This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

From today's Herald Sun




'Semen found in the house where three Duke lacrosse players allegedly raped an exotic dancer matches the DNA of two team members, but lawyers disagree about its potential impact on the unfolding case.

The previously undisclosed matches, one involving indicted rape suspect David Evans and the other involving a player not charged, have been confirmed by several sources close to the case.


..."It means nothing," said veteran defense lawyer Mark Edwards, who is not involved in the case. "These are college-age males full of testosterone. So what if there is semen found in the house? If the accuser's story was true, their semen should have been found in her, too."

Lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents an unindicted lacrosse player -- but not the one whose semen was discovered on the bathroom floor -- agreed.

"Every person who uses a bathroom on a daily basis will have his DNA present in that bathroom in some form," Thomas said. "But in this case, none of the accuser's DNA whatsoever was found. The only significant DNA is semen from a third party unconnected to the case. There still is no evidence whatsoever linking any of these [lacrosse players] to allegations made by the accuser."

Lawyer Kerry Sutton, also representing an unindicted lacrosse player, said essentially the same thing.

"Finding a healthy young man's semen or DNA on a towel near his bedroom or in his own bathroom couldn't possibly be less shocking," she said. "It would be more surprising if you didn't find it."

But not everyone thinks the semen evidence is unimportant.

Lawyer John Fitzpatrick, who is not connected to the lacrosse case and who teaches periodically at the UNC School of Government in Chapel Hill, said Monday it could have great impact for the prosecution.

"If there is semen there that matches one or more of the players, I think it's crucial," he said. "It is evidence to show that some kind of orgasm occurred. It gives more credence to the prosecution's theory that something happened. It is a potential link to a crime. It is a big thing.

"The prosecution can say the semen was there because the alleged victim was right. Of course, the defense will probably try to explain it by saying the guys just masturbated."

N.C. Central University law professor Irving Joyner also said Monday the semen evidence should not be automatically discounted.

"It would tend to support the prosecution's case," he said. "Of course, the prosecution will need to establish how the semen got there and its relevance to the young lady. There are still some hurdles, but this will help the prosecutor. The defense will have to go some lengths to explain it."'