Posted on 12/17/2006 6:10:02 PM PST by WL-law
In another twist in an already questionable criminal case, DNA testing in the infamous Duke lacrosse r*pe case found no genetic material from any of the accused males on the woman's body or on her clothing, but analysts found DNA from several unknown male on the accuser's body.
This finding directly contradicts reports that she did not engage in s*x with anyone prior to or following her encounter with the three Duke students.
Prosecutors reportedly ordered the DNA testing after the state crime lab failed to find a conclusive match between the 27-year-old woman and any member of the Duke lacrosse team.
The most recent lab findings contradict earlier reports in which the accuser denied engaging in any s*xual activity in the days before the alleged assault. The woman, who was hired as a at a Duke lacrosse party in March, claims she was gang-r*ped by three team members in a bathroom.
The horror faced by three Duke University students is disturbingly common -- too common. But in the name of political correctness, few dare to question the validity of the r*pe charges for fear of becoming targeted by feminists and left-wing groups.
One brave man who dared to question the validity of r*pe complaints, and in fact searched for studies that gauged the number of false r*pe and s*xual assault complaints, is Frank Zepezauer, who conducted research for the Institute for Psychological Therapies. In a paper for the IPT, Zepezauer shocked many when he delved into different studies on the subject of false r*pe complaints. He discovered, contrary to what's disseminated by the mainstream news media and feminist groups, that false s*x crimes complaints are far from being rare.
One study Zepezauer looked at was conducted by the US Air Force Special Studies Division's Charles McDowell.
McDowell and his team of investigators studied 556 r*pe allegations. Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as r*pe. That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false.
In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations. To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to the false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four r*pe charges were judged to be false, Zepesauer wrote in his IPT paper.
In another study, McDowell and his team recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the r*pe allegation was false, it was then listed by that description.
The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern city and a southwestern city. He found again that 60% of the claims of r*pe were false.
In another study Zepezauer looked at, this one by Behavioral Scientist Eugene Kanin, he reported on his findings at two large Midwestern state universities which covered a three-year period ending in 1988. The finding of the combined studies was that among a total of 64 reported r*pes exactly 50% were false.
Kanin found these results significant because the women in the main report tended to gather in the lower socioeconomic levels, thus raising questions about correlations of false allegation with income and educational status. After checking figures gathered from university police departments, he therefore reported that "quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a r*pe complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge."
In addition, Kanin cited still another source which supported findings of high frequency false allegations in the universities. On the basis of these studies, Kanin felt it reasonable to conclude that false r*pe accusations are more common than previously believed.
But feminists and left-wing activists will dismiss these studies as biased because men where involved. For instance, one feminist, Wendy Kaminer, stated that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about r*pe, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene." Anyone believing women lack a dishonesty gene never dated women. If they do lack that gene, then someone out there is performing miraculous surgery to implant that gene. What's so amazing about such statements is: they are not based on any scientific evidence -- it is a s*xist premise.
John O'Sullivan, a left-wing social scientist, discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a r*pe charge. Feminists themselves admit as much."
Law Professor and left-wing political activist Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming r*pe laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect."
Zepezauer wrote that, "Some feminists believe that even defending that premise [of false r*pe complaints] is in itself a s*x crime."
Well-known Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz once said that he was accused of s*xual harassment by female students for discussing in class the mere possibility of false r*pe allegations.
Zepezauer concludes his indepth study with this: "Believing the self-proclaimed victim of s*xual misconduct has thus evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be explicitly told that a r*pe conviction can be based on the accuser's testimony alone, without corroboration. Canada is proposing that a man accused of r*pe must demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a s*xual partner."
The studies cited by Frank Zepezauer correlate with this writer's experiences working on s*x crimes case in New York. I found that about half of the cases were false complaints and, in fact, during intense interviewing, the women sometimes freely admitted and rationalized the bogus complaints.
The current case of the Duke University Three, who are facing r*pe charges based solely on the word of an intoxicated stripp*r and pr*stitute, is a perfect example of the dynamic of politics and political correctness outweighing justice.
This is an unjust situation we face within our justice system. False charges of r*pe hurt women who are indeed victims of predators, and they hurt men, such as the Duke lacrosse players who have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against a woman who will pay little if anything for her deception.
Honestly, the "*" crap is annoying. The link doesn't have it. We are adult enough to read the words "rape" and "sexual."
Well: at least most of us are.
I sure hope to see this Duke woman prosecuted ---along with Nifong. Cant wait to see Jesse go into high gear if that happens. It will be most amusing.
DA's who willingly prosecute them should too.
But in Nifong's case I suspect the best we can hope for is a disbarment and a successful civil suit against him.
Youv'e got a point....she was much younger...cough...grunt!!!
LOL, your right.
Cindie
Glad you're reading this...in spite of Broderick and Jones.
I was about to "ping" the article to you, but I see you already found it.
Yeah, Wh*t's up with th*t?
Women who cry rape and are found to be lying should do jail time.
Interesting point.
Never would've thought of that. Probably since I'm not a pervert.
Hey, is anybody else seeing astericks????
Are you such a r*t*ard you think adults can't handle the words ripe and sox? I mean what the fack!
N*.
Which translates into only 40%. That means that 6 in every 10 rape charges are BOGUS! WOW!!
This is the funniest FR thread in a looong time. And IMHO, your "what the fack" needs to be added to the honored list of words like hugh and series.
BTW, no. She does not look hot.
I would say they have the ass*ts.
Wh*t d* y*u me*n?
If they had any assets in most cases, they wouldn't have made up the stories in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.