[elc]

I wouldn't always be quick to say that the fact that there is no DNA evidence means much - because it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how one could avoid leaving something behind.

BUT, if I remember correctly, her claim is that she lost several of her fake nails scratching these men and she identified them by said scratch marks. So we're supposed to believe they didn't find any skin under those nails? I watch CSI people. :-) I know they can get DNA from that.

[BlackRazor]

I wouldn't always be quick to say that the fact that there is no DNA evidence means much - because it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how one could avoid leaving something behind.

True enough, but even if a condom was used, it's likely there would be a transfer of pubic hair if sex took place. Can DNA be extracted from that?

[babygene]

"I wouldn't always be quick to say that the fact that there is no DNA evidence means much - because it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how one could avoid leaving something behind."

http://www.iambetterthanyou.com/images/712.jpg

Yea, I was thinking the same thing... They could have used one of those saran wrapping machines that they use to wrap boxes on pallets. That would do the trick!

[jonrick46]

I can envision her looking at the Duke lacrosse team photo and pointing at the ones she thought would take the wrap. The only thing she did not anticipate is not everyone was at the house when she claimed the rape took place. This is where her story falls apart since events show that two of the accused were not at the house when the "rapes" occurred.

Has anyone questioned where she got the initial marks on her body that she claims were the result of the "rape"?

[El Gran Salseron]

"because it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how one could avoid leaving something behind."

Please elaborate. Not being sarcastic. I really want to know.