Duke lacrosse: USA Today's grudging second thoughts

This USA Today editorial admits that there are difficulties with the prosecutor's case in Durham. However, it actually understates the magnitude of the problem.

DNA. Nifong said in March that he expected DNA taken from the team would support the accuser's account. The DNA evidence found no link to any player.

That's true enough and is more than a little problem. The lack of evidence, in this case, is powerful support for the players and completely shatters the accuser's tale. If "every crime leaves a trace" as the forensic scientists maintain, then "no trace= no crime" when the exams are carried out within hours of the event.

Identification. The accuser was shown photos of only Duke lacrosse players three weeks after the party. Mixing in photos of non-suspects is considered more reliable and is recommended by the U.S. Justice Department and Durham police.

USA Today fails to mention that this was at least the third lineup attempt for the accuser. In the earlier attempts she did not identify all three suspects.

Defense attorneys say Nifong has rejected their requests to show him evidence that could clear the players, including time-stamped photos from the party that challenge the accuser's account of a 30-minute rape.

The photos due more than just "challenge" the accuser's estimate of the time elapsed. They also challenge her tale of losing her fingernail in the struggle (according to some reporters who saw the pictures, the nails are missing while the dancer is performing) and her account that she "fled" after the rape.

Nifong might have evidence he has not disclosed.

Under North Carolina rules he has to turn over everything promptly. That means that defense attorneys and some reporters have seen everything Nifong had when he went to the Grand Jury for his indictments.

the team members' behavior undercuts their credibility, and defense attorneys haven't revealed all that Nifong has given them.

The editorial writer never specifies what behavior undercuts the players' credibility. That is unfair and dishonest. Further, MSNBC's Dan Abrams claims that he has seen the whole discovery file, so it is not true that the defense has not revealed everything.


There are several points that USA Today did not include in their list:

1. "Blue wall of silence". Nifong led reporters to believe that the lacrosse team was stonewalling him and the police. That was partially untrue because the three captains submitted to lengthy interviews at the start of the case (without lawyers), submitted DNA and offered to take polygraphs. Nor did he acknowledge that some of them could have gone to court to quash or delay the DNA dragnet. Instead all of them submitted to the testing.

2. Seligman's alibi. USA Today does not mention that one of the indicted players was miles away from the party when the accuser says she was raped.

3. Lack of injuries. The medical exam is completely inconsistent with the events the accuser alleges happens. The Durham DA painted a picture of a brutal gang rape which included kicking, beating, and choking. The hospital found no evidence of such a violent crime.

USA Today wanted to appear fair-minded. It is bad form to "attack the victim". Unfortunately, they could only keep up those appearances by providing a partial, distorted picture of the state of the evidence. Their readers deserve better.