Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 1

Someone Please lock this page so people won't keep naming the alleged victim -- this is wrong and has no place on wikipedia!

A request was made this afternoon. Abe Froman 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it anymore wrong than to name the alleged perps?!!

See Talk:2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Is_it_right_to_name_the_alleged_victim.3F for the discussion on this topic. Abe Froman 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Duke University.

Following a conversation with a sysop, I created this page because this topic was taking up too much space there. See also the Duke's talk page. Anagrammarian 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I noted that the original "scandal" page sounded a little too much like the defense attorney's press conferences. I tried to illustrate the differences in claims between the interested parties and add sources to document the differences between the defense claims and the claims for the accuser. I also reordered the flow of the article so that the editorial and the journalistic are not so mixed. pjherron 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are significant POV problems. Hopefully now the debate can be focused on this page and not on Duke's. Still, this is almost certainly an article which merits placing {{POV}} at the top. I may do that after I write up some problems, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks for your vigilance! Anagrammarian 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up and NPOV problems

I placed a clean-up template on the article because there are several problems with the way information is presented in it.

• First of all, it is just plain messy and needs some significant work on headings to organize the way information is presented.
• Second, there are clear NPOV problems as well as some more subtle ones in the emphasis certain facts are given and the ways in which others are treated. There may also be factual errors.

I recommend that we both organize and significantly reduce the content of this article. I also don't think we need to include every little aspect of the case. This is a Wikipedia article, not a detailed list of breaking news reports. Perhaps a Developments section should be included as well as an External links section, but we should be careful not to overload either. Any help cleaning up this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Anagrammarian 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Email

The article needs some mention of the e-mail made public were a player suggests hiring more strippers and then killing and skinning them. Although thus doesn't really provide any significant info on the case, it does provide an idea of the mindset/mentalities of at least one member of the team and also seems to be a significant factor in the resignation of the coach and the decision of the university to halt the team's season. Nil Einne 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The coach, Mike Pressler, was also accused of sending some "vile" e-mail after the incident, but I haven't been able to find a non-password copy of the text on-line, even though it was supposed to have been made available to the press. Does anyone have a copy? Beginning 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard anything about the coach's email, but I added a section on the player's email with a link to TheSmokingGun. I agree that it is an important facet of the case. SeaworthyViolin 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The email is worth mentioning, but the fact that there are reports that it is a joke (and a direct reference to the movie American Psycho) is not? What kind of crap is that?

Wikipedia NEEDs a Way to Aggregate Information

Does Anyone know anything about this? For awhile now I've been curious about figuring out a way to make wikipedia generate a page that is an all-inclusive collection of all of the entries related to a particular topic. I realize being NPOV is important, but sometimes I think the best way to be NPOV would be to be able to see everyones information about a particular topic -- I know this isn't about this scandal, but this is a perfect example of an article in which I'd rather have too much information than have someone who is trying to be biased clearing information off -- Vandals that add things are easy to catch, vandals that remove them are not! -- Ideas People?

A question about the facts known so far in the case

I'm confused about something, and maybe the Wikipedia community has an answer. Regarding the DNA evidence in the case, almost all of the members of the team gave the prosecution DNA samples for testing. But when the results were negative, was this because there was a DNA sample taken from the accuser, and the teams' DNA did not match this sample?

Or was there no DNA sample taken from the accuser at all?

If the latter is true, then why did the prosecution ask for any DNA from team members? (That is, if there was no DNA evidence found on/around the accuser, why did the prosecution ask for DNA samples.)

If the former is true, then whose DNA is it, if it does not match anyone on the team?

If anyone has answers to this, it would help me understand the case a bit better... Thanks. Valtam 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question: DNA evidence was collected from the victim, but it was not until after the 46 white members of the team were asked to submit samples that the labs determined that all of the DNA collected actually belonged to the victim. The following is an excerpt from a relevant articlein the Duke Chronicle:

"There was no foreign DNA present in or on the alleged victim's body-including her fingernails, which investigators found in the bathroom-on her belongings or on her clothes, lawyers said."

There have been speculations, especially by DA Mike Nifong's opponents in the upcoming election, that ordering the 46 white players to submit DNA samples was a publicity stunt Nifong used to boost his public image. Lawyers have also argued that ordering the players to submit the samples was an unneccessary violation of the players privacy and constitutional rights.

Interesting. So what you are saying is that collecting the DNA from the players was completely unnecessary, as there was no foreign DNA in/on the accuser. In the same vein, the fact that the DNA tests were 'negative' is also a non-issue, as even if you tested every person in North Carolina, the tests would still be 'negative'.

Then why do the DNA tests in the first place? It really does smell like a publicity stunt... Valtam 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It may also be simply a question of timing. From what I gather from the Wikipedia article on a sexual assault kit, which I assume is what the alleged victim had done at the hospital, the hospital itself does not do the testing, but sends the kit to the police lab. It certainly seems possible to me that the DNA was collected from the lacrosse players before the lab had ascertained that there was no foreign DNA on the alleged victim.

It does seem to be jumping the gun a bit (and a violation of privacy), but if their DNA had been found, I guess it would have saved time. I'm not particularly familiar with DA Nifong, so I can't theorize as to what his motivations would be. SeaworthyViolin 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the DNA test was a publicity stunt on the part of Nifong, at least not in the sense some here are suggesting; if he knew the tests would come back without providing a match he probably wouldn't have said some of the things he said (words to the effect that the tests would show who was and who was not involved - he later retracted those words, before the test results were in but after the defense attorneys had basically hinged their whole case (in the public eye sense) on the DNA tests with bold statements that they would prove negative and exonerate the entire team).

I know a judge ordered the DNA tests but please correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a while since CrimPro...) but there is no violation of privacy/rights when you voluntary provide your DNA?

It's been a while since Procedure for me as well, but I don't think you can claim violation of privacy rights if you give up a DNA sample voluntarily. However, I'm not 100% sure that these voluntary DNA samples would be admissible in the case. Is there anything similar to Miranda rights regarding physical evidence? Valtam 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they were told they did not have to submit their DNA, and that they had to sign a waiver of some sort when submitting it, unless the Durham police are inept. --tomf688 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as though they were ordered to give DNA samples and even have their photographs taken, well in advance of anything coming back from the lab. See this article from the News and Observer.

Timeline

In:Timeline-

" An African-American woman alleged that, on March 13, 2006, three white members of Duke University's lacrosse team had beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted her." [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wduke02.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/02/ixworld.html In this citation, as well as most others, the person involved was simply refered to as black. The transposition of this to African-American incites a further racial tone in the US.

" She then allegedly attempted to leave but was convinced to stay." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12100397/

 She then left the house but was convinced to return inside.

I haven't found anywhere that this is in dispute or denied.

In:Background of the Accused-

"Finnerty agreed to community service to escape harsher sanctions".[8] http://www.nbc17.com/news/8830631/detail.html I didn't see this bold bit in this citation[8],furthermore, it's assumptive! Citation [9]http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-725409.html -seems dead, but I use dial up!

I have not yet edited the main body.

I did a quick change to "as an alternative" to remove any perceived connotations with the word escape. SCrahan

Community Service in lieu of jail for first time offenders is standard. The statement to escape harsher sanctions is accurate. Abe Froman 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the word "escape" in this context, but I'm not sure what a better term would be. "Avoid" seems to have the same problem. Anybody have ideas? SeaworthyViolin 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it right to name the alleged victim?

I'm not saying I believe this woman, but I really don't think it's right to have her full name on here. Considering the threats she already says she's under in the media, giving additional access to her name is probably not ethically proper. I'm removing it.. sorry if this is a blunder.

Journalistic ethics have prevented any reputable news source from giving out her name. Since Wikipedia relies on these news sources for verification, I believe it would be improper to reveal the victim's name. Her name can, of course, be verified by online databases that are not free to the public. LegalSwoop 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely improper to name the victim. This isn't just common sense, reporters normally abide by a code of ethics that specifically prohibits naming the victim. [1] [2] That's not to say there are not unethical people out there naming her. Abe Froman 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User at 207.69.139.148 continues to post the victims name. This is Original Research, because no news source has gone on the record with the name. It is also sick, but that is beside the point. There should be no Original Research on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR Abe Froman 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's outrageously inappropriate to be trying to name the alleged victim here. Friday (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for the page. Abe Froman 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see whats wrong with posting her name, the media has made the alleged accusers names very well known and I think some people may be interested to know her name. Mac Domhnaill 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no reputable [3] [4] news organization has aired the victim's name, there is no basis for posting it. Posting the name is Original Research. See WP:NOR. Abe Froman 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard her name on Tom Leykis. Is that close enough for your "reputable news organization"? Leykis got Katelyn Faber's name right. Here's the ethics rules cited above "Generally we try to name everyone involved in a crime serious enough to warrant a story. Names of victims or witnesses may be withheld if there’s a legitimate concern for their safety. We do not name victims of sexual crimes unless they request it. Decisions to publish or withhold a name should be approved by a deputy managing editor." Besides, rape is a crime of violence, not sex, just ask the National Organization of Women.

Just because reputable sources don't release "victims" names that doesn't mean wikipedia shouldn't do it. If there's nothing wrong with releasing the names of the accused people, then the "victim's names" should be released as well. That's called equality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 (talk • contribs).

Nothing that reputable sources don't publish is appropriate in Wikipedia; equality has nothing to do with it. Please stop reinserting the alleged victim's name. See WP:NOR as suggested above. --Allen 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious equality has something to do with it, half the comments on this page are about how its "improper" to name the alleged victim, but they don't say anything about the properness of naming the accused students.

"If there's nothing wrong with releasing the names of the accused people, then the "victim's names" should be released as well." There is something wrong with releasing the victim's name. First, the courts are legally required to withhold the victim's name from all court documents relating to the case. While not dispositive on the issue of whether Wikipedia should follow suit, this law is indicative of societal standards. Second, journalists are ethically bound to withhold her name by journalistic standards. Also not dispositive here, but if we are to break with journalistic standards, I assert that we ought to have a compelling reason to do so. I have yet to see the distinction between Wikipedia and the MSM that makes a difference on this point. Third, withholding the accuser's name serves the instrumental effect of encouraging women not to fear coming forward with true rape claims lest their character and reputation be subject to wide and open ridicule. (That's the defense attorney's job in the courtroom.) As far as I'm concerned this isn't so much an Original Research problem (because, from the facts given about the victim's history, her name can be readily obtained from her court records on past convictions--reputable, factual sources) as it is an ethical one. For the reasons asserted above it would be wrong to publish the accuser's name on Wikipedia. LegalSwoop 03:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Even as LegalSwoop provides a well-reasoned justification for the omission of the alleged victim's name, I must express my strong disagreement with the position he expresses, viz., because I continue to be of the opinion that we oughtn't to concern ourselves with ethics in writing the encyclopedia, and because, in any case, there is surely not a community-wide consensus toward our editing in consideration of ethical concerns, in the absence of which consensus we should err always on the side of including verifiable and notable information. I excerpt below my recent comments apropos of a similar issue on the Brandy Alexandre talk page:

"I think the recent Brandt AfD and Wikiethics discussion make eminently clear that, where a subject or piece of information is notable and verifiable, nothing can militate strongly enough against inclusion to warrant our excising information. I readily concede that the contrary view is rapidly gaining support amongst Wikipedians (see, e.g., the discussions surrounding WP:OFFICE, where many concur with Jimbo that, even where an article's subject has properly been referred to as non-notable in, e.g., a deletion discussion, such discussion should be removed where the subject has expressed a dislike of the ascription of the appellative "nn" to him/herself), but I do not see that a consensus exists for the view that Wikipedians should exercise ethical judgments in writing articles; we are not, as the Wikiethics discussion has demonstrated, journalists, and, notwithstanding my belief that even journalists oughtn't to abide by the harm-limitation principle, we don't need to comport our editing with any code of ethics that compromises the dissemination of information."

The only relevant concern for me is that which Friday expresses infra, namely that "reputable sources" aren't printing the name, and I don't offer here an opinion as to whether the sources we have for alleged victim's name are appropriate within the context of [[WP:V}]; certainly, though, if a website such as The Smoking Gun were to publish legal filings with the alleged victim's name, we ought certainly to include the name, inasmuch as it will have been verified and is surely notable. Joe 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The name isn't appropriate at this stage in the proceedings. A valid compromise would be to put it up after the case reaches some point - trial, or perhaps a verdict. Until then, it should be removed. I'm unsure, but there could be legal implications in North Carolina of posting names of victims.LH 05:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that the ethical considerations are important here. However, I don't wish to debate that, and we don't have to, either. By simple virtue of being an encyclopedia, if reputable sources aren't printing it, we can't either. Everyone who's said this is exactly on the money. Friday (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The inclusion of information that some people may find objectionable or ethical is not relevant to this argument. --tomf688^{talk} 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with tomf688. This is Original Research, because no reputable news source has gone on the record with the name. Where is the citation to a reputable source? It is also sick, but that is beside the point. There should be no Original Research on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR and WP:V. Abe Froman 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I will propose the aformentioned unverified, orginal research article on the victim for deletion. See WP:NOR and WP:V. Abe Froman 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said the name should or should not be included, but I did say that the argument that the inclusion of the name is "sick" or unethical is not relevant to this issue. --tomf688^{talk} 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

With which sentiment I concur entirely. Joe 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was never based on an ethical point, as the problem was clearly labeled a WP:NOR and WP:V oversight. I threw in my POV for flavor. Abe Froman 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if consensus has really been reached here but I feel that given the fact that the vitim's name's page is protected by WP:OFFICE the name should not be included 136.167.145.47 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Abe, the discussion was based on an ethical point by some people. Read the comments above regarding "ethics"... --tomf688^{talk} 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was listening to the Tom Leykis Show on the radio, and he gave out the alleged victim's name. Is he considered a reliable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 (talk • contribs) .

Since the page that was made with the accuser's name has been deleted and protected by office action, it would seem that naming the accuser for the time being, even if there is a reliable source, is a big no-no. --tomf688 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Leykis, host of the #1 drive-time radio program in Los Angeles, announced the name of the alleged rape victim on his April 21st broadcast. You can hear the broadcast here: http://podcast.1069freefm.com/kifr1/8882.mp3. This information can be cited, and should be added to this article with the stipulation regarding a "dubious source" as detailed in the WP:V.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.103 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that we can't publish her name based on Leykis or blogs, but I don't agree that we should apply any other external ethical considerations to the matter. WP:CITE should be adequate. If a national newspaper prints her name, then I think we should follow suit. Wikipedia should never be the first one to break any piece of information, but we shouldn't be too far behind on high profile current events. This holds true for other aspects of the scandal, not just the alleged victim's identity. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Line on Rape Shield Laws

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this information. Particularly the line Many arguments about her made to the media by Defense attorneys on behalf of their clients may be useless in court due to these laws. What allegations have defense attorneys made that could possibly be precluded by the NC rape shield law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JCO312 (talk • contribs) .

The supported point of the passage is this: The defense can say nearly anything about the victim outside of court, but inside court, the sexual behavior of the complainant is not admissable due to North Carolina's rape shield law. See [5] Abe Froman 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. The sexual behavior may be admissible under certain circumstances, as your chart makes clear. My point, though, is that the line suggests that defense lawyers in this particular case have made statements which would be inadmissible at trial. If that's true, they certainly aren't mentioned anywhere in this entry. JCO312 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to make it more accurate. A rape shield law doesn't prevent a victim's sexual history from being brought out in public, it prevents it from being presented as evidence. Also, since I still can't find anything that the defense lawyers said that's possibly covered by such a law, I edited the second line to make it more general. JCO312 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Abe Froman 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I further edited the rape shield line, because it's not true that all evidence of employment is not covered. There's certainly an argument that an alleged victim's history as a prostitute, for example, would be inadmissible under the rape shield statute. I also added the word "likely" because it's impossible to say for sure how a court might rule on a motion to exclude evidence of this type.JCO312 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The new sentence confuses the issue. Employment does not fall under the rape shield law, prior sexual history does. The new sentence implies that strippers can expect to be raped. I do not think it should be retained. Abe Froman 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Certain employment could very well (and has) fallen under the rape shield law. I don't disagree that it might be worth taking out altogether. Frankly, I disagree with the new edit, because it picks from one of the several exceptions to the rape shield law in NC.JCO312 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where in the statute on rape shield law in N.Carolina [6] does it mention employment? It does not. Mentioning employment in the context of the statute goes beyond what the citation supports. Abe Froman 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Look up the statute in Lexis or Westlaw. It will cite to plenty of cases that deal with employment (primarily prostitution) as being included in the rape shield law. I think ultimately we agree that it's not worth talking about employment at all (see my most recent edit to the text in question), but for what it's worth I thought I'd point out here that employment can in fact be covered. JCO312 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last edit.JCO312 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)