Hi, Chris.

I am posting here, even though it relates to previous posts on the Duke affair.

What was the problem with Rush calling her ho? Should he used more PC language like “sex worker”? Because it was reported that her work as “escort” involved “one-on-one dates” several times a week. Now you don’t think that on such “dates” they read poetry or look at the moon? She’s a prostitute. Which might explain some injuries to her private parts. Her line of work does invole some “wear and tear”, I would think.

Also, I would less likely believe a prostitute, all other things being equal.

I also heard on TV that she had some police record. I find it unfair that any negative information about the players is readily “leaked”, while similar info about her is kept secret.

What about her police record? What if she was involved in some kind of fraud previously? Won’t that put even more doubts on her story?

My guess is (and it is a guess, nothing more) that she was not raped by students. There are several common sense reasons.

First, It is veru unlikely that three guys would be raping someone for 30 minutes, while dozens of others would be in the same house, literally in the next room. Even if others did not hear or suspect anything, they would likely to provide information to investigators who was where, with whom, how long etc. Rapists should realize that others would point to them sooner or later.

First, smart guys like Duke students would not likely rape a black prostitute without a condom (for obvious reasons). So no DNA.

Second, gang white-on-black rape is so rare, that there is no FBI statistics on that. On the other hand, gang black-on-white rape is much more common. (not to mention individual black-on-white rape). So purely from the point of view of probability of such event, it is extremely unlikely. Especially if it would involve students from an elite U.

Also, smart guys like Duke students would not likely rape a black prostitute without a condom (for obvious reasons). So no DNA.

It looks to me like smear campaign against the students is going on. But we very well may find her to be a fraud.

I think the main issue with Rush calling the alleged victim a “ho” is that it’s arguably a way to dismiss the woman’s allegations—i.e., person X is a “ho,” so we don’t need to take her seriously. I don’t think it’s the huge deal that some people have made it out to be (because of their hard-on for Limbaugh), but it’s still crass.

That you’ve heard about her police record suggests that there isn’t some conspiracy to keep it quiet; having said that, certainly some rather frivolous things about the members of the lacrosse team have come out that probably wouldn’t be considered newsworthy had she been charged with those things. On the other hand, the assault and battery that one player committed is quite a serious past charge—granted, that wasn’t in the initial wave of revelations, for reasons that are something of a mystery to me.

I won’t speculate on the probabilities or the racial angle; the DNA stuff is so obscured by Nifong’s flip-flopping I can’t say one way or the other what, if anything, the tests will be able to show. This article from today’s Chronicle may help clear some of that up.

Chris,

Thanks for continuing your fine coverage of the Duke, Durahm, the rape charge and other matters.

Thanks also for the link.

Here’s a post with more about the Duke lacrosse Mom’s letter, and how and why it disappeared at Raleigh News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan’s blog. Also, there’s some information about why comments supportive of the Mom were removed. The post’s here: http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-lacrosse-moms-letter-my-comment.html

I’m planning a post in a day or two about your coverage.

I plan to describe what you’re trying to do here as follows:present a fairly comprehansive mix of reporting and thoughtful commentary, with particular attention to what’s at local media outlets, including Duke publications.

Does that description fairly reflect what your trying to do?

You can respond via email or with a brief post. I’ll check in here a few times tomorrow.

Again, thanks for doing a very fine job.

Best,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Thanks John; I think that’s a fair description.

I don’t know if Rush meant that the allegation should not be taken seriously just because she’s a prostitute. From the part of the transcript I read that is not clear. I certainly don’t think so. On the other hand, being a prostitute does raise questions about the morality, integrity and truthfulness of the individual involved. At least many people would think that way. It may affect the way the case is prosecuted (or not).

And I didn’t claim conspiracy, did I? I said it is UNFAIR to provide shady details about players who are not even charged, and probably was not at the house at all. In other words, innocent people. While absolutely sheilding the accuser whose story seems increasingly fishy.

Btw, her police record is not that bad, DWI, suspended license, that sort of thing.

I wonder what’s Nifong rationale for possibly not revealing DNA results before the trial? But the lawers for players said that they would made them public anyway. Looks like they are certain that tests would be negative.

Another question that is not often raised – if tests are negative, what about the sperm that was found on her (otherwise what they compare the players’ DNA with?) Where did she get it? Would that be a question that prosecutors should be interested? If there are signs of rape? But the article you provided link to says that it is difficult to say if sex was consensual or not. Interesting.