I'd like to take this time to wish all of my readers, fellow bloggers, and their families a very safe & happy Thanksgiving!
I'd also like to thank KC Johnson, Liestoppers, The Johnsville News,Talk left, Friends of Duke University, and Duke Basketball Report for their coverage of and links back to this blog. And I'd like to thank all the readers who have visited this site.
I've been very surprised and pleased that they have chosen to expand on my posts and refer their readers back to my blog site.
I've seen the visitor numbers grow by leaps and bounds, ever since Professor Johnson started the first "Understanding Sane", followed by Sane II, III, IV, and "Understanding SANE V" just a few days ago.
My goal has always been to provide a site which is both interesting and informative to its readers. To that end, I hope I've been successful.
And I truly appreciate the above named bloggers who are far more experienced at writing, and much more eloquent than I could ever be, in helping me to get that information across to their readers.
Having said that, I don't wish visitors to think that I'm displaying any type of bias regarding the Duke lacrosse case.
I've read varying articles and comments which seem to imply that anyone who questions the [assumed] guilt of the Duke players has to be #1 white and #2 biased.
Well, My husband of 32 years and I are white. However, our son, whom we adopted at birth, is bi-racial.
He, along with his sister, [and our grand children] is the light of our life. No one could ask for a better son; a son who is well liked by everyone who knows him and cherished by his family.
As far as bias, I've spent over 30 years working in a field which requires objectivity. I'm happy to say that my training is far too ingrained for me to depart from it at this point.
And the field of forensic nursing requires - demands - that objectivity be maintained at all times, or we risk losing our credibility. Since credibility is everything in this field, that settles that.
I have no personal interest in this case, no axe to grind, no one's boots I'm trying to polish. I don't know anyone involved with this case and I'm not part of some conspiracy out to get the DA.
In fact, since I do work with ASA patients, I'm kind of sticking my neck out a bit. I guess people would normally expect me to stand up and say, No victim would ever lie!
Well, I hate to tell you but that simply isn't true. I don't believe there's an FNE alive who would stand here and say none of our patients would lie. Of course some do. Not most, but some.
And that makes it bad for the real victims. They are the ones who are really hurt in the long run.
My interest in this case came about pretty much like everyone else's, I guess. I happened to hear about it on TV and read about it in the news.
Working in this field as I do, I'm always interested in these types of cases. However, right from the start almost, little warning bells were going off. I tend to zero in on little details first and it was those details that just didn't seem to fit right.
The first thing I did, after reading The Smoking Gun, was write out a time line. Even before I knew anything about the photos, my time line was showing me there was a problem somewhere.
Then I looked closely at the accuser's claims. The whole scenario, as stated by the police - supposedly from the accuser - didn't make any sense.
So of course, I'm waiting to see DNA evidence show up. It often doesn't, but in a supposedly violent case like this, involving three men choking, beating, kicking, and raping this woman, with no condoms used, I would expect to see something.
According to all reports - virtually nothing - except an inconclusive partial match from a nail dug out of the defendant's trash can. Of course it's possible that the DA could have something more, but considering the statement he gave about the old days before DNA, it seems unlikely.
OK, so next on my list is transfer of evidence. That, to me, was even more important than the lack of DNA. You can get away with no DNA, but how do you explain no transfer of evidence? There has to be something - somewhere.
The whole idea of forensics is based on Locard's Transfer of Evidence Theory. Whenever a crime is committed, the criminal leaves something behind and takes something with him. Always. No matter how tiny, how minute, there always something.
Clothing fibers, carpet fibers, cleaning solvent from the floor, specks of toothpaste or shampoo, hair, paper, latent fingerprints - something!
Typically, with an unplanned, frenzied, disorganized attack, like this was supposed to have been, a great deal of transfer evidence is left behind. It's the well organized rapist, planning everything, who leaves little left behind.
Is that one of the cards the DA is still holding? I'm still waiting to find out, as I hear little about this. However, I did notice the Bates Stamp numbers listed in one article, and they seem to correspond with the number of pages it's been said the defense was given through discovery.
If there is no appropriate transfer of evidence, how can we not question the accusations? What little I hear and read indicates there isn't any.
There are so many other things, like the accuser's words. They were like nails on a blackboard - so out of place. "Sweetheart, You can't leave." Sorry, but I've never had any patient tell me anything even close to that.
The majority say, "Shut up and you won't get hurt," or something along those lines. Of course, later I read a newer version, relating very violent words.
OK, so the accused starts with, "Sweetheart, you can't leave," immediately followed by repeated expletives and threats? Hmmm. Sorry, but I have to really question that one too.
I've listened to many, many patients, including college students, and they all say pretty much the same thing, as far as the rapist's language is concerned." (if no weapon is displayed).
One thing I've realized is that rapists, on the whole, aren't very imaginative." I have to admit, "Sweetheart..." is a new one on me.
I found it interesting that during my research, I found the word "Sweetheart" had a different connotation on college campuses. It refers to the fraternity helpers, their "Little Sisters".
One would hardly expect that term to be used on an intended gang*** rape victim.
Even so, that term is not limited to use by white college students alone. It's also well-used by African-American college students, so I would expect the accuser to have been familiar with it.
These are just a few of the specific issues I've questioned with this case. I'm viewing it from a medical / forensics perspective only, nothing else. Until something else pops up to contradict everything so far, I strongly question its legitimacy.
11/25/06 Upon review, I noticed that I failed to insert the appropriate word, "Gang" - which was my intended meaning.