Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 

 

   

                      

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.

 

Comments

[justice58]

Wait a minute...hold up

So rapists have to say shut up and you won't get hurt!

You think...since they're college (duke) students they couldn't have raped her b/c those are NOT the right words. GIVE ME A BREAK

Come on Kathleen... do better than that!
Pardon me please but that is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Kathleen in this world we learn things everyday. Maybe you just learned that rich duke students do use the words "sweetheart". I'm shaking my head with disbelief at you.

[Kathleen]

Justice58
You have mistinterpreted my meaning, Justice. No I am not saying that is what rapists have to say or that college boys can't use the word, "Sweetheart".

One of the main things I've discussed in my posts all along are known patterns.

There are known patterns of injuries. There are known patterns of abuse. There are also known patterns of behavior and patterns of speech which tend to be used by certain criminals in certain types of crimes.

These known patterns are watched for by law enforcement, and other professionals, all the time.

When a suspect, in any criminal case, is being interviewed (or interrogated) law enforcement personnel are not just there to ask questions & get their questions answered.

The suspect is also observed very closely (or should be) to see if his speech & behavior patterns indicate either truthfullness, or evasiveness and deception.

This is called Behavioral and Statement Analysis, which is an investigative tool used by top law enforcement agencies in the country, including the FBI.

All of our patients are asked, "What did the alleged offender say to you?" "Did the offender verbally threaten you?"

The words an offender uses, and how he uses them, can often be a clue to his identity.

The particular words or phrases a patient uses to describe her attack, the way she uses them, can also indicate whether she is being truthful or not.

I am not saying that the term, "sweetheart" could not be used. What I am saying is:

#1) None of my patients have ever repeated anything close to that to me. In fact, quite often, my patients have stated that they were not verbally and / or physically threatened.

When they have been, It's almost always been something like, " Shut up and you won't get hurt." or "B****, shut up!" [in an aquaintance or stranger rape] or, if they have or imply a weapon, it's something like, " Shut up or I'll kill you."

If the offender has or implies a weapon, he may or may not say anything. Just the fact that the victim believes he has a weapon, is often enough to force her to be quiet & cooperate. She's too afraid to do otherwise.

Most of my patients have told me they did not put up a fight. Of those who have said they started to fight back, once they perceived a real (or implied) physical danger, most immediately ceased.

In a date rape situation, the offender often uses cooercion.

In a date rape drug situation, the offender(s) often doesn't have to say anything at all, since the victim is usually out of it.

If you've read my posts about rapist profiling, you'll recall that the anger retaliatory type of rapist will often use very vulgar language as a way of demeaning his victims.

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to known patterns of speech & behavior.

#2) The other thing I was trying to ask was that, given that particular scenerio & type of assault that supposedly occurred, would that phrase, being used at that particular time, in that particular context, have made sense?

Especially when [as I read later], it was supposedly followed by a string of expletives and threats, from the alleged offenders, - all while in the act of strangulation, beating, kicking, and raping the accuser vaginally, orally, & anally over a period of about 5 minutes?

Think about it. Try to visualize the scenerio as the accuser said it happened.

Supposedly - depending on whichever version you choose to believe - the accuser & Kim Roberts are pulled apart by six - count them - six very large strong athletic males [while they are "clinging" to each other]

She is supposedly dragged into the bathroom, at which time, one of the alleged perpetrators then closes the door, and says, "Sweetheart, you can't leave". HUH???

Then a second one proceeds to put a choke hold on this impaired woman [to the point where she's having trouble breathing]- who reportedly had been tripping all over the place and was photographed sprawled on the living room floor - in order to subdue her.

And if that wasn't enough to get her cooperation - after, according to the accuser, she had stopped fighting - they then supposedly proceed to beat & kick her while suddenly changing the tone of their language, to spew forth foul mouthed expletives and threats.

And you think that makes sense?
---------------------------
Try this scenerio instead:

After the broomstick comment offends Kim Roberts, she cuts the evening short and they head for the door.

Those present feel jipped of their $800.00 and one shouts out, " Sweetheart, you can't leave!"

OR

Kim Roberts and the accuser are in their car. A guy followed them out to their care and apologized (according to the accuser).

Trying to convince them to come back inside, he says something like, " Sweetheart, you can't leave!"

Which scenerio makes more sense?