Stripper 2 Turning? & Jesse Arrivals

Here Jesse arrives on the scene, with a scholarship for the accuser "so that she never again has to stoop so low just to survive." I agree with Jesse that stripping is "low" (as is hiring strippers), and hope that the strident NC Central students who hail her as a "lady" will confront him on this observation. But a scholarship for her? And the belief that she's taken this job because she has too "just to survive"? Nonsense! The vast majority black women -- like all women -- "survive" without debasing themselves. This goes for women working their ways through college, even those attractive enough to strip, even those with kids. Why doesn't Jesse get scholarships for those women?

The article also has one of the defense lawyers stating that Stripper 2 has said in interviews that she doesn't believe the accuser's story. This might be why we no longer hear the defense bad-mouthing Stripper 2, about her faking the first call. This might also explain why the two were in the grocery store parking lot engaging in some activity that attracted the security guard, and why there was an effort to get the accuser out of the car: were they having a fight?

Other new releases claim that stripper 2 exchanged angry, racially charged words with the honkies as they were leaving, a few minutes before the first 911 call. Maybe Stripper 2 intended the fake first call to be their only strike against the honkies. And maybe as they were leaving they started fighting amounst themselves when they realized that the accuser had left her purse and money behind. The rape charge might have been an improvisation in reponse to the accuser realizing that she was about to be arrested.

I'm not 99% sure that the honkies are innocent of rape, just about 81%. But I'm 100% certain that Jesse Jackson is an embarrassment.


Paul Hue said...

Stripper 2 now admits in an on-camera interview that *SHE* herself made the first 911 call. She says she did this to report the guys for calling her racial names, and that she fabricated the "walking/driving by" aspect of the story in order to hide her status as a stripper/escort/exotic dancer.

However, it appears that at least one neighbor's report and the crackers claim that she also spewed racial insults... at the honkies. Her 911 call led the world to believe that the honkies at the house were shouting racial insults at any blacks walking/driving by, which is quite different from exchanging racial insults as part of a financial disput. The guys could have taken her tact, and called in an anonymous 911 call accusing two black girls of driving/walking down the street shouting racial insults at white.

She says that she didn't realize how serious her call would be taken, or that it would even result in a police visit; perhaps she'd bought the often asserted claim about "the system" being "racist". Now she sees that such calls result in two squad cars investigating within 5 minuts.

The interview I saw this morning was an excerpt from an interview that will broadcast for the first time tonight on MSNBC's "Rita Cosby" show. The teaser suggests (but oddly doesn't explicitly state) that Stripper 2 will address claims that in interviews with defense attorneys she asserted that she doesn't beleive that a rape occured. Perhaps we will find out why the girls were in the grocery store parking lot, how the security guard and then police got involved, why there was any effort to get the accuser to vacate Stripper 2's car, why Stripper 2 first told police that she found the accuser walking down the street, and why Stripper 2 first denied being the accuser's stripping partner.

Paul Hue said...

Stripper 2 in the inteview says that she believes the accuser, but only because she assumes that anyone who would make such a claim must be telling the truth. How to reconcile this with what defense attorneys say she said in interviews with them? If Stripper 2 stands by this, apparently she has nothing to verify or refute the accuser's claim.


Other questions: Was Stripper 2 arguing with the guys? Over what? Who initiated the racial name-calling? Did she participate?

Paul Hue said...

Stripper 2 in her interview says that the accuser wasn't intoxicated when she arrived, but became intoxicated. Did the testing lab perform a blood analysis on the accuser? How much time transpired between leaving the house and the drawing of her blood? What did it detect? If the accuser got doped by the honkies, why didn't Stripper 2?

Paul Hue said...

More info on the photos:


There is a 27-minute gap, between photos near the strippers' arrival and their departure. This coincides with the accuser's claim to have been in a bathroom getting raped for 30 minutes. But the post-gap photos show her smiling, looking for a shoe, passed out on the back porch, and red marking on the porch railings that the defense claim comprise fresh nail polish applied to the accuser's nails. Does that polish match that on the accused's nails? Where was Stripper 2 during this time?

Stripper 2 in this report says she believes the charge, but only because she aparrently was seperated from the accuser and doesn't think that the the accuser would lie about something like that.

But did the accuser indeed only make the charge after a police officer informed her that he was arresting her and would have her confined to a jailroom for 24-hours?

Stripper 2 says that the accuser wasn't drunk when she arrived, but became drunk during their time together. What did police find in the accuser's purse, car, and blood? Could one of the guys have slipped her a drug? Could she have consumed a drug just before arriving, and it took affect during her stay?

What is the accuracy of visual inspections "consistent with rape" and corresponding DNA examinations?

Paul Hue said...

Looks like the accuser has fingered three of the lacrosse players:


Of course this doesn't mean that she's telling the truth. It's hard to imagine that a jury would find no reasonable doubt given the other facts so far. It would be great if the rape testing included a blood sample. If her blood contained rape drug, that alone would surely indicate a crime against her, unless there is a phenomenon of people taking this drug themselves.

This article contains more info about what Stripper 2 has to say. But though it describes the parking lot scene, it doesn't explain why Stripper 2 apparently wanted the accuser out of her car. Because Stripper 2 described the accuser as a stranger that she picked up, that explains why the police would have tried to get the accuser out of the car, and -- failing in that attempt -- began arrest procedings against her. But there must have been some reason prior to that why Stripper 2 wanted the girl out of her car.

Paul Hue said...

This report has the accuser "slapping" one of the honkies a few minutes into the dancing, for the comment about the "broomstick". But it also says that both strippers were together in the bathroom, and that the honkies slipped money under the door "to get them to leave." If the girls were together in the bathroom, then Stripper 2 would know if the accuser got raped during that time. But Stripper 2 could not have been in the bathroom with the accuser *and* believe the accuser's story, which she now says that she does.

Paul Hue said...

That previous article gives has a photo of the strippers at Stripper 2's car at 12:20, where other reports have photos of them dancing at about 12:10, which permits less than 10 minutes for a rape.

Paul Hue said...


This article documents an NBC reporter's assessment of the photos. The "bathroom gap" here is only about 10 minute. It starts with a photo at 12:03 seeming to show the accuser slapping one of the guys for the comment about a broomstick, with everybody in the photo sans smiles. Then at 12:20 both strippers are at Stripper 2's car, and the accuser at 12:30 with a smile on her face, trying to get back into the house. That leaves 17 minutes for the accuser to leave the room after the slap, get raped by three guys in a bathroom, and get to Stripper 2's car. The photos also show injuries sustained from a fall at the back porch.

It will be very interesting to learn how much such injuries played into the assessment of "consistent with sexual assault" by the medical examiners. The facts seem to be less than 100% exonerating the accused, but certainly less than 100% supporting of the accuser.

Paul Hue said...

The above article also has a defense attorney asserting that Stripper 2 refuted the accuser's "timeline", but has Stripper 2's attorney disputing that assessment, stating that Stripper 2 instead refutes the defenses timeline and supports the accuser's account.

Where was Stripper 2 when the accuser was in the bathroom? Will the photos refute Stripper 2's own assessment of the timeline?

Paul Hue said...

Grand jury appears not to have indicted any of the alleged Duke rapists:


This article recounts the parking lot scene, and has the security guard telling an investigator that "there ain't no way" that the accuser had just been raped. Another accounting that the accuser "wouldn't get out of the car", and that Stripper 2 described the accuser as somebody she had never met prior to picking up on the street, but still no explanation for why Stripper 2 wanted the accuser out of her car.

Paul Hue said...

The above article inclues once again the statistic that "75 percent to 80 percent of rape prosecutions lack DNA evidence. But what is the statistic for rape prosecutions in which DNA swabbing occured a few hours after an aleged gang rape that included purported scratching and loss of fake nails? Does the "75 to 80%" refer mostly to situations in which DNA evidence is impossible, as opposed to so likely that the prosecuter stated on the warrent that it would definately identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent?

In seems quite unlikely to me that DNA evidence would have as much value as it does if 80% of the time it's irrellevent. The recent rash of teacher-sex rape cases all involved situations in which DNA evidence was impossible. But what if a boy claimed that a woman had sex with them a few hours ago in an act that involved a beating, strangling, and scratching, and he had not yet showered, and the teacher insisted that no sex had occured? Would we expect an 80% liklihood of sex without DNA? I hardly think so, given the DA's expectation of finding DNA.

Paul Hue said...

It will be very interesting to see if the honkies that the stripper supposedly has "identified" as raping her include the honkey that one of the photos indicates she slapped. The slapping provides a motive for the slappee to rape her... but also a motive for the slapper to falsely ID as a rapist when facing 24 hours in a lockpup.

Paul Hue said...


This article says that police keep contacting attorneys to figure out which of the players were at party; this indicates that the accuser is uncertain who to accuse. That is bad for the prosecution. If she knows who raped her, shouldn't she be able to identify the people who raped her without knowing who was at the party?

This article also points out that she didn't ask for help or indicate any distress to the first three non-players that she encountered within 30 minutes of the alleged rape: her fellow stripper, the security guard, or the cop... until the cop said she was under arrest.

Paul Hue said...


The DA is now suggesting that the accuser got slipped a drug, which if this is true, is a horrible crime, to have your consciousness taken from you unwittingly by another person; that is an unforgivable act of tyrany.

Interestingly, the DA says in reponse to various data showing that the accuser was intoxicated, "there's various explanations for how a person can be intoxicated", including involuntary. However, he has not acknowleged that the same can be said of a medical exam that is "consistent with a sexual assault"; such a result is also "consistent with" other possible explanations. Why is he (and others) so open minded on the matter of how she got intoxicated, but not on the matter of how she sustained her observed injuries?

This article also has a defense attorney battling with the attorney for Stripper 2. The defense attorney is certain that Stripper 2 is on record preveously has having confirmed the defense's timeline (and concluding herself that no rape occured), and that her assertion now that she believes the accuser represents a "changed story."

Paul Hue said...


This description of the photo timeline, by an ABC reporter who saw the photos, has a 27-minute gap (not accounting for going to the bathroom, then going to the car), whereas the NBC reporter found only a 10-minute gap (accounting for both travel times). But this accounting contradicts some of accuser's claims:

- The reporter saw several photos throughout the brief dance. Altough the accuser says that the honkies got increasingly aggressive during this time, the photos show the honkies all laid back, and some conversing amoung themselves, not payint attention to the dancers.

- The reporter saw bruises and cuts on the accuser's knees and legs during the pre-rape dance. Did she initially report these as deriving from a rape?

- The reporter saw missing fake fingernails during the pre-rape dance, but the accuser attributed her missing nails to the rape fight.

Paul Hue said...


Very god assessment: we don't know yet, and all parties involved were in a situation if ill-repute, with either allegation (rape, faked rape) believable.

Paul Hue said...


- The accuser slapped one of the honkies for suggesting the strippers use a broomstick since they didn't have a dildo.

- That ended the stripping and the girls left, with the accuser leaving her purse behind. The guys wouldn't let her back into the house.

- Stripper 2 drove the girl to a grocery store, went inside and told the guard that she had a girl that she picked up on the street who she wanted out of her car (no reason given), but the girl wouldn't leave.

- Three cops came and tried to get the girl out of the care. At what point did they tell her she was under arrest?