SECURITY GUARD'S REPORT SEEMS TO CORROBORATE MARY DOE'S REPORT OF RAPE IN DUKE LACROSSE CASE

Gaaah.  I fell asleep last night to the dulcimer strains of talk radio host Michael Savage calling "Mary Doe," the complaining witness in the Duke lacrosse rape case, "the Durham dirtbag" and "the stripper slut."  (My husband had turned the radio on and fallen asleep and I myself was too exhausted to get up and turn the thing off.)  Somehow it's hard to feel rested when one has fallen asleep the night before in a rage.  What amazes me is that Savage feels so strongly that the media and citizenry should apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the Duke lacrosse players but does not deem the woman worthy of the same privilege. 

In particular, Savage was relying on the report of a security guard at a local convenience store who saw Mary Doe and her companion shortly after they left the Duke lacrosse party and before the police became involved.   The security guard's report is in fact being trumpeted by all sorts of people as somehow proving that there was no rape.  Even the headline in the ABC link stresses "Guard who saw alleged Duke victim says no sign or mention of rape."  The guard said, "There ain't no way she was raped — ain't no way, no way that happened."

But guess what?  The guard didn't even TALK to Mary Doe.  And, in fact, I think if anything the security guard's report tends to corroborate Doe's rape claim.  The guard says that Doe "couldn't talk at all. … She was out of it."  When the police arrived later, they had to pry Doe out of the car as she gripped the brake shaft and held on tight to resist their efforts to pry her out.  (The police came because the security guard had called 911 apparently because Doe's companion had reported that Doe was being hounded by people yelling racist insults.)  The security guard left as the police were questioning Doe, and it was during this initial questioning by the police that Doe reported the rape. 

To me, the guard's statement-- despite the guard's completely irrelevant and baseless personal opinion -- seems to CORROBORATE Doe's claims.  From where I sit, it sounds like Doe was acting like someone who was absolutely terrified.  She was not acting like someone who was eager to set up the Duke lacrosse players. 

The guard's opinion is further fascinating to me because it illustrates very clearly the problems rape victims face. The guard for some reason felt herself qualified just by looking at Doe to determine whether Doe had been raped-- and felt no hesitation about essentially labeling her a liar.  I have seen this time and again.  Victims with whom I have worked have frequently been labeled as liars because they are not acting the way a rape victim is "supposed" to act.  Therefore they become suspect even to their friends and neighbors.  For whatever reason -- and I wouldn't have believed this myself before I went into criminal prosecution -- people are automatically inclined to disbelieve women who allege rape.  That, my friends, is an injustice and one that seems to be applied disproportionately to women crime victims. 

OTHER ISSUES: DNA EVIDENCE OR LACK THEREOF

Another area where we don't know the whole story is the significance of the initial DNA tests.  I don't know whether the lack of any DNA link thus far tends to exonerate the defendants or to what extent.  Ampersand over at Alas, A Blog has conducted some research.  It appears, based on his questioning of DNA experts, that the lack of a DNA link does not establish that the victim is lying about the rape; the lack of DNA evidence may, however, raise doubt about whether a rape occurred depending on a variety of different factors such as whether a condom was used, whether the victim cleaned herself off in some way after the rape, or how many men were involved.  It is also possible that more sophisticated DNA testing may provide further information down the road.  The bottom line is that the lack of DNA evidence in this case does not prove that she is lying, nor will we be able to even assess it preliminarily until we get a lot more information, probably not until the court trial.   

OTHER ISSUES: EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

It is probably obvious that I am inclined to believe Mary Doe's report that she was raped.  As a private citizen and blogger, I have the right to reach my own conclusions prior to trial with the understanding that, of course, I don't know the whole story and am relying only on the press reports.

That is not to say, however, that I am necessarily inclined to believe that the individuals who have been indicted are the guilty parties.  My understanding is that the key evidence against them is that they were present at the Duke lacrosse party and that the victim identified them from some sort of line up.  This concerns me because eyewitness identification in cases where the perpetrator is a stranger can be very unreliable.  I would want to know a lot more about how much face-to-face contact and conversation she had with the rapists prior to and during the rape, and under what circumstances.  How was the lighting? How long did she get a look at them? Was she under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? How much time went by between the rape and the line up?  What was it that made her so sure these were the guys? Did they have any distinctive characteristics or marks that she was able to identify? Etc. etc.

Comments

[will]

Michael Savage?!??!?! You listen to Michael Savage>???!?!?!

Who are you? It is like I do not even know who you are anymore? What happened to the woman I liked so much???

I prefer to wait until I hear much more about actual evidence instead of the constant spin by all sides about this case. People's beliefs and statements about this case are so colored by their beliefs going into the case that nobody seems to see clearly.

Nobody needs to convict these guys yet. Nobody needs to trash the woman yet.

[The Happy Feminist]

He is pretty toxic, isn't he?

[will]

Savage is an absolute idiot. Sometimes I listen to him just to be amazed at idiots.

[The Happy Feminist]

I think that's why my husband had him on.

[TangoMan]

Regarding the DNA issues there are some issues that I find troubling. First, we read of reports from the medical staff that there were signs consistent with rape. These signs can be bruising and abrasion on the body, broken fingernails and vaginal and anal trauma. The first two indications seem to have existed prior to the alleged rape. Now, what I'm unclear of is whether the police had sent DNA samples of semen to the lab or they sent swabs taken from the the woman's injuries and from her body cavities. Clearly if the sample consisted of semen that indicates that someone had sex with, or raped, this woman. Another issue that I'm unclear about is how much vaginal trauma is required before a medical examiner can offer the opinion that the injury is consistent with rape, for minor tramua occurs during sex and if this observation is combined with the visible injuries of the woman then it would be reasonable to conclude that a rape did occur. If the vaginal and anal injuries involved tearing then that certainly strengthens the case that a rape, rather than just sex, took place. However, if there is tearing then the object that commited the tearing should leave residue. If the object is a condom clad penis then there should be some latex residue in the boundaries of the tears. If the tearing was some other object then the woman's DNA should be on the object. Further, the woman's DNA was not found at the scene of the alleged rape.

Another thing that struck me as odd was the forthright and blanket assertions by the player's lawyer(s) that no sexual assault took place and this was a consistent message prior to the results being made public. What defense lawyer is going to publicly foreclose a line of defense in which there is a possibility that he will be overturned by DNA evidence? What I took from that strategy was that they were very confident that none of the players assaulted the woman. If the conjecture is that there was an assault but it was committed by someone at the party who was not a team member then that person would likely be in the pictures taken at the party and I don't recall any observer of this case pointing out that a non team member being present at the party.

Lastly, the photo evidence shows that the woman was missing fingernails, had abrasions and bruises prior to arriving at the party and was extremely drunk. The problem for me is that her drunkeness makes me question the accuracy of her identification of the two suspects and the main questions for me come down to the additional forensic tests that are still being conducted and the severity of the vaginal trauma that she suffered.

As it stands now we have a drunken woman, so drunk that she was passing out on the lawn in front of the house as was documented by time stamped photos, identifying two suspects from a photo line-up, who can't point to external injuries that would support a rape accusation because the injuries were present before the alleged rape took place, and there is no DNA from the suspects recovered nor is her DNA recovered from the scene of the alleged rape. What we do know is that there was some disagreement about her fee followed by hot tempers on both sides. If this is the sum total of evidence that is backing the charge I would find these two accused men not guilty.

[will]

Apparently, now there is some alibi evidence being presented allegeding that these two defendants were elsewhere at the time this allegedly took place.

I agree with HappyF that "eyewitness identification" is horribly unreliable. The Justice Department even concluded that it is horribly unreliable.

[The Happy Feminist]

Well, I think you are right that it is unclear what "injuries consistent with rape" might mean. It would be fairly unusual, I think, for a rape to leave any injuries. But the converse is also true-- that tearing doesn't necessarily indicate a rape.

As for her leaving DNA at the scene? I don't know that we can necessarily expect her DNA to be there or that it would necessarily be picked up during the search of the scene. It is (I imagine-- I am no expert) like fingerprint evidence: just because I handle an object doesn't necessarily mean I am going to leave fingerprints on it.

The defense attorneys are stuck with their clients' stories. So of course they are going to have to go with whatever their clients tell them. And clients are stupid and they lie. I have certainly seen suspects deny sex and then change the defense to consent once there has been a link established via the semen evidence. Not to mention the fact that many of the players at the party may have been unaware of a rape occurring -- and thus really have no basis for saying that no rape happened.

I think the woman's intoxication (if she was intoxicated) could raise doubts about her identification of specific people. But not necessarily about what happened. You have to be pretty drunk before you start imagining rapes that didn't happen-- and I think drunkenness is more likely to lead to black outs and gaps in memory than mistakenly believing something happened when it didn't.

[TangoMan]

CNN reports:

Sources close to the investigation told CNN Tuesday that the defense will present evidence -- including ATM receipts and a cab driver -- that neither Seligmann, 20, nor Finnerty, 19, were at the team party at the time the alleged rape took place.

[Richard]

I don't know, Happy. You're really stretching to make a case for the "victim" here where I can only see reasonable doubt all over the place. Let's wait and see if there's more news coming on the DNA. If the prosecutor can't come up with something positive there, his case is toast.

>>> What amazes me is that Savage feels so strongly that the media and citizenry should apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the Duke lacrosse players but does not deem the woman worthy of the same privilege.

Do you think an alleged victim is worthy of the "privilege" that she's telling the truth just because she's made the accusation? I don't. Savage is over-the-top, but I afford the alleged victim nothing here.

[The Happy Feminist]

Of course, the defense have some credibility issues as far as what they tell the press:

GNXP , which states in part:

Defense lawyers have told reporters that the second dancer at the party has contradicted the accuser. But that woman spoke with a local television station over the weekend, under conditions set by her lawyer that she could not be asked about specifics at the party, and she did not contradict the accuser.

"Out-and-out lies," the second dancer told MSNBC of the defense lawyers’ comments about her testimony. "It’s making me believe more and more every single day, every single news story that I hear coming from them, that they have something to hide and they’re scared of what’s to come.”

The second dancer told MSNBC that she had not seen a rape occur but she thought the accuser was telling the truth. "I think that it’s quite possible that something really terrible had happened to her," the second dancer said. She said the accuser was "talkative and friendly and smiling" before the episode and totally incoherent afterward.