Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

Dear colleagues;

forgive me if this is repetitive or cros--posted but I have to respond to the 
latest in the Duke case in light of latest developments including that the 
defense claims the prosecutor had a secret deal with the DNA expert to hide 
evidence -- this is all such nonsense -- 

First -- remember that all the information we are hearing is coming from the 
defense side and spinners -- the prosecution is saying nothing and for that, 
he deserves prosecutor of the year award.  The defense has been attacking and 
baiting him for months -- and his response has been quiet confidence -- good 
for him -- other prosecutors should take a lesson.

The defense has far more freedom than the prosecution does to manipulate 
public opinion with half-truths, spin and even outright lies (e.g., the 
victim in the kobe bryant trial did NOT have sex with three men in three days 
- but the ability of the defense to falsely make this statement in court was 
very harmful in the court of public opinion).  Defense attorneys can lie with 
impunity -- prosectors can't even tell the truth without getting in trouble.

When the prosecution says something to the media -- they can get in trouble 
either because it is "prejudicial" or might unfairly taint the jury pool -- 
and the remedies for this inlcude suppression of evidence and dismissal of 
charges.  When the defense does the same thing, there are no similar 
sanctions.  This is why in most high profile cases, the public information is 
usually unfairly favorable to the accused.

Second -- there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor NOT revealing that a 
victim had other DNA in her body or on her underpants.  Nor is it impropert 
for the DNA lab NOT to reveal the information.  The defense knew immediately 
that there was no DNA match to the accused players (there almost never is -- 
rapists for decades have been careful not to leave evidence at the "crime 
scece")  and they had no right to receive information about the victim's 
other sex partners.  If I were the DA, I'd have done the same thing -- keep 
all irrelevant and constitutionally protected private information private, 
unless and until a judge determines that it shoudl be revealed to the defense 
or the jury -- etc.  I would be concerned, as the defense conduct bears out, 
that the defense would vioate the victim's privacy by dumping her personal 
information into the ocurt of public opinion to infect the jury pool -- the 
defense has shown a willingness to dump all sorts of information into the 
court of public opinion.  The prosecutor has told us almost nothign abotuthe 
strength of his case.  Irrelevant and constitutionally protected private 
information is ofter unveiled during rap kit exams -- which is why I have 
long advocated AGAINST doing any testing without a court order - and i I 
teach those who deal with such evidence not to test the evidence or ask 
victims questions abotu their past sex life unless and until a judge orders 
specific testing to elucidate particular information.  As it stands now, 
nobody has protocols in place to protect victims' privacy in this regard so 
there's far too much gratuitous harm going on -- caused in part by the Debbie 
Smith Act - that urged all evidence be tested and tons of money wasted to 
look at victims' private biological material.  After the Kobe Bryant case, 
one would have hoped for reform -- but we still see huge waste in tax money 
overtesting this material -- and it wouldn't be so bad to waste money if it 
didn't also cause trememdous harm to innocent victims -- as this and the kobe 
bryant case illustrate.  

Third - the line-ups were not unlawful.  According to the president of Duke, 
"many" players were not at the party -- and many NON-players WERE.  This 
means, she absolutely could have picked a guy who wasn't even there -- but 
she didn't -- in fact, one of the guys was the one who took off -- 
frantically calling a taxi over and over again - - making 9 calls on his 
cellphone in 7 minutes -- then leaving the scene in a hurry.  Less than an 
hour later -- when police got there - the entire house was empty -- even the 
guys who lived therre had run away.  What were they runnign from?  A cab 
driver who drove some of them said they were saying they were worried she 
would call the police.

In any case -- if the victim was going to lie maliciously -- why say she was 
only 90% sure of the ID of one guy?  Why would she have inconsistencies in 
her statements?  Her lack of certainty undermines the claim that she made it 
all up. 

There is no doubt she could have been raped by three guys in ten minutes -- 
each of them taking a few minutes to assault her -- then leaving the 
bathroom.  In fact, the guy Seligman who claims his cellphone calls "prove"  
his innocence actually lends support to the theory that he was the first guy 
to assault her -- which is what she claims -- and that it was oral -- because 
he could have assaulted her for the first few minutes -- then thought to 
himself "i've gotta get out of here" -- which explains why he frantically and 
repeatedly called a cab.  who frantically calls a cab to see if they're 
coming -- in a space of five minutes - esepcially considering that the guy 
went to an ATM and a pizza place when he left -- no real emergency there.

Isn't it convenient that he just happens to be one of the guys she accused?

There's been no mention that the victim rejected over two million dollars of 
hush money last spring -- an offer from a group "on behalf of Duke".  she 
wanted no part of the payoff.

and nobody seems to care that despite claims that the prosecutor brought 
charges so he could win the "black vote", he didn't win the majority of black 
votes in the primary and more important, he lost a ton of wealthy white votes 
-- something he surely knew would happen if he brought charges - yet he 
brought the charges anyway.  In short, he easily could have skated into his 
election by NOT bringing charges as evidence by the "type" of opponent that 
was propped up to run against him -- a conservative wealthy white guy.

It is also important to remember that the defense claims NOW that they wanted 
to meet with the DA to show him evidence of their innocence -- but the simple 
truth is - a meeting between the police, prosecutors and defendants was 
scheduled BEFORE charges were brought and at the last minute, the defense 
CANCELLED the meeting.  Thereafter, the evidence was brought to the grand 
jury.  The defense has no business complaining about not having a chance to 
show evidence to the prosecutor.

Finally -- the decision to bring charges was not a one-man event.  The 
prosecutor and police and forensics experts and a host of others are involved 
in the process - and having been a prosecutor in a country where crimes 
involving wealthy kids from a great school were too often NOT prosecuted, it 
makes sense to me that the evidence must be quite solid or there would have 
been dissenters coming out of the woodwork by now - 

One thing nobody seems willing to talk about is the very real possibility 
that one or more of the players at the party is cooperating and has provided 
direct evidence against the three defendants - including, possibly, 
photgraphs.  After all -- there were photos of the scene mon=ments before the 
assault -- it's reasonable to think someone took more picures when the 
incident was happening.  This makes sense to me -- that one or more of the 
players has provided evidence against the defendants.  I say this because the 
volume and intensity fo the defense efforts to use politics and the media to 
pressure the prosecutor is usually proportionate to the strength of the 
prosecution's case.  In other words - -if the case were half as crummy as the 
defense claims, there would be no reason to do all this dog and pony show 
stuff with the press conferences and asking federal authorities to 
investigate the DA -- what a bunch of nonsense.  If the case is truly weak -- 
they should be screming for a trial to take place immediately - and let all 
the evidence come out and be done with it -- but they're not.  They're 
dragging their feet and filing motions and NOT demanding an immediate trial.  
Obviously, in my opinion, this is because they are afraid of the truth coming 
out.


Wendy Murphy