Skip to main content

View Diary: Today's NYT: Downplaying A Rape At Harvard (342 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  An assault happened? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexander G Rubio

    Usually when an assault happens, there are scratches, blood, torn hair and teh like.  How is that taht if an assault happened no DNA evidence of ANY KIND has been discovered?!

    •  Evidence doesn't have to be DNA (0+ / 0-)

      If they raped her with a broom handle, anally or vaginally, there would not be DNA evidence but she would have shown evidence of a sexual assault that would have supported the original issuance of the search warrants, etc.  I'm not saying that did happen, only that it could have - I'm convinced we will never know what really happened, for all sorts of reasons, including possible payoffs, or that the accuser is crazy or was on drugs or something and so cannot reliably tell anyone what did actually happen.  

      •  That's a ridiculous assertion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        There would be her DNA on the broom handle.  There is likely to be their DNA under her fingernails if she tried to resist in any way whatever.  There would be splinters off the broom handle in her.

        Payoffs?!  Really?!  Well, yes, there could also have been Martians who came in and destroyed all the evidence.

        •  You clearly are blinded by advocacy (0+ / 0-)

          I'm at least willing to say it's possible the accuser's story can't be trusted - you, on the other hand, are so clearly wedded to these sports goons' innocence that you can't admit any other possibilities.  

          But believe me, if you'd ever been around Southern university sports franchises - hell, ANY big time university sports franchises -  you would know that money talks, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear of money changing hands here to undermine any evidence against the players.  I'm NOT saying it's probable - but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.  

          I just find it interesting to see here, on a supposedly progressive political site, someone defending these privileged spoiled undoubtedly right-wing white elite athletes with such ferocity, to the extent of just dismissing the possibility that they did anything wrong.  What the fuck are you doing here?

          •  What the fuck are you doing here? (0+ / 0-)

            People are defending these players because the overwhelming evidence shows they aren't guilty.  

            •  And you know this because...? (0+ / 0-)

              Are you a member of the prosecuting team?  Or are you getting all your news about the evidence from the defense?  Look, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that there wasn't an attack - perhaps there wasn't, perhaps this woman is crazy - it's certainly possible.  But knowing what I know about jock culture on university campuses, and given that this was a house full of drunken young men, I don't find it at all difficult to also entertain the other possibility - that they were pissed at the lack of the dancing or whatever they wanted, and they took it out on her.  Either is possible - and we don't know fuck about the real evidence, and won't unless there's a trial.  And even then, as the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated, it is possible for a good lawyer to convince practically anybody that up is, in fact, down.  I don't take anything the defense lawyers say particularly seriously unless they say it in a courtroom - and even then, they're advocates, not seekers of truth.

              And I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have, so fuck off.

              •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                How do I know this?  Because the information released by the defense is what the prosecution has disclosed.  The prosecution is required to turn over its evidence to the defense before trial.  That has happened, and the evidence shows the players are not guilty.  So we do "know fuck" about the real evidence.    

                And again, that evidence does not show that either is possible.  It shows that the accusers claim in not possible.  You wouldn't need a good lawyer to win this case - a first year law student would have a hard time losing with this evidence.

                What the OJ trial demonstrated was that with crooked, racist cops and incompetent prosecutors, even a guilty man can go free.  If you are ever charged with a serious crime (especially one you didn't commit) you better fucking hope your defense attorneys are advocates.  

                And I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have, so fuck off.

                Look, you are the one who is trying to make this into a progressive issue. Its not.  This woman is a liar, and she is hurting legitimate victims of rape.  When this is all said and done, these players are going to be well compensated for the wrong that has been done to them.  That in addition to all the money the prosecution has spent on this case instead of prosecuting real criminals.   Not the way I would want to spend taxpayer money.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (66)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Culture (37)
  • Elections (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Labor (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • GOP (23)
  • Economy (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site