Replies

possible she was slipped something in a drink?

You oughta be working for Nifong! I think we can count on hearing this.

This causes me to ask again: Is a blood-alcohol and drug test part of the "rape kit." If not, WHY NOT?

Or is the "rape kit" intended only to assist a prosecution?

If she was slipped something like GHB or such, she would have had to had blood taken and tested pretty quickly to catch that.

I too was curious if the Rape Kit was also used when she was at the hospital altho per reports no DNA was forthcoming, likely pictures and some local ointments were in order and not much more or so it sounds.

Or is the "rape kit" intended only to assist a prosecution?

My general feeling reading about the rape kit and the initial finding of evidence of sexual assault is that if a woman says that she has been raped, they proceed on the assumption that she has been raped, and any ambigious evidence is interpreted as proving a rape occurred.

Does anyone know how SANE nurses are trained? Are they given the propaganda that women practically never lie about rape? That would make it difficult for a nurse to say otherwise, even if she has vague suspicions. In addition, some one wrote yesterday either here or on another board (I have been following this case quite intensely, and I am beginning to lose track) that many SANE nurses would rather be safe than sorry and say that there is evidence of rape, letting the police sort it out.

Just like the "rape shield" laws are.

I HONESTLY believe that they were put in place long ago(I don't really know how long), to protect a victim from having some prior consensual sexual act used to say "she wanted it", and thus, get the case thrown out of court. If such a history were allowed to be used against a rape victim, then, few, if any such rape trials could proceed, even in those cases where the evidence was clear-cut, INCLUDING DNA.

HOWEVER-- NOW, those same "rape shield" laws are being used to DENY ANY defense by the alleged perpetrator of the rape, such as a history of FALSE ALLEGATIONS, or HARASSMENT or pretty much ANYTHING the "victim"may have done in the past.

And now, it looks like even DNA will NOT be permitted anymore as a way to clear the accused. All that seems to be neeeded nowdays, is the word of the accuser,(even if it is "I originally consented, but a couple of weeks later, I changed my mind, and now, I believe it is rape) and some agenda from the prosecuter, and a salted jury. If all of this is allowed to continue, we will get to the the point where it is::

SHE SAID, and now, HE has to PROVE he DIDN'T do it!!