was there as the result of the alleged victim fighting off the attack to the point where the nails broke off, doesn't it seem odd that they wouldn't find a complete match? Shouldn't there be a big honkin' glob of tissue there? Also, if they did find the nails in the trash can, how did they get there, other than someone other than the alleged victim throwing them away? And if they did throw them away, knowing that an assault had been committed, why would they put them in the trash where they would be found instead of flushing them down the toilet?

BTW Spike - I greatly appreciate your civility in these discussions.

That when the search was conducted, it was at least one of the players themselves that removed the nail from the trash and gave it to the police.

Doh!

What the Hell is a "partial" DNA match? That's like saying Type-O blood matches blood type of accused.

could be anything less than a 100% match. doesn't mean the dna could be all that common as you suppose.
we won't know till next week.

The actual sequence involved is an important determining factor in determining the statistical probability of a match. The scientists will consider the number of loci, the sequence, and probably other factors when they crunch the numbers to come up with their analysis. Here's a link to my post in this threat re: partial DNA matching if you want additional info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2277256&mesg_id=2281352

2nd DNA test clears Duke players, defense says

Results show woman had sex with another man, attorney says


Updated: 10:43 p.m. ET May 12, 2006

DURHAM, N.C. - A second round of DNA testing in the Duke University lacrosse rape case came back with the same result as the first — no conclusive match to any member of the team, defense attorneys said Friday.

Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the tests showed genetic material from a “single male source” was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.

“In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male,” said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. “It also appears with certainty it wasn’t a Duke lacrosse player.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762368/

Discussing one's opinion based on the facts available at any given time, and then changing that opinion in response to new facts are two different things.

If Nifong produces a lacrosse player that will testify to witnessing a rape, then Crow a l'orange will be served in the main hall. That seems doubtful at this point, but it is possible. One of the odd things about this case is that it is extremely difficult to keep a secret among a group of people. The larger the group, the harder it is.

in the bathroom of the accused player's house? It would be more newsworthy is there WASN'T some sort of DNA match? How reliable can a contaminated sample be?

i believe that's what your reasoning implies.

I feel like I've stumbled into a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Whereas a mere month ago, we had post after post crowing that the lack of DNA matches meant no crime occurred. Now, that "newfangled" science ain't worth a warm pot of goat piss. Yee-hah!

This piece of evidence excluded the only two people that Nifong has indicted.

I remember hearing something about a third attacker....

I guess they've all lost their "Dan Religion" between then and now...

No Conclusive Match

RALEIGH, N.C. - A second round of DNA testing in the Duke University lacrosse rape case came back with the same result as the first — no conclusive match to any member of the team, defense attorneys said Friday.

Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the tests showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.

"In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male," said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. "It also appears with certainty it wasn't a Duke lacrosse player."

Cheshire said the testing did find some genetic material from several people on a plastic fingernail found in a bathroom trash can of the house where the team held the March 13 party. He said some of that material had the "same characteristics" — a link short of a conclusive match — to some of the players, but not the two who have been charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual assault.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you read the rest of the article, Fred? Maybe some of it will soak in.

"How reliable can a contaminated sample be"? Your own words from upthread. Well, which is it?

...a sample taken from her body, and a sample taken from a carrier removed from a bathroom trashcan.

A "partial match" can mean a match with as low as a 1 in 10 shot of matching anyone. If it is not apparent to you the obvious result of running a 1 in 10, or even a 1 in 100, test against a sample space of 46 candidates, then I guess a coin toss is good enough.

...that is not what the reasoning implies.

It's amazing how many binary thinkers there seem to be. The comment about contamination goes to the strength of the evidence, not whether it is relevant. Of course it is relevant. The obvious possibility of contamination by having been retrieved from a bathroom trashcan simply renders this piece of evidence to be of lower relative probative value than a DNA sample recovered from a place in which there is not an obvious alternative explanation.

If Finnerty and Seligman remain the sole indicted defendants here, however, you will certainly see this piece of evidence used by the defense, since the partial match wasn't to either one of them and, in fact, excludes them. F&S's attorneys certainly wouldn't want to exclude this report at all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No one questions that she and this unindicted person were in the same house at the same time. If that person is one of the people who lives there, then whether the combination of her ID of that person and the as-yet-unkonwn range of this match is enough to convict anyone is a question of probative value. The ID from the photo lineup might not come in, because of the flawed way it was conducted.

As posted elsewhere, there is no question that there was a dispute over money. There are a lot of unknowns. If it turns out that this guy, for example, tried to snatch her purse and she scratched him in the course of taking it back from him, then what?

But as of now, the partial match is NOT to anyone who has been indicted for anything.

On the "anti-gay" slurs:

http://www.newsobserver.com/722/story/432800.html
Bloxsom, 27, told police that the trio attacked him without provocation after calling him gay, court records say.

Bloxsom's issue was being called "gay". Bloxsom is now paying a lawyer to make sure that the public knows that Bloxsom is not gay, and Bloxsom's lawyer has also been paid by Bloxsom to say it was not a bias crime. Bloxsom seems to have an issue with being made a poster child for anti-gay bias crimes.

or am i somehow getting the wrong idea (again!) from your post.

thanks for acknowledging finally that she always had claimed a third attacker, i'd never know it from your previous posts.

all in all, i have to say what you leave out is a lot more interesting than what you have to say.

:hi:

thanks for acknowledging finally that she always had claimed a third attacker, i'd never know it from your previous post

So, now YOU are calling her a liar?

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-733481.html

"Nifong said earlier he was pursuing the possibility of another indictment, although reports indicated the dancer was able to identify a third person with only 90 percent certainty. WRAL-TV, citing a transcript of the photo identification session the dancer had with police, reported Wednesday that she indicated a fourth player also may have been involved in assaulting her."

I'm really surprised that, at long last, you don't believe the victim.

It's FOUR, not three. Keep up.

anything- other than what the post your replying to is about.
YOU were posting as if she had named two people, keep up my ass.

...is to the two people who have been indicted for a crime here.

There are two defendants currently in the case. They are the only two defendants.

That's why I said that this partial match was not to either of the two defendants.

They are the only two people who have been charged with anything, out of the four she ID'd in the photo lineup.

Until a third person is indicted, I will continue to refer to this case as having two - and only two - defendants.

Presumably, on the basis of the ID and this partial match, we can expect a third indictment pretty soon.

On edit: Can you show me where I said she had only claimed two?

Looking back:

If Finnerty and Seligman remain the sole indicted defendants here, however, you will certainly see this piece of evidence used by the defense, since the partial match wasn't to either one of them and, in fact, excludes them.

Do you see where that says "If... remain the sole indicted defendants"? Do you understand that admits the possibility we may see a third indictment?

She ID'd four people in connection with the attack, and I not only linked to the article, but I also read it.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9194586/detail.html
"A campus police operations report filed March 14 states that the accuser, who is black, initially said she was raped by 20 white men. It goes on to say she changed her story several times, and that "Durham Police state that charges would not exceed misdemeanor simple assault."

That report - of a Duke Officer relating what he overheard from a Durham Officer - may not be reliable.

This isn't NASDAQ.

Aside from which, it is quite possible to convict one person when multiple unknown others may have been involved. There is no Pokemon rule that says you "gotta catch 'em all."

The policeman was taking notes for a meeting regarding the case. For the prosecution to dismiss it as hearsay and taken out of context reminds me of the bush administration and the Downing Street Memos.

The policeman will NOW be a witness. He will have to testify about what he heard. It will be up to the Durham police to spin their way out of it but it is still evidence.

Maybe they (Duke and Durham) have since changed their mind. Fine. It doesn't make the report any less reliable. As a matter of fact, I would rather rely on the initial report OF THE DURHAM POLICE CONVERSATION that was made before pressure was brought to bear.

I'm sorry, I treat the police with almost as much skepticism as crooks. I know too many of them.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf

You might have to print it out if you can't read sideways.

It gets mischaracterized a lot, since some people commenting on it have apparently not read it.

It is written by a Christopher Day, apparently at 3 AM.

Parts of it refer to first-hand experience: "I went to 610 N. Buchanan Street to follow up"; "Lt. Best asked us to obtain vehicle information and student listing information"; etc.

Certainly Day's recounting of what he himself did are what they are.

The troubling part are that the assertions, "she was claiming that she was raped by approximate 20 white males" and "The victim changed her story several times" are not statements of Day's direct personal experience. Those are statements of things Day heard other people say.

Now, normally, if you wanted to get these statements from Day's report in as evidence, for the purpose of proving the truth of what is said, then you would hit the hearsay rule.

There are some exceptions, however. I do not do criminal work, so I do not know if third party, contemporaneous records of police statements would come in under an admission exception because they are _police_ statements. In a civil case, if we were dealing with a statement of the plaintiff recorded by someone else at the time, it might come in as an admission against interest.

Whether something is hearsay, though, depends on the purpose for which it is being introduced. Day could be asked what he wrote and why he wrote it, but generally not for the purpose of trying to show that what he wrote about what someone else said is, in an ultimate sense, true.

The reason for the hearsay rule is that if you rely on Day's report of what person X said, then it's not as if you can cross-examine person X as to the facts of what was said by person X. Accordingly, you need to get person X on the stand, and question them about what they directly witnessed, instead of asking Day about what person X said they witnessed.

.....that way. He will have to testify who said the victim wasn't credible.

Whether that portion of the report gets in, is an open question.

Specifically what he would be allowed to testify about in connection with the report, would be the subject of some pre-trial proceedings.

Jockeying over trying to get "hearsay" in under some other guise is a classic time-waster in these sorts of situation.

The judge could rule that the probative value of trying to get the whole statement in, is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the hearsay statements, and not allow Day to be questioned about the hearsay parts of the report, and those parts can be redacted from any version of the report shown to the jury.

Again, I'd defer on whether there is a clear hearsay exception in connection with the report. But those parts of the report start at the baseline of hearsay, and won't come in unless they fit an exception. Judges can be pretty smart, and usually are.


On edit: I strongly doubt that the hearsay portions would get in. To put a piece of paper in front of the jury that says "The victim changed her story several times" when the writer was not a percipient witness to her changing her story, would seem to be pretty far out of bounds.

We are not talking about me saying I heard my neighbor say he heard the other neighbor say he committed a crime.

This is a direct witness to a conversation. I thought a person could testify to what he heard another person say. For instance, If I tell you I hate my wife and wish she was dead and she winds up murdered, is your testimony admissible?

It's not as if I told someone else and they told you? Am I way off base?

As an official record - maybe - but I personally don't know.

My statement about you saying you hate your wife WOULD come in, under a "frame of mind" exception. Your statement was a reflection of how you felt about your wife, and is relevant to your intent - an element of the crime for which you've been charged. Also a statement of present intent is admissible as evidence that the speaker intended to do what he said.

Day's statement, that some other cop said "she changed her story several times" doesn't come under that exception. The other cop's frame of mind is not relevant to anything. (And, no, you don't get to say "he was of the frame of mind that she had changed her story"). Whenever you are taking a statement made out of court, and you are offering that statement as evidence of the truth of what is asserted in that statement, then you have arrived at hearsay, and you need an exception to get out of that box.

Then there is the catch-all rule under which any evidence for which the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value, can be excluded. Day's statement about what someone else said is not very useful to show that she changed her story. But it might be considered to have a high prejudicial impact if the jury saw an "official report" that said "she changed her story" when, in fact, the guy who wrote that report has no direct knowledge of what she said to anyone.

The answer is - get the guy that Day spoke with or overheard. As long as that is an option, there's no reason to let Day's hearsay statements in.

You want to read North Carolina Rules of Evidence 801, and see whether it says anything about police investigative reports being an exception to the official records exception. Some codes specifically exclude police reports from being hearsay exceptions, out of a policy concern that we just want cops to write down whatever they might write down at the time, instead of playing lawyer while writing a report. But, again, if the witnesses are available, then you ask them what they saw - not what some other guy heard them describe what they saw.

and then saw yours and realized that there is no need for me to finish what I was drafting as yours is an excellent summary :D

I will add only that if there are states that allow police reports to go into evidence in a criminal case unchallenged, unauthenticated, and in a manner that precludes meaningful cross-examination, there is something very, very wrong with the justice systems in those states.

Except in the most unusual and exceptional circumstances (e.g. the death of the person writing the report before the time of trial and not a single living soul who can testify as to the facts sought to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce them into evidence), it is wholly wrong to allow such reports to go into evidence. Viva voce evidence without hearsay (unless in accordance with one of the "exceptions to hearsay," is and should be required.

There is no suggestion that the university cop is unavailable for trial, nor any reason to suspect that whoever he got the impression from that the accuser "changed her story several times" is unavailable to testify.

Moreover, in the present example (the Durham University report), the prejudice would clearly greatly outweigh the probative value and I cannot imagine that it would be accepted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule on its own.

Cheers, Jazz

(edit: P.S. I am also a civil litigator but I spent several years working in criminal courts before I went to law school ~ in fact, that's what inspired me to go to law school ~ so the crim stuff is burned into my brain, never to be banished ~ hee hee. :hi: )

Or won't be admitted at all?

Firstly because, in the circumstances of this case, Mr. Day cannot testify that he heard "someone say X" and he cannot testify that he heard "John Smith say X" as it would be inadmissible hearsay absent some very unusual circumstance as set out earlier.

John Smith (the source), on the other hand, assuming he is identified, can testify as to the specifics and details that establish that the accuser "changed her story" by reference to direct evidence (i.e. John Smith gets on the witness stand and says "I spoke personally with the accuser and she said (a), (b), (c) and, as a result, I concluded that she changed her story several times."

Further, if John Smith does so testify, there is still no need for Mr. Day's report to go in nor any need for his hearsay evidence that "John Smith said X" because John Smith will have provided direct evidence. One of the exceptions for the admission of hearsay is a form of "necessity". If John Smith is there to give direct, admissible evidence, there is no need to supplement it with indirect, hearsay evidence.

Certainly, Mr. Day could (and will) give his testimony about what he personally saw and heard (to the extent that it does not run afoul of the hearsay rules) but the paper report is unlikely to be entered into evidence unless it could be used to show that Mr. Day said something in his report that is inconsistent with his testimony on the witness stand.

Written police reports are rarely entered into evidence. They are disclosed to the defence, of course, but the reports themselves do not get entered as exhibits very often. And when they do, it is usually to show that the police officer wrote something different at the time he made his report than what he subsequently testified to. Written reports can be used by either side to impeach the testimony of a witness. Even then, though, they might well be redacted to remove parts that violate the hearsay rule or other rules of evidence.

In other words, written police reports usually only get into evidence when it helps one side or the other (usually the defence) to show that that the police officer is perhaps lying, mistaken, or embellishing his evidence at trial.

If there was some other, unrelated reason to allow his written report into evidence, it would not likely go in without being redacting to omit the hearsay parts.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that.

What you should pick up from Jazz's comments is that evidence consists of two parts - the "thing" (object, testimony, record), AND the "reason" why you are seeking to introduce it, i.e. what are you trying to prove.

So, taking this police report, and some states expressly exclude them from admissible evidence, you can't get the report in for the purpose of showing what the other cops said to Day.

But let's say Day was on the stand and you are questioning him:

"Officer Day, did you go to to 610 North Buchanan that night?"

"Yes I did"

"Was anyone there"

"No there wasn't"

"Did you have any contact with other police officers that night"

"No I didn't"

Hold it - right there. You now can introduce certain other things about the report. If Day says he didn't have contact with other officers, you *might* be able to get in the communications referenced in his report - NOT for the purpose of showing that those statements were true, but for the purpose of impeaching Day's credibility since the report indicates he received communications from other police. What you are trying to show is not anything about WHAT was said to Day, but that his contemporaneous record states that there WAS communication - i.e. the fact of the communication itself. Credibility of a witness is always relevant, and while the two sides would fight over how far you could go with it, the report would become relevant if Day MADE it relevant by contradicting the indication that he had communicated with other officers.

Mind benderr, eh?

I really DO learn something new everyday on DU. Thanks for taking the time. I really do appreciate it.

Since we don't do criminal stuff, it makes me wonder....

Applying the "prejudicial" standard in a criminal case seems odd, when you are talking about prejudice to the prosecutor's case. After all, it's not like the prosecutor is going to jail if he loses, but it is the defendant's liberty on the line.

In this instance, though, it makes sense, because with the availability of direct witnesses, the probative value - relative to other evidence - of Day's report is really low.

How about actually reading the WHOLE report, or quoting the TRUTH that's in the article? No? Because that would ruin your "fun"?

You're like glass.... and not fooling one person here.

on edit: this article/report has been discussed all over the place on DU, and the crux of the report lends credence to the VICTIM'S story. You must ahve interned at Pravda circ 1972.

The absence of DNA evidence supporting the claim that Finnerty and Seligman had physical contact with the accuser doesn't really "exlude" them. It is, however, a fact that the defense can and will emphasize as part of their effort to rebut the prosecution and establish reasonable doubt. At this point, we don't know whether the prosecution has any other evidence connecting Finnerty and Seligman to the alleged crime beyond the accuser's ID. If that is all the prosecution has -- and considering the circumstances (as reported) surrounding the ID -- they probably will have a tough time getting a conviction, imho. Maybe the prosecution has more, but we may not know whether that is so unless/until this case comes to trial.

onenote

the word "exclude" is appropriate. This partial match of material retrieved from the bathroom trashcan excluded F&S.

It does not mean that F&S are in any sense "excluded" from being suspects.

be overlooked. The nail, for example, could have rubbed against something else in the garbage, such as a used tissue, that could contain someone's DNA.

but a little common sense will tell you that the guy's DNA will likely be in the bathroom garbage can if he lives in the house or is a regular visitor. Do you ever blow your nose and throw the tissue in the waste basket?

Even if it is accurate, so what?

she IDd the person they are getting a match with.
it also shows previous reports of "no DNA at all" were inaccurate.
that should at least make you realize there's lots we don't know.

:shrug: seems kind of simple to me.

It wouldn't detract from her claim, but nor does it make it stronger.

DNA under fingernails is not a sign of rape.

IF it is considered and admitted as evidence, it's significance would be for the jury to decide. not you or the defense attorneys.

It is relevant, admissible evidence.

and this discussion forum.
However, reason, in my opinion, should have equal weight in both arenas. Fact is, DNA under fingernails isn't proof of rape by any stretch of the speculative imagination, and jury verdicts don't infallibly equal "the truth".

Thanks for bringing up the issue that the case is being publicized before trial, which I abhor.

i thought this story was a good reminder that we just don't know the facts.
what people insisted was true last week, is false this week.
you can try and use "reasoning" but absent the facts, it's kind of pointless.

However, what can we conclude if it's a fact that the DNA of the accused was under her nails? Many things, but none of them equal rape.

I want to say again that I hate the fact that our society treats criminal trials like entertainment. Contaminated justice.

I rarely post on this type of thread for that very reason.

I'm from Canada, grew up in Canada, lived in the U.S. for a few years, still visit and work in the U.S. regularly, love it there, have lots of U.S. friends and colleagues, and our countries are very similar in many ways. But when it comes to "trial by media", the differences above and below the 49th parallel astound me.

In Canada, evidence that is expected to be led at trial is not disseminated in the press before it is adduced at trial. Prosecutors and defence attorneys do not give interviews before trial about what they expect their evidence to be; the criminal records of the accused are not publicized before trial; the criminal records of the accusers are not publicized before trial, etc.

While there are, of course, instances of big headline arrests and, appropriately, quick responses by the defence as to the accused's innocence, it never, ever, ever, goes into the actual evidence that either side expects to adduce or rely upon. In my view, that's as it should be. People should be tried in courtrooms, not in the press. How can anyone expect to empanel an impartial and untainted jury if the "evidence" and all manner of theories have been reported nightly for months before trial and all manner of talkboard discussions such as the many here about this particular case, have been eroding the concept of "just the facts" - i.e. just the facts that are properly before the jury - for months before trial?

Both of the lawyers and the police officers who commented on the case to the media would be held to be in contempt of court here, for discussing a case publicly that was about to be tried.

I had thought our system was bad for the lack of support given rape victims, but at least they are not torn apart by the rabid dogs of the media first.

But they still can be afterwards. It's not so long back that a 17 year old was suing her school because she was raped on a school trip to Europe. Her school paid a private investigator to follow her, photographing her, and produced the pics in court to prove she had not been traumatized by the rape. The pictures showed her sitting in a nice hotel with friends, with her legs crossed, showing a little bit of flesh above the knee. ... Apparently anyone who is genuinely traumatized will to stay home and wear purdah for the rest of their lives.

point.

While it wouldn't prove that accused raped the accuser, it would support the contention that accused was at the scene and that the accused and accuser had some sort of physical contact. Not irrebutable proof, but admissible evidence that the prosecution would argue supports the accused's version of what transpired. The defense undoubtedly would try to rebut by seeking to establish doubt as to (1) whether the partial DNA evidence is a reliable match; (2) whether the DNA material could've have gotten onto the fingernail through some means other than a violent altercation between the accuser and accused. And the defense would, of course, argue, that even if it supports the claim that there was an altercation between the accused and accuser, it doesn't prove that the altercation occurred in connection with a forcible rape or sexual assault.

An interesting question -- and this is just speculation of course -- is whether the person whose DNA is alleged to match the DNA evidence found on the fingernail has made any statements to the police regarding what happened that night and whether evidence supporting (not necessarily proving) that there was physical contact between the accuser and the accused might be used to challenge the credibility of such statements. Again...until there is a trial, no one can know how significant (if at all) this evidence would be.

onenote

clusterfuck of fingernail experts the likes of which we haven't seen since OJ, if this goes to trial.
:shrug:

:eyes:

or just misread the post?

.....court proceeding VERY telling.

and ain;t likely to be anytime soon. what does that tell you, that i'm a realist?

there will be a whole bunch of experts on both sides.

I'm thinking it's time to buy shares in Revlon :D

that could have contained any number of personal items with bits of DNA.

Just announced - NO DNA MATCH is the current TRUTH as of this morning - Saturday as of 9am PDT.

Sorry to burst your prejudiced bubble.

This can either be damning or nothing or in between. For example, if skin particles were found under the nail then it would be pretty damning. If someone spit on the nail in the can then it could mean nothing.

I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the nail could be swabbed and any DNA would come up from a trace amount of DNA. That could prove equivocal.

Does anyone know or have I jumped on the wild-guess bvandwagon? Is there any way to tell where it came from?

Things that the body secretes or excretes aren't tissue. Tissue would be skin, muscle, bone, organs, etc. In this case, I would imagine the tissue sample was skin seeing as I think it's pretty doubtful that a tissue sample of the kidneys of one of the players got under her nail. ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...which is an imporvement.

i feel like I stole my yo-yo back from the teacher.

I feel so guilty

..if I type something too long, it will get locked before i finish.

(not really fighting)

this thread isn't half as nasty as most of them on this topic have been.
the last one i saw was full of personal attacks- not good.
except for that who's a racist tangent, i think we were pretty well behaved. even if we went off topic with finnerty .
:shrug:

It looks like Moderator was just having some fun :D

Gotta love that!

the lacrosse player they thought it was.

the Duke players are white, privileged, and above all, they're athletes.


"Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the tests showed genetic material from a “single male source” was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.

“In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male,” said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. “It also appears with certainty it wasn’t a Duke lacrosse player."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762368/
Maybe her "bodyguard" raped her?

Keep stretching, though -- it's good for your joints.

escort girls have a driver /bodyguard they keep around in case something goes wrong. With her doing "one on ones" she probably had one. We can split hair all day, and they have all these "companionship" disclaimers, but escort is code word for prostitute.

I also hope that cops paid a visit to her last customer.

and that sort of "business" always provides a security person, normally the driver, to protect their assets from bad customers.

...in which it was being claimed she left the house in a white car, and then changed into the dark car that the guard and the police saw at the Kroger, wasn't there a claim that she had been "dropped off" at the party by someone?

I remember there being a severe lack of curiousity about that other person who it was claimed drove her to the party.

Or have we settled on the "green Honda" as her car?

If you look at the Duke Police report, compare the length on the page of "The victim" in the last paragraph, to the length of the blackout in "The Honda came back to (blackout)"

In any event, what's the current thinking on how she got there?

There';s a partial DNA match, not a conclusive one. It does not mean that the one player is excluded,

And, why is everyone acting like there's no case without DNA evidence??? The majority of rape cases don't have DNA evidence.

Anything to say "the boys" are innocent and the skanky bo ho isn't.

Whatever.

"The majority of rape cases don't have DNA evidence."

could it be because most of them, by far, are date rapes where no one disputes the fact that they had sex, and only consent is in question? Or maybe the rape was reported days or weeks later? Nice play with the statistics.

She claimed she was brutally raped for 20-30 minutes orally, anally and vaginally, and no DNA from the rapists was found on her? She was tested hours later, and the only DNA found was that of another guy. We're supposed to believe that they were so careful, that they used condoms for all those acts, and that they cleaned the room since no DNA of hers was found. Sorry but I don't buy it. I wonder if they tested her for condom residue?

as far as the DNA:
"Police later recovered several stick-on acrylic fingernails from a trashcan at the house where the party took place, and the tissue in question was found under one of those nails, the sources said."
if I throw out a half-eaten sandwich, or blow my nose in a tissue my DNA is there.

Why would she lie? Why do 8-10% of them lie? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=recants+rape

Why do 8-10% of them lie?

it's not really supported by your link. Just your own personal estimate based on the results of a google search?

you will find an FBI crime report that states 8% rate. Another one from PA state police, states the 10% number.
The 2% stat that some creatures have been spreading for decades is a lie.

also friendly. Since you claimed 8-10%, followed immediately by a link, I assumed the link might support the claim.

A quick google finds no such report, though 8%, 9% and 8-10% figures are attributed to an FBI report in various blog entries. The report itself seems to be quite hard to locate, since nothing approaching a useful citation seems to be provided. Also, the figure apppears to refer (if it actually exists at all) to unfounded cases. 8% "unfounded" is not the same as 8 percent lie.

"Complaints of all Crime Index offenses made to law
enforcement agencies which are found to be false or baseless
can be “unfounded” and excluded from crime counts. A higher
percentage of complaints of forcible rape are determined “unfounded,”
or found by investigation to be false, than for any
other Index crime. While the average of “unfounded” rates for
all Crime Index offenses was 2 percent in 1997, 8 percent of
forcible rape complaints were “unfounded” for the same
timeframe."
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/97crime/97crime2.pdf Page 20

also see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2277256&mesg_id=2282277

I saw your other post earlier as well, but I was hoping to see the actual report, since in my brief google search it appeared to be referenced vaguely and inaccurately (8-10, etc.)

So the report says 8% unfounded, which does not equate to 8% lied.

>> So the report says 8% unfounded, which does not equate to 8% lied.

...and because charges were filed and the man was convicted, it does mean that she didn't lie. Short of the woman recanting, it's very hard to prove a lie in a rape case, especially in he said /she said cases.

Tawana Brawley still maintains that the rape happened FYI. Did she "lie" or was it unfounded? We can split hairs all we want, between cops dismissing complaints because of sexism, and cops not wanting to dismiss flimsy ones because of pressure. When you can quantify those, please let me know. Until then, we have to go with this number, as the 2% one, repeated at nauseum is totally made up,

you said 8-10 percent lie. You didn't split any hairs or hedge any bets.

So the 2 percent figure might be totally made up, I don't know. I've never claimed it. You made a claim, and I questioned the source of the figure. In providing the source, you've revealed the bias in the original statement: "Why would she lie? Why do 8-10% of them lie?"

S'funny... clients often ask me "What are my odds of winning?"

It's easy... you either win, or you lose - it's 50/50.

It doesn't matter one iota whether .01% of claims are unprovable or 5% of claims are unprovable, when one is trying to figure out whether a rape charge in THIS case is provable against the indicted defendants.

I just don't get the point about why these numbers come up.

It's a big world. With over 6 billion people in it, that means that "one in a million" occurences happen 6,000 times a day.

Get over the numbers. They don't have any bearing on what did or did not happen in Durham, North Carolina.

But in the broader scope of things, figures do matter, as do the perceptions/presumptions/attitudes those figures are used to foster.

So when someone makes a claim such as "8 to 10 percent of them (alleged rape victims) lie" about being a victim with no evidence to back that up, I think it's worth challenging.

If the allegations prove false, they should sue her and the politically-motivated DA who has been prosecuting this case.

and have their name in the news for another 4-5 years?
Plus, they'd never win, and if they did win she has no money.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/487.html
"She was afraid to speak out before, Brawley said, because I was ashamed of what happened to me and because I was ignorant. I didn’t know the lengths they’d go to—they, the media. But I’m here and I’m not going anywhere.

For 10 years they were lying to you, she added. You should feel that the hoax was pulled on you.

Chants of no justice, no peace soon changed to We love you, Tawana and We believe you, Tawana."

A trial, not media reports will show that. And, she was raped, she is a rape victim. And, if she did misidentify her rapists, that is NOT the same as a false accusation.

If I was mugged by someone, and I said you did it when in fact you did not do it, that is a false accusation.

Yes, I am still a mugging victim, and yes you were falsely accused.

"False" doesn't mean "intentionally false" or "willfully false".

It merely means "not true".

Saying something that is "not true" is not the same as "lying".

"Mistaken" is a subset of "not true".

Jay

THAT fact has been the FACT that has been the LATEST relevation!

But you conveniently IGNORE that "small" fact - to press your prejudiced points.

Sorry, but I watch ALL the news, and this doesn't even come CLOSE to the TRUTH!

Not even a "nice try" from me for this one!

i guess you sorta watch the news, but didn't take the time to read it.

2nd DNA Test Shows No Conclusive Match (Duke rape allegation) Click here to hide this thread

so, you're mistaken. :hi: not such a good guess, huh?
i guess you didn;t bother reading the post you put so much stock in.

it is not out of the realm of possibility that she lied:

"One Howard County woman needed an excuse for being late to work. Another feared she had become pregnant the first time she had sex. A third cut scratches on her thighs with a razor blade and bottle cap.

In the past two years, those and 31 other women told police in the suburban Maryland county they had been raped, but as authorities looked into each complaint, they found no evidence to support it. In some cases, women told police they had concocted their stories; other times, police found no evidence of rape, and ruled the complaints unfounded."

"According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States is later deemed "unfounded," meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime."

"Sometimes there's loneliness, a need for attention, a need to feel important," said David Silber, a George Washington University psychologist.

Washington Post Article from June 27, 1992
"Unfounded Reports of Rape Confound Area Police Investigators" (LexisNexis)

no longer breaking news, flames etc