When the telling of an alleged crime gets more and more confusing and self-contradictory over time, the simplest and by far most likely explanation is that it never happened.

A less likely but reasonably simple explanation is that a crime was committed, but that the victim is lying about the circumstances out of fear or to protect someone close to them.

What is crystal clear about this case is that the accuser is lying.

But we have no reason at all to suppose she was lying - except that the lacrosse players say she was lying. Now, why would we want to think that they’re more likely to be telling the truth than she is - except that they’re rich, white, and male, and she’s poor, black, and female.

She came up with multiple versions of what has allegedly happened. The lack of consistency isn’t exactly increasing her credibility.

Nice straw man, troll.

MartinG: In other words, we only have her word for it that she was raped, withhout any evidence to back it up.

But we have no reason at all to suppose she was lying - except that the lacrosse players say she was lying. Now, why would we want to think that they’re more likely to be telling the truth than she is - except that they’re rich, white, and male, and she’s poor, black, and female.

Riiiight… she’s a prostitute, she can’t have been raped.

I didn’t write that. I wrote that the physical symptoms that originally were interpereted as evidence for rape could easily have been signs of the consensual sex she did have that night at those other gigs. In other words, we only have her word for it that she was raped, withhout any evidence to back it up.

Are you suggesting that the ATM receipt, cab driver’s account, and card swipe of Seligman entering his dorm during the rape is a convulated attempt by right-wing conspiracy organizers to oppress a stripper in Durham? Surely, that tops the list on important things to do to gain control and power for the right. In fact, I think Karl Rove personally orchestrated this alibi. Afterall, a striper (who falsely claimed rape years earlier) who said she was raped with no condoms (until no DNA was found) by a man who had an alibi (perhaps organized by Karl Rove himself) is probably telling the truth. She claimed rape, she has to be telling the truth.

Riiiight… she’s a prostitute, she can’t have been raped. And Seligman can’t be guilty, because he left a party just when the strippers arrived to go by taxi to an ATM to get out cash. As any young man would naturally do. What man would want to see a stripper perform when you could get cash from an ATM instead, right?

If it is assumed that in our society one group of individuals (white males) has absolute power, and that the other group (everyone else) has no power, then in any interaction between the two groups, all rules are charades.

“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.”
- Lord Acton

“So yes, the rules against perjury and the rules requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence ARE traditional tools used by WHITE men to oppress MINORITY women. Yes, they are used, as all tool of the majority are used, to normalize rape and every evil thing the majority does to the minority regularly and without repercussion.”

One may assume then that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence, as well right to assistance of counsel for defendants facing imprisonment be provided legal counsel, and the privilege against self-incrimination, are tools used by the white man to oppress minorities as well.

Thurgood Marshall was an Uncle Tom.