home

Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jury News

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 05:00:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: Newsweek has a new article with the defense timeline, which matches the photos taken:

The accuser is dropped off at about 11:45, about a half hour after the other (second) stripper arrived. By midnight, according to a photo, the two are almost naked on the beige carpet in front of their visibly happy audience. But by 12:03, the mood has turned: in a photo, the women are standing and the second stripper appears to be reaching toward the guys, all of whom have lost their smiles. She slaps one of them for suggesting the alleged victim use a broom as a sex toy, according to Ekstrand. Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains.

The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile. She's wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe. By the time she realizes she's missing a shoe--a few minutes later--the guys have locked the door to keep her out, say the attorneys. A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding.

At 12:41 she gets into the car, and one of the partygoers appears to be helping her. In a call to a police dispatcher at about 1:30 made public last week, one of the first officers to see the accuser, in a parking lot, said she was "passed-out drunk" but "not in distress." Since the release of the recording, Ekstrand has suggested that if any assault happened, it was after the accuser left the house. Defense attorneys said last week that no DNA had been found on or inside the accuser. She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.

Original Post 6:00 pm

The Duke Lacrosse players case has heated up this weekend. One of the defense attorneys was on the same tv segment I was on earlier today and said the defense team has been told by the prosecutor that two players' names will be submitted to the grand jury. Despite offers of all team members to surrender if they are charged, the DA refuses to identify the two players. This sounds to me like the DA is anxious to do an on-camera perp walk.

Time Magazine reported that defense lawyers believe police sent out a phony e-mail to team members, using the e-mail address of one of the players, in which the writer said he was going to tell the cops what he knew about the alleged rape.

The explosive allegations stem from an e-mail message sent in the last few days to several players from the e-mail address of another player, stating he was going to tell the police a crime occurred and implicate key players. The player denies he sent it...."The police said (the new e-mail) came from a confidential informant, but we have reason to believe it came from the police, hoping it would make all the players nervous," says one defense lawyer. "That didn't work."

There's more news about the defense photos taken of the party and players. The time-stamps match the time on watches worn by the players.

There is a gap in the photos from 12:03 a.m. until 12:30 a.m. in which the two dancers were not photographed on the camera. Attorneys believe the women were in a bathroom, alone. One woman, they believe, was changing her clothes during that time, and the accuser may have been painting her fingernails. They believe that because later on, when she fell on the back stairs, there were pinkish marks on the stairwell.

The grand jury Monday is expected to begin considering the case Monday. Also Monday, defense lawyers will file a motion complaining about the cops attempt Thursday night to interview team players without contacting their lawyers. It's not appropriate for cops and prosecutors to directly contact those whom they know to be represented by counsel.

Time also reports:

Defense lawyers tell Time they also have pictures, not yet turned over to the DA's office, of the main room at the party showing the players sitting in a semi-circle "watching the show." "They are bored, they're practically yawning. This is not a group of rowdy, dangerous people," says one of the attorneys.

Another item: Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition has offered to pay the accuser's tuition, regardless of whether she's telling the truth about the rape.

TalkLeft's Prior Posts on the Duke case:

< New Arrest in Aruba Case: Is the End Near? | Soprano's Open Thread: Show 6 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jury News | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    Fox News Interview with Ekstrand, attorney for 35 of the lacrosse players:
    "That picture shows the accuser on the back stoop of the house in front of a closed back door in between the back door and storm door what's important about that picture and those pictures is that you can see very clearly very close in time to the time of departure she is, she is smiling, she is in no duress and certainly she is looking downwards smiling and looking at her purse, apparently looking through it and you can see quite visibly a cell phone at the top of her purse that that indicates......
    [At this point the Fox reporter interrupts Ekstrand before he can explain the significance of the cell phone] Comment: The complainant's cell phone was found during a search warrant of the house two days after the party. Yet the time line offered up by the defense attorneys for the accused has it that she never entered the house after that photo was taken. from the Durham Herald Sun:
    "Although the precise time of the alleged rape apparently has not been established, defense lawyers contend it was before this photo was made."
    Comment: The attorneys may find their efforts to establish the precise time when a rape did not occur frustrated. Particularly if they can't get the second dancer to but into their purposefully prejudicial timeline. from Newsweek:
    The second woman supports the partygoers' story, says Thomas, who says he has seen a summary of an interview with her conducted by a member of the defense team. "Their versions are basically identical," he says. But Mark Simeon, an attorney for the second dancer, tells NEWSWEEK that Thomas's claim is not accurate. "She rejects the notion that she agrees with their timeline. I've shown their story line to my client, and she says there's a lot that's wrong with it.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#2)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    TalkLeft posted:
    Despite offers of all team members to surrender if they are charged, the DA refuses to identify the two players. This sounds to me like the DA is anxious to do an on-camera perp walk.
    This sounds to me like Nifong wants more players tossing and turning tonight than just the two that will be served up to the grand jury tomorrow. Why should he show the defense team any consideration? They are on the attack. Once Nifong stopped talking, the defense started making the same mistake he had made. The defense has already given away way too much.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    I dont think the defense attorneys have anything to hide. They have put all their cards out on the table, and have dared the prosecutor to beat them. Clearly this shows that they believe thier clients, and they have nothing to hide. Also it worries me as to why the prosecutor has not taken any of the evidence from the defense. He is suppose to be investigating this case to the fullest, why he is not turning over every stone? This to me sounds like politics. I have to ask, if the prosecutor thinks that he may have a false allegation, does he have an obligation to charge this woman? Or can he just let her off the hook, like in the Kobe Bryant case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    Keylight: You wrote: "This probably belongs in an open thread, but I thought you might be interested." Aren't you nice! Now off you go! from Newsweek:
    12:30: A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile.
    Comment: Two bags? We've hear about the purse, but what is the second bag? In the search warrant police distinguished between a "make-up bag" and a "purse." A makeup bag with I.D. was found in te execution of the warrant, but no purse. We don't know where the make-up bag was found, but like the cell phone, if it was found in the house, that will need to be reconciled with the fact that the defense attorneys claim that the dancer did not go back into the house after 12:30.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    Side issue to the alleged rape: Who is the source of the "anonymous emails"? Some will say a player. I think if the source is ever identifed it will turn out to be a student working in Duke's technology department, who, like many, deemed them guilty instantly. They are biased because an athlete probably asked to see their homework or class notes from missing classes. Duke should be looking into this for internal security reasons. IMHO:
    Why should he show the defense team any consideration? They are on the attack.
    They would say they are defending zealously. As they, and all attorneys, are required under the canons of legal ethics. The source of many malpractice claims. PB Why leave off the last sentence of the paragraph from newsweek? Thomas replies, "She has given us several statements, so I don't see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her." Nifong could not be reached for comment. Second dancer will be easily impeached, if she changes her interview (probably on tape).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    Didn't the accuser fall on the porch right before she left? I may be wrong about the time line, but if she fell and her purse was open, her cell could have fallen out and someone found it after she left and brought it in the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    Hi Kalidoggie, You wrote:
    Why leave off the last sentence of the paragraph from newsweek?
    1. It's a he said/she said story. If Newsweek wants it to be a he said/she said/he said story, that's their business. Supamike, You wrote:
    it worries me as to why the prosecutor has not taken any of the evidence from the defense.
    Would you have him execute a search warrant on the law firm's offices? You also wrote:
    if the prosecutor thinks that he may have a false allegation, does he have an obligation to charge this woman? Or can he just let her off the hook, like in the Kobe Bryant case?
    I think the prosecutor in the Kobe Bryant case still believes that the woman was raped. Nifong has a limited but not insignificant prosecutorial discretion to choose what cases to act on, but the buck doesn't stop with him, as I understand it. An aggrieved complainent can file something called a Writ of Mandamas to force lame-o prosecutors to do their duty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:43:12 PM EST
    Don't forget that, in the Kobe case, the accuser bailed out in the end. The prosecutor could have still gone forward, I suppose, but it would have been an uphill fight without a cooperative accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:44:34 PM EST
    Hi Runnermom,
    if she fell and her purse was open, her cell could have fallen out and someone found it after she left and brought it in the house.
    We don't even know that it was found in the house. Same goes for the makeup bag.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#10)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    They [the defense attorneys] would say they are defending zealously. As they, and all attorneys, are required under the canons of legal ethics. The source of many malpractice claims.
    I have no problem with their zeal. I find it amusing that they are now zealously whining Nifong isn't playing nice with them. They were showing their select "exculpatory photos" to select reporters and bemoaning the fact that Nifong was proceeding with this case in the face of all this "evidence" (which by their own admission they were keeping from him). They are desperate now, their stonewalling isn't working out for them. They've already had to meet with Nifong and plead with him not to indict their clients. Maybe they offered their photos then. Too late. Wear your hats and collared jackets, boys.* Perps are walking tomorrow. Round one: Nifong. newsobserver.com
    * A woman who works in Ekstrand's office intercepted more lacrosse players as they arrived, [for the DNA tests] instructing them to cover their faces, wear hats and pull their jackets up to conceal their identities.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#11)
    by azbballfan on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:59:30 PM EST
    PB: "An aggrieved complainent can file something called a Writ of Mandamas to force lame-o prosecutors to do their duty." PB - Thanks for the legal lesson. Alas, more than likely there was a significant payoff in the Bryant case. Most cases with professional atheletes never make it to the press. The only reason the Kobe case did was because the gal in question lived at home and her mom was well connected with the DA's office. She got emotionally involved. In that case, we'll never know what happened. True, there are cases where atheletes overstep their bounds. There are also cases where women throw themselves at celebrities with the intent of making up lewd accusations in order to bring more attention to themselves. Sad, but true. I've witnessed both firsthand.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    I have no problem with their zeal. I find it amusing that they are now zealously whining Nifong isn't playing nice with them. They were showing their select "exculpatory photos" to select reporters and bemoaning the fact that Nifong was proceeding with this case in the face of all this "evidence" (which by their own admission they were keeping from him). They are desperate now, their stonewalling isn't working out for them. They've already had to meet with Nifong and plead with him not to indict their clients. Maybe they offered their photos then. Too late. Wear your hats and collared jackets, boys.* Perps are walking tomorrow. Round one: Nifong.
    I personally think the media is the one who wants this case to drag on for so long. So many people have interest in making this case drag out as long as it can, including the defense attorneys. They all get a chance to get on TV and get into the spotlight. Also they will put these boys faces who get indicted all over the TV screen, but no one actually knows the accuser. So if these boys are innocent, their immages will be ruined for life. That is not justice. And the truth is that the media, and the lawyers, are exploiting all the ones who this matters the most to.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    Supamike wrote,
    They will put these boys faces who get indicted all over the TV screen, but no one actually knows the accuser. So if these boys are innocent, their immages will be ruined for life. That is not justice.
    With some exceptions (like OJ), people's lives aren't ruined when jury's find them not guilty. You wrote:
    And the truth is that the media, and the lawyers, are exploiting all the ones who this matters the most to.
    It's always the client's fault if they choose to listen to their attorney. The lawyers in this case appear on the verge of getting their clients indicted. All that remains is to see whether they can also manage to pull off an "own goal" and get their clients convicted. They are so transparently disingenuous, I wouldn't put it past them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#14)
    by azbballfan on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:20:05 PM EST
    PB: "It's always the client's fault if they choose to listen to their attorney. The lawyers in this case appear on the verge of getting their clients indicted. All that remains is to see whether they can also manage to pull off an "own goal" and get their clients convicted. They are so transparently disingenuous, I wouldn't put it past them." PB - you are sooooo right. Every time I work with a lawyer on an issue, honestly I spend managing/avoiding their personal agendas. The lawyers in this case love the press they are getting - it's ridiculous and ultimately does not serve their clients. The leaks to the press regarding defense information not shared with the DA only serves to paint the defense attorneys in a positive light to the atheletes' parents.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#15)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:44:15 PM EST
    espn.com
    "People inside the house have stated she was banging on the door, attempting to regain entry," Thomas said. The woman told police she was pulled into a bathroom and assaulted after coming back into the house. But Thomas said the woman locked herself in the bathroom, where police later found her purse, cell phone, and several artificial fingernails she claimed to have lost during a struggle with her attackers.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    IMHO
    They were showing their select "exculpatory photos" to select reporters and bemoaning the fact that Nifong was proceeding with this case in the face of all this "evidence" (which by their own admission they were keeping from him).
    They have always said that DA had not seen the photos. I don't think it was ever said that they would not give/show them to the DA.
    They are desperate now, their stonewalling isn't working out for them. They've already had to meet with Nifong and plead with him not to indict their clients. Maybe they offered their photos then.
    I think this may be a little disingenuous of you. You seem to be smart, savy and well-informed. TalkLeft provided a link that would have updated you. It would be surprizing if you didn't check it out. They did provide the photos....
    Too late.
    It is never to late to view potentially relevant evidence. They did offer the photos: WRAL (I hope I did that correctly) From article: Defense attorneys said they had offered to show the pictures to District Attorney Mike Nifong, but he declined to see them. "As I understand the exchange, as it was reported to me, the DA is not interested in a discussion about our evidence," said defense attorney Bob Ekstrand. If true, then this is truly political for Nifong because he in such a heated controversey he should at least look at them, ask for a copy and go talk to the nurse the examined her and find out if any of the supposed pre-existing wound were a factor in her report. Especially since he is hanging his hat on it. that is prosecutorial misconduct.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#17)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:57:03 PM EST
    This is how time.com reported the e-mail story: time.com
    The explosive allegations stem from an e-mail message sent in the last few days to several players from the e-mail address of another player, stating he was going to tell the police a crime occurred and implicate key players.
    Here's what I transcribed off a video tape of The Abrams Report:
    4:00 EST Dan Abrams is reporting on MSNBC: A new e-mail has surfaced that looks like a member of the team may be cooperating with the prosecution. It is sent from the e-mail address of one of the players It was sent to about 20 players, in groups of three. subject line: Sorry Guys "I'm going to the police tomorrow to tell them everything I know" Attorneys are denying it is from the student and claiming he was in class when the e-mail was sent.
    Pretty bad reporting.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:57:20 PM EST
    From WRAL link above Pictures taken over the next few minutes show the women on top of one another other. The photos also show what appear to be bruises on the accuser's knee. Her right shoe is off, and her press-on nails are missing. The men in the background are sitting back casually watching without much noticeable reaction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    It was sent to about 20 players, in groups of three.
    Definitely a sting or motivated tech person. Bedtime. Good Night John Boy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:25:48 PM EST
    Hi Kalidoggie, You wrote: "that is prosecutorial misconduct." You just don't have a nose for spin, Kalidoggie. You act as if these attorneys were doing their very best to turn over the evidence they have to the police. It is transparently obvious to everyone that they can do that at any moment, and that Norfing will be delighted to have it. What these lawyers were doing was simply trying to make arguments with Nifong that we all universally understand belong in the courtroom, not in the back room. We don't know that Norfing needs any of their pictures. Two digital cameras were seized during the execution of the search warrant. Maybe he's got enough pictures already to make his case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:32:59 PM EST
    Looking back, I wonder how many times I've written the name Nifong "Norfing" or some other variation. Whoops! Sorry.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#22)
    by BigTex on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:52:23 PM EST
    The odd issue here is that the accuser claimed 3 people raped her, but the DA is only submitting 2 names to the GJ. Why? Is he going for something other than the sex assualt charges? Seems like if he was going to go for the sex assault he would go after all three of the accused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#23)
    by chew2 on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 10:04:08 PM EST
    WRAL "Attorneys have said that although the women were given at least one drink at the party, they believe the accuser was already impaired when she arrived at the party." Regarding the unsourced allegation that the alleged victim was given a date rape drug and that this was why she passed out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#24)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 10:05:55 PM EST
    WHOA!
    There are others who could also testify to the identity of any attackers.
    The alleged victim was joined at the party by a second exotic dancer, but defense attorney Bill Thomas said she "has stated point blank she does not believe this allegation." The woman, who authorities said in court documents was "separated" from the alleged victim before the rape occurred, told WNCN-TV in Raleigh in an interview airing late Sunday that the other dancer was "definitely under some sort of substance" when she left the party.
    "She was, um, definitely a totally different woman than she was when I first met her," she told the station.
    The woman, whose identity was not revealed during the interview, added that she doesn't believe Durham authorities would be investigating if no crime had occurred.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#25)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    They have always said that DA had not seen the photos. I don't think it was ever said that they would not give/show them to the DA.
    First, they would only describe the photos to reporters, they said they were not ready to release them. Next they showed some of the photos to a few reporters, proud Duke alum Dan Abrams saw them first I think, then a few more reporters, before they finally offered them to Nifong. Kalidoggie posted::
    I think this may be a little disingenuous of you. You seem to be smart, savy and well-informed. TalkLeft provided a link that would have updated you. It would be surprizing if you didn't check it out.
    I wasn't being disingenous, I missed the link. I hadn't read that they offered to show him, but I figured they had. They seemed pretty upset after meeting with him. They knew they held those photos too long. "Know when to hold them, know when to show them." Kalidoggie posted:
    It is never to late to view potentially relevant evidence.
    The defense attorneys not turning the cameras over immediately may have rendered the evidence irrelevant. If I was Nifong I would have said, "I'll look at your photos if you bring be every camera that was at that party and every photo that has been downloaded from the cameras since the night of the party. Otherwise - f**k you." How tortured a statement is this?
    . "As I understand the exchange, as it was reported to me, the DA is not interested in a discussion about our evidence," said defense attorney Bob Ekstrand.
    So we know Ekstrand, himself, didn't offer the photos to Nifong and they must not have been offered in his presence. Does he even know who offered the photos? Why doesn't he just say "Kerry and Joe offered to show Nifong the photos, he declined." Is this the best confirmation the reporter could get that Nifong had refused the photos? Not that I doubt he did. If the defense had thought these photos were actually exculpatory they would have brought them to Nifong immediately. They spun them for a few news cycles, but they're about "done used up." Why? Because they are being looked at objectively: From the WRAL article:
    Another photo does show the accuser about 10 minutes before she left on the stairwell with her mouth open and teeth showing. Defense attorneys say she is smiling, but she's not posing and it is difficult to determine whether she is actually smiling.
    This is the key photo in their time line. They want so much for her to not have been attacked at this point. Eskstrand characterized her as wearing a "big-time grin" in this photo. Now with the date rape drug angle being floated around, her expression in this photo is even more unreliable as a gauge of her demeanor. Right after this photo is taken she falls down and is passed out on the porch before being helped/carried to the car. If her urine sample comes up positive for GHB or rohypnol, they had better find out where she was before 11:45 p.m. If she wasn't acting drugged earlier in the evening, these boys are going down. Hard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    Still she could of taken the drug herself. That does not mean that any of those guys gave it to her. Also the 2nd dancer can corroborate that during the time from 12:03am to 12:30am that no rape occured because she was with the accuser. According to the timeline, the rape would of had to occur when she left the house and came back into the house without the accuser to look for her shoe... The key here is where was the the 2nd dancer from 12:03 to 12:30. If she is with the accuser in the bathroom, then it is clear that a lie has been told somewhere. The 2nd dancer is trying to stick up for the accuser, and has lied to the defense lawyers, and she will be caught in those lies on the stand. Now both women are working together. That is very clear.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:47:25 PM EST
    According to Bissey the neighbor: 11:50 p.m.: Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them. Midnight: Bissey sees the two women go into the house. 12:20 TO 12:30 a.m.: Tuesday, March 14, Bissey hears voices in the alley beside the house. At least two men are discussing money, one saying, "It's only $100." Bissey sees a man leaning into the window of a car parked outside the house. One of the women he saw earlier gets out of the car and says she needs to get her shoe. She walks to the back door of the house. If these times are accurate, then we can take the other timeline of the photos, as to what time the accuser says she left the house. The photos said that something happened at 12:03 when one of the boys said a derogatory statement. the accuser said she left the house after that was said. Now if that is correct, then she is saying that she was raped after she went back in the house to look for her shoe. She had to re-enter the house at around 12:30. Based on the accusers story, she could not have been raped in the first half hour of the party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#28)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:50:39 PM EST
    supamike posted:
    Still she could of taken the drug herself. That does not mean that any of those guys gave it to her.
    That's true. #28 on the search warrant is "pills." If they are relevant to this case maybe they'll find fingerprints on the container. supamike posted:
    The key here is where was the the 2nd dancer from 12:03 to 12:30. If she is with the accuser in the bathroom, then it is clear that a lie has been told somewhere.
    Yep. I think this is what her attorney meant when he said she does not agree with the defense tmeline. supamike posted:
    The 2nd dancer is trying to stick up for the accuser, and has lied to the defense lawyers, and she will be caught in those lies on the stand. Now both women are working together. That is very clear.
    The two dancers met that night. If the second dancer is Kim in the Krogers recording, she didn't sound overly sympathetic, she just wanted her out of her car so she could get out of there w/o getting involved. She didn't know at the time the woman may have been sexually assaulted. We don't know if the second dancer lied to the defense. Lawyers have a funny way of wording things. She didn't have to talk to them at all. If she was working together with the accuser, she would not have. That is clear to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:44:22 AM EST
    Yep. I think this is what her attorney meant when he said she does not agree with the defense tmeline.
    Based on the accusers story, they both left the house after the derogatory statement was made. If the accusers story and the 2nd dancers story match, then that should just about clear the first half hour from 12:03 to 12:30 as no rape could have occured. Also the accusers story says that both of them went back into the house, and they were separated. That does not match Bissey's timeline at all. And it also does not support the photos, or the story of the players. But clearly the accusers says they both went back into the house, and they were separated, and she was forced into a bathroom and raped. Could it be, that she made up this rape because she was angry that she could not get back into the house? That is my thought.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:21:30 AM EST
    Hi SupaMike, You wrote:
    If these times are accurate, then we can take the other timeline of the photos, as to what time the accuser says she left the house. The photos said that something happened at 12:03 when one of the boys said a derogatory statement. the accuser said she left the house after that was said. Now if that is correct, then she is saying that she was raped after she went back in the house to look for her shoe. She had to re-enter the house at around 12:30.
    1. The Bissey timeline you cite comes from the News and Observer. It's not clear whether the times claimed have been blessed by Bissey himself, or are interpretations of his police report. 2. The defense attorneys have the complainant re-entering the house alone before 12:30 to get her purse, after going to the car with the second dancer. They don't have her looking for her shoe until after she comes out, but of course, that's all just made up. 3. Bissey, videotaped by Rita Cosby, has 15-20 minutes between the dancers first entering the house and the dancers first leaving, and 20-30 minutes between the dancer returning for her shoe and the car driving away. Comment: All accounts seem consistent with the dancer re-entering the house as early as 12:20, no? So one of the windows within which a rape might have occurred would be 12:20 - 12:30. Another would be 12:41 - 12:52 or so. Kalidoggie, You wrote earlier,
    Her right shoe is off, and her press-on nails are missing [during the dance itself].
    That could be very important. It is not yet a bonafide discrepancy, however. The complainent has yet to detail the provenance of her nails other than the manner in which four of them came off. Descriptions of the photos claim that the dancer's "press-on nails were missing" during the dance. I interpret that to mean that all ten of her fingers are visible, and none have press-on nails on them. But that may be wrong. Defense attorneys have also suggested that they have evidence that the accuser was doing her nails while in the bathroom shortly after the dance. If she was putting on her nails then (which the second dancer might be able to confirm), that could also explain a lack of nails during the dance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:16:37 AM EST
    Sorry SuperMike, I missed a blockquote there, making it appear that the second paragraph of my last post was written by me, when it was in fact written by you. I should preview more.I'm used to having an edit function where I usually post.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:40:41 AM EST
    2. The defense attorneys have the complainant re-entering the house alone before 12:30 to get her purse, after going to the car with the second dancer. They don't have her looking for her shoe until after she comes out, but of course, that's all just made up.
    I have not seen anywhere that the defense has claimed that the accuser came back to the house to get her purse, it may be true, but I have not read it. As far as I understood, the purse was never retreated, and it was found in the bathroom where she left it. The defense has said that they did lock her out of the house and not let her in, at or around 12:41. Remember they left at 12:45? Right?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:45:37 AM EST
    3. Bissey, videotaped by Rita Cosby, has 15-20 minutes between the dancers first entering the house and the dancers first leaving, and 20-30 minutes between the dancer returning for her shoe and the car driving away.
    Remember the first photograph has them in the house at 12:03, and Bissye has them both together leaving the house at 12:20 which is what Bissey said. No rape could not have occured at that time becuz the accuser has said that the time she was raped, is when she re-entered the house WITH the 2nd dancer, and they were separated, and then she was raped. The 2nd dancer based on the story of Bissey, and the players never entered the house again after leaving. This is a problem with the accusers story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:53:11 AM EST
    Comment: All accounts seem consistent with the dancer re-entering the house as early as 12:20, no? So one of the windows within which a rape might have occurred would be 12:20 - 12:30. Another would be 12:41 - 12:52 or so.
    Yes I can agree somewhat with that, but again, Bissey has said that he saw them leaving and much going on in the alley during those times. Not only that, I have a problem with all of what was said, happening is such a short period of time, and her not running out of the house screaming. But lets keep in mind, when it happened to her, it had to happen when the 2nd dancer was in the house with her, because based ont he accusers story, she went back in, after the guys asked them too, and they were separated, and then the rape occured. None of her DNA in the bathroom, but she clearly has scaps, and bruises that would of left DNA as well as blood. None of the boys DNA was found in the bathroom or even on the the womans body. based on the bruises she had, to both her body and vaginal area, they should of found something...this is impossible in my mind...Something has to be in that bathroom, and they found nothing at all...Where is the evidence?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    Then who was the screamer? Who was the screamer that the Cab Driver talked about in the Rita Cosby interview? In the interview the Cab Driver mentioned "she was just a screamer". A screamer? What is a screamer? OMG. Obviously somebody had sex with someone so that needs to be explained.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    2. Screamer - A person that makes a lot of noise during sex.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jur (none / 0) (#37)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    I think the quote was "she's just a stripper," but that doesn't preclude the fact that she may also be a screamer. Rita Cosby April 19. 2006
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I remember one guy, he said in a loud voice, "She's just a stripper." COSBY: She's just a stripper? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.


    Duke Lacrosse Case: New Timeline and Grand Jury News | 37 comments (37 topical)