Glad to see evidence-free indictments are the norm in this case.

I guess feminist Lefties are all for the absence of evidentiary due process as long as the defendant is a white male.

Lack of DNA match doesn't infer lack of physical evidence but that aside, circumstantial evidence carries the exact same weight as physical evidence in the eyes of the law.

By the way, I don't presume to know what happened that night. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

I do know inappropriate and actionable prosecutorial discretion when I see it. That's where circumstantial and physical evidence DO have major distinctions in the eyes of the law.

The lack of DNA evidence implies quite a bit in this case, though you may infer otherwise.

...this is a regular beat for Broadsheet.

Honestly, with so little public information, I cannot tell the difference between this story and Aruba girl. Both score points with readers/viewers who want to assume the worst, but neither stories at this point have any lessons that can be applied by the reading/viewing public. Without public evidence greater than what's available - or better yet, a conviction - this is just wild speculation. As such, is speaks not one word to feminism, chauvinism, Duke, strippers or anything else.

The fixation is a little disturbing. Are we expected to view the boys as guilty? Even if they were ultimately proven guilty, are we supposed to make broad generalizations about rich white boys? Duke students? I don't get it. Please, could a broadsheet poster explain why this incident, in its current state, is relevant to the life of anybody not directly involved? I'm sure other readers want to know too.

There is a partial DNA match of one of the players to the skin found under the victim's finger nails that were discovered torn off in the bathroom where the incident is alleged to have taken place.

http://www.wral.com/news/9195865/detail.html

The hospital staff who examined the woman assert that she was sexually assaulted. So let us not contest whether or not a rape took place: in the eyes of medicine, it did.

On a side note, why is she referred to as a "stripper" or "exotic dancer" rather than "former Navy enlistee?" I guess it's a lot harder to trash the victim in when she's a veteran.

Strange, hmm?

with some of the details of this case, but not all. For example, semen was discovered in the vagina of the complaining witness, but not that of any of the Lacrosse team members. So she had had sex within a fairly short period of time before being examined.

Also, Nifong had the cabdriver who said she was passed out in the parking lot of a convenience store arrested. Why? Well, three years ago he took a woman home in his cab. The police later asked him to lead them to her because she had stolen 5 purses. He did, they arrested her and she confessed. Now it seems Nifong has decided he was her accomplice. Funny how that happens 3 years after the fact when he's a witness for the defense in the rape allegations.

And the photo array from which she chose the three Duke students contained only photos of Lacrosse team members. That of course is highly prejudicial and, among other things, casts serious doubt on the admissibility of those IDs.

And of course the complaining witness made the exact same claims of rape 10 years ago which turned out to have been fabricated.

But if you want to learn those facts and whatever else comes out about this case, DONT stay tuned to Salon.

while certainly relevant, is not dispositive. For example, what if they raped her with one of the broomsticks they were threatening the women with earlier in the evening? There would be no DNA evidence in that case. Personally, I think the DA here (and prosecutors in general) should have said much less about the case publicly, and saved his evidence for the courtroom, instead of feeding the media beast.

The most important point is that, apparently the grand jury decided there was enough evidence to indict. A petit jury will decide whether there is enough evidence to convict. In the meantime, all we are getting is partial information, speculation, rumor, spin, etc. None of us know what really happened that night, so our opinions are worth no more than the incomplete, possibly false, possibly misleading, certainly sensationalized information they are based on.

I don't believe trials should be conducted via the press. I don't defend the actions of the prosecutor. I think he did the complainant a disservice by being so publicly open about the case.

However, this kind of public aggression is common place among defense attorneys. Defense attorneys defame and disparage the accuser in public at every opportunity, as they have in this case. I don't hear you complaining about their conduct.

It says that the police did find male DNA on and in the dancer; it just didn’t match ANY of the boys at the party.

Circumstantial evidence does not carry the same weight as physical evidence does. The only time circumstantial evidence caries any weight is if it is corroborated by an eye witness. That’s why it’s called circumstantial, inferred.

Read the AP article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060513/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse

For the record I do think somthing bad happend to that woman that night. I just think they are barking up the wrong tree.

I don't approve of the conduct of defense attorneys in making public statements about pending cases, actually. However, prosecutors, who are also officers of the court and the representatives of the state, have different ethical obligations than do defense attorneys, who represent only their clients. Quite frankly, I'd like to see the whole phenomenon of trial by media done away with, but I think it unlikely to happen.

In the eyes of the law, circumstantial evidence is equal to eyewitness testimony. No question, and jurors are so instructed. Indeed, circumstantial evidence may sometimes be more probative and reliable than eyewitness testimony. Circumstantial evidence includes DNA, ballistics analysis, fingerprinting, phone records, credit card receipts, etc. Eyewitnesses may lie, be mistaken, have had inadequate opportunities for observation, etc. One may be convicted of a crime without any eyewitnesses at all. Heck, if you leave your kid alone in a room with a cookie jar, and you come back and the jar is empty, you're pretty sure your kid ate the cookies, even if you didn't see them do it. We rely on circumstantial evidence all the time.