April 28, 2006
-
Rape Part 4
All over the news today was the report of the woman who claims that three Duke University lacrosse players raped her had accused three men before. It was on every major news station and it was on every online news source today that I checked. The story is that she accused three men of rape back in 1996. Only a few of the news sources directly implied anything with the news report.
Is it significant that the woman accusing these men of rape has accused men of rape before?
Comments (150)
first!
Yes. Sounds pretty sketchy to me
yes
She might not be as credible. She might have fabricated the story. Who’s to say she’s not doing it again?
2nd!
Yes
Who’s to say it wasn’t a valid accusation in both cases?
Who’s to say it isn’t an invalid accusation?
it does sound fishy that the same woman who have accused other of rape are accusing new people of raping them.. at the same time.. i do believe sometimes some people who have been raped before might actually might have higher percentage of getting raped. (just my theory.) and all girls who falsely accuse of guys of raping should all go to hell.
j
YES It’s not definitive, but it is definitely a contributing factor to the possiblility of her lying.
Yes,
yes, it means that females are the gender that gets raped more. it also supports the fact that those who have been raped before are vulnerable to being raped again.
Sure.
yea
yes I think so.
yes but maybe she has possibly put her self in situations that she was able to be taken advantage before…. i don’t know about you.. but i try to learn from my mistakes… at least ones as bad as that
yes
maybe
Maybe she puts herself in the wrong situations … and when she gets “raped” she makes a big deal out of it. She might like the attention … who knows … she should have known better than to go there in the first place.
I think it would be significant if the previous accusations were proven to be false.
RYC: I was away and didn’t see that announcement, but thanks for telling me! I was getting so frustrated this morning!
yes and no. Depends on other evidence and also the “personality and character” of the accusor
I think it’s something to consider but it shouldn’t break her case…she may just have bad luck
she likes the number three
i have to say i dont think i would believe her but i would want to hear more evidence from both sides
Yes.
Possibly. They can check her to see if she really has been raped, but there’s no way to prove that she didn’t pay some guy to rape her so she could blame the Duke LAX team for it and possibly get money. Also, the fact that it’s exactly ten years, and the amount of men who raped her is the same…I dunno, seems fishy to me, but there’s also other evidence to be considered. So, maybe, maybe not.
I think that the Lady had accused them becuase they may have done something to her before.
-elizabeth
Doesn’t she get paid to take her clothes off in front of drunk men?
yea. but also depends on if the 3 men before were convicted. if they were not, then this is not making her story seem credible. which forces the jury to not convict because they can not be absolutly sure.
oh and yes.
-elizabeth
that is sooo messed up
I’ve been following this story on Sports radio talkshows during the past week or 2.
I don’t know if this woman was raped or not, BUT, the inconsistancies, the sidestepping, the “problems” that have been plaguing this case, well, it is going to seriously hurt the chances of women down the road who HAVE been raped.
Personally, when the dna evidence didn’t match any of the Duke players, I figured this woman must be out for revenge of some kind. Just my opinion until I learn more facts…
Yes. It implies that she is a money whore. As opposed to a whore of her own profession
Depends on if her accusations were correct. The case was dropped as far as I know. So we’ll never know.
My feeling is an argument broke out and this distrubed young lady decided to get back. I could be wrong, but that’s what I think.
Yes. I think her mental stability has been called into question by this report as well as by her own lawyer (or father. I cannot remember who said she was freaking out everytime she saw a white man.) I feel sorry for her because if there was a rape, I seriously doubt there will be a conviction and if not then she needs help. Actually, she need help no matter what.
Reading over these comments you can tell who the feminazis are as opposed to the clear thinkers – of either sex.
I’ve been reading this story, too. I keep thinking about one of your earlier entries where the accuser is anonymous, but the accused are not. Why is that? Do the accused want their name in the press or would they prefer anonymity? If they are innocent then I feel bad that their names and faces are linked to the word “rape” even if it’s “These men were falsely accused of rape.” ya know?
Anyway . . to answer your question: I guess the past accusation is only significant if it happened or if it was a false accusation.
Not according to our Law…
It’s called suing.
Yea, it does complicate their case.
History has a bad habit of repeating its self.
By that I ment she could have just easly lied again, but you never know.
Possibly.
She needs a new line of work.
yes. especially if the accused were aquitted or whatever.
however, like someone said before, who’s to say that all accusations aren’t valid?
but i think taking into consideration the two other times she’s accused men and the evidence for those cases er w/e, then we could maybe see if it is more probable that she’s bluffing.
Don’t know.
Yes. If she falsely accused men of rape before, or if they were found not guilty, then it does seem fishy. However, some women do get raped on more than one occasion. Being sexually assaulted does seem to be a problem with working in the sex industry.
It will be interesting to know how the other case ended up.
yes but it should in no way speak poorly of HER character …
Depends on whether or not her accusation last time was valid.
sure why not
UH, YEAH…I’M THINKING SO! HELLLLOOOO…PATTERN!
Is it significant? – yes.
Does is imply culpability? – not necessarily.
A psyche eval is in order, though.
If the media has it, then it will be impossible to keep if out of the trial, but results of the psyche eval and instructions to the jury would help offset the damage if the previous claims proved to have any merit.
I guess we really have to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is having extremely hard luck with guys or that her body gives off some kind of freakish super-pheromone that just drives men wild and allows no resistance. I guess.
L,r
in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it is possible she might have been raped before. and therefore would have made an accusation before.
would it be significant if the accused had been accused before but never brought to trial?
this is why the prior bad acts, on either side of a dispute, should not be allowed in a trial > it should only be about the particular case being tried
If she falsly accussed them then yes, it’s significantly going to hurt her case. If she accused them and it’s true, then I don’t think it’ll make a differance one way or another
She’s lying.
Yeah it’s significant. Yes, I know that no woman asks or deserves to be raped. But women, come on! Don’t be stupid and put yourself into compromising situations. Be smart! Geez!
Possibly.
Yes.
I think its very significant. I mean there is nothing to stop her from doing it again and again just for money or attention, and it is extremely fishy. It will just start to make people not care as much when someone actually does scream “RAPE!” in a public place, or really tries to tell close friends or the public that they have been raped. It just seems like a tricky deal to me.
Eva.
a good discussion topic: demon possession vs schizophrenia. Im curious what the difference is. thanks.
id have to know more about her. there is a high possibility that she didnt want to say anything because she was embarressed or scared. she probably didnt want people talking about her.
Yes, although rape is really horrible and extremely painful to face for the victim.. because of the shame involved.
I was 29 years old before several people explained to me things rape victims dont tell people, why it can be such an absolute mindfuck, no one is blunt about it.
I wont be either, but if a woman repeatedly finds herself the victim of rape… she better take a good hard look at herself and make sure she stays out of situations where she is target for rape, The government should pay for comprehensive rape counseling to facilitate that, or for the health insurance to pay for it.
If you werent there though, how could you ever know?
Of course it is. I would especially like to know if the charges were dropped in the earlier accusation, or if the men accused were found innocent, or if she, in fact, was charged with bringing false charges against the men.
yea attintion seeker.but who knows you cant change what a person already is. so they might of done it again. you never know enymore
!~nicole~!
Could only answer that in respect to other evidence provided for the case. “Boy cries wolf” fallacy isn’t sufficient enough to determine whether rape really happened in this case or not.
Yes.
It’s possible she’s lying.
My guess? She made herself vulnerable as she had before and got raped. I’d put some blame on her…but rape is terrible and if the accused are guilty she shouldn’t be punished or anything.
1) You must ask who is promoting this media leak of information, what could their motivation be, who is their sponsor, etc? Are they merely defending the players with inforamtion that is not 100% accurate?
2) Thank you for your glance at my site, I appreciate your writing as well.
~Seranish_Shores.
This girl needs a new line of work.
fishy!!!!!!!
It could hurt her credibility. Rhetorically speaking, if the outcome of the earlier accusation turned to be nothing… it will probably end up like the Boy Who Cried Wolf…
I think so
IM ME!!
Please? ;p
it could be but not necessarily
It isn’t uncommon for poor people to be forced into situations where they are more likely to be raped again and again. A girl in my school who is only 14 has been raped three times. The first time, she was ten. It happens.
But I suppose she asked for it because she was walking home alone at night from her aunt’s house, and she was wearing a totally seductive hoody and baggy jeans. She was surely at least EQUALLY responsible.
there’s no way to prove that she didn’t pay some guy to rape her so she could blame the Duke LAX team for it and possibly get money.
And there’s no way to prove that space aliens did not crawl up your anus and eat your brain–and from this comment it seems likely they did. Jesus H. Christ, dude. LISTEN to yourself. That is the LAMEST thing I have ever heard!
It’s significant, of course… but it doesn’t mean her story is false. Unfortunately, rape happens far too often, and to some, by more than one person. It’s not that uncommon, sadly, and it should NOT dismiss her case.
if it happen 10 years ago and has happen again I want to be angry at her for not being smart enough to learn from the first time.
i wish i could say that it wasnt significant but we all know the defense team is thinking differently.
yeah
well, the chances of her getting raped twice does say something…
Funny how you mention lots of outside facts that subtly imply that the woman is at fault, and do not mention that the male students being accused have a criminal history of public drunkenness, resisting arrest, and are not to mention extremely wealthy and white while the woman is poor and black.
She has a dangerous occupation, and instead of blaming her, why don’t you blame the kind of disgusting men that pay for strippers in the first place?
Oh well, you are another case of the hypocrital christian that is not particularly uncommon.
if it happen 10 years ago and has happen again I want to be angry at her for not being smart enough to learn from the first time.
Some of you people just floor me with your ignorance. What was she supposed to learn? “Know your place, bitch”? “Don’t EVER leave your LOCKED, Barred, and Moated house”?
Where some people live and HOW they have to live, it’s damn lucky they only got raped twice in ten years.
Of course people who are all cushy and safe in nice neighborhoods prefer not to believe that some of us have to live in shit holes. Or, they think it is our own fault for staying–happily forgetting that you can’t afford 300,000 houses when you make less than 20,000 a year.
Educate your ignorant selves, why don’t you?
yes it sure does
I notice a lot of people commenting say things like “well the girl shouldn’t put herself in the situation.”
How come no one is discussing the RAPER of the woman? Does he not exist, people?
.
..
Are you implying that women can’t get raped more than once?
..
.
Its the boy who cried wolf effect. If a person lies about something, then that something actually happens people are less likely to believe them because they have lied about it before. So yes, it is significant.
I would’ve expected better from a family man like you.
Unless, perhaps you are of the sort that would pay for prostitutes?
I don’t believe anyone is unlucky enough to be raped by different people more than thrice, unless you live in Sudan.
idk….its kind of strange, but idk.
Women can be raped more than once in their lifetime. The fact it happened before doesn’t automatically mean that she is making it up.
Plenty of people have been raped twice. Plenty more never. Are we going to let blogs and forums and the media decide this, or a jury looking at all the available evidence?
91st!
can you comment me
High possibility.
Yes, because if it seems the circumstances are similar in the reporting, there could be “reasonable doubt” to them.
If you ask me, it means that she hasn’t learned from her mistakes.
yes. just as people who are constantly sueing businesses for “falls” have their records looked at by the judge before awarding damages. some people like to ‘work’ the system.
isnt it funny that it was three men both times?
Yes, Creed, all women who get pissed off by the fact that men rape women and women are not believed or are judged as responsible for their own rape are Feminazis.
Jesus, man. I expect better from you.
Don’t you have a DAUGHTER?
If–god forbid–some asshole rapes her, how are you gonna feel when a bunch of arrogant eletists say, “Well, she WAS equally responsible for what happened to her because she left the house and was alone, and everyone knows that girls have vaginas, and that this fact drives certain men to uncontrollable lust–she shouldn’t have been sashaying her little vagina around for any guy to just TAKE.”
I don’t know but I am thinking for a woman to get raped again years later, there are a few possibilities:
1) she is so sexy that her body screams RAPEME and men just can’t think straight any more when they see her but to rape her.
2) She hangs out with rapists.
3) Bad luck.
Yes, that’s significant. Just as significant as would be if the man had been accused before. Even more important would be whether there was a conviction in either case.
No, it’s not significant.
It’s a statistical fact that those who have been raped before are more likely to be raped again in their lifetime. I’m living proof of that statistic.
Possibly.
Funny how you mention lots of outside facts that subtly imply that the woman is at fault, and do not mention that the male students being accused have a criminal history of public drunkenness, resisting arrest, and are not to mention extremely wealthy and white while the woman is poor and black.
She has a dangerous occupation, and instead of blaming her, why don’t you blame the kind of disgusting men that pay for strippers in the first place?
Oh well, you are another case of the hypocrital christian that is not particularly uncommon.
Posted 4/28/2006 at 6:01 PM by Comrade_Bloody_Rox
I second that. Best comment thus far.
If you ask me, it means that she hasn’t learned from her mistakes.
Posted 4/28/2006 at 6:42 PM by bigman_91984
Mistakes, Rob? How about the mistakes of the rapists? I see no one commenting on that.
It means one of two things: A) being a stripper is dangerous (duh) and she’s stupid for not stopping after the first time it happened or B) She’s trying to get money from someone.
What happened to her is terrible. But if you’re taking money and going to a house to take your clothes off for a bunch of male athletes, what do you think is gonna happen.
RYC: I know you do, and I thank you for it
I don’t really mind that I don’t have a big readership. It’s basically just a journal for me anyway. I’m too lazy to keep a real one. I guess since that’s the case I should be more concerned about protecting my site, but I don’t really have anything to hide.
I also find it very interesting that they didn’t test the ONE BLACK GUY that’s on the team even though he was at the party. They didn’t test the black guy because the stripper (also black) CLAIMED her attackers were white and yet NONE of the white guys matched the semen found on her. Ver-r-r-ry intresting.
I guess if she was PROVEN to be lying in the prevous case, then it is relevant. but otherwise, no.
In her line of work it’s a very likely that both are valid. the question is what what was the outcome of the first accusation?
happened to her once. wjo says she wont lie bout it again?
No, women can be raped more than once.
It doesn’t matter if it was proved she lied before
liars can be raped.
Yes, Creed, all women who get pissed off by the fact that men rape women and women are not believed or are judged as responsible for their own rape are Feminazis.
Jesus, man. I expect better from you.
Don’t you have a DAUGHTER?
If–god forbid–some asshole rapes her, how are you gonna feel when a bunch of arrogant eletists say, “Well, she WAS equally responsible for what happened to her because she left the house and was alone, and everyone knows that girls have vaginas, and that this fact drives certain men to uncontrollable lust–she shouldn’t have been sashaying her little vagina around for any guy to just TAKE.”
Posted 4/28/2006 at 6:50 PM by Anna_Lanche
Damn Straight.
No more blaming the victim, they are the victim
Yes, but it doesn’t mean that she wasn’t raped.
Hooray! Way to taint the jury pool, national media! Because as we all know, overprivileged athletes should get away with everything and we should do whatever we can to discredit the woman.
It should be taken into consideration.
It means one of two things: A) being a stripper is dangerous (duh) and she’s stupid for not stopping after the first time it happened or B) She’s trying to get money from someone.
What happened to her is terrible. But if you’re taking money and going to a house to take your clothes off for a bunch of male athletes, what do you think is gonna happen.
I am very sorry that such ignorance exists in the world.
THINK about it. I know it is a terrible thing to ask a member of the priviledged class to put themselves in the place of a poor black woman–but TRY.
Imagine you are a poor black woman. Your education isn’t very good due to the fact that you live in a shitty area, and the school isn’t very well funded because the funding comes from the taxes of those in the community and your community is basically shit poor. Now, consider the employment options that are open to you.
McDonalds (minimum wage). Cleaning hotel rooms (minimum wage). Working in a nursing home (minimum wage). Stripping (good money and TIPS). A lot of women will put up with degradation and humiliation to put FOOD on the table.
She could have been raped in the parking lot of McDonalds just as easily. Many people have been raped leaving their jobs at night.
When you are poor, your environment is more dangerous. Believe it or not.
My god. Don’t you Xtians have ANY compassion? ANY???
What do you think Jesus would do? Oh, that’s right. Xtians are into GEEZUS, the guy who says money is the coolest thing, and it’s God’s will for them to vote for GW because GAWD told him to be president and bomb the fuck-all out of Iraq.
You people SCARE me.
If she was wrong last time. She could be one of those psychos that takes every pat on the back and handshake as sexual assault.
Hmmmm…..I think so.
no it is not.
yes i think its sugnificant; especially if shes lying. after all, we are creatures of habit. and to Pheonixfire5, yes there are ways to prove she paid someone to rape her. i dont personally know them, but the people in forensics labs do.
Fuck ya.
I think the assumption of these haters of Christians is that any woman’s unproven accusation of rape is true until her accusation is proven false. Isn’t that backwards?
I think the DNA evidence will either exhonorate or convict her alleged attackers. While the charge is serious, the way it’s being handled by the politicaly motivated authorities is an embarassment to the legal system.
I think the assumption of these haters of Christians is that any woman’s unproven accusation of rape is true until her accusation is proven false. Isn’t that backwards?
Posted 4/28/2006 at 10:36 PM by midn
Um…NO because we live in the United States and people are innocent until proven guilty. I thought everyone knew that? Wow, that’s kind of sad that people don’t know that. And how does that make someone a “hater of Christians”? What about the Christians who believe people are innocent until proven guilty? Jeeze Louise. Tsk tsk.
I don’t really know enough about this case to judge one way or the other, but I’d say the only way a past accusation should be significant is if she was proven without a shadow of a doubt to be lying in the past case (and I don’t mean the guys got off on a technicality). Otherwise it might even help her case if she has an informed judge who knows, as Jill and others pointed out, that the same women can be -and often are- raped on more than one occasion by different people.
I think the assumption of these haters of Christians is that any woman’s unproven accusation of rape is true until her accusation is proven false. Isn’t that backwards?
Posted 4/28/2006 at 10:36 PM by midn
What in the world does this mean? Of course, this is America, so the assumption is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, however, only in cases of rape do I consistantly see the accuser automatically judgeed to be a liar. Why is this? Who wants to be put through the humiliation? I think YOU’RE the one who got it backwards.
And what do Christians have to do with it?! I am a Christian, and I am in complete agreement with some of those whom you call “Christian haters.” Yeah, guess what, Christian girls who pray to God for protection can get raped too. Oh, I know, maybe they’re just being punished for some sin, so it still ends up being their responsibility, right? And here I thought Christians were supposed to show compassion on those whom the world shows no compassion. So glad to see the Christians spreading the love. *note the sarcasm*
I think the DNA evidence will either exhonorate or convict her alleged attackers. While the charge is serious, the way it’s being handled by the politicaly motivated authorities is an embarassment to the legal system.
Posted 4/28/2006 at 11:18 PM by BB61
Did you ever think that, if these little assholes planned the rape from the beginning (which I think they did), that they might have had the foresight to WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM??????
I don’t think this is the first rape for any of THEM either.
But they are rich white athletes, so of course they are “good boys” and she is a dirty slut.
Some of you make me want to puke.
Sorry–I highlighted the wrong quote above, BB61, please accept my apologies. My rant was for the idiot who said they didn’t find any DNA evidence on the girl.
I think the assumption of these haters of Christians is that any woman’s unproven accusation of rape is true until her accusation is proven false. Isn’t that backwards?
Posted 4/28/2006 at 10:36 PM by midn
Don’t forget that as a Christian you should not be automatically assuming the woman is a lying slut either.
And I do not hate Christians–real Christians that is, the ones who follow the teachings of that wandering bearded guy in the bible who talked about love and serving your fellow man and giving people what they asked for and MORE and also fed the hungry and healed the sick.
It’s the Xtians who CLAIM they are Christian that I find disgusting and revolting. You know. The ones who think torture is acceptable and that women are responsible for keeping men from feeling lust.
Those people are basically dumb fuckers who should be put in re-education camps until they learn a little fucking compassion.
> It could be. It has in the past happened that certain mentalities have made accusations like these and it later turned out to be false. Tawana Brawley comes to mind. But a precedent has been set by this type of behavior that cannot be backed away from or ignored. As to her innocence or guilt in this falseness, its not a done deal for the courts but it is probably being misrepresented by the media, as always. No sales without sensation!
Peace
Look at it this way: Would you play hockey without proper protection? No? Why not? Because you’d probably come up missing teeth or have something broken. So, let’s say that you went out and played hockey without protection once and now have a permanent bridge where four of your upper teeth should be. Are you going to go out ten years later and play hockey without protection again? Probably not. And if you do? I think most everyone here would agree that you’re mentally impared in someway.
Now, replace hockey with hanging out alone with three guys, larger and more powerful than yourself and replace missing teeth with being raped. Follow me?
We don’t live in Utopia. We should punish the bad guys. I agree. But we have to take precautions to keep ourselves safe as well. That doesn’t always stop bad things from happening to you: I’m living proof of that. But it can greatly reduce your risk. You can’t just stumble hap-hazardly through life and expect everything to always be rainbows and roses. No, the guys shouldn’t have raped her. But, no, she shouldn’t have been taking her clothes off infront of strange men when she knew first-hand the risks. That’s just stupid. That’s why this being the second rape makes me question her credibility. If you had been raped before? Why would you put yourself in this situation to begin with?? …
Everything is insignificant. No one will remember this 5, 1000, 100,000,000 years in the future.
I don’t think thaty question can be fairly assessed without knowing more about the previous case. Did they guys get acquitted? How much doubt was there of the validity of that incident?
I resist the idea that she’s lying b/c I will always have a hader time assuming that a rape accusation is false. Rape is too deep an issue to take lightly, and there are so many more instances of men getting off easily when they did in fact attack a woman than there are cases of men getting falsely accused, so my first instinct with rape accusations will always be to stand by the woman, untill she’s proven to be lying. Yes, that goes against the “innocent till proven guilty” way of doing things for the accused, but I think the circumstances around rape charges warrant this.
absolutely. first of all, if i am being raped by DUKE UNIVERSITY LACROSSE PLAYERS, then im pretty sure that i would remember their faces. second of all, i couldnt be raped, cause im a guy. and that counts as being sexually assaulted. the fact that she accused 3 other men of raping her and the fact that they have no DNA evidence should be sustantial enough to disprove any rape allegations.
OJ got off too. “And here I thought Christians were supposed to show compassion on those whom the world shows no compassion. So glad to see the Christians spreading the love.” wheres the compassion for gays, the vatican doesnt show any, wheres the compassion for people who get abortions, the vatican doesnt show any. the fact is that those loving, compasionate christians are all greedy bigoted whores.
absolutely. first of all, if i am being raped by DUKE UNIVERSITY LACROSSE PLAYERS, then im pretty sure that i would remember their faces.
Here’s a news flash for you, Einstein. Not everyone gives a shit about college sports. I know it’s probably a novel concept for someone who worships at the shrine of the jock strap, but they might have been “just guys” to her–not godlike beings who played the noble Sport of LaCrosse. Personally, I wouldn’t recognize ANY sports figures, professional or college because I personally do not give a shit about sports.
It astonishes me that you are so narrow visioned that you think everyone would.
It’s like me expecting you to know all the characters (even the minor ones) in my favorite anime. Self-important much?
defininetly.
OJ got off too. “And here I thought Christians were supposed to show compassion on those whom the world shows no compassion. So glad to see the Christians spreading the love.” wheres the compassion for gays, the vatican doesnt show any, wheres the compassion for people who get abortions, the vatican doesnt show any. the fact is that those loving, compasionate christians are all greedy bigoted whores.
Posted 4/29/2006 at 5:36 AM by wtfhappenedtoyou
You are confusing true Christianity ith religion, my fine fellow.
True Christ-like Christians have compassion for gay people. Ignorant pharisees and Xtians reshape Jesus and God in their own image, turning them into GEEZUS and GAWD. Then, GEEZUS and GAWD take on all of their prejudices and values and idiocies. GEEZUS, GAWD, and Xtians have NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with actual Christians, Christ or God.
The greedy bigotted whores are Xtians. Not Christians.
Just a little enlightenment for you. Since you seem to need it.
But hey, I can turn the lights on for you, but it is up to YOU to open your eyes.
i actually cant stand sports, professional, college. or otherwise. i pretty much only go to soccer games cause i know the people. and i learned all that in my chatechism class, not on xanga from GAWD or GEEZUS, from a priest.
what the hell
yes… Is this a pattern?? No DNA evidence has been linked to any of these players….
I aint sayin shes a gold digger…but she is…she just falsly accuseing guys and suing them to get money…so i say yes.
~*~Paige~*~A.K.A.Twinkie!!!Boomboxx!!!
If the allegations were false, definitely… if they weren’t false, then why in the world was she dumb enough to get BACK into stripping after being raped once… this whole Duke thing is annoying.
If the allegations were false, definitely… if they weren’t false, then why in the world was she dumb enough to get BACK into stripping after being raped once… this whole Duke thing is annoying.
Posted 4/29/2006 at 1:49 PM by courtneyalexandra
The stupid bitch probably figured it was important to continue paying her bills and putting food on the table for her family. What as stupid, stupid bitch, huh?
It indicates that she’s either fabricating the story, or has endured some type of trauma that causes her to act as a target for such crimes. A look into her personal history would probably tell which one. I’d say that the lack of DNA evidence in this case indicates the former, though.
Yea why dont they but they should
When it happened before, it wasn’t handled correctly. For her own peace of mind, she should charge the three latest assailants, correctly this time. If she can do it right, all the more power to her, but I would warn her, “This is getting old.”
You never know. Even if you think she’s just trying to get revenge or something, this could actually be true. Maybe they knew nobody would believe her.
Meh.
yep
it is impossible to judge considering we know nothing of the woman or of the case.
yes
i dont know.does sound suspicious
It can’t be seen as standalone proof of guilt or innocence, but if we were able to look at all the evidence, it might play a crucial role. Just because nothing happened to the men that were accused before doesn’t mean that they were not guilty. But, in examining the facts from the first case against the facts from this new case, this incident should DEFINATELY be considered.
It starts to sound a bit fishy when the woman has made the claim before without offering much in the line of evidence, but the current situation should be evaluated independently. It sounds like she’s in a profession where that sort of thing COULD happen frequently.
“Crying wolf” [if that's what she was doing] should raise suspicions, but it isn’t a reason to deny someone justice when something really does happen later on.