This article answers most of my "no sex" questions: Yes, they test for more than just semen, and in places other than where semen would be, and test even for tell-tale signs of condom use such as lubricant and latex residue. Presumably they also tested those famous fake fingernails. Will the hordes of instant protesters now have as much glee and relief knowing that the evil white drunken louts didn't rape the stripper as they had enmity and scorn when they were absolutely certain that they did? What will they do now?
From the article:
========================
Attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents one of the team's captains, said the report indicated authorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim's body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes.
"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA," he said. Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it's likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.
"The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that — and that's not here," Cheshire said.
Stan Goldman, who teaches criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the DNA results don't mean that Nifong can't go forward with the case — but the test results make a successful prosecution much harder. "Isn't the absence of DNA evidence, given the way the victim has described the crime, in and of itself almost enough to raise a reasonable doubt?" he said. "That's all the defense has to do."
2006-04-10
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
How can the DA get out of this? What an idiot.
==========
Defense lawyers pointed to a sworn statement made by the district attorney's office when it asked a judge to order the players to submit DNA samples. The statement said, "The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent person and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspects are."
http://www.nbc17.com/news/8602612/detail.html
The DA isn't backing down. If a rape occured, the DA is an idiot; if no rape occured, he's an idiot. He is unquestionably an idiot.
Imagine if he'd kept his mouth shut to this point. The DNA evidence would not be an explosive victory for the defense. Imagine if a rape occured, and for some reason no DNA evidence appeared. Without the DA's comments, including especially his proclamation on the warrent, he'd have more of a case. Now he will have to eat his own words in court, if he can get it so far; he has undermined his own credability in court! Why should a jury beliefve anything he has to say if his sworn order declares one thing about the DNA evidence, but he's standing in front of the jury disputing those words?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/lacrosse/2006-04-11-duke-dna_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA
Here's a student who lambasted the players, but has now changed his mind, admitting that he too quickly passed judgement.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/sports/14311645.htm
Jeffry Feiger last night said that the DNA results mean that the case is "over" and chances for prosecution are zero.
Post a Comment