Duke lacrosse thugs?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Nevermind.

Awww...PM me what you said. I want to know.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I think using barely supportable charges which are more serious than what someone actually did shows evidence of neither, they are simply used to intimidate the accused.

Yeah, you're almost certainly right here. The statement by the prosecutor that these players would only lawyer up if they had something to hide biased me against him.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Quickly accepting the absurd articles written above, immediately dismissing the email as no big deal,

And against other people I've pointed out how easily I could see this type of thing happening, and in fact how at my college situations like this absent the rape occur every weekend and I could easily see a couple of drunk meatheads escalating it past the acceptable point, and pointing out how much evidence there was. But if you want to take

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

the links posted in post #51 are enough to add doubt in my mind at this point and let the legal system take its course.

The fact that the big new revelation is an e-mail that, while obviously in poor taste, is clearly to my mind a joke, leading to charges of conspiracy to commit murder makes me think there's a bit of a witchhunt or a shoddy DA here.

as evidence that I accepted the articles wholesale and dismissed the e-mail completely, then clearly I wasn't clear enough.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There's also the anti-athlete stereotypes and backlash that is present on many campuses.

was posted in response to attitudes like

Originally Posted by Groundhog

...and the fact that these were just a bunch of college athletes makes it hard to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I'd be incredibly surprised if nothing went down that night.

[Wolfpack]

I can't help thinking that somehow a lot of these discussions would be different if the skin colors of victim and perpetrators were reversed. I have a hard time believing that, for example, people who are advocating that Duke has a right to force out the lacrosse players who don't talk would be quite as eager to do so if the team was one that was majority black. You know the media storm that would erupt if Duke tried to do that? I'm not picking on the person(s) advocating this, BTW. It just happens to be the most-recently discussed issue.

Again, I'm not trying to disparage anyone for their stances in this thread, but I just think that there are stances being taken because this situation is one way and not another.

I should also note that I posted those articles up in #51 as information, not necessarily advocacy. Generally, it has begun to look more like the lacrosse team is guilty of at least something as there hasn't been many disputative articles that have appeared anywhere since then. Even so, there seems to be a lot of convicting in the court of public opinion long before all the facts are final (if they could ever be made such). Then again, it wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened in the court of public opinion.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Please. These kids fucked up... and their buddies are protecting them.

Assuming that a rape did take place and the rest were present and did nothing to top it also means they are protecting themselves here. If I was in a different part of the party and had no idea a rape was going on I'd be hesitant to volunteer information due to potential crimnal charges against myself. Especially in the beginning, before the rape allegations surfaced, admitting to underage drinking/hiring strippers alone was probably enough to get suspended/kicked off the lacrosse team, which I guarantee would be the first thing going through these kids minds if they had no idea about any rape.

It sucks all around, any way you want to look at it.

Agreed. As does pretty much every rape investigation.

[astrosfan64]

White or Black it doesn't matter. I question the motive of any stripper who goes to a house to "perform" without bringing a bouncer.

Any legitmate stripper brings a bouncer or two.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

White or Black it doesn't matter. I question the motive of any stripper who goes to a house to "perform" without bringing a bouncer.

Any legitmate stripper brings a bouncer or two.

I question the lack of judgement of not bringing a bouncer for protection, but I don't think it indicates that she wanted to get fucked in the ass by total strangers.

[dawgfan]

I have no respect for Rush Limbaugh, and I don't condone what he said.

However, the devil's advocate in me feels compelled to point out that the victim in this case has admitted to working for an escort service. So, technically speaking, Rush's description was not incorrect.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If I was in a different part of the party and had no idea a rape was going on I'd be hesitant to volunteer information due to potential crimnal charges against myself.

Maybe in the beginning, but at this point you think there will be any criminal charges at all against an informant? I seriously doubt it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Maybe in the beginning, but at this point you think there will be any criminal charges at all against an informant? I seriously doubt it.

If they knew a rape was occurring, they are liable for criminal charges.
If they were drinking and watching the other stripper, not paying attention to the rest of the house, why would the speculate?
Even if they saw players go into a bathroom with a stripper, but then have no idea what happened afterward, how much value is that information? The victims father has already said her daughter identified the assailants and presumably the DNA will offer irrefutable evidence of who was in there.

The only scenario I can see where someone was there and would have information beyond who went into the bathroom was if they saw a crime occurring, and presumably did nothing to stop it.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by stevew

I question the lack of judgement of not bringing a bouncer for protection, but I don't think it indicates that she wanted to get fucked in the ass by total strangers.

Agreed, unless they were really hiring prostitutes. All of this is just speculation.

[spcd]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You conveniently ignore the most salient fact here.

For 43 of the students on the lacrosse team, they are not exercising their rights, but rather hindering the investigation. The students they are trying to pressure into coming forward are not the three who will eventually be accused of rape, but the 43 who were not. They have no rights to give up.

You're ignoring that they are exersising their rights, especially as culpability for aiding/abetting is wide. If the DA is convinced that these students are innocent and he needs their help, he can offer immunity and compel them to give Grand Jury testimony. Anything other than immunity means they can be prosecuted for a crime, regardless of whether or not you think they can, and that's obviously a risk they don't believe to be worth taking.

They are not guaranteed the right to not rat out their buddies. They CAN be forced to do so.

Only if there is no chance of them being implicated in the crime. If that was the case (and you seem convinced it is) then why haven't they already been forced to cooperate as witnesses?

And, if Duke as an institution, decides that they don't want as students the kind of people who lie to protect (accused) rapists, I have no problem with that.

What if Duke decides as an institution they don't want people with blue eyes, or who hold certain religious beliefs, will you be fine with them throwing them out too?

Your first paragraph indicates that you completely misunderstand the constitution. Private entities are under no obligation to protect the constitutional rights of others, especially if those rights conflict with that private entity's best interests.

Not at all, it does appear that you misunderstand what I have posted. Nowhere have I claimed that Duke couldn't do what you suggest, but that they should not do so, and the reasoning for my opinion. Try not to make assumptions about someone else's knowledge of the Constitution, especially when you don't understand the point being made.

You can be fired for saying things that first amendment rights prevent you from being prosecuted for. Young people tend to misinterpret those rights as being universal and absolute - you can say anything you want and be protected from all repercussions - whereas in reality, they are not.

Perhaps you've never employed anyone, otherwise you might understand how difficult it is to fire someone at a whim, or for acting in a manner which deserves to get someone fired. Unless you want to roll the dice in a lawsuit after, then an employees behaviour needs to clearly violate terms of employment.

As for "bullying" being in their best interests, they have sole discretion there. You might think they are conveying the wrong message, but your opinion, and mine, is irrelevant.

Apparently they've made the decision, one you appear to disagree with.


-----

Originally Posted by Butter_Of_69

Are you serious? How many high-profile "employees" have been fired based on charges that may or may not have turned out to be factually accurate? Let's all pillory NBC for firing OJ, because he was found innocent!

Completely different situation, these students have not been accused of a crime.

Please. These kids fucked up... and their buddies are protecting them. It sucks all around, any way you want to look at it.

I agree, but there are other ways to get the truth out of them than the threatening and very public statements by the DA. Poorly handled all round IMHO, but that shouldn't be an excuse for Duke to arbitrarily decide to interfere in a criminal investigation.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by spcd

I agree, but there are other ways to get the truth out of them than the threatening and very public statements by the DA. Poorly handled all round IMHO, but that shouldn't be an excuse for Duke to arbitrarily decide to interfere in a criminal investigation.

How would this be arbitrary?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You conveniently ignore the most salient fact here.

For 43 of the students on the lacrosse team, they are not exercising their rights, but rather hindering the investigation. The students they are trying to pressure into coming forward are not the three who will eventually be accused of rape, but the 43 who were not. They have no rights to give up. They are not guaranteed the right to not rat out their buddies. They CAN be forced to do so. They may be issuing blanket statements to/about all 46, but what they really want is the 43 who weren't in the bathroom to name the 3 they saw go in there. Those 43 are being offered a choice: tell us who did it, or leave school. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Since you're interested in considering salient facts ...

1. You're assuming the other 43 people involved have something to offer. It's difficult to offer evidence relating to something you did not witness. You're assuming that each of this individuals have something to testify to.

2. We're not talking about "ratting out" friends to the school. The question you're asking is whether being question by police without an attorney present should be a condition for staying in school. You are arguing that individuals should be forced to sacrifice consitutional rights as a condition of staying in school at Duke. That's borderline legal at best -- and I think a lot worse.

I've heard a lot of things about this case that troubles me, and it certainly sounds like there is probably cause to believe a crime took place.

You're also assuming that even if these 43 other individuals were not involved in the crime that they have no legal jeopardy. You obviously are unaware of crimes for making false statements. One of this kids says they left the party at 1 am and three other people say they left at 2 am, do you not think for a minute this fire-breathing DA won't bring charges against them?

You rights against self-incrimination do not cover just statements about the crime in question -- it also covers statements you may make while being questioned unrelated to the crime.

[astrosfan64]

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5479408




DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - Not content to wait for the results of DNA tests, attorneys representing members of the Duke University lacrosse team are increasingly pointing to other evidence they say will clear their clients of allegations that three players raped an exotic dancer.

Durham attorney Kerry Sutton contended Friday, for example, that numerous e-mails written in the hours after the woman said she was attacked at a house just off the Duke campus also bolster the players' claims that nothing happened that night. She declined to make those e-mails available.
Sutton, who represents team co-captain Matt Zash, said she believed the woman fabricated her story and "quickly got in over her head with the story she's telling."

Officials are awaiting the results of DNA testing on 46 of the team's 47 members. Because the woman said her attackers were white, the sole black player was not tested.

The woman, a 27-year-old student at nearby North Carolina Central University, told police she and another woman were hired to dance at a March 13 party. She said they were subjected to racial slurs, and that three men dragged her into a bathroom, raped, sodomized, beat and choked her.

"We had sufficient evidence for probable cause to obtain search warrants in this case," police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said Friday. "And we are continuing to investigate it as a sexual assault."

The incident led to days of protests on and off the Duke campus, and some of the players have moved for safety reasons. On Wednesday, officials announced that one player had been suspended for writing in an e-mail about killing and skinning strippers, a revelation that led to lacrosse coach Mike Pressler's resignation.

District Attorney Mike Nifong has said he is confident a rape occurred.

Defense attorneys have also raised suspicions about a 911 call that came in just minutes after the attack was said to have occurred from a black woman who claimed someone at the party shouted racial slurs at her and a friend.

Joe Cheshire, who represents co-captain Dave Evans, told reporters he is certain the call was made by the second dancer, whose identity has not yet surfaced publicly. The caller alternatively told a police dispatcher the pair were driving and walking past the house.

And while a third of the lacrosse team has been charged in recent years with alcohol possession and disorderly conduct, the woman making the accusations also has a criminal past.

In June 2002, police records show, she stole the taxi of a man to whom she was giving a lap dance at a Durham strip club. The records say she led a sheriff's deputy on a winding chase at speeds of up to 70 mph, and tried to run him down as he approached the cab on foot.

The woman, a divorced mother of two, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to three consecutive weekends in jail and two years' probation.

Durham attorney Woody Vann, who represented the woman during that incident, said she made a mistake four years ago and completed her punishment. The woman has not returned several messages left by The Associated Press at her home in the past several days.

"She is keeping a very low profile," said Vann, who is not representing the woman now but has had some contact with her in recent days.

Some have taken issue at what they perceive as attempts to smear a victim of a heinous crime.

"I'm repelled and repulsed by those trying to equate her with Tawana Brawley of decades ago," said city council member Howard Clement III, referring to the 15-year-old black girl whose 1987 claims of being kidnapped and raped by police proved to be false. "That's awful. And, that just compounds the evil of this whole process."



Credible witness -- some kind of victim.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Credible witness -- some kind of victim.

You're right. People who do bad things deserve to be beaten and anally raped.

[astrosfan64]

"rushed to judgement" -- god I miss you Johnny Cockren.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You're right. People who do bad things deserve to be beaten and anally raped.

You just really dislike Duke don't you? I personally can't stand Duke, but I don't think these guys lives should be ruined "UNTILL" there is proof against them and they have their day in court.

If these guys are found innocent, I hope they sue Duke, sue the Chick, sue the town council.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

You just really dislike Duke don't you? I personally can't stand Duke, but I don't think these guys lives should be ruined "UNTILL" there is proof against them and they have their day in court.

I have no opinion of Duke at all, and keep an open mind on these things (read the Kobe threads). I don't "rush to judgment" on the accused OR the accuser. I look at the evidence (you know, the actual evidence). Like the fact the medical examiner confirms both the physical and mental signs of abuse and rape (both virginal and anal). Also, the physical evidence that was left behind in the crime scene that collaborates her testimony. That makes it very, very unlikely this is a misunderstanding.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have no opinion of Duke at all, and keep an open mind on these things (read the Kobe threads). I don't "rush to judgment" on the accused OR the accuser. I look at the evidence (you know, the actual evidence). Like the fact the medical examiner confirms both the physical and mental signs of abuse and rape (both virginal and anal). Also, the physical evidence that was left behind in the crime scene that collaborates her testimony. That makes it very, very unlikely this is a misunderstanding.

Have they actually been arrested yet?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Have they actually been arrested yet?

"They" who? They don't know which "they" did it. When the "they" is revealed, then the "they" will be arrested.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

"They" who? They don't know which "they" did it. When the "they" is revealed, then the "they" will be arrested.

Except that a fair population in the area thinks they know who "they" are and have already had the entire team suspended, threatened members of the team, gone after the Duke administration, etc, all without a single arrest.

These guys may be guilty as all get-out, but no one has even been charged yet, let alone found guilty, and people are attacking Duke and the team from all possible directions...

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

"They" who? They don't know which "they" did it. When the "they" is revealed, then the "they" will be arrested.

She identified "They". So why weren't "they" arrested.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

She identified "They". So why weren't "they" arrested.

I thought she couldn't completely identify them which is why the whole team had to give DNA samples.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have no opinion of Duke at all, and keep an open mind on these things (read the Kobe threads). I don't "rush to judgment" on the accused OR the accuser. I look at the evidence (you know, the actual evidence). Like the fact the medical examiner confirms both the physical and mental signs of abuse and rape (both virginal and anal). Also, the physical evidence that was left behind in the crime scene that collaborates her testimony. That makes it very, very unlikely this is a misunderstanding.

I find it extremely unlikely that you have looked at the actual evidence. A news outlet's best estimation of the evidence maybe, but the actual evidence? Unless you live near Duke you have not seen or heard any actual evidence.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by panerd

I find it extremely unlikely that you have looked at the actual evidence. A news outlet's best estimation of the evidence maybe, but the actual evidence? Unless you live near Duke you have not seen or heard any actual evidence.

Looked at the testimony given to the court to recieve the search warrants. No, I have literally seen the evidence.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by [URL="http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5479408"

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5479408[/url]]"I'm repelled and repulsed by those trying to equate her with Tawana Brawley of decades ago," said city council member Howard Clement III, referring to the 15-year-old black girl whose 1987 claims of being kidnapped and raped by police proved to be false. "That's awful. And, that just compounds the evil of this whole process."

Nooooooooooo.... not Tawana Brawley.... I think we can all agree that the last thing this needs is any (more) reason for Al Sharpton and his ilk to go anywhere near the case.

And to think I had a (women's studies - I know, but it fills 2 GenEds and the ratio is like 80/20) professor make the absurd claim today that "the Duke lacrosse rape would be a much bigger story if the victim was white." Woke me up for sure.

Third point - am I the only one who sees this most likely ending with no convictions due to "lack of sufficient evidence" and the resultant furor that is going to cause?

And the unsubstantiated rumor I heard secondhand from one of the Duke players was that they may end up facing a 3-year death penalty on top of this season's cancellation, ensuring all 47 players will be gone and the AD/President can claim they are starting with a blank state and, presumably, only recruiting players of the highest moral standing who would never dream of drinking underage, playing loud noise or urinating in public, let alone any of the more serious allegations.

[Klinglerware]

An interesting pop-sociological commentary on the male college lacrosse player...

http://www.slate.com/id/2139536/

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And to think I had a (women's studies - I know, but it fills 2 GenEds and the ratio is like 80/20) professor make the absurd claim today that "the Duke lacrosse rape would be a much bigger story if the victim was white." Woke me up for sure.

It's all over the national media. How does it become a "bigger story" than it is now?

[bulletsponge]

It's all over the national media. How does it become a "bigger story" than it is now?

if the victims were pretty blonde college students

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's all over the national media. How does it become a "bigger story" than it is now?

Thats what I said, after I recovered from my shock. The only rape case I can think of that got more publicity than this nationally, especially before a trial started, in recent years was the Kobe case. And you know the racial aspects are loved by people like this (Edit to point out I'm pointing to the author of the Slate piece, not Klingerware)

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

An interesting pop-sociological commentary on the male college lacrosse player...

http://www.slate.com/id/2139536/

Interesting is not the word I would use for that article.


I want to avoid making claims one way or the other on the case at hand, but FWIW, the lacrosse players being attacked for hiding behind a wall of silence apparently are talking, and are telling a different story of events, one that unequivocally states no sexual acts were involved. But without knowing the test results - not just DNA tests, but also ones like toxicology reports that wouldn't come out until trial it's hard to tell who is telling the truth.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

if the victims were pretty blonde college students

If you want to talk about potential sentencing down the line, the evidence could support that, but in terms of publicity and media attention the racial aspects are only helping to make the story bigger.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And you know the racial aspects are loved by people like this (Edit to point out I'm pointing to the author of the Slate piece, not Klingerware)Interesting is not the word I would use for that article.

FWIW I think that the author is commenting on the socio-economic backgrounds of the lacrosse players themselves, and isn't really playing up the whole white vs black angle that other commentators are seizing on.

I think that the article does tar college lacrosse players with an awfully broad brush, especially since the game is now being played in more public schools these days. But with that being said, it is not an unreasonable thing to say that a higher percentage of lacrosse recruits do come from elite prep schools or high-income area public schools than recruits from other sports like football or basketball. From my own experience in college, I always thought the football players were pretty good, down-to-earth guys while the lacrosse guys were much more arrogant. Again, that's my own personal experience, but I always wondered if the elitist upbringing of some of the lacrosse players had anything to do with it (a larger percentage of the football players came from public schools in mixed-income areas). I would think that would be more of an indictment on the insularity of prep school and/or the self-entitlement generated by a priveleged upbringing than anything to do with lacrosse.

[cuervo72]

That article pretty much summed up my impression of the JHU lax team, when I was there, fwiw. But, that might have been my middle class background being chafed by the sense of self-importance these guys - and their snooty fellow upper-class family members - seemed to possess.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

FWIW I think that the author is commenting on the socio-economic backgrounds of the lacrosse players themselves, and isn't really playing up the whole white vs black angle that other commentators are seizing on.

Moreso the privileged rich kid angle, but implied in these arguments is that lacrosse is one of two sports (hockey the other) where black athletes don't dominate the sport. A large part of the socio in "socio-economic backround" is race.

I think that the article does tar college lacrosse players with an awfully broad brush, especially since the game is now being played in more public schools these days. But with that being said, it is not an unreasonable thing to say that a higher percentage of lacrosse recruits do come from elite prep schools or high-income area public schools than recruits from other sports like football or basketball. From my own experience in college, I always thought the football players were pretty good, down-to-earth guys while the lacrosse guys were much more arrogant. Again, that's my own personal experience, but I always wondered if the elitist upbringing of some of the lacrosse players had anything to do with it (a larger percentage of the football players came from public schools in mixed-income areas). I would think that would be more of an indictment on the insularity of prep school and/or the self-entitlement generated by a priveleged upbringing than anything to do with lacrosse.

Originally Posted by the article

"lacrosse guys are a different breed." ... "The controversy has also exposed the culture of an elitist and relatively obscure sport." ... "he is guilty of a common lacrosse sin: puerile meatheadedness." ... "if any of them are wondering how alcohol-fueled misogyny could fester at one of the nation's top schools, then they simply don't know lacrosse." ... "how could college lacrosse players be any more misogynous than your typical football-team steakhead?" ... "Most guys from single-sex schools are able to adjust. Others join the lacrosse team." ... "My favorite is the one I heard about how half a college team contracted herpes because they all made love to the same crack in their group-house couch. Urban legend? Sure. And yet, I've heard the tale many times, and it's always lacrosse-specific. That's no accident."

If I said the author can go fuck himself, I guess it's expected because I play lacrosse. I don't care what you believe about the Duke incident, the sport or its fans/participants, this article is complete bullshit. It would be like someone writing an article about text-sim football players calling them all socially awkward people who live with their parents and have never been laid. The fact that this was published by Slate is ridiculous and removes any respect I had for them (well, I still like Hitchens).

"Lacrosse players hail from the privileged, largely white pockets of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic." ... "Some aficionados take pride in the fact that their sport was invented by Native Americans, but I don't imagine many members of the Onondaga Nation end up playing lax at Colgate." ... "Perhaps it's because, unlike their football brethren, an unusually large proportion of college lacrosse players spend their high school years in sheltered, all-boys academies before heading off to liberal co-ed colleges." ... "More than any other sport, lacrosse represents the marriage of athletic aggression and upper-class entitlement." ... "(except in odd places like Maryland, where it's managed to cross class lines)."

Now, if you want to get in an actual discussion on this aspect (and even though I'm using quotes from his article, I'm also addressing Klingerware/cuervo's points) I think its as bogus as his claim about Iroquis-descendants (I know at least two at Syracuse off the top of my head because I scrimmaged against them in high school and their whole team had braids, were using hickory sticks, and using like mouth clicks to communicate. And also, they were ridiculously good. if you look at the World Games of Lacrosse, the third best team after the US and Canada is the Iroquis Nation.) First because most lacrosse players (like me) don't go on to play at D1 schools, and don't fit this stereotype. Second because the lacrosse players at D1 powerhouses are in my experience no more elitist and self-entitled than most students at the final four contenders (UMass and maybe UMaryland/Syracuse being the exceptions) and no more misogynistic, arrogant, sexist and violent than those who play football, basketball, hockey, baseball (and they won like 10 games), hell even the Swim team, not to mention most fraternities here at UMass. Third, I think the Maryland excerpt proves the point. (Not just the point the writer is an idiot because he's talking about how Maryland is an odd place when its one of the two places he mentioned lacrosse being popular.) Obviously due to the cost of equipment it will never rise to the level of soccer or basketball or football in poor areas, but lacrosse is the fastest growing youth/high school sport in the US (well, second to Bowling in HS's percentage-wise) probably would be in colleges too if it weren't for Title IX, and as it expands it already has moved out of just being played at elite prep schools by rich kids, and will only continue to do so as it gets more and more popular. But of course I'm not sure I can entirely blame people for their perception of lacrosse players. I mean, this one story is getting 1000x the coverage nationally than everything else involving lacrosse ever has. Even when the Final 4 comes around and ESPN gets involved, you know much of the talk is going to be about this and not the games. When a story like this breaks involving, say, the St. Johns basketball team, or the Nebraska, Florida St, Miami football teams, or any college athletics team, I'm sure I can go looking and come up with examples in most sports, its viewed as a travesty, and rightfully so. Yet when it involves a lacrosse team, suddenly its an indictment on the entire sport.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

An interesting pop-sociological commentary on the male college lacrosse player...

http://www.slate.com/id/2139536/

There's going to trouble when Chubby wanders back in ...

[Chubby]

I'd love to see where all these private High Schools are that pump out the lacrosse talent.

Hmm, CNY is one of the top 2 (MD being the other) recruiting grounds for lacrosse and only one team is private and is not single sex (and doesn't really produce much D1 talent anyways). Hell, my HS and WG produces 10-20 D1 players a year combined.

What this "story" comes down to is poor african american woman vs rich white boys.

There may or may not have been a rape, I don't know. I do know that I won't be surprised if it comes out that she made everything up because she wasn't paid for uhhhmmm "extra services" she provided.

I'm not even about to go into bashing that article line by line because it's basically a complete load of crap.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There's going to trouble when Chubby wanders back in ...

The funniest thing is I was about to post "I bet he played HS baseball" before I clicked on the article. Thought I should at least browse it first and in THE FIRST PARAGRAPH he states he played HS baseball.

Big fucking shock there lol.


And in case anyone was wondering. Lacrosse teams typically hate baseball teams and vice versa. What a joke, I think this quote sums it up -

"I sometimes felt less like an heir to the national pastime than a gangly, underclass T-ball player."

Seems someone was a little bothered that lacrosse was "THE" spring sport at his school and not baseball.

[BishopMVP]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2403062

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2403062

So, no one remembered her bruises until after these pitcures were found?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

So, no one remembered her bruises until after these pitcures were found?

Shhh! It just took the lawyers a while to figure out a plausible story, along with figuring out how to tastefully assassinate a hooker's character. Just let them go.

[Huckleberry]

On the flip side I think it's hilarious that you guys think the best defense strategy would have been to plaster your defense all over the media immediately after the allegations were announced.

How do you know the players didn't tell their lawyers immediately and their lawyers determined the best time to come forward with the information (once all photos had been gathered, for example).

I don't know what happened and I think people that think they know either way are being stupid.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

On the flip side I think it's hilarious that you guys think the best defense strategy would have been to plaster your defense all over the media immediately after the allegations were announced.

How do you know the players didn't tell their lawyers immediately and their lawyers determined the best time to come forward with the information (once all photos had been gathered, for example).

I don't know what happened and I think people that think they know either way are being stupid.

Because a plausable defense ends this quickly. Look, this chick was a stripper. There is no denying that most people are going to call her story into question from the very begining. If the lawyers had an agressive defense from the start, this doesn't go very far. They have already tried to call the victim into question, and I promise you if they had something like this earlier it would have been released.

Ps. I had to change "suspect" into "victim." Sadly, it is easy to get the two confused in rape cases because the victim so often becomes the suspect in the media.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

How do you know the players didn't tell their lawyers immediately and their lawyers determined the best time to come forward with the information (once all photos had been gathered, for example).

So, you think the players wanted to have the season cancelled and the coach fired?

[Huckleberry]

That's my point. You guys are just taking your guesses at what would work best and you don't know what happened.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

So, you think the players wanted to have the season cancelled and the coach fired?

If I realized I was being accused of a gang rape the rest of my lacrosse season would mean about jack shit to me. Just a thought.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I promise you if they had something like this earlier it would have been released.

Are you implying they photoshopped the photographs? Or that the lawyer is making them up?

Originally Posted by http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/427240.html

The first sequence of photographs, taken over three and a half minutes, shows two women dancing in negligees in the living room of the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., Cheshire said.
He gave the following description of the photographs: In the first, the accuser is prone on the floor, her face in the carpet.
The other photos show her on the floor, on all fours or on her back. The other dancer is on her feet for all the photos. The lacrosse players line the room, drinking out of beer cans and plastic cups, and one photo shows a player unconscious on the floor, his shorts pulled down and his underwear wet.
"The photographs show the accuser has bruises and cuts on her arms, legs and feet," Cheshire said. "These are visible at the very start of the dance."
The dance lasted less than four minutes, Cheshire said, when the second dancer stopped the performance after an offensive remark from a player.
There are no photos for the next 27 minutes. During this time, Cheshire said, the women locked themselves in a bathroom while one of the captains tried to persuade them to continue the show. Some players accused the women of pocketing the $800 fee and not performing. The dancers then left the house, he said.
Cheshire said the next photographs show the accuser on the back porch, fumbling through her purse. One shows her smiling at the photographer. She is still in her negligee, which does not appear torn or damaged, Cheshire said. The next photo, six minutes later, shows her passed out on her side on the back porch, he said. Cheshire said the final photograph, taken three minutes later, shows a team captain helping the accuser into the other dancer's car.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Are you implying they photoshopped the photographs? Or that the lawyer is making them up?

Photoshop wouldn't surprise me. These guys have resources and are not dumb.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Photoshop wouldn't surprise me. These guys have resources and are not dumb.

LOL you are a joke.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Photoshop wouldn't surprise me. These guys have resources and are not dumb.

Are you serious? You think these guys are going to try to pass off Photoshopped images in a court of law when they're on trial for their lives? This isn't fark.com.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Are you serious? You think these guys are going to try to pass off Photoshopped images in a court of law when they're on trial for their lives? This isn't fark.com.

Asked a question. I haven't seen the photos, so I don't know how easyt things could be shaded differently.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Asked a question. I haven't seen the photos, so I don't know how easyt things could be shaded differently.

It would be one thing to do a good enough job that Joe Sportsfan would see the images flashed on a TV screen and think they looked real. But if they entered fakes as evidence, an expert would be able to determine they weren't legit and these kids would be done like dinner.