Hmmmmm? Duke rape...DA got something.
 

Looks like the DA is going to put on a case of "What are the odds?"



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

So what, he lives there and jacked off in the bathroom.
But what are the odds that the victim would claim she spit semen in the same place that the cops found it?

So what, he's got a jack-off rag. But what are the odds that he jacks off in the hallway and leaves the rag there? :1orglaugh
(pretty high if he surfed GYF everyday, but he doesn't)

The link above is interesting if you start at the begining.
One thing of interest is the claim that the victim changed her story seems to come from accounts of the story told by people who never actually spoke to the victim.

When that spot happens to be in the bathroom of college aged men? Very high odds. Should be easy to tell if the sample is a mixture of his DNA and her DNA, which would happen if it is her spit and his semen.

Again, the DNA should be a mixture.

That is one fucked up case.:disgust

When you say "SHOULD be a mixture" you fall into the common myth about DNA. You believe the test are perfect. It is far from that.

DNA test are about odds. In other words: "What are the odds that the material came from this person?". In a mixture the odds get worse.
Her saliva could be in a mixture but the test used cannot seperate a band of her DNA that is good enough to get a match.

Don't bet on DNA proving this case. When there is a DNA match it proves the case but when there is no DNA match it only proves that the test are not perfect.

Like I asked in another thread "If 3 Duke players jacked off in a cup could a DNA test of that cup identify all 3?".

I do know this much...if 1000 guys jacked of in that cup and it was stired up and sat for a day you'd probably only identify 3 to 5 guys if you were lucky.







This last quote is the one that people should really try to understand.

What it is saying is that if
Person #1 (AA/AB/AC/AA/BB)
and
Person #2 (BB/AB/AA/BB/AA)
jack off in a cup(pussy) then the DNA test will
identify
Person #3 (AB/AB/AC/AB/AB) who may not actually exist.

Persons #1 and #2 CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED!!!!
However, they also cannot be excluded!!


Conclusion: The defense attorney will claim that his client DID NOT MATCH the DNA evidence, but he will convenietly not mentioned that his client was NOT excluded as a possible source of that DNA mixture.


Nifong is not as fucking stupid as some people think.

she is a lying whore that should be charged along w/ the DA

Thanks for posting without reading.

when i was in college you could prob run semen tests on every item in my place and find a match lol ewww

If she claims that he ORALY raped her. which I dont understand how that could happen, Then there has to be saliva mixed in the sperm. If not....

all this shit is irrelevant, her actions prior and before the alleged incident which is verified proves her story is bullshit.

There should be some penalty for people that falsely accuse others of crimes of this nature. It is to easy for people to claim rape when they have a drunken regret from to much partying the night before. There is no recourse for people falsely accused.

Gee, you didn't read anything I posted or you would have not even talked about saliva mixed with sperm.

How does someone get orally raped?
I guess if a chick is almost passed out from drinking and drugs and someone my size choked her and said suck my dick then she might just do it if I agreed to stop choking her.
I guess rapist are smarter than regular people since they figured this out 1000's of years ago.

There is a penalty for that. It's a crime to file a false police report.

But so far the only reason the victim is believed to be a liar is because people choose to believe the players version of what happended. People have taken a media spin and accepted it as fact. I rather wait for the evidence to be shown in full.


I played college football and I have seen girl get abused at parties so I'm not going to shout innocent right away. I know what goes on.
She may be lying but my experince says innappropriate things happened for sure and it's mostly a matter of wether she is exaggerating what happend.
I mean if she agreed to suck a players dick and then he called her a fucking
n1gger when she finished then she might go this route for revenge.
But they all claimed no sex occured. That I dout.

They paid $800 to get some "whores" and they didn't think they were getting their money's worth. They lashed out by calling them names and that's a violation of rule number one. "Don't get loud with your whore, you will only draw attention to yourself and it will not be positive"....accusation of rape, assault or knife wound from pimp...take your pick.

Fill me in on the "prior and before"(which is redundant BTW).

I only heard she was sober when she got to the party then got fucked up off one drink and was basically laying on the floor passed out at one point.

I'm clueless to what she did before the party that woud prove she is lying.
Please fill me in with the details.

So every single person who thinks the accuser is full of shit is just brainwashed? Give me a break.

Her stripper partner has blown the most holes in the accusers story. I dont suppose you caught her interview on 60 minutes or anywhere else?

I didn't say anything about anyone being brain washed, you said that and you would like for that accusation to be attributed to me.

I did see the 60 minutes interview and right from the start she said :

"At first I thought nothing happened, then later I was sure that a rape occured, but now I decided that I am not a detective and will just tell what I know to be facts and let a jury decided what happened."

Where are the holes? Sounds like she shot her mouth off about the incident at first and later starting putting "two and two" together; but rather than shoot her mouth off again(because she learned her lesson) she will just tell it to a jury.

She is a drunk bitch and the DNA inside her didnt match. Yes a bunch of college boys are going to have DNA all over the place they live, face facts people.

I wish I had $10,000 to give a way to anyone who read even one of the quotes I posted about DNA. I could keep everybit of that money.

Your post explains the entire situation of this case because you don't even look at the facts, which are posted, you just jump on the bandwagon and take a ride where ever it goes.

I got 3 quotes up there that explains that the DNA mixture from 3 differrent people cannot "MATCH" a single person with reliability. In fact it CAN"T match a single person. It can only excluded a person.

NONE OF THE DUKE PLAYERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DNA!!!

All three could have contributed to the DNA sample and it would not
match any one of them. it's call "contamination".

Hello, you understanding this yet?

Fucking stupid racist case, blacks hating whites, the DA wanted to get reelected in a majority black constituency district and this case gave Nifong all he needed to whip up that base and reelect him.

Some would say that you are racist for assuming what you stated is true.

I noticed you didn't mention the only recorded facts about racism in the case, which is the video of the guys calling the girls n1ggers. You'd rather theorize about racism because that way you can make the out come something that you feel good about. You want blacks to be racist, because that would give you the justification you need to validate the reason you hate blacks.

Oh please spare me, you started the thread therefore by your own analysis you started the thread to hide the fact that you hate whites and try to garner support and sympathy for her story and validate what most people(of all races) with common sense know to be a flat out lie(aka her story) by using some "reasonable doubt" examples of evidence.

These guys are being prosecuted simply because they are rich white kids who lack common sense who reside in a majority black area. Sorry thats racist no matter what color they are.

how do you orally rape someone?

seems they would have you by the nuts if you put your dick in their mouth

You need to be able to convict without reasonable doubt.

The fact that the defense attorney is going to hammer on their being no conclusive dna testing is going to get them off. Don't forget, jurys are made up of the same people that are not reading your quotes in this thread and are forming opinions. They sit on the jury and think about how they can't wait to go home, not the facts.

Look at the oj trial. They find some blood soaked leather glove that shriveled up like an old mans penis and said, This can't be his as it's to small. Well, duh. But if you throw that "reasonable doubt" at the jury enough times as well as the shunken glove, they come back with a not guilty verdict.

These boys are all "well off, upstanding citizens" and they are being accused by whom? No one a jury is going to believe.

My prediction : Not guilty

The way to do it is first you read the board where the question has already been answered then you do what was already said.

I agree with a lot of that.

I think you over simplified the OJ trial though. The glove got a lot of attention in the press but infact it was the least of many factors that swayed the jury. The person who found the glove(Mark Furhman) was more of a problem then the glove shrinking. Nobody believed he was lucky enough to find a glove at the murder scene and then after being relieved from the case he went to OJ's house and found the second glove.
They saw him as a liar when he testified that OJ was not a suspect but yet he found probable cause to enter OJ's property without a warrant or calling in other officers for back up. Then the "N" bomb was dropped and he lied on the stand.

Fact, it was OJ's limo driver's testimony the got the accquital. The first jury vote had one hold out and after the jury requested a re-read of the limo driver's testimony they all voted not guilty.

The limo driver had phone records of when he called OJ and when they left and so forth and he was adamant about his account of the time line.
He seemed to believe that he had the evidence to convict OJ, however he didn't know the time-line as proposed by the prosecution.
The jury decided that if the limo driver was correct as he stated then OJ did not have enough time to do the murder.

The limo driver refused to accept that the time on his phone could have been wrong.

The news spun all the shit about the glove and Mark Furhman and racism and that made those things seem more important then they were.

I feel like she is lying

wasnt that an evilangel dvd? =]