Broom was used by rapists says woman in Duke case (Rita

Cosby showed clip of interview by father was gave out this information. He said his daughter did not want him to know this but he eventually found out and then she told him). Rita had a male quest on who immediately (guest had not heard this information before-as it was Cosby's breaking news for the night)--and yelled--The DA filed the wrong charges. She wasn't raped if they used a broom .
The other female quest immediately jumped in and said==The DA filed right charges--sodomy just refers to the part of the body that was violated. She was raped. And the broom explains why no DNA (accused Duke males) was found in her.

I was dumbfounded at the stupidity of this man was just jumped on the new information and came across so stupid on national television.

msnbc

So, it's not "rape" if they used a broom...oh, boy.

Do you ever get the feeling some people need to just go back to the womb and start over? Because they're so stupid that merely going back to school won't cut it? They just need to go back to the beginning in LIFE?

DNA on it.

If now she does, she completely changed her story after all this time. But hey, a woman won't ever lie about something like that.
:eyes:

Do you have a friend in the Durham police force?

...in the search warrant.

Why weren't the police looking for a broom, if that's what she told them?

according to the search warrant, a player allegedly threatened to assault the victim w/a broom after they first started dancing & that's what made them leave. Whether she told police that broom was used during the assault, we simply don't know. The DA, defense, & media haven't mentioned it at all. This is a 2nd (no, 3rd hand) statement from a person who was not an eyewitness to this crime. Maybe the victim never included an allegation about this broom & the person is misunderstanding the threatened assault from earlier. Maybe the victim did allege this, but said that it was thrown away. Maybe police took it from another location. We just don't know. So to say that the victim is changing the story she told the police assumes a whole lot here that we do not know.

It seems doubtful that the broom was mentioned as an item used in the alleged assault in the first report to the police. Why? Because -

1) It wasn't on the list of items to be looked for in the search warrant.
2) When the leaks started coming out about no DNA matches the first response from the DA was that there could have been condoms used. It seems odd that he wouldn't mention anything about foreign objects at that time.

This won't stay a mystery for long as that first police report will show exactly what the alleged victim had reported. So, the broomstick story is either:

A) The result of a repressed memory from the alleged victim - something that could be possible especially if she had been given a date rape drug.
B) A lie on the part of the father for whatever reason. This would make the second time in this whole ordeal where the father has had a dramatic shift in what he's reporting.
C) A change of story from the alleged victim after the DNA tests came back negative.

I'm betting that option B is going to be what plays out here.

I would say that this broom story is not coming from the victim at all. That's why I don't like that people are saying this discredits her testimony when we don't even know if she ever said this.

The father may be confused about the broom... he may be mistaking the incident where they were threatened with the broom with it being used or attempted to be used on the alleged victim.

The police and prosecutor may have been keeping mum on the broom on purpose... it is often the case where certain details aren't devulged in order to make sure potential witnesses know what they talking about. It doesn't need to be listed on the search warrant... they took a lot of things not specifically listed on the warrant. Police have a LOT of leeway in what they are allowed to seize (more leeway than I'm very comfortable with). If they wanted to keep the business with the broom hidden, they wouldn't have specifically listed it on the warrant on purpose.

The police obtained the warrant and searched the house in a VERY brief time period after the alleged incident. Seeing as if she was indeed raped, she was tramatized and may not have given all the details at that time. She was also obviously incapacitated to some degree (drunk or drugged), so I would hardly find it surprising that her first description of what happened left out a lot of detail. I would actually find it surprising if any rape victim so soon after the crime would be able to coherently give a detailed description to anyone. Let's not forget that if this woman was raped, this is personally traumatizing to her... I hardly think that after the horror of something like that, a rape victim would be looking at this through the eyes of the legal system. Seeing as how many never report rapes at all, I would think that it would be a very difficult thing to detail the incident to anyone at first, and maybe not even after a very long and possibly never.

I have never been raped, thankfully. I would like to think that if I was, I'd have the strength to report it, but I can't honestly say that I would given what I know about how rape victims are treated and what I know about myself. If I did report it, I can tell you right now that immediately after the fact, it would be VERY difficult to give any kind of description at all to anyone, and any details would have to be dug out of me. There may be details I'd NEVER be willing to divulge or even allow myself to recall.

especially in light of the way he was getting hammered by Rita. However, I don't think the police could take anything from the house unless it was listed on the search warrant as an item seized. Additionally, I'll agree that it's possible that someone would not remember some of the details from such an attack (as I noted originally) but the broomstick seems like a pretty significant part of the story to forget.

someone needs to know what they are talking about before throwing out bullshit allegations like that.

George Carlin--if these allegations prove true than these boys mothers could have used a "Womb Broom" about 20 years ago.

when maybe what they should have been looking for is HERS!

culation. over and over!

according to the defense attorneys here, the women ran into the bathroom after one of the players approached them w/a broom & tried to make them use it as a "sex toy." That would seem to indicate that the players did have a broom at the party & this had actually had occured to them. FWIW.

ie they were told to use it on themselves.

God some people are just fucking stupid...

Wow, someone here proposes a violent sexual offense, and gets takers on DU.

Sad.

PHOENIX (AP) - Two young men charged with sodomizing 18 boys at a youth camp last year have been offered a plea agreement that may net them little jail time and no record of sexual assault.
...
The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1011995

sheesh the things they criminalize these days.


















note to the people with too much rage on their hands: the above was sarcastic.

and are the son of a state senator.

it only counts as "rape" if you are a) female (I guess this woman qualifies) or b) gay.

Otherwise, it's not rape--it's just "discipline."

I'm sure the thought of that must make a lot of straight men sleep more soundly at night.

....Also, the families said Bennett is being treated favorably by the court system because of his father's position in the Legislature. Bennett's plea would allow the court to classify the aggravated-assault conviction as a misdemeanor, which means he could go on to become a teacher or counselor and would never have to disclose the so-called "brooming" incident.
Bennett and Wheeler pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in court Monday. Bennett pleaded to one count and Wheeler to two.
"I think he got a sweetheart deal," said the father of one of the three Tucson victims, a 12-year-old boy who attends a local Catholic school. "I'd like him to get a year in prison. The victims should have been heard from before the plea was agreed to. If this was 18 girls who were victims, it would have been sexual assault."

there should be rioting. People with long memories need to keep an eye on him.

think that this was a school function!


...Police reports say the assaults took place at Chapel Rock Camp in Prescott during a weeklong camp for school leaders in June. Witnesses told police that the junior counselors lined up the youngsters, told them to bend over and "broomsticked" them. The boys told police "broomsticking" was done alternately with a broom, a cane, a mop handle and a heavy-duty flashlight while they were clothed.

he can "go on his mission"

out all night checking on baby birds, for Pete's sake.

HOWEVER, if some SCHMUCK sodomized my one and only child - my son - HIS ass is grass and I'm a lawnmower.

How incredibly awful!

on charges of rape(?) or sodomy(?) (I can't remember which) after working a summer as a camp counselor and "disciplining" about 10-20 kids with flashlights & sticks.


Just a little hazing.

Monday, April 3, 2006 10:48 AM CDT
PHOENIX (AP) - Two young men charged with sodomizing 18 boys at a youth camp last year have been offered a plea agreement that may net them little jail time and no record of sexual assault.

Clifton Bennett, 18, the son of Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett, and his co-defendant, Kyle Wheeler, 19, were charged in January with 18 counts of aggravated assault and 18 counts of kidnapping for the incidents, which happened at a youth camp last June.

The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show.

His father, Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, sat behind him. A Prescott native and businessman, he hasn't spoken about his son's arrest except to issue a brief statement expressing concern as a parent.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2006/04/03/news/local/20060403_local_news_7.txt

Every pervert act somehow affiliated to a political party seems to be Republican party. (No one say Clinton as they were consenting adults, so it's kind of a non-issue, especially now.)

But I see others have filled you in. Outrageous, isn't it?

but it is easy for them to get lost in the shuffle of other outrageous things. :hi:

He probably also thinks -- even if he doesn't say it out loud -- that she "deserved it" because she was a stripper.

He obviously doesn't understand what rape is, either.

on this topic.

Lambaste him all you want, but one of the indictments' handed down by the Grand Jury was for first degree rape which, under North Carolina law, is very specifically and exclusively defined as forcible vaginal intercourse. If the accused is now saying no such act took place, that indictment will go down in flames (along, possibly, with the accused's credibility). I should note that forced penetration of the vagina or anus by any object is defined as a separate crime-- first degree sexual offense -- in NC and the indictment also included a charge under that provision. What we can't tell is if that charge was based on the alleged attack with a broom or the alleged forced oral sex (which also falls under the heading of first degree sexual offense).

onenote

They listed her $400 and a bunch of other things.

The fact is they did not go in looking to get the broom, which means she never told them that story.

You made that mistake twice. Freudian?

If you check my other posts, you'll see I get the word "accuser" right.
Sorry about that

onenote

me angry--

of these expert guests have no idea what they're talking about.

physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person.

According to the dictionary definition of intercourse, it is STILL rape...

it only matters how North Carolina law defines it

Webster's is irrelevant, and in fact, jurors would be told NOT to look up any words in a dictionary.

Based on any common-sense definition. But based on NC's anachronistic definition, it is not. I don't know if this guy on the Rita Cosby show had an in-depth knowledge of specific statutory interpretations, or if he just was being a jerk. I'm often surprised at how little these "legal experts" seem to know about the laws here.

For someone to be charged with a crime there must be a definition of that crime. They don't decide what "rape" means for criminal law purposes by asking for opinions online at a message board.

We are talking about the criminal case, so the criminal definition is the one that matters. For virtually every crime, there are colloquialisms which use the word more broadly, whether it's for the term "rape," or some other term.

Is it a heinous act that is treated as seriously as rape? Of course. But it's not called rape.

my whole post, or do you generally stop at the headline?

Your approach to this case is simply not rational. I've explained virtually every aspect of it to you, and you're just as adamant it's NOT THAT WAY!!

Maybe you should try your theories on those who don't like to use logic.

Allow me to quote from that post: "It is rape, based on any common-sense interpretation. But based on NC's anachronistic definition, it is not." I have been very clear, in every post, that the speculated assault here would not qualify as rape under the statutory definitions of North Carolina. If you have failed to notice or understand that, I would say that that is your fault.

... you should invest your time trying to persuade someone else you're not hopelessly biased in this matter. Your posts prove otherwise.

The law isn't anachronistic just because it doesn't fit YOUR definition, your "common sense" approach - one that most people don't agree with, BTW.

Just admit it. I correctly posted that this is not rape under NC law, & you quickly responded w/a self-righteous post saying no, it isn't rape in NC & I'm all wrong. Oh, and how we shouldn't rely on colloquial definitions, though I was talking about the specific statutory definition in NC. It makes me think you just responded to my post based on the first 2 words & a bias instead of reading the whole thing, and you are now trying to back off from that. I don't like the way it is defined in NC law, but I am capable of understanding what the law actually is. And "most people" disagree? It's that sort of like Fox's "some people" say? "Most people" think men or boys can't be raped, and that it can't involve an object? That doesn't seem to be the conventional wisdom, even on this thread. I do believe the NC definition is old-fashioned & out-of-touch, & this is backed up by a majority of state legislatures, since most states have reformed the law so that the crime is not so narrowly defined anymore.

In fact, the model penal code continues to define rape specifically in terms of penile/vaginal penetration, and to define penetration by a foreign object as a separate (not necessarily lesser) offense. THat also is the current law in the two other states I checked...New York and California. If you have a link to support your claim that the majority of states have redefined rape to encompass more than forced vaginal intercourse (and not treat other types of equally heinous assaults as separate offenses), please supply it.

onenote

Historically, at common law, rape was "unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman, who is not one's wife, without her consent," and the law could only apply when a woman was the victim & a man was the assailant. The NC statute here is a throwback to this older legal regime. This common-law definition was extremely narrow, & only applied when a woman was the victim (men & boys could not be victims under this law), and it also meant that marital rape was not illegal. The focus on "consent" meant that the focus was shifted to the victim's own proof of resistance, instead of the assailant's actions. During the 1970's & 80's, a legal movement began to reform rape legislation in order to create a broader definition & offer more protection to victims of this crime. Most states have broadened the definition of rape to include assaults against men, & marital assaults, & other kinds of penetration. Many states have revised their statutes to remove the word completely, and only include "sexual assault" (of varying degrees.) The Federal Criminal Code, for example, does not use the term at all, and only uses the term "sexual abuse." The Illinois Criminal Code, which is considered a national model state code, also does not include the term "rape" at all, but defines varying degrees of "Sexual assault." This Criminal Code was copied by many other states throughout the country. Criminal codes vary considerably from state to state, but most states have reformed their statutes on rape to redefine the crime. North Carolina is one of the only states that still requires "vaginal intercourse" for the crime of rape. Most states have broadened the definition considerably in response to this reform movement. http://rsvp.uchicago.edu/resources/assault/illinoisassaultact.shtml

Here are some links to further educate yourself:

U.S. Rape Reform Laws, 1970's - wealth of links on this topic here - http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml

"Redefining Rape", Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Professor Bryden - A history of the legal rape reform movement by a leading scholar in the field.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/3(2)/bryden.pdf


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2000/academy/J-10-SA.htm

Table of state definitions for sex crimes: http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/vaw_sex_acts.pdf. Please notice that North Carolina is virtually alone in its narrow definition of the crime of rape.

By your own admission, one of the common reforms in rape law has been "redefining rape and replacing the single crime of rape with a series of graded offenses defined by the presence or absence of aggravating conditions". In other words, different types of conduct are treated as different crimes. You claim that the chart you cited indicates that NC is "virtually alone" in its narrow definition of the crime of rape. Yet, the chart doesn't indicate that at all. In fact, it distingusihes between "penetration type for sexual acts/intercourse" and "penetration type for deviate sexual acts/conduct", with foreign object penetration falling under the latter category.

Take California as an example. WHile you claim NC stands "virtually alone" (based on what, I'm not sure), here's the language from the California Penal Code:

First, here's a link to the table of contents: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/pen_table_of_contents.html

You'll note that Chapter 9 deals with "CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS"

Chapter 1 covers Rape, among other offenses. According to section 261,"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under certain specified circumstances.

While the common understanding of sexual intercourse would involve penile/vaginal penetration, the language is not completely clear. However, any ambiguity is resolved by Chapter 5, which deals with "Crimes against Nature." AMong the specified offenses, section 289 declares that
"Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration
when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
....

(k) As used in this section:
(1) "Sexual penetration" is the act of causing the penetration,
however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or
causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another
person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal,
gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument,
or device, or by any unknown object.
(2) "Foreign object, substance, instrument, or device" shall
include any part of the body, except a sexual organ.

In other words, this section covers foreign object penetration to the exclusion of penile/vaginal penetration...different acts, different sections of the law and, in this case, different terminology (rape v. crime against nature). And anal sex is defined in section 286 as sodomy.

Given that the California provision doesn't fit your "rape is a single crime covering all forms of penetration" theory, I'm not sure that the conclusion you reach based on the chart is correct. I've looked at a number of other states, and there is definitely a split. In addition to Illinois, it looks like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio treat any form of "sexual penetration" by body part or object as the same crime. On the other hand, Maryland (along with the previously mentioned states) treats object penetration and penile penetration as separate crimes. I haven't the time to review the law of all 50 states. The point is that the defense experts comment was correct as a matter of NC law and, read in the context of the transcript, not offensive or "biased" in the slightest.

onenote

What does this have to do with the Rita Cosby show? You asked for a link of states that have reformed the rape statutes to a broader definition, & I provided them, along w/a nice history of the reform movement. My point was that the NC law represents a backwater, and an anachronism, compared to the more modern statutes of most other states. And I've given lots of information about the reforms that have taken place in other states to back up that point. Your initial point, based on a brief check of 2 states, seemed to be that all states define rape as narrowly as NC does. I provided a lot of links, & scholarly articles, to show that that is not the case. And you've acknowledged that by now saying that there is a "split" in the state laws. You could've said "thanks for the info," or whatever, but instead, you're choosing to seize on one small thing to continue to argue with me, though you were clearly mistakened in the initial post. I can conclude that the time I spent compiling that information was wasted effort. And you are also mistaken in this small thing you're now claiming - The CA law is not as narrow as the NC law, because the victim does not have to be a woman, and the statute does not require vaginal penetration. So, the CA law is not as restrictive as the NC law, but instead represents a broader reform statute. The two statutes are not the same, & the NC definition of rape is more restrictive than the CA definition. So what the heck is the point of throwing that in? To disprove your own point? Or to continue to claim that I'm wrong after I've provided all the links to support my point here.

Who cares if the defense lawyer was right about the NC law? Where do you ever see me saying he was wrong? What does that point have to do with my point? Nothing. Why do you think I am disputing the defense lawyer, when in every post above this, I've said that that is a correct statement about NC law? Why am I still bothering to respond?

But I really don't pay much attention to your posts. That part is right.

Well, that was a stunningly mature comeback. So you're saying that you don't pay attention to my posts, (in spite of the numerous replies you've made on this thread), and are basically admitting you misread what I wrote, but still insist that you are right based on... hmmm.. hard to say. Here's a tip - if you're not paying attention to my posts, then please stop responding to them. Thanks.

Anybody else catch the show?

attorney.

Under North Carolina law (as well as the law of a number of states) rape is specifically defined as forced penile/vaginal penetration, while forcible penetration with a foreign object is a separate offense.

If you read the transcript, you'll see that he was not being as callous or outrageous as the exceedingly misleading OP in this thread suggests. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12496646/

onenote

I will go out on a limb and call it.

Strippers at bachelor parties routinely insert stranger things than a broom.

It would still be rape if it could be proven that one of the men inserted anything anywhere WITHOUT her consent. IE they didn't pay for any sex they got.

This whole thing stinks, the pr firm, the media circus.

If I am wrong I will eat crow. Nifong is appeasing the black vote in Durham county and using his 70+ press conferences to do so.

The whole story stinks to high heaven.
She alleged anal, vaginal, and oral penetration.
I guess now she will claim the broom was used instead of anal and vaginal penetration?
Because no DNA was found?
When is this idiocy going to stop?

Where are you getting "instead of", beyond posters' speculation here? Even based on the highly unreliable source here, the father just stated that he found out a broom was used. This could be in addition to any rape the victim is alleging. And the DA is charging both rape & a sexual offense, which would cover both allegations. There is nothing to suggest that the story has changed here, or that the victim is now pressing a different charge "instead of"the rape. Both were charged from the beginning.

And why didn't search warrant mention the broom?
Why when she ID the suspects, she didn't mention which one raped her with the broom?
:eyes:

Search warrant mentions threat w/broom, doesn't mention that it was seized. This could mean that it was found in another location, or that it was thrown away. I don't know that it was ever seized, so there wouldn't be DNA to examine. And, the most important thing is: We don't know that the victim ever alleged an assault w/a broom at all. There's no mention of this assault by the DA, the defense, or the media up till this point. All we've got is one random statement from "The Rita Cosby Show", by someone who is not participating in this case. Given the amount of misinformation flying around, her father could easily be confused about this, especially since he apparantly first got this info from the "news" & "some people".

Rita Cosby transcript:

COSBY: How do you know your daughter was raped with a broom?

ACCUSER‘S FATHER: Well, I heard it through the news and through some people and then she told me afterwards because she didn‘t want me to know that part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12496646/

My own speculation here; Personally, I think he is trying to help his daughter by giving an explanation for the lack of DNA, but he's not a lawyer, he's confusing different allegations, & he's not helping. Throughout the interview, Cosby is asking him these legal questions as if he is in a position to answer them. He is not, & we shouldn't be taking his answers as the gospel truth on what's going on in this case. This kind of assault would fit the charges here, but there's no indication from the actual parties that this is forming part of the DA's case at all. I think this is just a rumor, repeated by a father who's heard it from different places, & is not knowledgeable in the actual charges in this case.

she might have been traumatized by the experience, which tends to make one less than rational. question: do you think you'd be completely rational after being raped by several men, with a broom? do you think you'd be able to indentify which one used the broom? you seem to be severely lacking in empathy...and logic.

Have you read all of the depositions? Were you there when she spoke w/the DA?

If not, you know jack shit.

When is your idiocy going to stop?

what she alleged.
And no broom.
Sorry, they did not look for a broom when they went to search the house.

I asked about depositions and whatever she may have said to the DA.

That's where the fucking information is!

Have you ever been raped?

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

Have you ever been raped?

and to ask whether or not they have or have not been raped is completely unrelated to the search warrant issue. If the accuser had mentioned this in either police interviews or depositions then a search warrant would definitely included the broom in question. It begins to look very suspicious when the story is changed after the initial testimony to fit facts as they come into evidence (or lack of evidence where the DNA is concerned).

Now, to be fair, I have not read the search warrant so I do not know all the details. However, I have no reason to believe that the other poster would lie about something so easily checked as it is a matter of public record.

Just my two cents...
subjectProdigal

Only what they seized. Perhaps the broom wasn't there. :shrug:

It didn't belong to the rapists. Just pick the damn thing up. Why should it be on a search warrant?

You guys who just can't believe your great white jocks could commit a rape just kill me with your sorry excuses.

You don't know jack shit but yougo around pontificating as if you know everything.

Sheeesh. Just scratch the surface a little bit in america and the same ole shit just keeps poring out.

Because I think I agree with you. The poster I was responding to was saying the broom wasn't on the seized items list and I was more or less saying perhaps they got rid of the broom. Also the police did swabbing and perhaps they just swabbed the broom-- I don't know, I'm just trying to throw out other possibilities for why a broom wasn't on the seized items list.

at least if they want the broom to be used in evidence. It would be different if it were an obviously illegal item like cocaine but a broom would have to be specified even if in plain site.

Police have a LOT of leeway in what they are legally allowed to seize, and they are indeed allowed to seize items not specifically listed on a search warrant. As long as they are able to reasonably prove that not seizing certain items would cause them to be likely lost as important evidence, those items will be allowed in court.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758/104/143/127/ART/
However, this does not mean that police officers can seize only those items listed in the warrant. If, in the course of their search, police officers come across contraband or evidence of a crime that is not listed in the warrant, they can lawfully seize the unlisted items.

(snip)

Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted.

The police seized a lot of items not listed on the warrant, and you better believe, they'll be used as evidence in court.

and unless she told them about the broom they would have no idea it was used.

A little reading comprehension, please.

However, this does not mean that police officers can seize only those items listed in the warrant. If, in the course of their search, police officers come across contraband or evidence of a crime that is not listed in the warrant, they can lawfully seize the unlisted items.

(snip)

Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted.

A broom, like the other stuff they seized without it being listed on the warrant would qualify as evidence. And she may not have told them about an attack with a broom initially. I don't find that surprising. It is NORMAL and COMMON for rape victims to have great difficulty telling their story and it is NORMAL and COMMON to repress certain aspects of the incident or even most of the incident immediately following the trauma. I would be more inclined to believe she was lying if immediately following the incident she was able to rationally discuss the incident in detail particularly since she was impaired by drugs or alcohol or something at the time.

She may not have been attacked by a broom at all. Her father may have confused the threat with the broom that inspired them to leave in the first place with her actually having been attacked with a broom. He said himself that he came by this information from sources other than her. It very well may be that she is allowing him to think what he feels most comfortable thinking about the details of what happened since I would think it would be very common that daughters would not want their fathers to know those details or even know of the incident at all. Personally, my father would be the very last person on earth I'd want to know the details of his daughter's rape and I'd dread him even knowing it happened at all. Thankfully, since I've never been raped, and my father is no longer living, this is never something I would personally have to face.

We DON'T KNOW the details of her story, and everything about her story that we conclude is so is coming from somewhere other than her.

but I was responding to the notion that the police could just take any old thing they want. I can't imagine any senario in which they can take a broom away unless it was either mentioned by her or clearly had blood or semen on it. Had she mentioned it it would have been in the warrent given the quality of lawyer one would expect a Duke Lacross player to have access to. There would be a huge risk of it being excluded from evidence had they not.

didn't list it as an item seized.

And we know they had TIME from the event until the search warrant was issued - two days - in which to verify her story with her, and get additional details.

The affidavit supporting the search warrant tells a story, and that story only mentions a broom once.

The rationalizations you make might make sense to you, but your desire to see her vindicated instead of her being proved to be a lying schemer is quite obvious and probably natural.

I would tend to give the benefit of doubt to anyone claiming they've been a victim of a crime regardless of what it is and would hope that anyone else who is human and compassionate would as well.

However, I'm not going to jump through hoops one way or the other. There simply isn't enough information about this case that we know of. Most of what we get is from the defense, and defense council will flat out lie in the hope that the case would be dropped... that's their job.

Personally, I don't think a broom was listed on the search warrant because there wasn't one. I think her father is confused about the incident of the threatening with the broom with an actual assault with one. It's also possible that she's letting her father believe it was a broom she was raped with because she may think it may make him feel better about the incident. I would think she would have a very difficult time telling her father anything at all about it... I know if it was me, I couldn't possibly discuss something like that with my father especially so soon afterward.

I find it difficult to believe that inserting a broom into her in a bathroom with four people in it would be much of a possibility... how big is this bathroom? They may have tried to rape her with a broom, found they didn't have much luck with it, and abandoned the attempt or broke the broom in half to make it easier to weild... we just don't know. We don't know that they tried to use a broom at all... all we know is that the women were apparently threatened with one.

The point is, we simply can't rely on this statement by her father as some sort of evidence that she's changing her story. We don't KNOW the details of her story. We also don't know based on the search warrant and what was seized that she WASN'T assaulted with a broom. Knowing that the details of the search warrant would be made public, and how common it is for police and prosecutor to keep certain details of an incident close to the vest in an attempt to verify the stories of potential witnesses, they may have not listed the broom specifically on purpose... they know they can seize the boom if they find it without it being listed on the search warrant, so if for some reason they didn't want that detail to be known, they could have intentionally left it off. I don't personally think that's the case, but it's certainly a possibility.

They seized pills that weren't specifically listed on the search warrant, and I believe they probably intentionally left it off the warrant for the reason I described... they knew of the possibility of a date-rape drug being involved, but didn't want that tidbit of info to get out by listing it on the warrant. We don't know what these pills were that were seized, but you can bet that was more than likely the reason they took them. The prosecutor has been hinting that a date-rape drug was used, and it could be that these pills that were seized were tested and found to be evidence of that.

The rationalizations you make might make sense to you, but your desire to see her vindicated instead of her being proved to be a lying schemer is quite obvious and probably natural.

I find it strange that there are those who are so quick to want to see someone claiming to be the victim of a crime found to be a liar or schemer to the point of making claims about what her story is when we don't know what her story is, to the point of taking whatever the defense council says as gospel, to the point of fishing for personal reasons the prosecutor may have for going forward with the case, to the point of ignoring the percentage of cases where DNA evidence isn't found, to the point of ignoring technical facts that make the defense council's claims of a time-line suspect, to the point of being willing to discredit both dancers because of their criminal background while conveniently ignoring the violent criminal background of one of the accused, to the point of ignoring or questioning the results of the victim's examination... need I go on? You may find my interest in giving the benefit of doubt to the victim to be obvious and natural, but I find your obvious desire to see the victim proven to be a liar and schemer decidedly unnatural.

Unlike you, I have not made any claims that she's either lying or telling the truth because I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I have only been pointing out descrepincies in what other people are claiming to be fact when it isn't and pointing out other valid possibilities. The only thing I have claimed is that SOMETHING horrible happened to this woman at that party that caused her to flee with one shoe while leaving behind her purse, her keys, her phone and her money, and that's plenty good enough reason to properly investigate it.

And we know they had TIME from the event until the search warrant was issued - two days - in which to verify her story with her, and get additional details.

WOW! TWO WHOLE DAYS!!! What is it you don't get about rape victims? Most woman can't speak of the details of the crime for weeks or months or years or even EVER. Why is it the least bit unreasonable that a woman who is raped is unable to discuss or even unable to recall certain aspects of the incident just two fucking days after it happened? How is it that you just don't seem to understand that a woman who is raped has gone through the most personally horrifying, ugly, evil, humiliating, disgusting trauma she could ever imagine short of death? I just do not understand why in the world you would expect such a woman to be able to discuss the details of such a hidious thing with complete strangers after two damn days. What do you expect the police to do, beat the details out of her? Badger her, harrass her, threaten her to get the details she may not be ready to even RECALL? Even more important then catching the perp is treating the victim with the proper respect, consideration and compassion that such a person DESERVES as a human being for what they have gone through. Thank God it isn't you that interviews these women.

The affidavit supporting the search warrant tells a story, and that story only mentions a broom once.

Whoopie. It's not meant to tell all the details of her story, and if you read the affidavit for the search warrant for the alleged crime scene, it doesn't mention a broom in her story at all. It was the affidavit for the search warrant for the dorm room of Ryan Flannery, the player who wrote that disgusting email after the party, that mentions the broom. An affidavit supporting a search warrant is meant to tell just enough to get the search warrant, and that's IT. It's only purpose is to show probable cause as to the reason for the search. The details of her story are meant for trial. To tell all in an affidavit for a search warrant is like giving your whole case away to the defense. The story revealed in the affidavits tells just enough to show probable cause for a reason... the case ain't tried in an affidavit and shouldn't be. The affidavit for the search warrant for the residence where the alleged incident occurred says she was sexually assaulted orally, anally and vaginally, and that's all it needs to say.

There's a reason one has to go to law school three years and pass the bar JUST to get a ticket to start learning law in the real world, in earnest.

How are you going to get your secretly seized, nondisclosed broom into evidence?

How are you going to get around the affidavit by the investigator, and his version of what she said, versus her dad's version of what she said?

How are you going to get around the DA's promise to the court that DNA would exonerate the innocent?

First, there's this information:

The police can search only the place described in a warrant and usually can seize only the property that the warrant describes.

Then there's the section that you listed above:

However, this does not mean that police officers can seize only those items listed in the warrant. If, in the course of their search, police officers come across contraband or evidence of a crime that is not listed in the warrant, they can lawfully seize the unlisted items.

I read those sections to mean that if you're heading into a house for a rape investigation and see evidence of another crime, you can seize it. If you go in fora rape and see a bag of coke, you can take the coke. The determination comes out of the "evidence of a crime" statement. A broom is not evidence of a crime unless you can establish it as such through the search warrant.

The police can search only the place described in a warrant and usually can seize only the property that the warrant describes.

Note the word USUALLY. There is a very good reason that in crime scene investigations the police are given much leeway in what they are allowed to seize that isn't listed on a warrant. It is often the case where they aren't going to know what they'll find until they get there regardless of how accurate and detailed a description of the crime they may have gotten. It is important that the police be able to seize evidence they believe is connected to the crime if they have a reasonable suspicion that such evidence will be gotten rid of before they can obtain a warrant for those items.

For instance, in this case, they took towells of various types that weren't listed on the warrant because the person describing the incident may have either left out the detail of the presense of the towells, or the towells may have been used by the accused in an attempt to wipe or wash away evidence after the person describing the incident was already gone, in which case, the person describing the indicent wouldn't know of the existance of the towells at all. They took pills that the person describing the incident may not have known about which the police probably seized because of a reasonable suspicion that they could be a date-rape drug and used in the commission of the crime. They took several items not listed on the warrant that the person describing the incident may not have known existed and the police would only have known of their existence when examining the scene.

All that is required is that it's proven to the judge after seizing unlisted items that the items were probably connected with the crime and if they weren't seized at the time, they would probably be lost as evidence. This happens all the time, as it is very often the case that when the police go to investigate a crime scene they know very little about what they may expect to find. The judge then makes a decision whether or not each individual item that was seized that wasn't listed on the warrant was seized for a valid reason. For instance, a judge would reasonably allow the seized towells to remain as evidence since it is reasonable they had something to do with the crime and that it is reasonable that they may be lost if the police waited to get a warrant for them first. However, if the police seized a blue teddybear from one of the bedrooms in the house, a judge wouldn't necessarily allow that item as evidence since given the nature and description of the crime there would be no reason to believe the blue teddybear was connected to the crime and no reason to believe that it wouldn't remain there should they decide to issue a warrant for it at a later date.

In a nutshell, there has to be two assumptions by the police:
1) the item not listed in the warrant could reasonably be assumed to be connected with the crime, and
2) the item not listed in the warrant could reasonably be assumed to be "disappeared" before they had a chance to get a warrant for it.

The reason for the leeway is to protect evidence that may not be known even exists until the police examine the scene, and since they pretty much need a warrant to examine the scene in the first place, there has to be some leeway or valuable evidence would be lost.

Incidently, the defense has the right to fight it out in court to try to have the trial judge exclude evidence not listed on a warrant that was seized, and they probably will in this case. I think more than half the motions I wrote in defense cases were motions to exclude certain evidence or certain testimony... and those motions usually sink like a rock. But it's the defense counsel's job to do everything they possibly can to benefit their client(s), so it's probably a given that there will be several motions to exclude evidence by the defense in this case (hell, they get paid by the hour, so I expect there to be a blizzard of motion bombs).

Make sense?

Now, in the case with the mystery broom, if the police had no knowledge of a broom being connected with the crime and it wasn't listed in the warrant, if they seized a broom it my be argued by the judge that they had no reasonable belief that a broom should be seized and therefore, no reasonable belief that the broom wouldn't still be there if they decided to get a warrant for it later. However, if the police did know that a broom was either threatened to be used in connection with the crime and/or that it was used in connection with the crime, and they had a reasonable belief that the broom would be "disappeared" before they could get a warrant for it, if they found a broom that wasn't listed on the warrant, they'd have a valid reason to seize it.

Here's where it gets interesting: It's common that police and prosecutors will purposely keep to themselves some detail(s) of a crime in order to validate what they are told by potential witnesses. For example, say a person tried to strangle someone to death with the victim's own hair, and the police knew from talking to and examining the victim that the perp cut off a lock of the victim's hair to save as a souvenir but he dropped it when escaping. They may not want the general public or anyone else to know about that lock of hair, so that anyone they interview about the incident that mentions the lock of hair they will know is a valid witness and not just someone who learned about the details of the crime through news reports or defense counsel or where ever. Because warrants are made public information, they may purposesly not list the lock of hair as an item to be seized but may let the judge know about the lock of hair and their reason for not including it in the warrant. However, if they find the lock of hair and seize it, I believe it would have to be listed as an item that was seized (then they'd just have to hope that nobody would figure out the significance of a lock of hair in order to not have their attempt at validating potential witnesses spoiled)... that part I'm not sure about as I've never known a particular case where the item that was being kept secret was found.

It is possible that the woman in this case was assaulted with a broom and that was a detail they wanted to keep hidden in order to validate potential witnesses... a witness that didn't know about the woman being assaulted with a broom may not end up being a very valid witness since if they did know what happened, they should know about the significance of a broom and what was done with it. If they list the broom in the warrant, it will be publically known and speculated upon why a broom would be searched for which could spoil the attempt to validate potential witnesses. If this is the case, a broom not being seized could mean they knew about a broom, searched for it and didn't find it.

Although this is a possibility, personally I just feel like the dancers were just threatened with a broom and a broom being used in raping her is probably just rumor... but what do I know... maybe she was just threatened with a broom, or maybe an attempt to assault her with a broom was made but failed and abandoned, or maybe she was raped with a broom. Maybe I'm just going on a gut feeling that people are confusing the threatening with a broom as a broom being used to rape her. I suppose eventually the mystery broom thing will be cleared up to some extent.

would exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty with the negative results.

That's what he told the court to GET the order to take the DNA swabs on 46 players. The DNA tests came back negative. The DA's statement to the court can only mean that he thought the DNA tests would be dispostive. That can only mean he expected to find their DNA based upon what the woman had told him and his investigators.

The failure to list the broom as an item to be seized or seized means it did not have the importance when the warrant was issued you ascribe to it. Exactly how is the DA supposed to use evidence he secretly seizes and doesn't list on the seized items? The case gets thrown out from the get go, if he secrets away the broom, as you have imagined, and tries to spring it later. Only in crime novels and bad TV shows does it work like that.

And you might want to read the items seized.

I would like to know why you think your statements in your post have any validity whatsoever. Seriously. There's no way a case could be made following your legal insights.

to take the broom with the search warrant.

You can get the list yourself right here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html

and

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke2.html

The list is basically:

1) Any DNA evidence to include hair, semen, blood, saliva, related to the suspects and the victim.
2) Blue bathroom rug/carpet.
3) Clothing related to suspects and victim.
4) Any documentation identifying the suspects.
5) Latent fingerprints.
6) Documentation of ownership of residence.
7) Property belonging to victim - purse, wallet, make-up and bag, cell phone, and a shoe.
8) Photos or video of event.
9) Cameras or video devices.
10) Artificial finger nails
11) Currency
12) Computers or similar devices.

If you need to list the blue bathroom rug/carpet on the search warrant it would seem pretty likely that you would need to list the broom as well. The idea that the police can march into your home and take whatever they want seems pretty far-fetched. Could they have taken the TV out of the house? It didn't belong to the alleged rapists? Those artificial fingernails certainly didn't belong to the alleged rapists. Why are they on the list?

Now, offsetting that is the revelation that there was DNA from the suspects found on a towel and another surface in the bathroom. Since that towel is not on the list, it would seem that the broomstick could have been tested under item 1 above and the police would have just swabbed the item at the residence rather than seizing it. However, that would seem really unlikely since, if the broomstick were a part of the story from the start, only a moron of a DA would not want it held in evidence. They sure as hell took the plunger into evidence with Abner Louima.

One other aspect to consider in all of this. When it started to look like there was going to be no DNA conclusive results from the DNA testing the DA, in one of his many interviews at the time, said that it was possible there was no DNA there because the suspects could have worn condoms. If the story from the start was that the alleged assailants had used a foreign device like a broomstick, why would the DA go to condoms as a rationale for the potential of inconclusive DNA results? Why wouldn't he at least mention that the alleged attackers could have used a foreign object?

We can speculate on this all day, but most signs seem to point to the fact that the story has changed. The good news is that this is one mystery that will be cleared up as the original statement to the police will eventually be disclosed should this come to trial. But if that story did change, then it's a huge blow for the prosecution. I can think of only two plausible explanations that would not be totally damaging:

First, the alleged victim could have suppressed that memory which is possible, especially if she was given any kind of date rape drug.
Second, the father could be lying in what he said his daughter told him. That would isolate the lie from the alleged victim. Call it the Ollie North approach.

Anything beyond that is a pretty strong blow to the alleged victim's story. You can decide for yourself which is the more likely scenario in the event that the original report did not include an assault with a broomstick.

One final thing to add - this is not the first time the father's story has changed regarding the event. There were two very conflicting reports from him early on in the investigation.

Her story NOW makes no sense, because if she'd told them the story in the beginning, it would say that in the search warrant affidavit, and it would have made getting the broom a priority.

in the exchange?

I asked if she had been raped due to the the "interest" in this case by the poster, who has posted on every thread regarding this case. It is quite apparent to me that she hasn't and knows nothing about what happens to a woman physically, emotionally and mentally, that has been raped.

What she has done and is continuing to do, is rape the woman over and over and over again, w/NO known knowledge of what has and what has not been said to the DA and/or deposed.

Her vicious comments are disgusting. And I am not the only DUer that feels this way.

I actually "unignored" this poster fir the first time in months to read hers/his posts on this thread... am was appalled. Why was I appalled though? I know what this poster is like... but, saying this garbage about a woman who WAS raped is just beyond the pale...

I agree with you -- anyone who has either been raped or had a friend or relative raped would NEVER react this way.

S/he's back on Ignore!

you can certainly say she has claimed to have been raped. But unless you were in the bathroom at the time of the alleged incident you have no knowledge of what did or did not happen. How is your prejudice any better than the other poster? Why are you right and s/he is wrong?

subjectProdigal

from the forensic SANE nurse was that the injuries were consistent with rape. Now you can quibble about what "consistent with" means all day, and people have. But the official medical opinion here is that she was more than likely raped, by someone.

and had not read that...sorry for the miss...

sP

So, to be all legal about it: she was found to have injuries consistent with rape per the SANE... injuries bad enough to cause her to be hospitalized.

Better?

Maybe you should try dealing with medical facts, instead of only your prejudice.

Whatever. You're on Ignore. I know read posts from blaming the victim posters, or people claiming she wasn't raped. She was raped. She';s a rape victim. Sorry if that bothers you, that she's telling the truth about being raped.

but the poster in question is raping no one. In fact, the only person I see that poster going after is THIS ONE WOMAN who very well may have lied and at the very least appears to have changed her story to suit the facts as they come to light.

The search warrant is critical here. The search warrant would have certainly contained a reference to a broomhandle if she had said it was used. Failing to mention that you were sodomized with a broomhandle rather than a penis is a rather difficult thing to do when recounting the act of rape. And, yes, having read the search warrant and the list of items retrieved from the residence, you can indeed determine what was NOT said to the police or the DA...if she had said that she was sodomized with a broomhandle that broom would damn-sure have been in the search warrant...and if it had happened that way, she wouldn't have left it out.

I have nothing to gain one way or another in this issue. I don't care who is right and who is wrong. But to dismiss the search warrant in the way that you are doing it is only evidence that YOU have already made a decision.

subjectProdigal

Besides, how do you know that there was one and only one search warrant?

The decision I have made is to defend the woman against these nasty diatribes by said poster.

and if it had happened that way, she wouldn't have left it out.

She may very well indeed have left it out on the first telling. It is VERY typical of rape victims to not even report the crime AT ALL much less every detail immediately after it happened. It is very common for rape victims to internalize the crime and even subconsciously repress details if not most of what happened. This is COMMON. I would actually be more inclined to think she was lying if she was able to immediately and rationally be able to describe the incident in detail since it is THAT which is NOT typical of the average rape victim. She was also obviously impaired by drugs or alcohol or maybe even just trauma... I would hardly find it a stretch that she would not be able to immediately describe the incident in detail under those conditions as well.

it's crazy to expect someone to be "rational" after experiencing a trauma of any kind.

something real strange about that viciousness.

Seems like there's an ulterior motive in there somewhere...

A rape kit administered to Brawley did not indicate sexual assault. A grand jury investigated for several months and did not find enough evidence to return indictments. Apparently a ham sandwich couldn't be found in that case. So that episode is rather unlike the present one.

reaction than by the revelation that they used a broom on her.

If so, why would they swab for DNA?

on her and that they forced her to perform oral sex on them.

and orally raped. I guess now anal and vaginal sex are out, or what?
But hey, does it matter?
Try them anyway!
Whoever they are.

DU posters are now speculating that ONLY a broom was used, but that's not what the person said on the TV show, & that's not what the DA is alleging in this case.

If she does so now, then she most definitely changed her story.
Whether she says broom was used instead, or in addition.

the affidavit in support of the search warrant said she was raped, not this

She had ID these men from a line up, saying who anally raped her, and who made her to perform oral sex. In reality, they just used a broom, but she was too ashamed to say it. Yea, I would buy it-not in this lifetime. Not in the next one either.

you seem to know about this case.

is the place where someone got tired of thinking.

Yeah, it's amazing that people have already put both sides on trial and already decided who is guilty and/or innocent. Me, I'm waiting for the actually trial.

no idea about, i guess?

Both parties are innocent til proven guilty. And I'm not going to get suckered into "trial by popular opinion". Reminds me too much of what happened to Michael Schiavo in the media.

We don't know all the facts here. I don't understand how people can state unequivocally that she lied or the boys lied or anything else with certainty.

We shall see.

getting sodomized by a broomstick by force is most definitely rape.

Rape is specifically limited to forcible vaginal intercourse. The law treats certain forced "sexual acts" including fellatio, anal sex, and any penetration using a foreign object as a separate offense. The indictments included both a charge of rape and a charge of a forcible sexual act. That strongly suggests that the accused told the authorities (who then used that information in seeking the indictment) that she was forced to engage in vaginal intercourse. The sexual offense claim could refer either to an attack with a broom or oral sex. The problem is that her credibility is going to be in question if she is now saying that there was no vaginal intercourse.


onenote

so she might have assumed that being forced to have oral sex, or being penetrated with a broom is in fact rape, as would most sane people.

Why didn't she say she was raped with a broom?
If after all this time, she decides she was raped with a broom, you think that's believable?

When these players are finally acquitted, I hope they mile a major lawsuit against her for slander and against the DA for malicious prosecution.

based on what the defense is saying about her? unless you know her, your comment has ZERO basis in fact.

regardless of your obsession with insisting she's lying...
i wonder why she would lie...that's puzzling to me. would all this (a "stripper" claiming to be raped by golden boys, the kind of boys many love to let get away with almost anything) be worth a possible civil suit? i doubt it. an overzelous DA? that i find quite probable.

If he brought rape charges, it's because he believes a rape (as defined by NC law) occured here. He also brought a seperate charge for sexual offense, which would cover any penetration by a broom. So, he brought both charges, to cover both allegations. (It's still unclear to me, though, if the broom allegation is actually a part of the case here, or just some random mistatement on a cable news show.) There really needs to be a gag order in this case, already.

100%

don't you think she should know something about NC law before she spouts off? Its not what the accuser said that I was addressing, it was the exchange on MSNBC where it was claimed that it was proper for the DA to charge rape for an assault with a broom.

onenote

is the "she" i was referring to.

so that blows your theory that she said "rape" to describe getting rammed with a broomstick

that would be unusual, to say the least.

and the detective describes what she reported

Also, there have been reports on TV news that she described which guy did which act, a story at variance with what her father said recently.

or has her story actually changed? admittedly, i am not up on the details of this case, but i am quite familiar with the way alleged rape victims are treated in the press, and here at DU.

If you're in the "she's the VICTIM, end of story" camp, the facts won't matter to you anyway.

:shrug: not exactly unbelievable, so color me unconvinced thus far. i might actually wait until the investigation is completed before i make up my mind, and if there is a trial, i might even wait until i hear all of testimony and see all of the evidence presented
:eyes: who knows...the men might even be exonerated, once the investigation is actually completed :eyes:

therefore I dismiss automatically any post that has rolling eyes

Seriously, I don't even read such posts. Why bother reading the words of an eye roller?

perhaps the police affidavits and press stories are conclusive :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

The facts: no woman in the history of mankind has EVER been raped at any college party. NOT EVER! If ANY woman ANYWHERE ever claims she was, she's obviously a mentally-incompetent deeply-disturbed scheming conniving gold-digging alcoholic drug-addled whore that was asking for it. SHE WANTED IT! THE GUYS JUST GAVE HER WHAT SHE WANTED! THEY'RE COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!!111!! Sheesh! How many times does this need to be repeated before people get a clue and start believing it.

:sarcasm: Major fucking sarcasm.

it's not like it's sooooooooooooooooooooooo unbelievable. privileged young men, alcohol, an "other" woman, who is an exotic dancer = DUH. not such a stretch to believe that a rape might have happened. and when you add to that the statistics re: rape and false accusation = MAJOR DUH. statistically speaking: her story is not only plausible, but likely. of course, since i have no dog in this fight (as some here do), i will err on the side of the most plausible scenario until the investigation is completed.

that she is changing her mind on that, is there? The father just said that he was told that a broom was used as well. This would perfectly fit the charges that the DA originally brought in this case. What would make you think she has dropped the rape charge?

Their DNA on her? Her DNA on the broom?

I wouldn't be putting her on trial yet based only on what we know so far.

Both the alleged victim and the alleged attackers are innocent til proven guilty.

I don't understand the rush to call her a liar when we don't know everything about the case, I'm sure.

it does seem odd that the broomstick story is now coming out after the lack of any conclusive DNA results. It will be very interesting to see if that broomstick was mentioned in the first police report or if it only came up after the DNA results.

to me to see if the victim actually even mentioned a broom assault at all. Remember, this is only 2nd hand info presented by a layman who was not a witness here & is not a legal expert. Although such an assault would fit the charges here, I see no indication that the victim has actually alleged such an assault at all. I think this is just a rumor, inspired by confusion about the original threat w/the broom from the search warrant.

There's no telling where the deviation from the original story would have happened. Is this a case of the daughter telling the father or the father just making it up himself (assuming that the broomstick wasn't mentioned in the first report)?

It's not a reflection on the alleged victim unless it is attributable to her.

It is a first degree sexual offense, which is different than first degree rape. The indictments that were handed down specified both crimes, although that seems a bit odd if she is not claming forcible vaginal intercourse (which is the only act that constitutes rape under NC law).

onenote

but that does change the essence of the charges then. I didn't know they considered something different altogether.

How do you know that she is changing her story? The DA has pressed charges for BOTH rape & a sexual offense. If the victim alleged a rape & an assault w/the broom, that is perfectly consistent with the charges in this case. Even assuming this allegation is true (& it's uncertain right now), that allegation is totally consistent w/the charges the DA brought in this case. We don't know what the victim has told the DA, & she (almost alone) is not talking to the media. Therefore, we have no way of knowing what her "story" is about what happened that night. Taking this as a real allegation, she could have told the DA that both kinds of assault (rape & broom) occured, & that is consistent w/the fact that both types of assault were charged. A lot of people are jumping to conclusions here.

what you think it means. The search warrant says she was sexually assaulted; it doesn't go into details about the assault. The warrant does mention that a player threatened them w/the broom. So, the possibilities are: Victim told police about assault w/broom (consistent w/the search warrant info, & the charges here, though no broom was apparantly seized). That would mean she isn't changing the story. Victim never told police about an assault w/a broom, & never told the DA about this, because it didn't happen & is not part of the DA's case (that is also consistent w/the charges here, & explains why no broom was seized). That would also mean she isn't changing the story. This is what I believe happened - there's no evidence this is part of the DA's case at all. Third, victim could not have mentioned the broom assault before, but is now. That could be her changing her story, or it could be due to a lack of memory after alcohol/being drugged. So, you can see that there are a number of possible conclusions here that do not mean she has changed her story. Therefore, for you to say that this Rita Cosby quote "proves" the victim has changed her story isn't correct.

Of course.
She also made an ID on Reade and Colin-one of them (Reade) forced her to perform oral sex. The other one (Colin) anally raped her.
Where was the broom?
Her story is just getting more and more ludicrous with time.
If she alleged that the broom was used, broom would have been included in a search warrant.
It was not, which clearly states she never alleged anything of the sort.
I think the woman is deeply disturbed and needs help. And so does the DA.
Some serous mental help.

the search warrant affidavit kills the broom story

I guess Nifong will have to change the charges, or what?
I just wish this whole thing went way, and Mr. Nifong went away with it.

She has a criminal past and her story has changed numerous times. I'm not saying she was not raped, I have no idea, but it is going to be a very steep uphill battle for the DA to get a conviction in this case.

There was between 46 and 54 jerk-offs at that party but only 3 men committed the crime.

I believe she was most likely raped. I have a feeling she was, quite likely, drugged with GHB or some other date-rape drug. That said, I have a problem with the way the "line-up" was done and the fact that only lacrosse player's pictures were presented to the victim. It appears that other people attended the party and they are not being presented as suspects. If she was drugged, I hope the prosecution has more than a shaky eyewitness I.D. and a time-line that doesn't square with the defendants alibis. Unfortunately, the GHB may have worked and the guilty may or may not go free. I would hate to see some kid do 40 years if he was, in fact, eating a burrito when the crime was comitted....even if he is a big asshole.

uses alcohol and drugs.
I have a feeling no one drugged her, she voluntarily took drugs.
Made the whole story up, and Mr. Nifong, eager to win his election, ate it all up and run with it.
The broom was obviously never mentioned before this.
So, I guess now, instead of anal, vaginal and oral penetration, somebody used a broom on her?
And it just came to her after all this time?
Well, good luck with that.

...a lot of the details are not revealed at the outset. We have no idea what the whole story is.

If it was, search warrant would include the broom.
These men would not have been charged with first degree rape, because that must involve vaginal penetration under NC law.
If now she says there was a broom, then she made up a new story.
What other details do you need?

I'd like to read it.

for it for you.
But if she alleged broom, the men couldn't have been charged with first degree rape under NC law. THe search warrant never mentioned the broom.
It mentioned she claimed anal, vaginal and oral penetration.

All I asked was where I could read the original search warrant. geeeezzzzzzzz.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html

So, what we have here is a cover-up by the cops.

The search warrant is specific enough to mention the following items:

Blue bathroom carpet

Purse

Wallet

A Shoe

Artificial Fingernails with reddish color polish

But, here's the kicker, there is no BROOM in the search warrant. So, clearly, the person who wrote the search warrant was trying to hide the crime here, because they left it off of a very specific list.

There are some weird folks on this board.

To me. I've started putting any rape apologist or victim smearers on Ignore. It's scary, huh?

much less stressful. I've got no one on Ignore, because I feel like someone's got to debunk this stuff. But it is scary stuff.

I've seen no posts that would make me want to put someone on ignore,if the posts on this topic upset you so much don't read them or people that use ignore just can't handle people disagreeing with them.

No one has any real evidence, except the small bit of info in the media...

I started "Ignoring" posters who were giving me the "got a link for that?" reply to my posts that were obviously pure speculation...like a freakin' link means shit...

There are plenty of non-agenda driven folks looking at this from all angles...even with "Ignore" working overtime.

... they ask for "got a link?"

http://www.google.com/

you can't handle the truth.

My opinion of some of these posters is not polite.
:grr:

How's my man Thomcat doing tonight?

Getting tombstoned would be horrible. x(

I'm doing well. I friend of mind is a History professor. I've been doing some library research for him. He took me out to dinner tonight to thank me. I've never had Ethiopian food before. It was awesome. So this has been a very nice evening. :)

Re: the research... and the Ethiopian food. The only "African" food I've ever had is Moroccan, which I like very much.

i will speculate as to why: some men idenitify with the males in these cases. i would paint my brush so broad as to say some men always indentify with alleged rapists, but i will say that there have been some posters who consistently take the side of the men involved in any rape case here. to DU's credit, some of them have been banned over the years.

I find it interesting that you see those who question the accuser to be defenders of men, and defenders of rapists.

You and many like you conclude that whatever she says is true, and you take off from there.

Some here simply aren't rational on the topic, and cannot consider the very real possibility, if not probability, the players are innocent of these charges.

DU stands for progressive values, and one of those values is the presumption of innocence and the distrust of those who sweep away logic with their emotions.

i haven't mentioned ONE WORD about the alleged rapists...not that they are lying or crazy or drunks. on the other hand, you, and others have beat a steady drum about the alleged victim.
:nopity: that's your privilege as men in this society...it has nothing to do with "logic" or "progressive values"
as to presumption of innocence: that applies to the woman in this case too. read the comments about her in this thread, and tell me if those commenting are giving her the same presumption as they are giving the accused.

that kind of sad song needs strings to make it wail

It's amusing the number of women here who lack any sense of objectivity on this matter, but THINK it's everyone else who is being unreasonable.

The more one likes logic and can use it, the less one thinks of the DA's case.

if you were: you wouldn't have made up you mind already. nice try, but no cigar. "logic" has little to do with swallowing one side of a story whole because of emotionalism about false accusation, especially when, to my knowledge, the investigation is ongoing.

I tell you goodbye, because I can't imagine you posting anything I'd find significant.

buh bye

typical of your ilk...run along now, sonny :spank:

adding your voice to my IGNORE list

your comments duplicate those said by others much better, anyway

:spank: now...GIT :eyes:

He might like it. :P

today I'm adding to my IGNORE list with the "volunteers" from this thread

:eyes: :spank: :eyes: :spank: :eyes: :spank: LOL...too much fun for a thursday evening.

:rofl:

How about you, noiretblu? Are you absolutely devastated??? :7

:nuke: can't get rid of him now :D

O8)

about these cases. Because her father now says there was a broom used does not mean she "made up a new story." We cannot draw such expedient conclusions from so little info.

Read the search warrant:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html

Blue bathroom carpet

Purse

Wallet

A Shoe

Artificial Fingernails with reddish color polish.

They wanted these items, but not the broom?

There's no evidence that the broom allegation is actually a part of this case at all. This is one sentence from a Rita Cosby show interview of one man who is not a party, or a witness, in this case. The DA, defense, & victim haven't ever publically mentioned an assault by a broom at all. This could easily be a rumor, spread along w/the million other rumors in this case.

:7 per one of the persistent "she's a liar" posters, the women in this thread are just reacting emotionally, while the liar crowd is using "logic." i must say, i have enjoyed reading your very logical posts, and the emotional responses to them :D