I generally make it a policy not to discuss, directly or obliquely, students in this blog. That said, I think I need to stake out a few positions (particularly for people who are new readers).

First and foremost, I tend to have a very snarky aspect of my personality that gets emphasized in the blog. You may find it inappropriate given the weighty subject matter of this case, but it’s just how I treat more or less everything that gets discussed here—most of all myself.

Let me make something else clear at the outset: I have no qualms about students—even those under the legal drinking age—consuming alcohol (or other drugs) in a responsible, restrained manner. I also have no objection to adults purchasing the services of other adult escorts, “private party performers,” and the like for fully consensual activities. I fundamentally subscribe to the libertarian harm principle—if one’s actions don’t cause harm to others, they should be legal. (This doesn’t resolve all issues or legality or morality, but it covers those at least.)

What is perfectly clear at this point is that the young men present at the party at 610 Buchanan (who may or may not be the same set of individuals as the men’s lacrosse team) behaved extremely poorly and went beyond the boundaries of good taste. It is also clear that there is strong evidence that the alleged victim experienced physical trauma consistent with rougher-than-typical sex, perhaps even rape. What is not perfectly clear at this point is that this woman was raped by three men who were at this party, much less three members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team.

There are a number of troubling aspects to the evidence in this case, many of which revolve around the timeline of events. We are to believe that at least 40 people disappeared completely from a house in a residential neighborhood in less than eight minutes (by the neighbor’s account), perhaps as few as two minutes (if the “passerby” responsible for the first 911 call was actually at the scene at the time the call was made and is not, as is widely believed, the driver/second performer), with nobody seeing where they went. We are also to believe that the driver waited outside for around 30 minutes for the alleged victim to emerge from the house, after already fleeing said house after hearing racial slurs and the subject of the broomstick was broached, apparently without the slightest curiosity about what was taking so long. We are also to believe that the driver and the victim decided to go on a 20-minute cruise through west Durham, in the opposite direction of the victim’s home, after the victim was allegedly assaulted.

Another aspect of the case that’s troubling is what was found—and not found—at the home on 610 Buchanan. The DA has asserted that the DNA evidence in the case may be insignificant because the attackers may have used condoms—yet no condoms were found, despite the police finding a veritable treasure trove of evidence left behind by the alleged victim. If there had been a rape at the house, would they get rid of the condoms—but not anything else, including the false nails that (according to the victim’s account) could have skin cells from one of the attackers? In addition, the most celebrated piece of evidence—the bottle of K-Y jelly—doesn’t even appear on the search warrant as an item to be siezed, even though it is an item you would think would have been mentioned in the victim’s account of the events.

The behavior of the county’s district attorney in the case has also been, to put it mildly, disturbing. He has sought DNA evidence from 46 people, potentially in violation of state law and the U.S. Constitution, then discounted whether the evidence will actually have any probitive value. If the victim had identified an attacker or attackers from the photos of the team members (which were available to Durham police from the Duke athletics website), the dragnet was inappropriate; if she hadn’t, that would be reasonably strong evidence than none of the lacrosse team members were responsible.

He has also insinuated that team members’ decisions to avail themselves of their constitutional right to legal counsel is somehow an effort to obstruct justice in the case. And, his interest in appearing before the cameras somehow dries up when he is asked to respond to these serious issues.

All that said, I’ll tell you something: the victim is probably telling the truth, and she probably was raped that evening (I don’t know if it happened at 610 Buchanan; it may have happened before or after she came to the house, perhaps even at the hands of other perpetrators). But the idiotic behavior of Mike Nifong and her companion that evening has poked enough holes in her case that, in the absence of DNA evidence, it is going to be exceedingly unlikely for anyone to be convicted in this case.

The one exception, of course, is if the “wall of silence” breaks down. I suspect, however, given Nifong’s tactics in this case, it will not. The African-American and Trinity Park communities in Durham are looking for scapegoats, and in the absence of DNA evidence anyone at that party (or on the team, save the lone black player) can be a scapegoat. My guess is that a conviction for obstruction of justice and underage drinking is much more appealing to these kids than the possibility of facing rape charges against a jury full of Righteous Townies, even if the jury verdict doesn’t hold up on appeal.

Of course, the acid test will be next week, when Nifong claims (at least now) that he will file charges. But I will be very surprised if he can identify three—and only three—alleged rapists.