home

New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job

A female, lesbian Duke student alleges she was raped by a male student following a dorm pot-smoking, drinking party on the last day of classes. The male denies they had sex.

DA Mike Nifong says it's not his job to be involved unless police ask for his help.

"The Duke lacrosse case was very different from the way we normally get rape cases," Nifong said. "The District Attorney's Office is normally not contacted during the course of an investigation unless the law enforcement agency needs some special kind of assistance," such as obtaining a court order, he said. "That has not been the case in [the latest] investigation."

Duke police did get a search warrant and order for DNA testing. Nifong's explanation:

The investigation appears to focus on a single suspect, Nifong said.

"It's a different situation if you have a focus on a specific individual, as opposed to a specific address," he said, referring to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where the lacrosse party took place.

Does anyone else detect a bit of doublespeak here?

Also on Duke: The DA seems pretty sure he has physical evidence to back up the accuser's rape allegations in the Duke Lacrosse case. Further DNA results are expected around May 15. Nifong had this to say about the first DNA results the day after he won the election:

"My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that they would not be asking if they saw the results," Nifong said.

I'm wondering, did they test the broom handle for her DNA or for fecal matter? If they did, and it came back positive, those results might not have been turned over to the defense. Since no one had been charged at the time, the only results they would have been entitled to then were results of the DNA tests of their clients, the players.

Also, maybe the commenters here can clue me in. Why isn't there more news on whomever dropped her off at the party? Isn't this her current boyfriend? Did he go back to pick her up? Didn't he also go to the hospital to see her the next day? If either are true, he's certainly been interviewed by the police.

The crucial photo was taken, defense sources say, at approximately 12:41 a.m., and shows the accuser calmly being helped into a car to leave the party. Taken together with other time- stamped photos from earlier in the evening, it is crucial to the defense argument that there was not enough time that night for a rape to occur. In fact, prosecutors will argue, that photo actually shows the accuser being dropped off at the party, not leaving it, and that it was taken well before midnight. In that photo, the accuser is shown in a black or dark-colored car, which matches a description of the car defense and prosecution sources say dropped her off at the party. The person in the driver seat of that car is not Kim Roberts, whom prosecutors will argue drove the accuser away from the party after the alleged rape.

< Juror Explains Refusal to Convict Awadallah | New Autopsy: Guards Killed Fla. Boot Camp Teen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 12:55:46 AM EST
    TL, the broom was not listed on the search warrant. Wouldn't it have been? I think the Time reporter was guessing about that photo or the investigator or person from the DA's office that he spoke with is confused. Dan Abrams showed a larger version of that photo and the accuser does not have her right shoe on, so it does look like she is leaving in that picture. I also haven't heard who dropped her off. About the new case, I read that according to a guest on Catherine Crier the young man who walked her home seemed to have left immediately according to dorm security cameras. If his DNA does not match the accuser in this case, do you think we will see another court order for large scale testing of all males in the dorm that night? It seems lightning has struck Duke twice and now we have another rape claim with a large but limited group of potential suspects.

    Talk Left posted:
    Does anyone else detect a bit of doublespeak here?
    Was Nifong involved in getting the search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan or did he only become involved once the 40+ players the three captains listed as being at the party refused to cooperate?

    in response to Nifongs's comment:
    "My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that they would not be asking if they saw the results," Nifong said.
    Talk Left posted:
    I'm wondering, did they test the broom handle for her DNA or for fecal matter? If they did, and it came back positive, those results might not have been turned over to the defense.
    The results Nifong are referring to are in the hands of the defense. He is implying the defense selectively released the results of the first round of DNA tests. I think there are some inconclusive results that the defense is not advertising, because while inconclusive, they point in a certain direction. As for the May 15th evidence, I think Nifong is talking about the the inconclusive results from the SBI lab - possibly a mixed DNA sample - that the private lab might be able to separate with more precision and conclusively match to someone and also mitochondrial DNA from hair. The 'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for May 3
    COSBY: I believe you're someone who maybe has something more than the public knows. NIFONG: Well, one would hope that I would not be proceeding without some evidence. And there is a lot more evidence in the hands of the defense attorneys right now than most of the public knows about. And I expect that soon there will be more such evidence. COSBY: Is it safe to say just in general you have a lot more than we know about? NIFONG: I think that's probably pretty safe to say.
    Round Four: Coming soon

    Will New DNA Evidence Solve the Duke Investigation? FOX NEWS' MEGYN KENDALL:
    The accuser's family members telling me tonight [May 4, 2006] that Mike Nifong told them good news is about to come out in this case for the prosecution, good news for the accuser relating -- according to the family -- to DNA. We have not been able to substantiate that through Nifong himself. This is coming from the family.
    The DNA results are not due until May 15th, but they are telling me that Nifong is telling them we're going to get good news for the prosecution on the DNA tests.
    I doubt Kendall made this up, so either the family made this up, or Nifong is lying to the family or he has gotten, at the very least, a verbal "thumbs up" from the private lab.

    Orinoco writes:
    Are the players' families spiteful enough to try [getting Nifong disbarred]? Are their lawyers spiteful enough to try it, especially those who practice in NC? those who practice in Durham?
    I don't think their lack of spite is what's getting in the way. More likely they've been unable to formulate a coherent enough argument to get beyond the level of frivolity.

    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    If the DNA is from hair I don't know how compelling that would be in the absence of DNA from any bodily fluids or tissues. After all, no one would dispute that the defendants had never been to the house and the photos of AV showed that she had sufficient opportunity to pick up hair from the rug, from bumping into things, etc.
    I think that is a good point, Bob, but Nifong has been around the block a few times. I doubt he would consider a head hair DNA match good news unless it was found under her nails with the root attached. Part of the SANE exam involves combing of the alleged victims pubic hair. The hair they might be testing might have come from that procedure. Bob In Pacifica posted:
    To everyone, generally: If FOX is such an unreliable source of news in everything else, why do I constantly see references to it here for this story? Granted, they did a bang up job on the missing white girl in Aruba, but otherwise why would anyone trust them?
    Anytime anyone says anything on FOX I look in the opposite direction for truth.
    The main complaint I've heard about Fox is the slant they give the stories, not that they are making up stuff. I did allow for the fact that Megyn Kendall could be lying - the truth is the accuser's cousin and father told her no such thing. The problem there is, this bit of reporting is not favorable to the Fox News slant on this story. Hannity became agitated by Kendall's report.

    Nifong:Selective Prosecutor,DA. Perhaps being re-elected or elected as District Attorney is more of a punishment this time around. Perhaps the voters thought that it would be better to see if Nifong would be able to follow thru with this Media Driven Dogma that is redundant and not wisely predicated based on rumor and innuendo. In Other Words Nifong would make a terrible Poker Player.

    Nifong's infractions: -46/47 White DNA; smacks of civil rights violation -highly irregular photo id process -70 interviews including pep rally at NCCU -4/14 police invasion of student dorms in attempt to circumvent consel.
    None of these would come close to support disbarral. I'll go through them one by one:
    46/47 White DNA; smacks of civil rights violation
    It was a court order that required the players to give up the DNA. A prosecutor can't disbarred because he petitions a court for an overly broad order that the court grants. It would only be an offense he lied to the court in the petition. There's no reason to believe he did. If the player's 4th amendment rights were violated, the remedy is exclusion of the evidence. But it's the court's order, not Nifong's.
    -highly irregular photo id process
    Nothing in NC law seems to prevent a prosecutor from presenting a line up this way. It's irregular, but so are the circumstances. If the victim had seen the pictures of the lacrosse players in the newspaper, circled the 2 defendants and called the police it wouldn't present many problems as an ID. If at least 90% of the line up shown were not involved in the crime and at least some of the players shown were not at the party at all, it's not even close to being unethical. The main reason it's bad lawyering is that it opens the door for the defense to cast doubt on the ID and move to have it excluded.
    70 interviews including pep rally at NCCU
    This simply isn't that big a deal. If it was proper for him to give one press conference. it would be proper for him to give 70 or even a 1000. It's not exactly unheard of for the police or prosecutors to discuss a crime or the status of an ongoing investigation with the press. The worst thing that Nifong said was that he was convinced a crime occurred and he would be pursuing it in good time. Pursuing an indictment says exactly the same thing. Extensive comments to the press are rarely prudent as a practical matter, but unless theirs a gag order in place their rarely unethical either.
    -4/14 police invasion of student dorms in attempt to circumvent consel.
    Again, not a problem. The police had every right to be in the dorm (The police can come to to your home or apartment and knock on your door without a warrant). Unless the kids were in custody or had been formally charged, the cops weren't out of line. It was stupid in that it looks bad in the press, but not illegal. Trying to get Nifong disbarred would be frivilous show boating, nothing more. Lawyers make mistakes all the time - it's really easy to do. That's partially why good lawyers cost so much

    Orinoco posted:
    The hair evidence, if they exist (big IF), will only help win the case if it is from one of four people--Seliegeman, Finnerty and the two 90 percenters.
    Something tells me that if Tony McDevitt's pubic hair shows up in the accuser's pubic hair combings, the jurors might understand the misidentification: Reade and Tony Orinoco posted:
    It would be easy to infer that she's framing these guys for money and planted the hair on her. She was in the bathroom and male hair are easy to come by in that space.
    The problem with that theory is that 12 jurors have to believe it for an aquittal. Only one such juror is needed for a mistrial, do you live in Durham county?

    So much sleeze in one DA of one case shook my confidence in the entire judicial system. There might be worse DAs in the country, but few have f---ed with someone this rich and "previleged". Who's f---ed with Bob Bennett and come away in one piece?
    You should probably take that as a sign right there. Why in the hell would a prosecutor do this if they didn't have more evidence than has been presented publically? The prosecutor has presented barely any of his evidence, but has strongly hinted that he has subtantially more.

    So much sleeze in one DA of one case shook my confidence in the entire judicial system. There might be worse DAs in the country, but few have f---ed with someone this rich and "previleged". Who's f---ed with Bob Bennett and come away in one piece?
    You should probably take that as a sign right there. Why in the hell would a prosecutor do this if they didn't have more evidence than has been presented publically? The prosecutor has presented barely any of his evidence, but has strongly hinted that he has subtantially more.

    Nice job huesofblue, I was too lazy to refute Orinoco's post and it's just as well. I could not have done anywhere near well as you did.

    Juries are crazy, and these guys wouldn't want to gamble on mistrials given the town hostility to Duke and the fact that people will watch preemptories really closely. I'm betting that they waive the right to a jury trial and go to a judge.

    IMHO - I'm flattered, but I doubt it's true. You seem to hold your own in these debates.

    rogan - Right now people as a whole seem to be about 50/50 on this case. And the defense only needs one of the 12 people on the jury to buy their story to avoid a conviction. With a single judge they won't get that benefit.

    Orinoco I'm just speculating, but what if the first round of DNA testing (which was done REALLY quickly and didn't include the full battery of tests) yielded 35 results that said "no match" and 5 that said inconclusive? And what if 2 of those 5 inconclusives just happened to match the 2 players that the AV identified with 100% certainty? If I was the prosecutor, I'd probably feel really comfortable inditing at that point.

    to hues of blue We betray our biases. The prosecution also only needs one person of twelve to "buy their story" and prevent an acquittal no matter what the facts say, and Nifong will certainly retry the case endlessly if the jury isn't unanimous. Unless Nifong has overwhelming evidence the defendents would be dumb to use a jury.

    Nifong must have had a lot of DNA (semen?) to be so sure of himself before the first batch of DNA testing/ID's. He sure wasn't assuming that he'd have to wait for hair ID's. He got a lot of DNA from the 46 players. It's only speculation, but I can't help but wonder if there was DNA on the AV that does not belong to any Duke player. We'll find out at the trial, I guess, if it ever happens.

    Orinoco, You wrote:
    I think we can all agree that Nifong conducted this case in an unusual manner with highly irregular pracitices. There's not much question that he made many (inexplicable) mistakes during the investigation and indictment.
    I don't agree with that. I think any "unusualness" we're seeing is a biproduct of a)an unusual level of public interest, b)the unusual timing of the case in close proximity to the timing of the election, and c) an unusually strident public relations campaign by, to coin a term, the Duke-oisee. Critiques of Nifong are vital upfront and center issues to those who have already made up their mind on the question at the heart of the case, but to those of us for whom the question of rape remains the central question, Nifong's prosecutorial foibles, to the extent that they can be said to be foibles, take a back seat. There's a simple heuristic common folk use to analyze cases like this one that says: "silence is the ally of the abuser." In light of that, Nifong's public utterances are refreshing. If they turn out to be equivalently irresponsible, well, he'll get his.

    What if the 2nd round still turns up inconclusive, after the indictment?
    It totally depends. If the DNA yields a less than 5% match for everyone at the party, but is a 30% match to Seligman and a 20% match to Finnerty it actually helps the DA. (Anyone with knowledge of DNA testing know whether this a realistic senario? Is this even how it works?) But if the sample from the victim is just too bad to make a match with anyone, it helps the defense a lot.
    What if the 2nd round turns up three people other than the two indicted, after the indictment?
    I think it's time to drop the case and go after the other three. I think a sincere and public apology would be called for.
    If he knew by 4/11 he had a good chance of some solid DNA evidence, why would he rush to indict before the 2nd round, before more concrete evidence? Other than a small primary, I cannot think of a reason.
    The primary and public pressure brought about the inditment. I have no doubt about that. But I don't think the prosecutor would have done it if he didn't think the evidence in hand could get the job done standing alone. That's why we have 2 inditments and not three.

    and Nifong will certainly retry the case endlessly if the jury isn't unanimous
    I think two hung juries would be the end of the case. That sort of thing is incredibly rare though. If you can't get one of two juries to convict, it's probably because there's reasonable doubt.

    Hi - I've been reading these Duke threads for days now, and it's all been very interesting. I do have one question I haven't seen addressed--has there been any analysis of whether this case helped Nifong win his primary? Polls before/after the case hit the news, exit polls with racial breakdowns, anything like that? Please excuse me if such a question is outside the scope of this blog.

    With the case as is, I think the players would be smart to eschew a jury. Jurors can be remarkably dumb creatures, cf. the Simpson jury. Very few jurists are that dumb (hopefully).
    It depends a lot on the defense theory. The AV's job and past might damage her credibility more with a bible thumping southern jury than with a judge who knows that promiscuous women and former victims of sex crimes are much more likely (statistically) to be raped. Also, a judge who has seen vaginal injuries in a hundred rape cases is going to be a lot better at evaluating whether the pictures in this case are the sort that come from a violent rape or the sort where it's a toss up. On a totally different note - strippers almost always shave below the belt. The thing is, that stubble tends to scratch a man around the base - even if you use a condom (if you're a guy who's been married for a few years, most girls keep things pretty closely trimmed these days. Rub a finger back and forth on your own face and you'll get an idea.). It's hard for me to imagine how there wouldn't be some skin flakes left in the stubble after a 30 minute assault.

    I wonder is there any poster who is ready to change their position about player's innocense if some kind of DNA evidense surface. I am seeing from these posts that some posters getting ready to keep their position on defending players as aggresively even DNA tests come positive.

    Hicht posted:
    I wonder is there any poster who is ready to change their position about player's innocense if some kind of DNA evidense surface. I am seeing from these posts that some posters getting ready to keep their position on defending players as aggresively even DNA tests come positive.
    Orinoco is already entertaing thoughts of the accuser planting the players' hairs she found in the bathroom on herself. What's to keep her from rubbing their hand towels all over her body in hopes they had recently ejaculated onto them?

    >>FOX NEWS' MEGYN KENDALL: << The accuser's family members telling me tonight [May 4, 2006] that Mike Nifong told them good news is about to come out in this case for the prosecution, good news for the accuser relating -- according to the family -- to DNA. We have not been able to substantiate that through Nifong himself. This is coming from the family. The DNA results are not due until May 15th, but they are telling me that Nifong is telling them we're going to get good news for the prosecution on the DNA tests.<< DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT FOX NEWS PRINTS!! This appears to be a very slanted and inaccurate reporting source. I honestly believe they have made stories up for this case...why I don't know...? And why they exposed the accuser's name is interesting as well. It's almost like they have a personal stake in the AV backing out. But Nifong cannot make promises to the family. And if he is basing his ability to get convictions on DNA evidence alone, he can forget it! I am guessing that one of the major reasons for Nifong moving forward--was the evidence that a sodomy took place. I guess for the public to believe that--they would have to see photos of her orifice? That's not gonna happen folks...And please, noone speculate that it happened to her before the LAX party ok. The DA knows that people will claim in the absence of conclusive DNA--that the defense attorney will imply that she had sex with multiple partners before coming to the party--ok! I agree with a much earlier post...the DA knows several facts that the public won't know til trial...And the defense is upset that those photos were released. The interesting question on those photos, is that if no crime occurred, why take the time to alter the photos? Everything is all speculation, even on the timeline. This is like a soap opera and we are trying to guess the ending..

    rogan1313 posted:
    Nifong must have had a lot of DNA (semen?) to be so sure of himself before the fist batch of DNA testing/ID's.
    I don't think any semen was found "in or on" the accuser, but if this article is correct, the fingernail DNA story is wrong.* April 11, 2006
    The results, the lawyers said, show that investigators collected no genetic material of any kind from the woman. "There was no DNA found in or on her that would indicate that she recently had any sex," Cheshire said.
    Investigators found no DNA under the woman's remaining fingernails, or on those taken during the search of the rental house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., which Duke recently bought in an attempt to quell student parties.
    They also found no DNA on the woman's clothing or belongings, players' attorneys said. The tests found DNA matches to two players, from a towel outside the bathroom and on another object, Cheshire said.
    One sample was from a player's semen and another was a different type of DNA, Cheshire said. He said that was to be expected in a bathroom shared by the three men who lived in the house.
    I guess that object is the floor: From The Abrams Report' for April 10:
    CHESIRE: There was DNA found of two of the boys on a towel and on the floor.
    Which brings me to another theory on the inconclusive results. How about this: the DNA sample that is semen, be it from the floor, the towel or some other object, is a mixed sample. Separation of the mixture revealed the DNA profile was a match for one of the residences of the house, but the other DNA sample(s) extracted from the mixture were inconclusive. Could be from another user of the bathroom, one of the indicted players, the matched player's girlfriend, the accuser, could remain inconclusive... * The April 24, 2006 Newsweek article 'Sex, Lies & Duke':
    Many rape cases are solved by the DNA evidence. But in this investigation, the tests have not provided the airtight answers investigators might have hoped for. Meadows says that could change in the future. "There may be DNA. In this first round of tests, they did find DNA under the woman's fingernails. But the tests, as to whose it was, were inconclusive," she said." There are new tests that are expected back," she adds, and these tests could lead to other conclusions.


    Orinoco posted:
    I would also think unless the semen belong to the four men already id'ed, the real perps have a good chance to get off because of the botched ID.
    Your logic could be a set back for the innocence project. The accuser made an erroneous photo ID, so we'll just ignore the DNA evidence? Orinoco posted:
    It would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
    And the accuser, too! That would explain the semen in the bathroom towel. :)

    To IMHO, Bob in Pacifica and the rest of you thoughtful sleuths following this, here is another image I have been trying to sort out. I have no idea what this means, but it is so factually improbable to me that I feel it must mean something about the mindset of the AV and perhaps about the nature of the alleged events that night. What is this whole business with the second shoe? Photos clearly show she lost one shoe in the first three minutes of dancing. It stays there on the floor for the whole rest of the time. Then by anybody's version of the story she manages to hobble around lopsided wearing the other high heeled shoe for the next half hour; if you count Krogers and beyond, then for the next two hours. She's wearing it during trips back and forth to the bathroom allegedly to paint her nails. She has it on for trips back and forth to the car as she changes her mind about dancing. It clings to her foot tenaciously for a half an hour even as she allegedly is being violently raped, sodomized, choked, knocked around with cuts, bruises, and maybe even a broom handle involved. She is wearing it as she goes back to the house to retrieve the other shoe. She is still wearing it while standing outside on the back porch, still wearing it after falling down on the back porch, and even after being helped into the car as she gets ready to leave. She is completely "out of it" by this time, yet she never manages to lose the second shoe. It took only three minutes for her to lose the first shoe. It fell off her foot in a simple dance routine. Yet through all of the other alleged activity that took place that night -- some of it very violent and prolonged -- she never manages to lose the second shoe. It would seem that each of these alleged activities would increase the likelihood that the other shoe would simply fall off, but it didn't. It is factual improbable, yet it it still true. However, that does not explain why she did not simply reach down and take the shoe off her foot so as to make walking around for half an hour a bit less awkward than hobbling around lopsided. If the former is factually improbable, then the latter doesn't even make any common sense to me. So that is my question. Why is she hobbling around for half an hour of all of this activity wearing only one high heeled shoe instead of just taking it off?

    Hicht, I don't know if DNA proof changes my current position, which has been: I lean slightly towards a rape having happened but not enough evidence is known at present to prove it. I have my doubts about Nifong's prosecution, but since I don't know what he has I don't know what he doesn't have. I have heard that the lacrosse captains were the source of the "no sex happened/nothing happened" early announcement before lawyers took over. The defense lawyers certainly have not publicly backed away from that, so there shouldn't be any DNA or bodily fluids of the attendees recovered from the AV's body. There's no fallback position of a consenual business transaction left. That's why I have my doubts that a rape occurred. If it had, the defense attorneys would have logically created a prostitution defense. DNA evidence would be hard to disprove. If there are no matches I don't know how Nifong's going to proceed. I am not sure what weight a "kinda matches" or "sorta matches" of DNA would be in court. I'm sure defense attorneys would rip at any incomplete match.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    SLO, I've wondered the same. She has lost the shoe by 12:03 or so and still doesn't have it when she leaves. Very strange. Even if I was very drunk, I'd notice that and kick the other one off at least.

    Yeah, the one shoe on and one shoe off is odd. And where is her right shoe? It is listed in the second search warrant so it wasn't seized in the execution of the first warrant. And not listed in items seized in the second warrant either.

    SLOphoto, I'm not sure what it means, her being on one shoe for most of her time there. That would suggest that she was out of it coming out of the gate at midnight. The search warrant (thanks Teresa) said that the AV arrived and met Roberts at 11:30. If they entered the house at that time that would give almost a half hour for the AV to drink a mickey and get loaded. Then she could have lost her shoe and been oblivious of it. There are problems, since the defense timeline says that they didn't enter the house until around midnight and the known photos seem to suggest that. The AV and Roberts could have been toking up together in the car 11:30 to 11:50. Whatever, it suggests to me that very soon after midnight the AV was very intoxicated, so intoxicated that she didn't know she was missing a shoe. This might indicate that someone slipped her something, or that she and Roberts may have partook something (less likely) or that she took something herself before she came (more likely than partaking with Roberts, less likely than a drugged drink). If the AV were so loaded at midnight so as to not notice she was missing one shoe, it goes against her ability to remember and describe any rape that may have happened, or any of her IDs. You can imagine a defense attorney show repeated photos showing her with one shoe and asking her how she could remember details of a rape if she couldn't comprehend she was missing a shoe. On the other hand, any evidence of a date rape drug automatically puts great suspicion on the men at that house. In short, the lack of shoe for all that time points the AV being very, very intoxicated from midnight on. What we draw from that... ?

    Orinoco posted:
    "The accuser made an erroneous photo ID" has to add to reasonable doubt, no?
    Reasonable doubt is in the mind of the beholding jurors. If the jurors are shown a photo of Reade Seligmann and a photo of Tony McDevitt, it is shown McDevitt's phone was used to call for a cab to 610 N. Buchanan at 12:29 a.m., the driver testifies he picks up four young men at that address about 20 minutes later. The cab driver testifies they look/sound worried, they say "She's going to call the police," and "she's just a stripper" and they may also be able to hear that it seemed to him that something bad had just happened at that house. They hear testimony that McDevitt's DNA was found under the accuser's fingernails, I think they will be able to conclude her photo ID was wrong and they'll be able to see how the two men could be mistaken in photos. A player's DNA found in the right places will trump a mistaken photo ID.

    If no dna match is made in the 2nd round of tests, would people change their minds who currently think the players are guilty?
    I don't fit your qualifier.

    SLOphoto
    That's a great point about the shoe. You have to be really destroyed to hobble around for an hour in one high healed shoe (and stripper heals are really high). Anyone know how long it would take a date rape drug to kick in?

    'The Abrams Report' for May 4
    ABRAMS: All right, here's the potential evidence that we've put together, Woody Vann, as to possible evidence he could have. I guess they could have a cooperating team member, which would be huge. Now, the hair or other DNA evidence, I've actually seen the DNA report and there is reference to inconclusive DNA tests. There's also reference to possible mixtures of DNA and--that remained inconclusive.


    huesofblue asked:
    Anyone know how long it would take a date rape drug to kick in?
    Depends which drug it is, dosage, if taken with alcohol, etc. I've read 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes.

    inmyhumbleopinion Evidence showing the presence of the date rape drug would be pretty huge. Whether they have the right perpetrators will still be an issue, but a jury will almost surely believe that a rape occured. A jury might question whether her drug addled mind made the right ID, but the credibility of the defense is going to take a huge blow if they continue to argue that nothing happened at all.

    Here is a site that gives info about various "date rape" drugs, testing procedures and half-life. GHB in particular seems very difficult to detect.

    Here's an off-topic thought. One of the sides in this case is clearly lying. Assuming the odds of a lie are the same for all involved, who would you want the lying party to be? If the defendants are lying, it's just tragic because they've not only horribly raped this woman, they've managed to destory her reputation too. And they're almost surely going to get away with it, unless Nifong has some damn good evidence that he's keeping to himself. But if the woman's lying, it's terrible too. The lives and certainly the reputations of these two kids are ruined forever. No matter what, their names will always be associated with this case and the alleged behavior. Moreover, if the woman is lying and it's conclusively proved at trial, it'll be a blow to the credibility of future rape victims for years to come. If the truth was goign to come out tomorrow, I'm not sure who I would cross my fingers for.

    The least damage to all parties would be if the accuser was lying. No rape would have occurred. I doubt any of the players would be convicted of any sex crimes without DNA evidence.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#44)
    by chew2 on Sat May 06, 2006 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    IMHO,
    I don't think any semen was found "in or on" the accuser, but if this article is correct, the fingernail DNA story is wrong.*
    No semen, no fingernail residue on the AV. So what residue material on the AV or her clothes were the first DNA tests supposed to match? Saliva? Facial Hair? Pubic Hair? ??? There had to be some genetic material on the AV or no point in testing for a match with the team members.

    Honestly, it wouldn't change my opinion that a rape occured. DNA evidence is not neccesity for rape cases. But I would acknowledge that in this one in which there is very big social statue gap between accuser and accused, it would be very difficult to get a conviction without a DNA evidence even rape occured.

    Regarding IMHO's 5:37 post, the AV was incapable of talking coherently (she couldn't tell Roberts her address, didn't have her phone), so when the four guys get into the cab, if they are worried about someone who is going to call the police, it would be Roberts, who actually was going to call the police. And did call the police. Roberts said that she didn't think a rape occurred any time that night. If there had been a rape, they may have been concerned that calling the cops might somehow lead to revelations about any rape, but I think that it's more logical if they were fearing something they were fearing Roberts calling and complaining about the racial epithets and general bad behavior of the crowd. Having said that, you could construct a suggestion of guilt on McDevitt's part, if he were one of the guys in the cab (he made the phone call, did he actually ride in the cab?). I personally would probably put more money on McDevitt's guilt than Seligmann's at this point based on timeline and opportunity. I also wonder if Mister 90% aka Assailant X was in that cab.

    huesofblue, Regarding time for a drug to kick in, someone said that at least one of the date rape drugs would begin being absorbed in the mouth and could start to affect the taker within five minutes. Most drugs that are swallowed take 20 minutes or more through the stomach. The search warrant said that the AV and Roberts met at 11:30 but doesn't say when they entered the house. You could logically put the two going in at 11:30. If they did and the AV was immediately handed a drink, that would be more than enough time for the drug to work. However, we don't know anything about what the dancers were doing inside the house. If they started dancing, were offended by the broom (lacrosse stick?) comment, then walked out, and then came back to the door at 11:50, that would make Bissey's observation of the first time they entered actually their second entrance. If the two were toking up in Roberts' car, that would explain the gap between 11:30 and 11:50. Or the AV's 11:30 may have been 11:45. If the two walked in near midnight it would be a mighty tight squeeze if she were so high she didn't know she was missing a shoe three minutes later. But maybe not impossible if they entered a couple minutes earlier and walked out a few minutes later. It always struck me strange that a houseful of guys would wait from 11:50 to midnight to let in the dancers. It's also possible that her boyfriend or someone at an earlier date (if there was one) gave her a pill and said, try this.

    chew2
    No semen, no fingernail residue on the AV. So what residue material on the AV or her clothes were the first DNA tests supposed to match? Saliva? Facial Hair? Pubic Hair? ??? There had to be some genetic material on the AV or no point in testing for a match with the team members.
    The DNA evidence was gathered fron the remaining 44 players 10 days after the assault. Who knows what DNA from the victim (if any) they had tested by then? Just because the attorneys or the reporters say something, doesn't meant it is true. The Newsweek article says there was DNA under her fingernails. Abrams mentioned the inconclusive and mixed DNA samples. They could be from towels or the floor or "an object." The mixture could be a player and the accuser. It could be two from players. They could remain inconclusive. The private lab DNA tests results are going to be big for one side or the other. If Nifong really told the family to expect good news in relation to DNA, he either knows it's coming, is an incurable optimist, is stark raving mad, or is trying to scare the crap out of someone, in hopes they come forward seeking a deal.

    The cases where people may be convicted of rape without DNA evidence are those with clear positive ID (i.e. not of people with apparent alibis) or those where there is no DNA (report made 4 years later, for example, as the AV did concerning another alleged rape). If someone else's DNA is present then most liberal types regard this as evidence for innocence, and thus release people from jail. DNA matches are all or nothing--there is no "30% match". That's why if you're in jail and the sperm matches someone else, you're cut loose. The proper question is "What proportion of rapes which last half an hour with a lot of struggling and a SANE exam very soon after do not produce enough DNA evidence to positively identify SOMEONE?" I bet it's not 75%, though the forensic scientists out there will have to answer for sure.

    As far as the DNA evidence, My guess is that if there is a match with McDevitt then he will be indicted and Seligmann's indictment will be thrown out. If Seligmann has an alibi as good as it seems and I were Nifong, I would be happy to switch defendants to one who matches DNA. It would weaken anything based on her IDs though. On the other hand, maybe McDevitt and Seligmann are cousins. They look alike. There was actually a case in the early nineties during the early stages of DNA testing, reported in the old The Sciences magazine, which talked about a case where a murder happened in a small town in Texas where everyone was related and the guy who was convicted on DNA evidence didn't do it.

    Thanks to everyone for your helpful input about the high-heeled shoe question. Most people seem to have picked up on the implication that the AV may well have been "out of it" fairly early so as not to notice the lopsided shoe. The second point -- and I'll try to keep this very delicate -- has implications for what sex acts may or may not have taken place in the bathroom. Briefly, a cooperative female would have to brace herself at least somewhat in order to perform the described sex acts -- if she were standing that is. Under the influence of drugs and or alcohol it would have been more difficult for her to maintain her balance. Add one high heeled shoe it would get really difficult, especially as the time added up towards 30 minutes. Amplify this situation by having an unwilling female fighting against her attackers. I think it would have been virtually impossible for her to remain standing to perform the acts, even if she were being braced by the attackers. By definition at least one foot -- the foot in the high heeled shoe -- has a bent knee above it. I think the knee would buckle under the stress of the prolonged struggle. And I think she would be knocking down some of her attackers in the process. So whatever acts took place she very likely had to have been in a non-standing position. By definition that takes up more floor space than a standing attack would. This is a small 5 X 8 foot room with a toilet, tub and sink in it. With three attackers surrounding her it is certainly still possible, but it does limit the number of ways that the attack could physically have taken place. Please everyone remember that in my own speculations earlier I pointed out that the second shoe still managed to stay on her foot for the whole half hour no matter what else happened. So improbable things are still possible. But it does give pause to wonder about some of the logistics of the alleged attack.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    If the two were toking up in Roberts' car, that would explain the gap between 11:30 and 11:50. Or the AV's 11:30 may have been 11:45.
    The dance was supposed to start at 11:30. I can't imagine the men letting them sit in their cars for 20 or more minutes without getting antsy. I would assume that if an expensive dance like that was supposed to start at a certain time neither side would just be outside piddling around. You know Bob, this timeline is going to drive you and me crazy. I guess since the women hadn't met before they had to discuss their routine and Kim at least had to get in her outfit. Other than that, I don't see them wasting too much time. I keep reading that the dance was in the master bedroom. Why wouldn't they dance in the living room which I assume in a party house is pretty cleared out? Maybe Kim was supposed to primarily dance (or whatever) in one room and the accuser in the other.

    Bob in Pacifica, The woman the cab driver described as walking angrily to her car sounded like it was Kim Roberts. And she claims she said, "I called the police (or cops?), you dumbasses!" We don't know if Tony made the call only that the cab driver says Tony's phone was used to call. We don't know if Tony was one of the four guys that got in the cab at around 1:50, four other guys could have "roached" his cab. The "don't worry" and "she's just a stripper" comments could be referring to a lot of things they may be worried about: their hosts being busted for another noise violation, underaged drinking, the other guys still there (cab driver says there were about 20 guys outside) getting busted for drinking, robbery if someone took the stripper's money, giving her the date rape drug if that happened, the sexual assault if that happened...

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    This is a small 5 X 8 foot room with a toilet, tub and sink in it.
    SLO, where did you get that info? I've looked everywhere and haven't seen it. As a female, if I picture myself in this situation, I think she would be kneeling. I guess she could be on her side, but remember one guy was behind her holding her neck and arms (allegedly).

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    That's an interesting quote imho, but I think they are testing hair AND putting the first samples through additional testing. With inconclusive results I can't imagine that they wouldn't.

    Orinoco posted:
    A bit conceited, no?
    Huh? I was answering this query:
    If no dna match is made in the 2nd round of tests, would people change their minds who currently think the players are guilty?
    I didn't answer because I don't fit your qualifier - I do not currently think the players are guilty (I assume you meant of rape and/or sexual assault). I think they could be guilty, I also think the accuser could be lying.

    Teresa, Thank you for you comment. I'll look for the 5 X 8 foot reference. I may be mistaken and I only saw it mentioned briefly. As to the other delicate question, I think you are right -- female on her knees is the most logical answer. But .. well, more delicate stuff. How does one attacker perform sex acts from behind while a second attacker holds her arms and neck from behind? Perhaps one of them is slightly to the side. Or else if she is forward on hands and knees, and one attacker is actually standing straddled over the top of her, the second kneeling behind and the third kneeling in front. It would work, but it would be a tight fit in a small room.

    Teresa posted:
    That's an interesting quote imho, but I think they are testing hair AND putting the first samples through additional testing. With inconclusive results I can't imagine that they wouldn't.
    I agree. The DNA mixtures for sure.

    I heard about the 5x8 bathroom, too. I don't know if it's true or not. Most bathrooms have all three (toilet, sink, bathtub) or a shower. If there were two bathrooms and the other was just for those living there, this one may not have had the tub. If the house is old enough, it may not have had a sink. As far as how a rape could have been done, I was wondering how it could have been accomplished, and how no one else, or at least Roberts, didn't know about it. But as far as people coupling, where there is a will there is a way, and if there was a rape the three were motivated.

    IMHO: I have no idea, but I from the complexity of trying to perform them all in one position -- forcibly -- I suspect that there had to be some sort of rotation involved in the sex acts. Otherwise I don't see how it could physically be done without at least two other attackers also holding her. And yet another delicate matter. It is a confident rapist indeed who forces oral sex on a woman and does not have his own hands around her throat. I mean is the third attacker relying on his buddy to convince her not to just bight it right off? Out of all this, that is the part I find least convincing.

    Teresa, The timeline does drive me crazy. It seems unlikely that the men would let them sit outside when a show was supposed to start, but did they know they were out there? And having them stand outside from around 11:50 to midnight, as Bissey said, doesn't make sense either, unless it was so noisy inside that no one heard them knocking.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    SLO, with two other men, possibly, holding me, I wouldn't bite out of fear they'd knock my head off. I have read of plenty of cases of rape and even murder where the victim was forced to perform oral sex first. If you are female, I'd think of another way to fight back first.

    The descriptions of the photos comes from the attorneys who must know from the players in which room the dancing took place.
    Cheshire gave the newspaper this account of what the photographs show:
    The first sequence of photographs, taken over three and a half minutes, shows two women dancing in negligees in the living room of the Durham off-campus house rented by the team's three captains.


    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:34:56 PM EST
    And having them stand outside from around 11:50 to midnight, as Bissey said, doesn't make sense either, unless it was so noisy inside that no one heard them knocking.
    Bob, the standing outside and talking that Bissey saw is what makes me think that they could have been returning after the offensive remarks. They may have been setting some ground rules or demanding that they keep the unruly guys in order. Maybe not. They could have just been doing introductions but I would think they would have entered immediately after that and not stood around.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:36:56 PM EST
    Well that's interesting imho. Doesn't the search warrant say master bedroom? As least other accounts I have read say that.

    SLOphoto, I also have wondered about that and reflexively snapped my legs together. One would expect that the rapists had first beaten her for some time in order to get her to cooperate. Would have further cut into Seligmann's limited time though. When I think about how the crime would have had to have been committed I keep running into problems. Like I said above, where there's a will there's a way.

    I've seen both living room and master bedroom. If you move the bed out of a master bedroom and put in a couch, then you've got a living room. More important to me is where the bathroom was in relation to wherever the dancing was and wherever Roberts was when they got separated.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    The terrible things I'm doing to "my beautiful mind". I always picture the oral part as the first act. IF there was an object that would be last.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#71)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    But Bob, wouldn't they need all available bedrooms with three guys living there?

    I mean is the third attacker relying on his buddy to convince her not to just bight it right off? Out of all this, that is the part I find least convincing.
    Forced oral sex is accomplished through intimidation and it doesn't take three attackers. The accuser told her father she thought they were going to kill her.

    Well that's interesting imho. Doesn't the search warrant say master bedroom? As least other accounts I have read say that.
    That would be from the dancer(s) description. I can't imagine a bedroom in an older home having a master bedroom large enough for all those guys and two dancers and a bed. I would guess there was a "day bed" in the living room for guests and that led the dancer(s) to think it was a bedroom.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    I just measured my other bathroom. It is 5 by 8 and without a clothes hamper in there, there is plenty of room for 4 people if they really cared about it. I practiced positions (oh lord) and kneeling still seems most likely to me. Or kind of pressed sideways against a vanity sort of bent over. I can see the reenactment in the jury room now. Nifong gets the backside because he's already practiced.

    I practiced positions (oh lord)
    hahahahahaha!

    If this goes to trial and the defense tries to use her prior convictions to discredit her - attack her credibility and character, I think it will back-fire on them. The more I read about this incident the more respect I have for her. Rape Case Is Seen as a Symbol in N.C. College Town
    "She took responsibility for what she did," said Woody Vann, her attorney, who found the woman "very credible." She brought in pay stubs and school records when asked.
    Vann said the woman, over time, paid her legal bills and $4,200 in restitution and court fees. All the while she was enrolled full time at Durham Technical Community College, graduating in 2004 with an associate degree, according to the school. Last fall, she enrolled at NCCU, living in a rental house with her children, ages 5 and 7.
    "She would bring the children over here to catch the school bus and then go to over to the college," her father said.


    A special thanks is in order for Teresa for being a good sport about all this. Thank you for practicing what none of the guys her can do on our own. :)

    A special thanks is in order for Teresa for being a good sport about all this. Thank you for practicing what none of the guys her can do on our own. :)
    Oh, Teresa was alone?

    IMHO, character works all ways. We live in a country where over ten million honest people who have been working here for years but who are illegal immigrants would all be deported immediately by a majority of Americans if they could wave their magic wands. No forgiveness there. Paying your fines as part of a sentence for stealing a taxicab and driving drunk isn't necessarily seen as exemplary by lots of people. I personally don't know anybody who would have given me or anyone else any additional respect for walking the kids to the school bus. Sorry, that's part of being a parent. No extra credit there. And she did get hospitalized for some kind of mental illness last year, leaving her kids in someone else's care (her parents?) for that time. Many people actually resent and dislike others who have suffered mental illness. They see it as a weakness in the person's character. Finally, strict fundamentalists don't have all that much sympathy for sex trade workers. The thing that really shocked me about the article that ran in Essence were the comments by the readers. There were a lot saying that nothing would have happened to the AV if she hadn't been stripping. That is, they were blaming the victim. I can't pretend to know what will be in the minds of the twelve people finally chosen for a jury, but I don't think that a news article about the AV's heroism for doing the expected is a guarantee that the jury pool will all find her as a symbol of strength or that in the absence of DNA evidence or witnesses they won't find whatever the defense can get into the trial (past unproven claims of crimes against her, her mental health) to be explanatory to her claim for something where there doesn't seem to be any other evidence. That's why Nifong better be more than a good bluffer.

    Teresa, I actually was thinking of doing the same but decided to wait until the house was empty.

    Great comments, everyone. This is the first chance I've had to read through them in a few days. On Monday, David Evans, one of the team captains who lived in the house, is going to court because Nifong has moved to revoke the deferred prosecution in his prior urinating in public case. He's the only one he has filed a revocation on so far. Why him? Is it to get him to turn against the others? Evans was one of those who voluntarily submitted to an interview and gave DNA right away. I spent a lot of time talking to Rita Cosby about the case Friday in New York during a show we were taping. She's got so much information and despite what some people think, really is looking at the case objectively. I highly recommend watching her MSNBC show for continuing details.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 09:55:00 PM EST
    She's got so much information and despite what some people think, really is looking at the case objectively.
    TL, I also think she is being objective. Her show has actually been the most objective to me and I wonder if that is because she isn't a lawyer (Abrams/Greta). I don't mean that in a bad way. She is not thinking like a prosecutor or a defense lawyer, but more like a regular person. Are you willing to share any inside scoop?

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#83)
    by Teresa on Sat May 06, 2006 at 09:59:32 PM EST
    SOL, imho, Bob, Glad to be of service. :) Yes, tonight everyone is gone and I am alone so only my dogs think I'm crazy. Bob - I wish the jury could come from this site. I think we are trying to think things through but very willing to be objective if we have to be. I don't think an uneducated jury could do that. I really hope we find out the truth and I feel so very sorry for the side that is innocent here.

    David Evans wasn't a public urinater, his infraction was for, what we used to call, "open container" - open beer, etc. in a vechicle. TalkLeft posted:
    I spent a lot of time talking to Rita Cosby about the case Friday in New York during a show we were taping. She's got so much information and despite what some people think, really is looking at the case objectively.
    Rita is all over this story. She gets the good interviews. Driving around Durham with the cab driver was classic. She has been objective. She talks to both sides and is best friends with whomever she is interviewing. When Rita asks - people spill it. She's good at what she does.

    Bob, The jurors are already going to know she worked as a stripper. It's not like that part of the story will be news to them. Ask an attorney how many of their clients pay their attorneys fees in full and make good on their restitution. I think you might be surprised, and most of the scofflaws can afford to pay. She took responsibility for what she did. She didn't blame anyone else. That is rare these days. Do you think Collin Finnerty will be paying his attorney fees for his D.C. arrest? The accuser served out her two year probation without incident while going to school, working for $10.50 an hour and raising her two kids. Collin didn't even make five months.

    Orinoco posted:
    For all we know Collin was at Cosmic Cantina enjoying a burrito
    And if this goes to trial, that evidence will be presented. I was talking about the accuser's prior conviction being used to attack her character. If Collin Finnerty is convicted in D.C. before the Durham case goes to trial, the prosecution could try to interject his conviction into the rape trial. The D.C. prosecutor noted what he saw as similarites in his case and the Durham case: both assaults happened late at night with other lacrosse players while consuming alcohol. Others have noted the name calling and violent behavior that could be interpreted as a need to prove his masculinty to his peers. My point was if both priors go before the jury, I think the accuser will come out ahead in the character bashing contest. My stating that I don't know if the players are guilty nor do I know if the accuser is lying is not akin to saying I am without bias. I carry-on, whenever I get an opportunity, about my disgust with most of the defense attorneys' tactics and my disappointment with the players for following their advice. Based on what I've read about the accuser and what I've read about Finnerty I'd rather share a burrito with the accuser. The jurors may feel the same way.

    For all we know this could be a personable woman. But she has continuously made questionable decisions in her life and almost certainly have mental and substance abuse problems.
    I agree with that, except for the substance abuse. I don't know that it has been shown that she has a substance abuse problem, is there more than the 2002 arrest? I do have some questions about your list: -1993 while 14, dating adult boyfriend. Severe depression according to family. [What was the questionable decision here? Dating an adult when she was 14? - You are not blaming the rape and following depression on that decision, are you?] -1996 accusing said boyfriend of gang rape; never follow-through.[Was her decision to report, or her decision to not follow through questionable?] -general discharge (not honorable)from the navy for fathering a child out of wedlock. [Was her decision to risk becoming pregnant or her decision to not have a free Navy paid abortion, or both, questionable? I wonder if her fellow Naval enlistee was also discharged for becoming a parent?] -During divorce proceedings with husband, accuse husband of attempted murder; no follow-through.[Still not sure if this was an attempt or threat, but her ex said he has "some making up to do" in respect to what happened there. Was her decision to report, or her decision to not follow through, questionable?] -2002 "spaced out" hiding under table after strip club; steal taxi cab at said club; trying to run down police officer [A lot of questionable decisions that night. We should research on how often "trying to run down a police officer" is plead to a misdemeanor ;)] -2004 hiding criminal record from nursing home; reporting nursing home to Durham PD when fired; no follow-through [She didn't report them for firing her. She worked for two weeks and they didn't pay her because part of her employee file was incomplete. Once she filed the complaint, her employer told her to submit a criminal record in order to get paid. No further action was taken by either party to resolve the issue.] -2005 admission to mental hospital for a week [If she admitted herself, I would agree that was a questionable decision] -2006 escort service employee; one-on-one three times a week. [I'd call that a bad decision, but then again, I am quite repressed.]

    Orinoco posted:
    What tactics? Did they publicize the Av's past history? Did they hold 70 news conferences? Did they call the KKK in to protect the lacrosse players?
    What tactics?
    Complaining about Nifong granting media interviews, then using the media much more extensively themselves.
    Did they publicize the Av's past history?
    Yes. KHON TV:
    Before Seligmann and Finnerty were indicted, attorneys for the players pointed to the accuser's criminal history when answering questions about their clients' legal troubles.
    AP:
    "This woman will have to testify, and it's valid to ask her if she's made any false accusations," said attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents a player who has not been charged and said the decade-old report raises "real issues about her credibility."
    They also brought up Kim Robert's criminal history and cited the change in her bond conditions as the reason for her change in opinion about what could have happened that night. CBS NEWS:
    "It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.
    Did they hold 70 news conferences?
    Did Nifong? No.
    Did they call the KKK in to protect the lacrosse players?
    If this is a reference to the New Black Panthers, Nifong claims when they called him he asked them to not come to Durham, as did the accuser's mother and father. If the KKK came to Durham to march around in support of the players would you hold that against the players? I wouldn't.

    Orinoco, You wrote to Inmyhumbleopinion:
    Again, thank you for NOT working in criminal law.
    When we're upset with people because they don't see the wisdom of our arguments, I think we all should take a page from OJ's playbook. OJ is well-aware that there are still people, in this country, mostly white people, go figger, who, despite the clear results of his very public trial continue to believe that he killed his wife. He compares these people to the crazy people you might run into in the street that, well, you just can't do anything about. "Just walk on by" he recommends. "Walk on by." Not everyone understands why forthrightness has no place in the criminal law, Orinoco. If your depth of understanding transcends the little people, worry not. Just walk on by.

    Service members released because of pregnancy or because they are disabled almost always receive honorable discharges, but those who are kicked out for drug use or weight problems often end up with the black mark of a dishonorable or less than honorable discharge on their record.
    Above is from an AP story about an increase in enlisted personnel leaving the service. I wouldn't think the military can discriminate between the discharge policy for in-wedlock vs. out-of-wedlock pregnancies (although nothing would surprise me)--but if they did, it seems like the writer would have mentioned that fact instead of just saying "almost all pregnancies get an honorable discharge." The article also says that "general misconduct" is the most common reason for getting kicked out of the military. I doubt the AV had a weight problem :)

    I remembered the adultery stuff from my husband's days in the military, but didn't know if they still discharged for that reason. If it was widely known that another sailor had fathered her child, they may well both have been discharged for adultery.

    As to the naval discharge, the article IMHO links to above in the News Observer says:
    As newlyweds, the couple moved to Concord, Calif., where the woman was assigned to the USS Mount Hood, an ammunition ship. She was often away at sea for days or weeks, and tensions flared in the marriage, her former husband said. "She was young," he said. Along the way, the woman became interested in another sailor, a man who would later father her children, the former husband said. The two separated as the new relationship began, he said. Six months later, she was discharged from the service. A U.S. Navy spokesman would not release the reason for the discharge, though records indicate it came less than nine months before she had her first child, a boy, named after his father. Court records show the divorce became final after she gave birth. She continued her relationship with the sailor, and the two had a second child. Soon after, the couple parted ways.


    If the part of the released transcript of the lineup I just read is accurate, it looks a bit suspect right one the face of it. According to the notes, the AV was shown a Powerpoint presentation of 46 members of the LAX team, but was not told ahead of time how many photos she would be shown. In her ID of the alleged attackers she picked out #'s 4, 5 and 7. The odds of doing that -- that is the odds that all 3 attackers would be entirely among the first 7 shown -- are apparently about 1 in 200. Picking them out that early in the ID process of the lineup looks a bit like a rush to judgment. Also, her comments about Seligmann in particular ring pretty lackluster for a 100% sure ID in a forced oral sex assault. Not "OMG! That's him! That's the one!" No mention of anything he might have done with his hands or fists, how he made her perform the act, or even any specific injuries he might have inflicted on her. Just, "He was the one that was standing in front of me. um...that made me perform oral sex on him. ... That was it." IMAGE 7 (Reade Seligmann) Victim: He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me. Sgt: How sure of that are you? Victim: 100% Sgt: You're a 100% sure. Ok. Victim: Yes. Sgt: How did he assault you? Which one was he? Victim: He was the one that was standing in front of me. um...that made me perform oral sex on him. Sgt: What else did he do? Victim: That was it. That was it? I'd like to know more details about the lineup, but this part -- "...um..." -- doesn't sound like a 100% positive ID to me.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#102)
    by blcc on Sun May 07, 2006 at 12:56:35 PM EST
    I am inclined to be skeptical of the value of new DNA evidence. For one thing, if (as speculated upthread) it is from hair I don't see how that corroborates the AV's story in any significant way. Could she not have acquired hairs on her person while collapsed on the floor, using the probably filthy bathroom, washing up, or changing clothing? More importantly, if these results - and by extension if any of the DA's evidence - were persuasively inculpatory, why postpone the trial until next spring? Is it possible that he perceives an ongoing political benefit to keeping this conflict newsworthy? On a completely different note, I've observed "IMHO" to have several times declared a particular "round" to be over and Nifong to have "won." These announcements appear to follow an internal and somewhat arbitrary criteria, personal to "IMHO". I'm new to this forum, but I'll nonetheless proffer that "IMHO" is not a suitable referee. Nor do I accept these random proclamations and conclusions. In fact, if I may say so it comes across a bit shrill. If this case gets to a trial, then the winner will be decided in that forum and by the jury. Or, to employ a sports analogy that is perhaps a better fit? Even if you "win" the first eight and a half innings in baseball, it just doesn't matter if you lose in the bottom of the ninth.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#103)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    SLO, I have also seen that report. Seligmann's attorneys only released 5 of the 15 pages in that filing so we don't really know what number Finnerty was. He could have been number 40 for all we know. In the lineup process, do they normally make an accuser go through the details that have already been revealed to the police investigators? I don't know but I would imagine she would just have to identify which of the three alleged assaults each of the men were responsible for but not the details. The whole ID process confuses me. If I was at a party with a known guest list but I didn't know the guests names, why can't I just identify the guests from pictures of only them? I understand it is against their normal policy but this situation isn't the same to me as being attacked on a street with no known group of suspects.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#104)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    Could she not have acquired hairs on her person while collapsed on the floor, using the probably filthy bathroom, washing up, or changing clothing?
    blcc, the bathroom situation confuses me as well. If the bathroom was as filthy as we imagine it would be, why wasn't there DNA from many many people in there? If they cleaned it that well (cleaning wipe and paper towels per search warrant), why the heck didn't they throw away the fingernails? It doesn't make sense. As far as the trial being in the spring, I saw the interview on TV where Mr. Nifong was asked about that. He said he expected it to be next spring due to the amount of filings expected. That is confirmed in an article today by a defense attorney. If the defense has a slam dunk case I would think they'd want to go to trial immediately.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    "This will be a long process," said lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents one of the unindicted players. "These cases are very serious cases, and they take time to prepare. And you can expect these lawyers will take their time and they will be prepared on trial day."
    I was going to link the article that stated what I mentioned above, but it's the same one you read.

    Victim: He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me. Sgt: How sure of that are you? Victim: 100% Sgt: You're a 100% sure. Ok. Victim: Yes.
    There's a big difference between being 100% sure that someone looks like someone else and being 100% sure that someone is someone else. Blcc, you wrote:
    why postpone the trial until next spring? Is it possible that he perceives an ongoing political benefit to keeping this conflict newsworthy?
    When Nifong says he doesn't "expect" the trial to begin until spring, it's because he expects to have to all kinds of pre-trial motions by the defense to respond to. Blcc also wrote:
    I am inclined to be skeptical of the value of new DNA evidence.
    The accused had plenty of time to stop at the Cantina for a burrito between the time she left the party and the time the police found her at the shopping center. So if Finnerty's hair was found on her, what would it prove? SLOphoto wrote:
    The odds of doing that -- that is the odds that all 3 attackers would be entirely among the first 7 shown -- are apparently about 1 in 200. Picking them out that early in the ID process of the lineup looks a bit like a rush to judgment.
    Her choices will be quite meaningless without further corroboration. No way to tell whether she eenie meenie miny moe'd it or not. But if dna links one of the three choices she made to her physical person, the odds of that happening by random chance would be quite slim, I would think.

    Orinoco posted:
    Why? Because you have no argument?
    You asked: Did they publicize the Av's past history? Answer: Yes. Proof: KHON TV:
    Before Seligmann and Finnerty were indicted, attorneys for the players pointed to the accuser's criminal history when answering questions about their clients' legal troubles.
    AP:
    "This woman will have to testify, and it's valid to ask her if she's made any false accusations," said attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents a player who has not been charged and said the decade-old report raises "real issues about her credibility."


    Teresa: As usual you have good and thoughtful reflections on the point being considered. As I said, I would like to know more about the lineup process. As to the question of the guest list, I think the matter goes to credibility of the AV. Show somebody a series of pictures of only the LAX team, and she is almost certain to pick someone who was there. There is virtually no way to immediately exclude any LAX player present that night as a false positive ID. The ONLY solid alibi for any LAX member that night is 1) he was demonstrably not at the party at all, or 2) he was black. Including non-LAX players in the lineup would have allowed for a FAR greater chance of the AV making a 100% ID of a completely false positive, someone who was not there at all and was not even part of the LAX team. One or two of those kinds of false positive IDs would have discredited the AV as a reliable eyewitness of the events. And a rape charge upon her word alone would likely not have been enough for the grand jury to indict specific individuals at this point.

    PB, Well, "if dna links one of the three choices she made to her physical person, the odds of that happening by random chance would be" ... 1 in 46, exactly

    Or 3 in 46 if you count any of the three players.

    Your question:
    Did they publicize the Av's past history?
    Answer: Yes.

    Bob, Both the nursing home incident and the Naval discharge are covered in this article: Mother, dancer, accuser

    To put it in practical perspective that is less than the odds of flipping a coin and getting heads four times in a row.

    Orinoco posted:
    How could they publicize the Av's record if it is already publicized by someone else?
    publicize: to bring to the attention of the public To publicize something you only need to bring it to the attention of the public. You do not have to be the first person to do so. The defense attorneys were clearly publicizing the accuser's past to discredit her.

    "Special Report With Brit Hume" from April 18, 2006
    HUME: We have DNA, we just don't have a match?
    KENDALL: No match whatsoever. But the DA is supposedly -- my sources tell me -- running tests, not a second round on the DNA that they took from the cheek swabs, but a hair test. Some of the players were forced to turn over hair, normal hair and pubic hair and those are going to be tested against what was found on the victim.


    IMHO: This is what you wrote: "If this goes to trial and the defense tries to use her prior convictions to discredit her - attack her credibility and character, I think it will back-fire on them. The more I read about this incident the more respect I have for her." I then gave you reasons why questions about her character, even her sanity, may further dent her credibility. While you think that it's good that she paid back the cab driver for the damage she did to his car when she stole it, most people might think that's the least she should do. In fact, some people think that stealing a car shows a lack of good character. My guess is that none of the people who will sit on that jury have ever stolen a car or would want their cars to be stolen and would view drunken car thieves who try to drive over cops with a bit of skepticism. Someone who reports a gang rape and then doesn't pursue the matter, who then reports murder attempt against her (or murder threat) and then doesn't pursue it suggests she may have a character flaw. If those two claims of criminal behavior against her weren't important enough for her to pursue, were they real? Someone who was hospitalized a year ago for a mental illness after all of the above suggests to the casual observer that the AV has a number of problems with crediblity, misuse of the legal system, and the tendency to behave criminally and irrationally when high, and they all seem to stem from some kind of underlying mental illness. Think about how the strip club owner said how she was "acting funny" before she stole the taxicab. It suggests an extreme irrationality when under the influence. And on the night of the alleged rape she was under the influence of something. If she's crazy enough to steal a car and risk other people's lives by leading the cops on a drunken car chase, why wouldn't she be capable of lying about a rape? She may have already lied about a gang rape before. Sorry, I don't see her as a hero of life's outrageous slings and arrows. At best, she's a victim who has a record of blaming others for her own actions. I don't think her past history will backfire on the defense at all. I just don't think that much of it will be admissible. +++ Since this was a discussion about character and not evidence, all of the above means nothing towards whether or not a rape occurred. If there is hard evidence to prove a rape, all of the above doesn't matter. If the case depends on the jury believing her in the absence of evidence, I doubt it would win.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#112)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    As to the question of the guest list, I think the matter goes to credibility of the AV. Show somebody a series of pictures of only the LAX team, and she is almost certain to pick someone who was there.
    That's true. If she is lying, picking one of the players doesn't prove it. I don't think a jury would convict these players just on this ID alone though but I do understand your point. Do we know for sure that the lineup consisted of all the players? If it did, her odds of picking one who wasn't there at all (not one just not there at possibly the wrong time) would seem pretty high also. According to the players, many of their teammates had already left before the dancers arrived so she got lucky when she picked one that was at the party, even if the hosts had forgotten that he was there. I'm not saying the lineup was fair, just that it is odd that she picked him yet the captains hadn't remembered he was there. I often wonder about the cameras that were taken in the first search. If there are any pictures of the party, would the investigators have shown them to her when going over her timeline of events? If they did she would know who was there while she was.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    I laid out why a happy news story about the AV which relied on her father's observations doesn't necessarily translate to 12 people on a jury who will believe her in the absence of evidence. Maybe that cheery story that she paid a court-ordered restitution and took her kids to the bus stop to catch the school bus will convince the 12 people on the jury that a rape occurred. I'd hope they'd want some evidence too.
    My post had nothing to do with the evidence. It was about the accuser's credibility/character issues. I picked up a few things about the accuser's character from the story of her four misdemeanor convictions. The jurors might too. Defense attorneys have floated the idea that the accuser picked out Finnerty and Seligmann because they are two of the wealthier team members. Too me, the accuser doesn't sound like someone that would be prone to this type of scheme. The jurors might agree. They may share the same ideas I have about the character of people who admit when they have done wrong, are willing to pay the consequences, that strive to pay their bills, take care of their children, and further their education.

    Orinoco, Do you have a source for this?
    general discharge (not honorable)from the navy for fathering a child out of wedlock.
    She was actually still married when she gave birth. The Navy would have to perform an invasive procedure to prove that the fetus was not her husband's. She may have told them it was not his. I doubt "fathering a child out of wedlock" was the reason for her discharge.

    As to the other delicate question,
    Do all of these acts have to be taking place at once?

    Teresa, do you see any way a rape could have happened before 12:03, even if they arrived at the party at 11:30?

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#114)
    by blcc on Sun May 07, 2006 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    Teresa, Given the conventional wisdom that defense attorneys generally move to postpone trials whereas prosecutors prefer to move them forward, it seems less remarkable. However, you're right to point out the defense has an interest in postponing the trial until spring. Can someone with a criminal law background flesh out the scenarios around pretrail motions/filings a little more? For example, it's been speculated that the defense will dispute the legitimacy of the photo ID process. Does this have to be a motion to exclude at trial or could such a motion be filed in advance? If it could be filed in advance, why hasn't it been done already? Are they waiting for a third indictment or is there some strategic value in waiting until closer to the trial date? Despite conventional wisdom, I could understand that the accused might prefer (at least on some level) to have this over and done with as soon as possible. Were I in their shoes, the derailment of my academic career for over a year would seem like insult added to injury. (Assuming, of course, that I were innocent.)

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#115)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    Teresa, do you see any way a rape could have happened before 12:03, even if they arrived at the party at 11:30?
    No, not unless they changed the time on the pictures. Even then, I don't think so.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#116)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    About the lineup. Is it possible that the accuser had already identified at least two of the accused from pictures the DA has in his possession (if any)? Could she just have been looking at the lineup to determine who was at the party since the DA knew from the player's list that they missed at least one? If you read this description of the lineup they were asking her to identify who was at the party, not who raped her. If she and Kim had already looked at other pictures for the investigators, could they have just been looking for any attendees who were not in those pictures but who they saw there? Is it against some kind of procedure to show any pictures of the party to the accuser while doing the actual investigation? Since they were still trying to find out who was at the party just before the indictments, it seems they weren't totally accepting of the list the captains had given them. Is a lineup actually required when there is other means of identification? Was this lineup not a lineup in the traditional sense but more of an identification of the attendees? If so, would the DA have given this to the defense now rather than wait until May 15 with all the other evidence? www.wral.com

    SLOphoto, You wrote:
    PB, Well, "if dna links one of the three choices she made to her physical person, the odds of that happening by random chance would be" ... 1 in 46, exactly
    Well, exactly is a bit severe. Let's say you had an urn with 46 numbered balls in it. And I wrote a number between 0 and 47 on a piece of paper, and had you pick 3 balls. You theoretically would, in that case, have "exactly" a 3 in 46 chance of picking a ball that matched the number I had written, if you chose randomly. But that's not analogous to the what we have here. Not because the powerpoint presentation isn't analogous to the urn, but because the manner in which hair would come to be located on the defendant is not analogous to my picking a value between 0 and 47. To make it analogous I would have to be allowed to pick "48", for example. And I could pick two or three numbers, instead of just one. We also have to take into account "0", no?

    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    At best, she's a victim who has a record of blaming others for her own actions.
    At best? I have no trouble thinking better of her than that. I see no evidence that she blames others for her actions. Obviously she has had a few occasions to blame others for their actions, and she may or may not regret having run off with the guys cab. I personally see more evidence of mental illness on this board than I do in her. At worst? Well, I don't need to go there. Just type her name in a search engine if you want to see people dirty her down. They do a much better job than anyone here does. Seeing what this woman gets to go through regardless of the validity of her complaint makes me sympathize more with someone like Cynthia McKinney. Where else but Congress can you find a similar demographic to what those strippers faced that night?

    blcc posted:
    More importantly, if these results - and by extension if any of the DA's evidence - were persuasively inculpatory, why postpone the trial until next spring? Is it possible that he perceives an ongoing political benefit to keeping this conflict newsworthy?
    from the same article blcc linked:
    After that flurry of activity, Thomas said it could take nine months to deal with pretrial motions and other issues connected with the case. That includes a motion filed by Seligmann's attorney, Kirk Osborn, seeking to throw out the photo identifications made by the accuser.
    blcc posted:
    I've observed "IMHO" to have several times declared a particular "round" to be over and Nifong to have "won." These announcements appear to follow an internal and somewhat arbitrary criteria, personal to "IMHO". I'm new to this forum, but I'll nonetheless proffer that "IMHO" is not a suitable referee. Nor do I accept these random proclamations and conclusions. In fact, if I may say so it comes across a bit shrill.
    If this case gets to a trial, then the winner will be decided in that forum and by the jury.
    Oh my! Have you mistaken me for a juror? If that were the case, my comments would be highly irregular, but since this is a blog, I think we can all assume unless one's comments are placed in the conveniently supplied "Quote" format, they are the commenter's opinion. Other commenters are not required to "accept these random proclamations and conclusions." In my case, I don't even encourage them to do so. As for my scorecard, I guess I could have used a lot more words to state the obvious: Despite certain defense attorneys' efforts to undermine Nifong's campaign by criticizing his handling of the case, even stooping to filing their Motion to Dismiss the District Attorney the day before the election, he has emerged victorious. Rather than proceeding against a lame duck, they are instead a facing an emboldened and confident Nifong. But, unfortunately, I chose to go with the shrill: ROUND THREE: NIFONG

    blcc posted:
    I am inclined to be skeptical of the value of new DNA evidence. For one thing, if (as speculated upthread) it is from hair I don't see how that corroborates the AV's story in any significant way. Could she not have acquired hairs on her person while collapsed on the floor, using the probably filthy bathroom, washing up, or changing clothing?
    Part of the SANE exam involves combing of the alleged victims pubic hair. The hair they might be testing might have come from that procedure. Another rumored source of new DNA results is a DNA sample found under the victims fingernails: 'Sex, Lies & Duke'
    "There may be DNA. In this first round of tests, they did find DNA under the woman's fingernails. But the tests, as to whose it was, were inconclusive," she said." There are new tests that are expected back," she adds, and these tests could lead to other conclusions.


    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    At best, she's a victim who has a record of blaming others for her own actions.
    A record of blaming others for her own actions? I can't even think of one instance. Can you?

    Naughty, naughty, Orinoco, someone deleted your tattletale post. I never saw it myself, but I have friends in low places that took a screen shot for me. You know where to find it.

    Hi Orinoco, While I'm proud to be associated with feminism, I'm not sure what you're hoping to change my mind about. I've got no strong opinion on whether the rape occurred. I'm not smart enough to figure that particular detail out at this distance. If I don't trust your interpretations its because you are both loose with the facts, fast with the innuendo, and out-of control with the hyperbole. Plus, anyone who tosses the word feminism around as if it were an insult definitely has their underwear on backwards. Do me a favor. Don't take a job in the criminal law.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    I don't think there's anything short of the accuser recanting to change the resident feminists' minds. Even that I'm not sure is enough.
    Orinoco, I have stated several times that if I were a juror right now there is no question I'd find the accused innocent. What we are doing on this blog is debating the various evidence and coming up with scenarios to make it fit. If the huge majority were debating on the side of the accuser, I'd probably be debating the other side. I don't think there's anything short of a video tape of a rape that would convince you or Nice Guy that a rape occurred. I don't think that of most posters. Go back and read all the posts over the last 5 or 6 weeks.

    The inscrutable Orinoco posted:
    I don't think there's anything short of the accuser recanting to change the resident feminists' minds. Even that I'm not sure is enough.
    Huh? What about declaring Nifong's victory a blow to the defense earns me the label of "resident feminist?" Change my mind about what? You mean from not knowing who's lying to knowing who's lying? I already told you I do not know if the players are guilty of any kind of sexual assault and I do not know if the accuser is lying.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#126)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    Ron/Rod? Wheeler, former detective talking head on Fox just said he heard from a police person in Durham that there is a cooperating witness from the team. He said this isn't speculation on his part that he was actually told this from the source.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lora on Sun May 07, 2006 at 06:50:27 PM EST
    Being a feminist (and I am proudly one) has nothing to do with whether or not I think a rape occurred. Different people look at different evidence and opinions to come up with what they think happened. Although I think a rape happened because of the descriptions given of the AV's injuries, I do not consider it proven at all. I would be considerably relieved to be proven wrong, because if she truly was seriously harmed, I am afraid that it will impact her life in a negative way for a very long time, worse than any false allegation of rape will for the Duke athletes, and I'm not discounting the serious effect that that would have. I just think violent rape and assault is so very much worse. So, the best outcome I can hope for is that she was lying, and that her injuries were far less than I think they are, and could be explained by consenual sex and falling while impaired. This really has nothing to do with feminism at all. This has to do with caring about other human beings. I do care about the ordeal the lacrosse players have had to undergo. Most if not all of them are truly innocent of these serious crimes, and their lives have been changed for the worse because of the accusations.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#128)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    Nice post Lora and I agree.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#129)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 07:03:58 PM EST
    He didn't give any details Orinoco. He just seemed kind of pumped about it.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#130)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    If (big if) this was true Orinoco and there really was a rape, please don't consider him a pigeon. He would be doing the right think you know.

    Orinoco posted:
    How did the pigeon explain Seliegeman's alibi?
    Do us all a favor. Don't take a job in criminal law.

    If (big if) this was true Orinoco and there really was a rape, please don't consider him a pigeon. He would be doing the right think you know.
    Agreed.

    How did the pigeon explain Seliegeman's alibi? Or did he come out after the photo id/indictment? Was he involved enough to ID anyone?
    I don't think anyone knows, but the potential reasons are countless. It's possible this person came forward after the indictments because he knows they indicted the wrong person. Or maybe he came forward when he realized that the defense would probably get a guilty person set free. Who knows?

    Orinoco posted:
    I could become a lawyer, for the mob. hey, it pays well
    Just don't do it Durham County - you don't want Nifong to get a piece of you.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#135)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    I agree with hues. I tend to believe the alibi unless it's proven wrong to me so it may be to help him out of a false charge. It may be that this person saw some stuff that makes him think something happened or it may be something he heard. If Seligmann didn't do it, it must be what hues said. Or it could be a plant from the DA to put pressure on the other guys.

    O
    If Nifong has a inside witness, why would he press these public urination charges?
    Maybe that's how he got the inside witness. For Joe lax player who is supposed to start work at Goldman Sachs in June, even a minor conviction like that could cost him his job. Same thing if he's going to law school in the fall.

    St. John's LAX gang rape trial:
    During the two years that followed the accusation, three of the suspects were acquitted at trial. Four others pleaded to lesser charges, under plea agreements in which they acknowledged guilt.


    If (big if) this was true Orinoco and there really was a rape, please don't consider him a pigeon. He would be doing the right thing you know.
    He would be doing the right thing even if there was not a rape.

    PB, I guess you followed the conversation between IMHO and myself. It was about whether or not if the defense exposed the AV's background it would backfire on them. I said that although I didn't think that much if any of it would get into the trial that her record would not necessarily engender sympathy with the public. But try this as a construction of the AV's past life by the defense: The AV made criminal charges against four men and then did not follow through with any of those charges. Did she lie? According to the father, she did in fact lie about the first gang rape. That's blaming someone else for your problems whatever they may have been. Did she lie about her husband threatening (or attempting) to kill her? She didn't bother following through with charges against her husband either. If he were really threatening (or trying) to kill her, how come she walked away from the charges? Was she suddenly sure he wouldn't do anything, or did she know she was safe because he never threatened her? Well, maybe she got what she wanted in the divorce. In other words, maybe the death threat she claimed he made never happened and making up a story about it was part of her negotiating the divorce. So this woman has twice before (three times if we count her dust up with the nursing home) made police complaints and then walked away from them. It's a pattern of playing the system. You could say she was blaming others for her own problems, or to solve her own problems, or blaming others for things that didn't happen, which is a problem in and of itself. (We'll skip the whole car theft incident. I'm sure you agree stealing cars and driving drunk and trying to run over a cop is not a mark of good citizenship.) We know that she was so mentally ill last year that she was hospitalized for it. That suggests something very, very serious. Was she threatening suicide? Was she not clear as to who she was or what she was doing? Being hospitalized for mental illness in America today is serious because our medical system lets all kinds of mentally ill people wander the streets homeless to fend for themselves. This woman had parents to care for her and they still hospitalized her. That's a wild card whatever her diagnosis is. Her father says she finished taking her medicine and she's all better. Except that most mental illnesses serious enough to be hospitalized for require medications forever. You don't cure bipolar disorder or schizophrenia with two weeks of medicine. So on the night of the alleged rape she is so high that she doesn't even know she's walking around on one shoe for her time at the party. If she were raped there between 12:03 and 12:30 she didn't seem to remember when she tried to get back into the house alone minutes later. Think about it. The AV was just raped, leaves the house without telling anyone, including the woman she is with, and tries to go back into the house alone. That's pretty high to be that removed from reality. If at 12:30 she didn't know she had been raped moments before, if she walked around not knowing she was missing one shoe, how does she remember two hours later that she was raped? Roberts drives her to Kroger's. The AV can't remember where she lives because she's so high, and she won't get out of Roberts' car until a policeman pulls her out of it. She is taken to a drunk tank. Is she in trouble? The last time she was drunk stripping she stole a taxicab. What did she do this time? She's been unconscious in Roberts' car. Maybe she's had a blackout and doesn't remember anything. Maybe drinking makes her mental condition worse. A cop's taken her into custody and she's not thinking clearly. What does she do when she's in trouble? She blames someone else. Heck, she used the gang rape excuse before, why not again? Except this time someone takes her seriously and so the rape scenario continues, not because she is brave but because she's too afraid to admit that nothing happened and doesn't know how to get out of her latest mess. +++ Of course, she could also have been the unfortunate victim of a rape. The evidence will prove or disprove the case. But I do believe her past history if allowed could very well damage her credibility at trial. It won't matter if there's matching DNA, or eyewitness testimony or a photo of the dirty deed being committed. But if Nifong has the AV saying she was raped and the evidence doesn't back it up, the case is toast.

    If a threat of perjury or aiding and abetting didn't do it, why would public urination be more effective?
    For there to be perjury, the player would have to lie under oath. And he's only going to be under oath if he's called to testify before the grand jury or at trial. The grand jury is a possibility, though a slim one. Trial is absolutely out, the number one rule of litigation is not to ask questions at trial if you don't know the answer - it almost always backfires. As for aiding and abetting, the penalties for that are the same as the underlying crime. It takes more than just staying silent. Silence almost never fulfills the act requirement that's required for every crime. Contempt of court is one of the rare exceptions - but contempt it a really weird legally speaking. Not all contempt is a crime per se.

    Seeing what I have seen of Nifong, I'll gladly take my chances.
    Have you read what defense attorneys in Durham have to say about him?

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    According to the father, she did in fact lie about the first gang rape. That's blaming someone else for your problems whatever they may have been.
    Huh?

    But a cooperating witness? That would be something! What network was this reported on? Oh, FOX... You know, they didn't get the WMDs right. I think the War on Christmas thing wasn't very accurate either. They were good in giving Delay's side of the story before he had to resign. Hmmm. Haven't done much good reporting about the NSA spying. In fact, somebody needs to tell me the last time that FOX actually reported anything right. A former detective is pumped about a cooperating witness. If he were a current detective he couldn't talk, so a former detective is leaked information that he can't know first-hand because he's no longer a detective. Hmmm. It would be something. If not, then maybe it's a strategy by Nifong to break the wall of silence. I guess Nifong couldn't keep leaking things to the family and the New Black Panthers, and Gloria Allred isn't in town.

    Huh?
    The father was quoted as saying "those boys didn't do anything to her" or something like that regarding the old rape allegation. Later someone from the family explained that they never told the dad about it because they thought he'd do something stupid or get himself hurt. It's not exactly unheard of for rape victims to keep the details hidden from their parents.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    So this woman has twice before (three times if we count her dust up with the nursing home) made police complaints and then walked away from them. It's a pattern of playing the system. You could say she was blaming others for her own problems, or to solve her own problems, or blaming others for things that didn't happen, which is a problem in and of itself.
    Huh? You still haven't come up with an example of her record for blaming others for her problems.

    Hi huesofblue, Thanks. I was asking Bob how this:
    According to the father, she did in fact lie about the first gang rape.
    translates to this:
    That's blaming someone else for your problems whatever they may have been.


    IMHO, You make a false rape accusation, you are blaming someone else for a serious problem that you have. Her father said something to the effect that "those boys did nothing to her." So if you believe the dad, take your pick. She lied or she hallucinated. You might want to go back and look at the context of the snippet you pulled from the post, though.

    BIP
    I guess Nifong couldn't keep leaking things to the family and the New Black Panthers, and Gloria Allred isn't in town.
    Leaking makes it sound so sorrid. At least with respect to the family, there's nothing wrong with a prosecutor keeping the AV and chief witness updated on the status of her case. If the AV is hearing about the defense case in the news and is starting to consider not testifying, what's wrong with the prosecutor sitting down with her and saying, "You won't be alone when you testify. I have A, B, and C as evidence, and all of it supports what you've told me." ? it's what a prosecutor should do in those circumstances. Leaking to the black panthers might be a different matter, but that story just smells made up.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#149)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    Bob, I agree with you on Fox's political reporting. On this kind of crime/human interest type thing I don't think they're any worse than anyone else. This former detective/talking head heard this directly from someone in Durham law enforcement, but I agree it could be Nifong's way of pressuring the players. (You don't really believe he showed the NBP evidence do you?)

    Compared to this public urination is a piddling charge. I don't think Goldman has ever been concerned with anything as trivial as that.
    You may be right. I've said before that I think it's unlikely this goroup could or would keep it secret if something bad really did happen. As for the other part . . . taking "duke lacrosse team" off your resume wil be enough to give you a clean slate going forward. No one off campus knows the names of any of these guys. A conviction on your record is there for life. As for an i-bank, I don't know what the exact standards are but analysts work with a lot of VERY sensitive information. Given the intense scrutiny the financial services industry has been under the last 5 years, I'd be really surprised if extensive background checks weren't part of the application process. If an analyst gets involved in insider trading, the bank might be open to liability if it failed to excercise due diligence in hiring - that's why an otherwise meaningless charge might be important.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#151)
    by Lora on Sun May 07, 2006 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    Bob, The husband didn't exactly deny her accusation. It's fairly common to call the police in a domestic dispute and then not follow through with charges. It really doesn't show she's lying. Her car theft incident could be nothing more than a mark of being really really drunk, and really impulsive. Mental illness does not predispose one to lie. While suicidal behavior is often concurrent with mental illness, it is not in itself considered a mental illness. Addiction is another possible reason for hospitalization. The whole shoe thing...is it confirmed that she had one shoe on the entire night? If she ran out because she was scared after the broom "joke" was made, she might have understandably not stopped to take off her remaining shoe. If she had been raped and assaulted, she might have been way too stunned to try to take it off. It could explain why she appeared to be stumbling around and why she fell, if she did fall. One high-heeled shoe could do that. And maybe if she was raped, attempting to go back for her other shoe could be a coping behavior to try and normalize a horrific experience. If I can just get my shoe back, everything will be all right. Maybe not too likely, but possible. Just lying to get out of being caught high or drunk is a possibility, if her injuries weren't really as bad or as fresh as those who examined her and spoke to her apparently think. But...to come up with all that story, and fingernail evidence, and fake hysteria for 5 hours while having very real injuries to show, and hold off mentioning who attacked you? If you're going to cry rape, I would think you'd be not only acting hurt and afraid, but angry too. You'd say where you were raped, even if you weren't too sure about who did it. You'd say, "I got raped and beat up at that party! I'm not sure who did it, there were three guys, it was dark...." You would do more than just scream and holler for 5 hours. That's hard to fake.

    Teresa, if you are right about the cooperating team member, then I guess we will all get a chance to renew our speculations here. It should be very interesting. Orinoco and huesofblue you both raise good skeptical questions about what this cooperating witness might have to offer. IMHO: Yes, he did say "pigeon." Your droll wit sometimes goes so under appreciated. But I personally find it sidesplitting hilarious. Bob in Pacifica: Your very detailed and careful construction of the negative picture of the AVs character is a very well done perspective. I personally think that you are pretty astute as to how a jury is likely to view those things, rather than a group of more or less open-minded blog contributors. Not that I don't think that a positive view could not also be painted of her, because I do believe that it could. IMHO: I agree with you that I don't really see where any of this really shows that she is blaming others for her problems. But I think Bob made it clear he was being specific to juries, and how juries might view that interpretation. From having sat on three juries myself, I know that juries can pick up on and associate a lot of little nuances in the form of, "Did you notice the tone in her voice while she was saying that particular phrase? And remember that this is a person who LAUGHED when she tried to run down a policeman." It is not that I ever saw jurors deciding a case based on trivia, it's just that little things will often set the tone for their further consideration of the overall evidence. And in that view I think Bob's construction is well considered. In my own view by far the worst of the character flaws lie with Kim Roberts. She embezzled $25,000 from her employer using an inside position of trust in the company to do it and did so over an extended period of time. As I think back on the jury situations I've been in she would probably be seen as a self-serving, opportunist, habitual liar, capable of stealing repeatedly from people who trusted her and lying to them in their faces on a daily basis as she did it. Whatever Kim is saying right now, she would probably be viewed as looking out for Kim's own opportunities first and foremost, and if her testimony may be helpful to the AV, then it is only incidental to how well that testimony works for Kim. Just my viewpoint, but that's how I see it.

    huesofblue, This began awhile back from a post by IMHO regarding whether or not it would backfire for the defense to use the AV's history. If you go back along the thread, you will see that I said that I doubt that much of it will get into trial, and that any witnesses, solid DNA evidence or photos of the crime would make any character issues moot. In fact, the only way character issues would have much play here is in weighing the AV and defendants' credibility in lieu of solid evidence. And I've said that we don't know what Nifong has. That said, IF the AV's history were allowed in, a good defense attorney could string her interactions with the police and her mental health issues to create a logical narrative that shows she is not a credible witness, that she has a history of false reporting of crimes, that she acts irrationally and feloniously when intoxicated and that she may very well be mentally ill. If you're making up stories about other people treating you badly, you have an underlying problem of your own which you have not addressed. That is, blaming someone else for your own problems. Of course, I know nothing other than what I see reported, so I don't know if her father is right or wrong about the first gang rape report, and obviously don't know the details about anything in her life, like none of us here do. I'm just saying that smearing an accuser in a rape trial is a well-honed strategy and this AV has given the defense a lot to work with. Unlike IMHO I don't think it would be a strategic error to use her history if there were reason and it were admissible. Hope you understand now. I invite you to go back and reread the posts so that you understand the context.

    SLOphoto posted:
    And remember that this is a person who LAUGHED when she tried to run down a policeman."
    This was a calculated move on her part. She knew it would bolster her attorney's argument that this was not a car theft, but merely a joyride.

    SLOphoto, thank you for reading what I wrote and understanding the context. Sometimes people's use of drop quotes ignore the context. This was a discussion going back to this morning about the use of the AV's history by the defense. Not that the negative version I have presented is true or false, just that she has a history that can be exploited by a defense.

    IMHO, I'm sure the cop wasn't laughing. I wonder if this helped bolster a plea that she was crazy.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    Teresa, if you are right about the cooperating team member, then I guess we will all get a chance to renew our speculations here. It should be very interesting.
    SLO, that's just what I heard the TH on Fox say. I will watch a replay of that show (I think that part should be in about 45 minutes) to be sure that I heard what I'm sure I heard. If this is true, I think it's either one of the captains (who had their cameras taken) or another senior, or it is a player who is not a senior but will be transferring from Duke as fast as he can. I've about decided that it's a bluff. If it isn't and there really is a player, then I have to consider that this rape really did happen. Even though I've argued that it could have, I haven't really considered that it did.

    Lora, I'm not sure where you came up with the 5 hours of screaming from, but I gather it is allegedly true. I probably missed the first post. But it does address one thought that has lingered with me throughout this whole discussion. Whatever else may or may not have happened that night, the AV was stoned "out of it" at Krogers. From there on she was going into withdrawal symptoms. People have talked a lot about the effects of these date rape drugs, but no one as I recall has talked about the withdrawal effects. I wonder how much of her screaming was due to distortions and hallucinations of the withdrawal process, combined with her fright of finding herself in an awkward situation with the police, as opposed to the actual traumatic events that allegedly occurred?

    Bob In Pacifica
    I totally understood what you were saying. I actually agree. It's the defense lawyers' job to call the accuser's credibility into question and they should be zealous in doing it. Inmyhumbleopinion quoted the sentence about the dad saying the first alleged rape didn't happen, and wrote "Huh?" I misunderstood and thought he didn't know the story behind the quote. That's all my post was about. But there are things that the defense needs to be really careful about when they do this. They need to be smart in selecting in the facts that they use to tarnish her credibility. Showing one solid instance of the victim lying will be a lot more effective than showing one solid instance and three weak instances that the prosecutor can pick apart.

    Now IMHO and Bob! Squabbling again I see. My own use of that part about how she "LAUGHED" at a policeman was in the context of an imaginary juror phrasing it that way. Nothing to do with what really happened between the AV and the officer that night, or why she told her lawyer that.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, You make a false rape accusation, you are blaming someone else for a serious problem that you have.
    We don't know it is a false accusation. What problem was she blaming on the people she says raped her? Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Her father said something to the effect that "those boys did nothing to her." So if you believe the dad, take your pick. She lied or she hallucinated.
    This discrepancy has been explained many times here. The mother said they didn't tell the father because they were afraid he would drive to Creedmore and confront the boyfriend and get himself hurt. The father is described as being "120 lbs, dripping wet." You devote two paragraphs to how high she was, but we don't even know how she got high. Kim says she was fine when they met. The defense attorneys have her painting her nails. How blotto could she have been at the beginning of the party? How do we explain her rapid decline of her condition? Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, I'm sure the cop wasn't laughing. I wonder if this helped bolster a plea that she was crazy.
    I was joking, Bob. She was turning around on a dead end road. It was plead to a misdemeanor, do you think if anyone thought she was actually trying to run over a police office it would have been plead down? NFW. [No (bad word) Way] No, she did not enter an insanity plea. She was given a break because she admitted wrong doing, had no priors, was in school and was working in a local industry (not as a lap dancer - she blew that job interview).

    SLOphoto posted:
    Now IMHO and Bob!
    Squabbling again I see.
    You are so kind, SLOphoto, that I will stop to give you some peace.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#164)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    IF the DA has evidence that proves without a doubt that she was raped, I don't think her past is that big of a deal. I think her ability to identify the attackers is where the defense could cast doubt on her. Without solid evidence of a rape, I don't see anyway possible that she can win a he said/she said case.

    The "source" within the team isn't acting only to prevent the indictment of the innocent Seligmann--if he were, then he would first wait for the May 15 DNA to come out and see if the guilty and innocent were sorted out by that. Bear in mind that the source, if he exists, could simply be giving a list of who was and wasn't at the party at the time when the rape allegedly occurred rather than witnessing anything positive. Of course, since Nifong was so sure that the first round of DNA would be definitive, you can't trust anything he says until you see it with your own eyes.

    Teresa, Let me pose this question to you. What about the possibility that a few of the LAX players decided to drug the women, but not for purposes of rape? What if -- harsh but possible -- the LAX players expected to see white strippers show up. When nonwhite strippers arrive, they try to act cool about it, but they are really sort of angry about it. Suppose that the AV is showing apparent signs that she arrived under the influence, and she can't even start her routine. Now some of the LAX players feel really cheated on their money, and they start looking for individual ways to express that anger. Some shout angry words. Some mull around and wonder what to do next. Some get disgusted and leave. But some decide that since one of the nonwhite strippers is already out of it, then let's slip both of them some drugs as an imagined pay back. Maybe send them on their way whacked out of it on a drug, or maybe worse, but maybe still not rape. I am inclined to believe that at least some of the LAX players did something in the form of a pretty vicious prank. I don't know what they intended by it. I'm just not certain that they intended taking a chance at VD from two nonwhite escorts (i.e. - "prostitutes" to the LAX players), let alone face a possible rape charge. Particularly not Reade Seligmann with his frequent calls to his girlfriend right around that time. That's why I am so interested to learn what this alleged cooperating witness actually has to offer.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#167)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    Rogan, Why would he have had any anticipation of DNA results yielding anything helpful to the DA (or to Seligmann)? I really didn't and I'm still not sure it will be helpful. Especially if you're saying the new results might help Seligmann when the first set that was said at the time to be negative didn't? He still got indicted. If I knew my friend was innocent, I'd spill it right away and not hope that his DNA that didn't show up the first time won't show up the second time either.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#168)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    I've thought about that too SLO. Maybe they slipped her something anticipating a really active two women sex show. But that wouldn't explain how she got injuries "consistent" with rape. If anything did happen, I think it's a very small group of the guys and most were probably truly not aware of anything that bad happening.

    SLOphoto posted:
    From there on she was going into withdrawal symptoms.
    Where did you hear that?

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#170)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 09:51:16 PM EST
    Fox News - Rod Wheeler (not Ron). He does have a source IN the police dept who told him this directly. He cannot comfirm if this is true yet from more than the one source. The former prosecutor talking head says she has word that the accuser is going to stick with it. She also mentioned the broom, so I'm not sure how much this lady really knows.

    IMHO: I didn't hear that. I simply made the extrapolation. All recreational drugs that produce a high produce some sort of unpleasant withdrawal effect afterwards. At least I'm unaware of any that do not. With some drugs it is worse than others. You were the one that told me about how powerful were some of the effects of the date rape drugs. I extrapolated partially on your descriptions. If I erred as to the possibility of how strong that withdrawal might be, well, then I erred.

    I just saw the program Teresa reported on. As usual, she got it all right. How obnoxious is Yale Galanter?

    Teresa
    But that wouldn't explain how she got injuries "consistent" with rape.
    They keep mentioneing that she worked at an escort agency. I don't have any knowledge on this, but I always thought "escort" was code for prostitute. At any given moment, I'd imagine most prostitutes have injuries consistent with rape. I don't want to call this woman a prostitute, but if I heard escort that's what I'd ordinarly think.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#174)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:01:44 PM EST
    How obnoxious is Yale Galanter
    Very. I see he's switching networks tonight. I'm sure I'd want him on my side if I needed a defense lawyer but his voice is hard for this southern girl to hear. (And I was married to a Jersey boy once but Yale's accent just kills me.) He is so sure the DA is looking for an exit strategy and to me he looks like he's just gearing up.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#175)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    They keep mentioneing that she worked at an escort agency. I don't have any knowledge on this, but I always thought "escort" was code for prostitute. At any given moment, I'd imagine most prostitutes have injuries consistent with rape. I don't want to call this woman a prostitute, but if I heard escort that's what I'd ordinarly think.
    I guess it depends on how severe the injuries really are. If they are an everyday thing I don't see how she could keep her job (if that's what she was doing) and a boyfriend while she had injuries that are too severe. It would seem she could only work every few weeks if that kind of injury was common. I would think that the defense (and DA) would find out who her last client was and test him and the boyfriend as well if the injuries are recent. Can you imagine how many experts will be reviewing those pictures if this goes to trial? If she is lying, she needs to get out of this before that evidence is turned over to fifty defense lawyers.

    Teresa
    I would think that the defense (and DA) would find out who her last client was and test him and the boyfriend as well if the injuries are recent. Can you imagine how many experts will be reviewing those pictures if this goes to trial? If she is lying, she needs to get out of this before that evidence is turned over to fifty defense lawyers.
    I dont' think a defense lawyer can order anyone to give a blood or semen sample. They'd have to give it voluntarily I think. I doubt the defense would call the AV's boyfriend as a witness, as they'd run a huge risk of him testifying in a way that helps his GF. As to former clients, they'd have to find someone who'd be willing to have their name and picture published all over the country after testify that they had sex with a prostitute in court. Forcing them to testify would only get you a pissed off witness with a reason to lie. It's kind of a lose / lose situation.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#178)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:35:57 PM EST
    Yeah, you're right hues. But how can the defense in a rape case say any injuries are from someone else with no proof at all? If they were saying it was consensual, I could see them saying it's just rough sex but they are saying there was no sex.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#179)
    by chew2 on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:38:04 PM EST
    Regarding the AV's past history. I think the great majority of it will be excluded as not sufficiently relevant to the current case to bear on whether the AV's current allegation of rape is false. The 2002 conviction for stealing the car may be used to impeach the AV's credibility on cross-examination only. Under North Carolina cases interpreting the rape shield rule, if the prior rape allegation can first be shown by definitive evidence to be false, it could be asked about on cross only. The father's alleged statement that she wasn't raped, almost certainly isn't admissible to show falsity, since he probably has no personal knowledge. If the AV testifies that the prior rape occurred, I think it's very unlikely the defense could carry its burden of showing the prior rape claim was false. Defenders of the lacrosse team point to these bad acts in the AV's past.
    -1993 while 14, dating adult boyfriend. Severe depression according to family. -1996 accusing said boyfriend of gang rape; never follow-through. -general discharge (not honorable)from the navy for fathering a child out of wedlock. -During divorce proceedings with husband, accuse husband of attempted murder; no follow-through. -2002 "spaced out" hiding under table after strip club; steal taxi cab at said club; trying to run down police officer -2004 hiding criminal record from nursing home; reporting nursing home to Durham PD when fired; no follow-through -2005 admission to mental hospital for a week
    All of these prior acts by the AV would be offered to show the likelihood that the AV's current allegations of rape are false. They would all be barred by Ev. Code 404, which is intended to bar prejudicial and speculative character evidence. Section 404 states:
    Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion...
    Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.
    So if you're trying to make some general case based on her history that she is unstable and that this makes it more likely she fabricated the current charge, I think you're out of luck. It's too speculative and barred by Section 404. As to impeaching the credibility of a witness, Ev. Code 609 allows the use of prior convictions:
    For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony, or of a Class A1, Class 1, or Class 2 misdemeanor, shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross‑examination or thereafter.
    So the 2002 conviction could be used. Finally, even if it is relevant, evidence can still be excluded if unduly confusing, prejudicial or time consuming. Much of this prior AV history could excluded on those grounds. A special case is the fact that she was an escort and allegedly seeing approx. 3 clients a week. This would be relevant as to whether sex with some other person might have caused her injuries. So evidence on that subject, or asking the AV on cross, would probably be admissible.

    Re: New Duke Rape Allegation: DA Says Not His Job (none / 0) (#182)
    by Teresa on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    imho, I just checked the search warrant again and it says "signs, symptoms and injuries" consistent with vaginal and anal rape. I wonder if this is just a standard statement that is always used?

    A special case is the fact that she was an escort and allegedly seeing approx. 3 clients a week. This would be relevant as to whether sex with some other person might have caused her injuries. So evidence on that subject, or asking the AV on cross, would probably be admissible.
    Wouldn't they have to show these dates included sex? What if she was a married woman having sex with her husband three times a week, could she be question about that?

    There was a S.A.N.E. nurse on one of the programs that was answering questions about vaginal bruising possibly being a result of consensual sex. She said you usually do not see any injury in rapes, so when you do it is significant.


    chew2
    All of these prior acts by the AV would be offered to show the likelihood that the AV's current allegations of rape are false. They would all be barred by Ev. Code 404, which is intended to bar prejudicial and speculative character evidence.
    I'm not so sure about that. Rule 608(b) is an exception to Rule 404. It doesn't allow extrinsic evidence, but it allows the defense to ask the accuser about a lot of these incidents.
    Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness. . . . (b) Specific instances of conduct. - Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross‑examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness . . . .
    If the AV lies about any of these things, the defense will have a strong case for a mistrial.

    The accounts I read didn't mention any type of withdrawl or unpleasant side effects (other than waking up to a stranger in your bed saying, "We made love"). UGH! Most people report passing out and waking up hours later. I do see "excitability or aggressive behavior" and "visual hallucinations" listed as side effects, but did not see that in any accounts I read.
    Rohypnol: The most common effects include; disinhibition and amnesia, excitability or aggressive behavior, decreased blood pressure, memory impairment, drowsiness, visual disturbances, semi-consciousness, dizziness, confusion, stomach disturbances, and urinary retention
    GHB: The most common effects include: euphoria, amnesia, intoxication, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, amnesia, visual hallucinations, hypotension, brady-cardia, severe respiratory depression, and coma. In lower doses the most common side effects are: drowsiness, nausea, and hallucinations. In higher doses the most common side effects are: unconsciousness, seizures, severe respiratory depression, and coma.


    There are 213 comments here, it's way past time to close the thread. Here's a new one for you to continue the discussion.