Quick To Judge  

rm_harshawj 53M
761 posts
4/20/2006 12:48 pm

Last Read:
6/1/2006 9:35 am

Quick To Judge

Have you been following the news lately regarding the Duke Lacrosse case? This case goes something like this…

The Duke Lacrosse Team has a party. There are a couple of party girls there. Are the girls paid to be there? Unknown. Are the girls pro’s? Unknown. Allegedly one of the girls, a black girl, is gang by the white guys of the team.

So what happens… you got it… the Duke Lacrosse team is instantly labeled a bunch of (except for the one black player) and they are subject to all sorts of accusations in the media. Don’t question whether the allegations are true, just go ahead and assume they are and create a media sensation that will draw ratings.

So, the prosecutor proclaims that DNA will tell which Duke players will be the ones that “ ” the girl. This is interesting in the fact that they had DNA to test against. So when they do test every member of the team and none come back a match, it begs the question , whos DNA is it that they tested against? Obviously it is not the Duke Lacrosse team. But let us not be deterred by the logic of this and stop pointing at the Duke team.

Then of course there is the identification of team members only AFTER the DNA came back empty. Can anyone say Eenie Meenie Minie Moe? Orginally the girls said she could not ID the perps because she was assaulted from behind. In fact, she “struggled so hard she broke off her fingernails…

What, no DNA under her nails? The guys were all wearing short sleeves, so there should be if she struggled. Oh yeah… that pesky DNA again that does not match ANY Duke team member.

So, how about looking at the Duke Lacrosse Team for scratches and cuts consistent with a struggle? Oh yeah… that would be too logical, too easy, and if it turned out that none of the players had those cuts or abrasions, well, we will have to overlook that too and blame them anyway.

Or could this all be another Kobe Bryant case with a money hungry bitch looking to cash in on a circumstance? What is that circumstance? How about being by a boyfriend or father? Have we looked at them? After all, the DNA she had must have come from somewhere. Maybe it was someone other than a Duke Lacrosse Team member.

But then again, that would not be good news and certainly not very interesting.


imLadyBambi 59M/51F

4/20/2006 1:19 pm

So true.

Lady Bambi


sideline1968 49F

4/20/2006 1:42 pm

I've been hearing about this case over the last few days. Interesting how they (read that mainstream media) continue to 'label' the team as even without evidence.

Did I hear just recently that at least one of the 'accused' can produce a paper trail that will clear him of even being there to begin with?

This sensationalism is the primary reason that I don't watch mainstream news any more. You have to filter out all the crap AND do your own research to get at least part of both sides.

News = fair reporting? Not lately.


GoddessOfTheDawn 106F
11240 posts
4/20/2006 2:00 pm


~nodz~

'logic' and 'factz adding up' seems too hard these dayz


JaniSux 46F

5/8/2006 7:37 am

Well I love CSI and watch it constantly but the real lab people and crime scene people hate the show because the CSI team always gets results and almost always catch the bad guy and that is not always the case in the real.

That being said, you seem to make a lot of sense, logic and common sense are not on this case but sensationalism and hearsay and the juicier story that might sell some papers.. sad but true..

If this is a case of , I hope that whoever her is caught, no matter who that person (or people) is/are.

Janie


Become a member to create a blog