home

Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of New DNA Tests

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:21:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Lawyers for the Duke Lacrosse players held a press conference yesterday to respond to reports of new DNA testing implicating one or two of the players. You can view it here. Here's more from WRAL today:

The nail was found in a bathroom trash can at the off-campus house where the party took place, and was among items -- such as Q-Tips and Kleenex -- that defense attorneys suggested might have contaminated the nail."Does it absolutely exclude all of the Duke lacrosse players with absolute certainty from this one fingernail? No," Cheshire said. "Does it say that any of the Duke lacrosse players' DNA is conclusively on this fingernail? No."

Cheshire said the tests also showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players. That suggests she had sex, he said, but the tests prove it wasn't with a lacrosse player.

< Robert Ray, Clinton Prosecutor Under Starr, Arrested for Stalking | NSA Phone Records: What's the Problem? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of New DNA Tests | 68 comments (68 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#1)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for April 3
    COSBY: Do you know if anyone heard or saw anything else beyond these three boys?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE [ACCUSER'S FATHER]: I had talked to a lady (INAUDIBLE) next door.
    COSBY: And what did this woman say she heard?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She said she heard screaming, heard somebody crying in the house. And she heard a lot of noise, like something was breaking or somebody was falling over. And I asked her if she talked to anybody, and she said no.
    COSBY: Why did she tell you she didn't call police?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She said she didn't want to get involved in it, said she didn't want to go to court, she didn't want to be on TV or nothing (INAUDIBLE) She said she didn't want to have anything to do with it. And I asked her, I said, What if it had been your daughter? And she turned and walked off.
    COSBY: How tough is it for you when you hear this woman say this to you, and maybe she knew something, maybe she saw something that could support your daughter's claim?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE), you know, please come forward. You know, I would do it if it had been her daughter.
    Bob in Pacifica, I found your "crying in the house" witness! Oh, maybe it was one of the players crying because he had to go pee pee and the strippers were locked in the bathroom painting their nails.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    Hi Lora, The way I look at it, models are for predicting things. Sometimes they are for predicting the future, and sometimes they are for predicting the past. I presume, correct me if I am wrong, that this model you have created is, an attempt to assign numerical meaning to the fact that a player has been pegged by both the accuser and by a partial dna match. And so the way you demonstrate this is by establishing the unlikelihood that this concurrence might be the result of chance. Your model shows that by chance such a concurrence can be expected 1 time in 46. So its a pretty powerful effect, but not as powerful as all get out, which would be the case if you could work it up to your desired 1/2116, the chance that a particular individual would fall victim to the concurrence. You wrote: Is this where we're getting mixed up? That I think there is a specific scratchee and you think there isn't, that she made it up? No, I don't think that's got anything to do with it. I am actually on the fence as to whether she made it up. My main interest here isn't prejudging the outcome, but supporting her right to a fair hearing on this. I don't feel the need to worry about the players much, as their supporters have me surrounded.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#3)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    She left her home at 8:30pm she arrived at the party at 11:30pm, where was she before?
    Source? Kalidoggie posted:
    The idea that you think a jury will buy an expert's testimony that semen can remain in the AV from sex 6-14 days after sex over an expert who will testify that the statistical likelihood of it lasting that long is astronomical and it is more likely that it was there from sex that day is by far the weakest argument I've read.
    Source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:16:08 PM EST
    Kalidoggie, You wrote:
    I never said 6-14 days, where did that come from? And what happened to the time from before she arrived up to 6 days before??
    You misunderstood me. I didn't say between 6 and 14 days of the incident. I said "within 6-14 days" of the incident, by which I meant anytime within a week or two of the incident. You wrote:
    what will stick in the jury's mind is that she could have had sex that day ... and that creates the requisite reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict.
    I guess that's a warning to women everywhere. Don't have sex on the day you are raped. Juror's just won't buy it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    Now this article says DNA found from "multiple members" of the team. I guess that's the same as "one or two" or "several". The quote by an attorney that the DNA could be from someone known to the accuser and be five or six days old is interesting. I wonder if there's a way to tell how old the sample is and compare that to how old the injuries, if any, are. I guess that's what this case depends on now. www.wral.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lora on Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    PB, Not trying to bolster any case, just following the laws of probability that's all. Just saying that finding a particular individual by chance (the actual scratchee, assuming that there is one) AND having the DNA match the SAME ONE in a random drawing, is, really, truly, I promise, no sh*t, one chance out of 2116.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:18:46 PM EST
    Teresa:
    Now this article says DNA found from "multiple members" of the team. I guess that's the same as "one or two" or "several".
    No, unless the journalist you are quoting are very sloppy writers, or are deliberately misleading. Multiple means "more than one". So: 1. It is definitely not equivalent to "one or two", because "multiple" specifically excludes the possibility of "one". 2. While technically, "multiple" can be equivalent to "several", in colloquial usage "several" is normally used to mean "more than two" whereas multiple definitely includes "two". So neither of your suggested equivalent meanings are actually correct.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    Cymro, I was just making fun of the three different media reports I read. One said "several", one said "one or two" and this new one said "multiple". Every article I read seems slightly different.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    PB: I, too, have thought about that question: as one of the talking heads said on one of the shows, does that mean that only women who are virgins or otherwise sexually inactive can be raped? Obviously, no. It doesn't mean that. Again, I go back to Nifong: much as, so the theory goes, a prosecutor should bring out bad or damaging info before the defense does it for him, shouldn't Nifong have defused the potential for harm to his (and I do, carefully call it "his") case by being the one to make just that point. Whoever leaked the latest results could simply have also informed the leakee (sounds like an anthropoligical reference, doesn't it?) at the same time that yes, indeed, the AV had sex with her boyfriend/partner/lover earlier that evening, or whenever, and that finding his DNA inside her would be no big deal: we're just back to the assailants used condoms argument. My point is, once again . . . Nifong. Did he really think that faxing the report to the defense attorneys after 5 p.m. on a Friday would keep the earlier leak spinning his way? Did he really think that this, and not "the match that isn't quite a match" from the DNA found under the nail wouldn't be the lead story over the weekend? If he was going to prepare the public for the results of the 2d tests, if he was going to protect his witness, his victim, (again, choosing my words carefully,) he could have done a better job of preparing us all for that part of it. Does he, still, believe that the defense attorneys are afraid to go up against him, that he and his case are that strong? I just don't know what to make of the man.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    IMHO, Regarding the unidentified woman neighbor who heard crying according to the unidentified male (who is the AV's father?) I am sure that Nifong has gone through past warrants for everyone in the neighborhood and we'll hear from this witness any day.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    Teresa: And my point is that journalists (at least serious ones who are setting out to report what they know, and not deliberately trying to be misleading) will normally chose their words carefully. So: "One or two" specifically excludes the possibility of three or more. "Multiple" specifically excludes the possibility of one, but includes all quantities greater than one. "Several" specifically excludes the possibility of one or two, but includes all quantities greater than two. So if you just read the reports carefully, it will help you to understand the information source the journalist is working with, and thereby to compare separate reports to see if they are definitely consistent, potentially consistent, or definitely inconsistent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#12)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    Even drive-by sniping requires you pay a little bit of attention.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:03:33 PM EST
    Cymro: From your lips to God's ears. If only I thought it were so. I have reached the sad conclusion that journalists, serious and otherwise, are for the most part NOT as careful when they choose their words as one would hope. I have inured myself to the daily/nightly/hourly grammatical errors. I do not think it is intentional, I simply think that they don't know any better.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    Cymro, the source of all three articles was Mr. Cheshire. I took it as both the source and the reporters being inconsistent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    Amen, Sharon.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    What DNA evidence did Nifong withold according to Cheshire? That the initial testing indicated the AV's boyfriend? I guess Nifong could have held it back hoping that someone would come forward to try to cut a deal. But if that's what he was doing it makes his case look pretty weak from here, like arresting the cabbie looked pretty pathetic. If Nifong knew the source of the semen, that would have been exculpatory. How did he not violate discovery rules? (I'm assuming he didn't, I don't know why though.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:13:46 PM EST
    Did Mister 90% have scratches on him when he went down for pix? Anyone know?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Regarding the unidentified woman neighbor who heard crying according to the unidentified male who is the AV's father?
    Yes, it was the accuser's father to whom she said "she didn't want to get involved in it, said she didn't want to go to court, she didn't want to be on TV or nothing.." Sounds like she's taking the same position as the players.
    I am sure that Nifong has gone through past warrants for everyone in the neighborhood and we'll hear from this witness any day.
    Yeah, I hear he revoked the deferred prosecution for her public urination charge.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    In the previous thread, SLOphoto wrote:
    IMHO has pointed out several times that while no one would deny that Nifong is tough, no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity.
    While I do not the have time it would take to review the thousands of blog posts about this case to confirm or dispute the literal accuracy of this claim, it seems to me that plenty of people have accused Nifong of acting as he did because of political motivatations, as opposed to legal ones. Isn't this tantamount to an accusation of a lack of integrity? After all, he is the DA and his public statements are supposed to be truthful, are they not? Having unstated political motives calls those statements into question.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    One possible explanation for the probability of the partial DNA match with the player who the AV identified with 90% certainty: The Duke Lacrosse team poster was all over the internet, all over Durham and can be found on the Duke website. The team captains are also identified on the website and it was known that they lived in the house. The AV could easily find out from many sources who lived in the house (the ID/line up took place long after the accusation) so she simply had to choose one of the captains to assure that there might be some DNA. As a female, as as a lawyer, this case is absurd - it is an affront to me and to all women when such a clearly false rape accusation like this one is made. Without going through any scientific evidence whatsoever or the former false accusations or police record by/of the AV, the lack of DNA of the present two defendants, the players' abilis (all of which support the defense, there remains the simple fact that you could not possibly keep 46 young men quiet if something such as rape took place. One would tell a girlfriend or a parent if they knew anything, and I can assure you that to protect their son/boyfriend, they would come forward to the police/DA - and maybe they have, considering Nifong's smugness in his appearances. Take other simple and objective views of the basic facts - keep it on a simple human nature level: why would one of the members of the team help her to her car if she had been raped, why would they have left any evidence of nails, cell phone, etc. if something horrible had taken place? They are not stupid young men. The fact that they are all adament that nothing happened when it would be so easy/and perhaps savvy to say it was consentual sex implies their innocence. If you research this team, they had the 2nd highest acamedic average of any sports team at Duke (ladies' crew being the highest). Admittedly a confident and often raucous group (easy to happen to young boys when you are ranked #4 in nation), their behavior was much more often than not, exemplorary. Yes - They had a party and served minors (against the law), they hired (under an assumed name) an exotic dancer (who had had sex with someone else in the fairly recent past because of DNA found) who performed for a few minutes for $800 - and who was insulted by racial slurs (extremely poor and inexcusable behavior by the boys but brought on by the fact that they felt cheated; she left the house, was coaxed back in, locked herself in the bathroom where she either took off or put on fingernails (do you have any idea how easily these nails come off - you can't dial a telephone with these horrid things without them unloosening), was too intoxicated to remember her belongings, departed with (photos show) a smile and then was helped to Kim Roberts' car by one of the players. The boys evacuated the house (without removing evidence because there was nothing to remove) because they knew that Roberts was going to call the police (as she threatened to do) to report their racial slurs. They did not want to get in trouble with the coach and hightailed it home. I am guessing that Seigleman left earlier because he was bored. As for the DA/I hope that he does have a witness because if he does not, the recklessness of these indictments is cruel, not only to these boys, to the team as a whole, to the university, but more important, to the town of Durham for inciting such racial tension. As for the AV, I hope justic is done if these boys are not telling the truth. But they are. And she needs to be helped and the town of Durham needs to heal. Consider that any person - male or female - could have sex with someone and then accuse them of rape - or have sex with someone prior to going out without another person (so that the vaginal area might show signs of aggressive sex) and then accuse that person of rape even if they never touched her? Much applause should go to the President of NC Central who has remained concerned, vigilent and dignified throughout all of this. One unaswered question for Rita Cosby-who took the AV to the party?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:22:01 PM EST
    Newsweek reporter just said that the fingernails have two player's DNA. One was identified and one wasn't? Did I hear that right? It's on Fox and I may have heard wrong. Wonder who the second guy is? Also said there are two nails with player DNA. For sure it seems that one of Reade S. or Finnerty was identified wrong if I heard correctly. At a minimum one was identified wrong I should say. Am I the only one watching this Kimberly person? Can anyone confirm what I heard or correct me if I'm wrong?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    Teresa:
    Cymro, the source of all three articles was Mr. Cheshire. I took it as both the source and the reporters being inconsistent.
    OK, so here's a suggestion. If you want to contrast conflicting statements by a single author, and want other people to get your point, you should include quotes, and ideally links to support the quotes, in order to make your point clear. Otherwise you are simply adding to the overall level of noise and confusion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#23)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    Cymro, See above drive-by sniping comment. Everyone keeping up with these threads knows SLOphoto is referring to my comment that no one has come of with a precedent for unethical behavior on Nifong's part.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:34:20 PM EST
    Sharon:
    I have reached the sad conclusion that journalists, serious and otherwise, are for the most part NOT as careful when they choose their words as one would hope. I have inured myself to the daily/nightly/hourly grammatical errors. I do not think it is intentional, I simply think that they don't know any better.
    All the more reason when referring to reports by journalists to include the exact quote(s), a link, and (if you have already formed an opinion about it) your conclusion about a writer's credibility, and why. Blogs contribute nothing useful if all they do is amplify incorrect or misleading statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    imho:
    See above drive-by sniping comment.

    Everyone keeping up with these threads knows SLOphoto is referring to my comment that no one has come of with a precedent for unethical behavior on Nifong's part.
    And to everyone else, including me, the intended recipient, that comment was just meaningless gobbledygook, which I ignored as such. Exactly the point I was making in my previous posts; thank you for the reinforcement. The next time, if you want to be understood, why not try to explain yourself the first time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:46:20 PM EST
    I have only recently started viewing this site, so I am new to posting here. Just so you understand my bias, I am a Duke grad, worked for UNC, am a mother of a daughter in college who was an All Star LAX player, and have dear friends from my days at Duke who were on the mens' LAX team. My daughter is right now sporting a Duke LAX tshirt for the women's team, who are entering tournament season ranked #1 in the country and whose accomplishments are being sadly neglected. My husband is the webmaster of US Lacrosse. Go on any Duke or lacrosse boards and you will see the anger and hurt - this is causing great, and unjustified, humiliation and damage to a large community. This is my school and my sport, and we are being depicted as racist, spoiled, rich, rude, etc, etc. I am having great difficulty with the accuser and have come to believe that Nifong is a buffoon, and is perpetuating these stereotypes. This will take a long time to heal, no matter what happens. Having said that, SharonInJax posted:
    My point is, once again . . . Nifong. Did he really think that faxing the report to the defense attorneys after 5 p.m. on a Friday would keep the earlier leak spinning his way? Did he really think that this, and not "the match that isn't quite a match" from the DNA found under the nail wouldn't be the lead story over the weekend? If he was going to prepare the public for the results of the 2d tests, if he was going to protect his witness, his victim, (again, choosing my words carefully,) he could have done a better job of preparing us all for that part of it. Does he, still, believe that the defense attorneys are afraid to go up against him, that he and his case are that strong? I just don't know what to make of the man.
    I work in and know how things work in Washington, DC. If politicians need to release information, but want to bury it, they release it on Friday afternoon, so as to miss the newscasts and weekday papers. Therefore, Nifong released the vaginal DNA info, showing no match for the players and a positive external match, late Friday. He leaked the partial match earlier in the week, and we saw how that was covered. In fact, today I saw a news report where the two results were combined, making it appear that the partial DNA result was on the vaginal sample - worst possible outcome, or best for Nifong. Clever, eh? BTW, I make a living with statistics and, no offense, I'm not going to comment on previous posts attempting to use statistics.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    And to everyone else, including me, the intended recipient, that comment was just meaningless gobbledygook, which I ignored as such.
    Speaking for everyone else reading and commenting here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    Cymro, why don't you just ignore me then? I don't think other posters from either side have found me confusing or noisy. You upset me so much that I almost committed an offense that would get me banned, but I have too much respect for Jeralyn Merritt and the service she provides to us and to other blogs with her legal opinions and the documents that she provides for us. My earlier post was a continuation of a conversation from last night if it matters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    Yes, yes, yes, Cymro, we should all be more diligent and refrain from posting unless we have at hand the quote and/or link. But I would, in defense of myself and of others, mention that it is not an easy proposition, can indeed be a time consuming one, to try to remember what I read where, and to find the link. A fair criticism, if this forum were intended to be a fact-finding mission. That is not my impression, albeit mine is a recent one. I think that all of us here, no matter which side we are presently believing has at least met the preponderance burden, simply wants to get to the truth. It may be the blind leading the blind, but my sense is that we are all stumbling in the dark, trying to shed, each in our own way, some light. And if one carries your suggestions to their logical conclusion, would we not then need to validate or substantiate the "link" upon which the original journalist based his or her commentary: impossible. Was it a defense source? Was it a prosecution source? Was it a family member of the AV? Was it a friend of the accused? To cut short discussion and discourse because it cannot be presented in a manner that conforms with standards for journalism, or academic endeavors, or legal ones, for that matter, misses the point here. At least, it does for me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#30)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    Cymro,
    While I do not the have time it would take to review the thousands of blog posts about this case to confirm or dispute the literal accuracy of this claim, it seems to me that plenty of people have accused Nifong of acting as he did because of political motivatations, as opposed to legal ones. Isn't this tantamount to an accusation of a lack of integrity? After all, he is the DA and his public statements are supposed to be truthful, are they not? Having unstated political motives calls those statements into question.
    I don't know for sure if you are arguing that blogposts questioning Nifong's integrity count. In my book, they don't because they don't identify the author. I have seen headlines of newstories which suggest Nifong's actions might be to further his political gain. Since reporters are known to spin the same story both ways on alternating Tuesdays, again these dont' count in my book. If I accuse you of having a lack of integrity, does it make it true merely because I hold that opinion therefore your integrity has been questioned? Hmmm Personally, I think that Nifong is trying to do his job and didn't anticipate the media frenzy which would was created. Certainly there is sufficient evidence for him to bring charges and continue the investigation. Those who wish to browbeat him for this are boorish.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:18:45 PM EST
    Abbott, Thank you for that post. You have successfully consolidated a tremendous number of the Duke supporters' theories into a single narrative, which will save people a great deal of time looking them up. Women and lawyers take note. You have a sister here, willing to take a hard stand against the calumny of the accuser. 7Duke4, You wrote:
    BTW, I make a living with statistics and, no offense, I'm not going to comment on previous posts attempting to use statistics.
    Why not? Obviously we're struggling with it. If you know something about it, why not contribute? If you're just here to stick your nose in the air, hey, go back to the racist, spoiled, rich, rude college from which you came. I'll stay here with the strippers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#32)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    Teresa posted to Cyrmo:
    My earlier post was a continuation of a conversation from last night if it matters.
    Cyrmo, See above drive-by sniping comment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    Teresa:
    Cymro, why don't you just ignore me then?
    Here's why. Compare the following posted statements:
    (by Teresa) Now this article says DNA found from "multiple members" of the team. I guess that's the same as "one or two" or "several".
    This is understandable English, but (lacking any context) incorrect, and therefore requires a response to clarify.
    (by imho) Even drive-by sniping requires you pay a little bit of attention.
    This (lacking context) is a meaningless observation, and as such does not require any response at all, since the only logical response would be "pardon me?". If you don't see the difference, I can only assume that you expect me to have grasped the complete context for a post (like yours) before responding to it. So tell me -- do you believe that anyone reading this blog must have read every post of every thread to be qualified to post a response to any post, no matter how misleading or inaccurate that post might might be? If so, why do you believe that is a valid basis for disputing my right to question you about the accuracy of the English language equivalences you appeared to claim in your post? Do you believe that there an unwritten rule of blog posts that I am violating. If so, what is your support for that reasoning? If not, what is your point?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    7Duke4: That was the point I was trying to make: the timing of the fax to the defense attorneys was childish, or stupid, or maybe Nifong isn't as politically savvy as he wants to think he is. I would like to think that there is no one who thinks this case has been handled well, no matter which side one tends to believe. And here's a question for everyone: who else thinks that the rape shield law should, until conviction at least, prevent showing, ad nauseum, the pictures of the accused and of the wider pool of suspects? Protect, by all means, the accuser's identity. But if there are reasons to protect an accuser's identity in rape cases, shouldn't there be a concomitant duty to protect "the accused," until they are "the convicted"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:28:50 PM EST
    Abbot posted:
    Without going through any scientific evidence whatsoever or the former false accusations
    Do you have a source that the previous rape report is a false accusation?
    there remains the simple fact that you could not possibly keep 46 young men quiet if something such as rape took place.
    Surely you are aware that is not a fact, but your opinion?
    why would one of the members of the team help her to her car if she had been raped,
    If they hadn't helped her to the car someone would have been home when the police showed up minutes later - a stripper sprawled across their porch steps.
    If you research this team, they had the 2nd highest acamedic average of any sports team at Duke (ladies' crew being the highest). Admittedly a confident and often raucous group (easy to happen to young boys when you are ranked #4 in nation), their behavior was much more often than not, exemplorary.
    This alleged assault didn't occur during a lacrosse match or in the classroom. What is the record of their behavior when they are drinking?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    And here's a question for everyone: who else thinks that the rape shield law should, until conviction at least, prevent showing, ad nauseum, the pictures of the accused and of the wider pool of suspects? Protect, by all means, the accuser's identity. But if there are reasons to protect an accuser's identity in rape cases, shouldn't there be a concomitant duty to protect "the accused," until they are "the convicted"?
    Rape sheild laws don't prevent the press from printing the name of the accuser. A law like that would probably violate the first amendment. As for not printing the names of the accused, it seems pretty bad in this particular case - but I think it's a practice that's worth keeping in place. you have to balance the first amendment interests against the privacy interests. It's not always a perfect balance, but I'm pretty much ok with it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    who else thinks that the rape shield law should, until conviction at least, prevent showing, ad nauseum, the pictures of the accused and of the wider pool of suspects?
    There's this guy JLvngstn who posts here sometimes that would agree with you. I am against it on first amendment grounds. I consider it a prior restraint on the press. I am a bit of a fundamentalist in that regard. I don't believe in shutting up accusers. If a victim is willing to risk a defammation suit, I think they should be allowed to post the name of her assailants from the highest tree. The only thing worse than a free press is an unfree one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#38)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    Cyrmo, I'm not discouraging your sniping, I'm just telling you it's a lot more fun when you know what you are talking about. Cyrmo posted: If the cap fits, wear it. Or did I miss an announcement that TL had appointed chew2 to police decorum here

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    PB: You wrote: If you're just here to stick your nose in the air, hey, go back to the racist, spoiled, rich, rude college from which you came. I'll stay here with the strippers. What's up with that? If that is your definition of Duke University, shame on you for your ignorance. Are you aware that there are (sorry Cymro, don't have the cite) Duke lacrosse players who are the sons of NYC firefighters? Two that I am sure of, and I believe a third. Yeah, they sure pay those firefighters, those spoiled, rich, racist parents a ton of money, don't they? Your comment is EXACTLY what got me on my soapbox about this case from the beginning: the perception of the school I attended being just as you described it, with the same level of vitriol and ignorance. Somehow, there are people out there who really want the players to be guilty, not because of anything that they did, but for the group that you think they represent. Again, no cite, but a quote to the effect that even if the Duke players are not guilty of the rape, they should still be prosecuted, still be punished. For what? Racism? Let's go and clean out south Boston, places all over this country, sadly. For their parents having money? Let's lock Bill Gates and Sam Walton's progeny right away now, save us the trouble later. For being rude? There goes a good 75% of the country, at least, gone. For being spoiled? My secretary's kids, on her salary, are as spoiled as they can be by her, shall we toss them into the mix, too? Hell, let's lock up every rich, spoiled, rude, racist, white male in the country, and their associates while we're at it. They must be guilty of SOMETHING, they just can afford to get away with it. The hell with actual guilt, let's just GET THEM for our perceptions of them. Bad post, JB. Very, very, very bad post.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    Okay, I have been reading the 'statistics' printed here over the last few days and while there have been some tidbits of truth, and an attempt to get it correct, there is still lots of misinformation. If only one person had left any DNA on the accuser, there is a 1:46 chance that the player scratched was any one specific player (1 player to scratch out of 46). If the accuser only scratched one player and had to identify that player by photographs, the probability is again 1:46 (1 player to select out of 46). While at first glance it may seem that the probability of both events would be 1:2116 (46*46), this would only be true if the two events are independent, or that the likelihood of one occurring has no bearing on the likelihood of the other. This would only be true if she was blindfolded while she scratched the player, so she had no knowledge of the player. But if she knew she scratched someone, and could remember any visual details of the person, the likelihood of a false pick on the photograph selection drops. If she could positively identify who she scratched, then we are back to a 1:46 chance again. If she only knew he was tall, or black hair, etc, the probability increases. Likewise, if she scratched more than 1 player, the likelihood also drops. So both extremes of 1:46 to 1:2116 could be correct, depending on how much independence existed between the two events. But, I find it hard to believe that both events were random, and unrelated (ie: she knew who she scratched). Note, however, that despite this, the actual probability that she picked the correct person has absolutely no bearing on whether that person assaulted or raped her. She could have accidentally scratched the person while losing her balance, and looked into the players eyes to thank them. Or she could have been clawing at the player while he raped her. Or any of a number of other scenarios. So, in essence, other than wasting valuable space and time here, nothing can be gained by the statistics. I am only posting this in hopes of finally quieting down the discussion with some facts, so we can get back to the he-said, she-said fight.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:48:44 PM EST
    I was about to delete PB's insult but Sharon Jax responded before I could, so I'll let it stay for context, but PB is warned. No name calling and personal insults to other commenters or you will be banned from the site. And let go of the drive by comments and stick to discussing the case. Also, someone asked above, who drove the accuser to the party. I was told by a reporter it was her boyfriend. What wasn't known when I had the discussion was whether he had returned to pick up her up and saw anything. I was also told that he went to the hospital the following day to see her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:49:24 PM EST
    azbballfan, the posted comment that I originally quoted and disputed was this:
    IMHO has pointed out several times that while no one would deny that Nifong is tough, no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity.
    This comment is stating a negative, with no support whatsoever. Your response to me also provides no support other than your own opinion. However, at the same time you argue that I should ignore the opinions of other bloggers (which you claim "don't count") and those of journalists (which also "don't count") in order to make your point. You say:
    Personally, I think that Nifong is trying to do his job and didn't anticipate the media frenzy which would was created.
    I do not dispute that this is what you think. But if you expect me to attach any importance to what you think, then you cannot at the same time expect me to simply dismiss what other bloggers and journalists think. And I have read plenty of comments about Nifong's apparent lack of integrity, or words to that effect. Therefore I dispute the claim that "no-one" has accused him of it. People have. And if you want me to ignore the opinions of bloggers, then where are your facts?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:50:07 PM EST
    Consider that any person - male or female - could have sex with someone and then accuse them of rape - or have sex with someone prior to going out without another person (so that the vaginal area might show signs of aggressive sex) and then accuse that person of rape even if they never touched her?
    I can shoot myself in the arm and say some stranger tried to kill me too. The thing is, who does that? A big problem I have with the defense is that I just don't see the motive the AV has to lie. And if she was going to lie, why make up such a whopper? Actually I take it back - the "nobody's that stupid" defense is usually a sure loser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:57:21 PM EST
    IMHO: No, no, no. The call from Kim Roberts came, if the time stamps are close and the 911 record accurate, after the AV was in the car, not before. I do not pretend that someone was playing the gallant: it was a night gone wrong, even if there were no rape and the guys wanted her out of there, as did her fellow entertainer, obviously, when the time came. Okay, not a "false accusation," just one that the AV failed to follow up on, like the complaint against her then-husband. To date, leaving the current case aside, the most any of the team, as far as we know and other than Finnerty, has been accused of are the vile, detestable, abominable crimes of public urination, excessive noise, open containers, misuse of a Duke meal card (no real idea how that's a matter for the Durham cops), and underage drinking. Let's lock up every college student guilty of any of those charges, why not? Come on. 7Duke4 was making a point, and believe me, it will be the same comparison that the jury, rightly or wrongly, will be making. Other than crimes common to young people at colleges across the country, these players, this pool of suspects, is a fairly clean group. None of them have been accused of: 1. Stealing the keys to a cab from the driver while in a strip club/lap dance scenario ; 2. Driving said cab while being better than twice the legal DUI limit; 3. Attempting to run down a police officer with said cab; or 4. being employed in a sex for hire industry. Fair or not, those are the facts, the comparisons that a jury will make. I have been familiar with Duke hate before, but only in a college basketball context. To know it goes beyond that is a revelation to me. PB: Why DO you hate Duke so much?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    None of them have been accused of: 1. Stealing the keys to a cab from the driver while in a strip club/lap dance scenario ; 2. Driving said cab while being better than twice the legal DUI limit; 3. Attempting to run down a police officer with said cab; or 4. being employed in a sex for hire industry.
    To be fair, two of them have been charged with kidnapping a stripper and violently gang raping her. Given the choice, I'd rather have a drunken car stealing arrest on my rap sheet. Just saying . . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:12:18 PM EST
    PB: And just how do you think a defamation suit, by these accused against this accuser would or could repair the damage done to their reputations, to their families reputations? If they were to bring suit, become the plaintiffs in that case, what could they hope to recover? The AV could choose simply not answer the complaint . . . judgment for the former defendants/now plaintiffs. No testimony, and a finding of liability from a judgment proof defendant. If the indicted players are, in fact, innocent as opposed to not proven guilty, there is NO legal remedy for the damage done to them. And what is the probative, public good served by showing their photos over and over and over again? What, I ask you or anyone who cares to respond, is the point of reporting what their parents' houses are worth? Again, I am not saying that I do not think that rape victims/accusers should not be protected. But for this crime, especially, a false or even simply wrong accusation can wreak an incredible amount of damage. Release their names, if you think you must, but don't keep showing their faces, and the video of them in handcuffs. These are, despite how much some may want to ignore the fact, young men who, if innocent, are being pilloried and damaged by the media in search of a higher market share, and the almighty dollar it will earn. I ask all of you: if it were YOUR son, would you want him sacrificed and scarred this way, if he is in fact innocent, before he has been found guilty of anything other than of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    Sharon, as a Stanford basketball fan, I can hardly be accused of loving Duke. But I have to agree with your analysis and that of 7duke4. There certainly seems to be some anti-Duke bias in some of the opinions being expressed here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:17:29 PM EST
    Thank you, Sharon, I couldn't have put it better myself. I would only add that PB's comment seems to be also aimed at the lacrosse players of the world, who are also painted as rich, selfish, etc. Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in this country, including in the urban, lower income schools in Baltimore, BTW. I invite you to go to a child's LAX game, PB - I think it'll change your viewpoint. Please stop insulting innocent, good people (including all the kids who play LAX). This is unproductive. I have come to the conclusion that the word for what's happening here is schadenfreude (malicious satisfaction from the misfortunes of others). As for Dukies being rich, etc, I was on scholarship, as are most students at Duke, including my LAX friends (ACADEMIC, not athletic). Finally, if you want a comment on statistics, here's mine for the time being: there is not a valid sample or premise on which to base a statistical analysis. In other words, not enough information. DNA analysis will include the statistical analysis. Wait for the science.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    Hues: I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about incidents other than this one. Come on, don't be so deliberately obtuse about this. I haven't seen anything that suggests that Seligman has EVER been charged with ANYTHING before this. Finnerty, we all know, has the Georgetown assault charges to answer to, but I am fairly confident that if he had other charges, the DA would have felt ethically bound to report them. And I will remind you that, as of now, neither Seligman nor Finnerty has been convicted of the felony charges. The AV has, however, pled down to misdemeanors from felonies, and has pled guilty to them. Surely you can see the difference. I have no doubt a jury would. Again, I am not looking to "bash" the victim/accuser here. But the record of her encounters with the law, both as accuser and accused, makes her credibility an issue. And I am not looking to make apologies for the entire Duke lacrosse team. But as to the two young men now standing accused, their records prior to "that fateful night" are a hell of a lot cleaner than hers is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    7duke4 Statistical evidence is really misleading. Other than in the context of DNA reports, it's almost never admissible - and for very good reason.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:32:27 PM EST
    huesofblue: exactly

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    Hues of blue, You misspoke. The AV has a car theft CONVICTION (regardless of what it was pled down to). So far those currently arrested have been merely arrested on her say-so, and Seligmann wrongfully so as per most writers on this list. What I wonder is who watched her kids while she did escort work and did they know what she was doing on these evening excursions? Where is the tox screen, if it exists, from the ER? If she had been drunk, then some alcohol would have been left. A negative would be pertinent too. Tox screens don't take this long to come back.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:40:22 PM EST
    Sharon:
    If the indicted players are, in fact, innocent as opposed to not proven guilty, there is NO legal remedy for the damage done to them. And what is the probative, public good served by showing their photos over and over and over again? ... Again, I am not saying that I do not think that rape victims/accusers should not be protected. But for this crime, especially, a false or even simply wrong accusation can wreak an incredible amount of damage.
    A while back, in a comment whose meaning may have been lost on many US readers, another poster asked "whatever became of sub judice?". I think perhaps that poster was oscar wilde (who is British), because if you read the wikipedia entry I linked to, you will see what I understood him to mean by that comment:
    In England, Australia and Canada, but not the United States, it is generally considered inappropriate to publicly comment on cases sub judice, particularly criminal cases, as doing so may constitute interference with due process.
    While there are undoubtedly arguments in favor of the US legal system, this case suggests that the US approach does not always work for the best. Keeping ALL the details out of the press would seem to be more fair to all concerned in a situation like this one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    Re: Nifong's Integrity
    IMHO has pointed out several times that while no one would deny that Nifong is tough, no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity.
    Well, I made the original comment, so excuse me for causing so much confusion, OK? Here is what happened: Several days ago I made a post where I said that Nifong would be faced with a moral dilemma if he had exculpatory information about the lax players, but put them on trial anyway. IMHO responded that she saw no moral dilemma for Nifong, because she had never seen any indication by any of Nifong's professional colleagues that they regarded him as unfair as a DA. Tough maybe, but not unfair. I responded that I was referring to rape shield laws. What if Nifong had information where he knew the AV had had sex that night with someone else, but rape shield laws might prevent him from using that information. He would face a moral dilemma by presenting a case to the jury which would make it appear that the AV had not had sex with anyone else that evening, when Nifong would know that in fact she did. That is the real story, everybody. Sorry for all the confusion. The rest of the story is that now we know that the AV actually DID have sex with someone else, probably a boyfriend. And at this point, regardless of any rape shield laws, it would take brain surgery to get a jury to disregard that piece of information.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:47:03 PM EST
    The AV has, however, pled down to misdemeanors from felonies, and has pled guilty to them. Surely you can see the difference. I have no doubt a jury would.
    But you realize that's just negotiating don't you? Prosecutors ask for a slew a felonies so that they have leverage in plea negotiations. And I'm not sure that the jury always see the difference. Being indicted means that the police have done an investigation and they feel pretty confident they know who did it. People are presumed innocent under the law, but I doubt thinl that's what most people presume when they show up for jury duty. The presumption is that the def is on trial for a reason and if they're facing jail time, they have a tremendous incentive to lie.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    The medical reports from the hospital, along with the SANE nurses findings are the one huge missing piece of all of this. I don't think they will give all the answers, but they could go a long way towards removing some of the questions and speculation. Haven't seen a post about this: any hint as to why Finnerty's lawyer said he was asking for a continuance for the first hearing because he had not received all the discovery due to him? But Seligman's attorney is evidently going ahead even without it. I understand, even though I have not been involved in the criminal defense world in a loooong time, that DA's will "play" with defense attorneys, delaying discovery for no good reason, delaying the disclosure for as long as they can, all if it part of the "game." But it makes me wonder (as so much about this case does, from both sides) what is it that the defense thought it would get but hasn't yet? And, as willing as both sides are to leak information at press conferences, or in interviews, or as "information from a reliable source," why has there been nothing from either side other than the prosecution's depiction of the report as saying that the AV had symptoms "consistent" with a rape having occurred? I think that if Nifong has anything more than the AV's account, it must be in those reports.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    Huesofblue:
    Statistical evidence is really misleading.
    On the contrary, this statement is an unjustified criticism of a legitimate scientific method. True statistical evidence is always very precise, and not in the least misleading, because the degree of precision (or "confidence level") is always stated as an integral part of any statistical conclusion. That is why scientists are expected to use rigorous statistical experiments to evaluate hypotheses, before their claims can be accepted by their peers. What is misleading is the incorrect use of so-called statistics by people who are not trained in the disciplne and who are just trying to misuse and manipulate some data to prove a point. That kind of activity, however, does not merit the label of statistics.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    PB: Why DO you hate Duke so much?
    I don't hate Duke at all. Nor do I imagine that many of the posters here are actually strippers. I won't revisit what set off my rude metaphorical tirade... TL has been kind enough to leave it intact, so you'll just have to figure that out on your own. There are things I do hate. I hate that "Thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt" quote. Never heard anything close to that in my thirty year association with the Ivy League. It's a particularly crude breed of racism, worse than the Mark Fuhrman breed if you ask me because it has a class element built in, in addition to its smugness and arrogance. I don't associate the comment with Duke, however, just because a Duke player said it. Instead, I blame lacrosse. statistics101: Is the fact that the accuser picked the same person out of the lineup as was matched to the dna on her fingerprint statistically meaningful? What can it tell us about her? Shall we regard her as lucky? Honest? Nick O'Hara's mom has said that the accuser probably just went eenie meenie miny moe when she chose her assailants during the powerpoint presentation.. Does the fact that one of her assailants wound up partially linked to her fingernail suggest otherwise? These are the types of useful statistical inquiries that could well be brought up at trial, even if only in an informal colloquial sense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    SLOphoto:
    IMHO responded that she saw no moral dilemma for Nifong, because she had never seen any indication by any of Nifong's professional colleagues that they regarded him as unfair as a DA. Tough maybe, but not unfair.
    Thanks for the clarification and context, I see where you were coming from. But even though Nifong may not have had to deal with the particular moral dilemma that you and IMHO were discussing, many people have concluded that there seemed to be another moral issue he should have been considering, namely whether to draw public conclusions about this case during the election, even though he was really not sure of his facts. From what I read, his colleagues have not been so supportive on this one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:16:45 PM EST
    Cymro: Yes, the sub judice approach is tempting, but if it only limits the prosecutor, then it could be misused, too. See? I truly am not all one way or the other about judicial issues. In fact, I am historically an EXTREMELY pro-prosecution person, it's just that Nifong has me worried. None of the alternatives are all that palatable, are they? A gag order on every criminal prosecution until either acquittal or conviction? Far as I know, the Brits don't have the 1st Amendment issues we do, as you noted. And can you imagine the uproar if anyone tried to implement that in this country? Can't do it. So then what? Joint press conferences by the prosecutor and the defense? As bad as it is now, can you imagine that? Okay. How about a special magistrate, an arbiter of sorts, or a panel of journalists and jurists, decide what the public will or will not hear? It just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it? (And, yes, before someone calls me on it: I realize that I used the term "rape shield" in my discussion of the handling of the case in the press. Apples and oranges, but both fruit. Did I just say that? The rape shield law applies to what is or is not allowed in about an accuser's past. I'm not sure if there is a name for reputable media outlets to decide, voluntarily, to withhold details about the victim/accuser.) The First Amendment is first for a reason. For the good of the country, it must be so, that we are free to speak, even if that means that, from time to time, individuals are harmed. The greater good, and all that. Mostly, though, I find myself caught up in all of this, feel myself investing myself, too much, in this case. And MSNBC, CNN, FOX, AP, UPI, REUTERS, and every media outlet with a web page, are my enablers. The modern day ability to have 24-7 news and information, non-stop freedom of expression, is nothing that the founding fathers could have envisioned. Up to us to figure out the form and fashion it takes, they all take, those constitutional freedoms we take for granted. Up to us to work out, in a case like this, a modern day balance between the rights of the public to know, and the rights of the individual to avoid being known. No one ever said it would be easy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:21:08 PM EST
    PB: You wrote:
    Is the fact that the accuser picked the same person out of the lineup as was matched to the dna on her fingerprint statistically meaningful? What can it tell us about her? Shall we regard her as lucky? Honest?
    Significant yes, but not necessarily meaningful to prove either side. As I mentioned earlier, she could have scratched more than 1 person, and had a much higher odds in being lucky. Since there are reports of mixed DNA from multiple players, the odds drop for hitting the right person. The statistics cannot prove honesty or dishonesty. And I wouldn't consider anyone involved in this lucky, whether guilty or not.
    Nick O'Hara's mom has said that the accuser probably just went eenie meenie miny moe when she chose her assailants during the powerpoint presentation.. Does the fact that one of her assailants wound up partially linked to her fingernail suggest otherwise? These are the types of useful statistical inquiries that could well be brought up at trial, even if only in an informal colloquial sense.
    Nope, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. We don't a) know how many she scratched, or b) know the context of when/how she scratched the person. For example, if you follow some of the thoughts here that she was out to get the players for how they acted to her, she could have easily intentionally scratched a player, then pointed to his picture, proving nothing about the rape charge. As an alternative example, if one of the players had large scratches along his arm, and she stated she scratched him there, etc, that is different, but there has been nothing to indicate that the DA has that level of evidence. The statistics cannot prove intent, and since scratching can occur without sex or violence, it is meaningless without additional related evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:27:24 PM EST
    Cymro said:
    While there are undoubtedly arguments in favor of the US legal system, this case suggests that the US approach does not always work for the best. Keeping ALL the details out of the press would seem to be more fair to all concerned in a situation like this one.
    The law reform commission of my state reported on contempt by publication, also known as the sub judice rule in 2003. The commission found that free expression must be balanced with other rights (as it is with defamation, fighting words etc) and the right to a fair trial is more important to the defendants, because of the permanent harm they can suffer. Talking about the US case of Shepherd v Maxwell, they said:
    It seems an incomplete and circuitous, if not contradictory, way of averting prejudicial publicity to suppress the free speech of all the participants in the trial but not the media.
    This case is getting to be a really good argument for a sub judice rule.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    sharoninjax posted:
    The medical reports from the hospital, along with the SANE nurses findings are the one huge missing piece of all of this. I don't think they will give all the answers, but they could go a long way towards removing some of the questions and speculation.
    I agree, but the problem now is with the conclusive evidence of the previous sex with the boyfriend. So Nifong has two problems on this score. First, he would have to prove that whatever medical evidence the SANE nurse uncovered came not as a result of the sex with the boyfriend but as a result of the alleged rape, even though there's no DNA proof that there was any sexual contact between the accuser and the players. I don't quite see how he could prove that. Second, he'd have to explain his own words: "The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim." We now have DNA evidence from someone he didn't charge, while there was no DNA evidence linking Finnerty or Seligmann. Again, I don't see how he can do that. I agree completely with your earlier comments on how the accused can never really get their reputations back--and think this especially applies to Seligmann. Here we have someone who had no legal or disciplinary record at all, and whose lawyer offered to share powerful exculpatory evidence with Nifong, only to be refused. There's no physical evidence, that we know of, connecting him to any crime. Yet he's had his photo on the cover of Newsweek, has had the video of him in handcuffs endlessly repeated, and has been branded guilty, regardless of the final results of a trial, by a good segment of the public.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    No, no, no. The call from Kim Roberts came, if the time stamps are close and the 911 record accurate, after the AV was in the car, not before. I do not pretend that someone was playing the gallant: it was a night gone wrong, even if there were no rape and the guys wanted her out of there, as did her fellow entertainer, obviously, when the time came.
    My response was to Abbott's post:
    why would one of the members of the team help her to her car if she had been raped,
    Though the neighbors had put up with loud parties and public urination, I guess the players thought the neighbors waking to the sight of a nearly nude passed out stripper on the porch would be going too far. SharonInJax posted:
    Okay, not a "false accusation," just one that the AV failed to follow up on, like the complaint against her then-husband.
    Big difference and an important determination if this goes to trial and the defense trys to enter the report. SharonInJax posted:
    misuse of a Duke meal card (no real idea how that's a matter for the Durham cops)
    It is stealing - either from the university or a food service company that contracts with the university. A "boys will be boys" attitude toward theft doesn't help "boys" become honest, forthright young men. SharonInJax posted:
    Come on. 7Duke4 was making a point, and believe me, it will be the same comparison that the jury, rightly or wrongly, will be making. Other than crimes common to young people at colleges across the country, these players, this pool of suspects, is a fairly clean group.
    My response was to Abbott's post:
    If you research this team, they had the 2nd highest acamedic average of any sports team at Duke (ladies' crew being the highest). Admittedly a confident and often raucous group (easy to happen to young boys when you are ranked #4 in nation), their behavior was much more often than not, exemplorary.
    To which I replied: This alleged assault didn't occur during a lacrosse match or in the classroom. What is the record of their behavior when they are drinking? My point being, their excellent grades and disciplined play on the field are not a very good gauge of what may have gone wrong that night. Their prior missteps while drinking, though almost all not serious, are a better indicator. SharonInJax posted:
    I have been familiar with Duke hate before, but only in a college basketball context. To know it goes beyond that is a revelation to me.
    Is that directed toward me? I don't hate Duke. I hate the sin, but love the sinners.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    PB: Understood, mostly. I would point out, as my ex-husband pointed out to me, often (Sons of Confederate Veterans kinda guy that he was), that Duke is a "Yankee school." And the Duke players were classmates of guys who are now playing in the Ivy League. My point being: lacrosse players, for the most part, come from the same schools that populate the Ivies. Rich, for the most part, white, for the most part, preppies from the Northeast. This is not, please do not misunderstand me, an indictment of lacrosse as a sport, or of "rich, white, etc." Meaning, you may want to think that the real Ivy League is somehow above the sort of stupid, insensitive, racist kind of comment that was made that night. If it is, then it is the only place in these United States that is. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think that something like this couldn't happen at an Ivy. On the other hand, I hope you are right, as my son will be attending Penn, and playing football, in the fall. There are idiots and a**holes everywhere, racists who hide what they are and those who don't mind letting it be known how they feel. And, believe me, NOBODY can hold a candle to the smugness of an Ivy. Sorry, but come on: you love the Ivy League, you can't imagine one of your guys doing something like this. Because you know the school or schools, and you have a bias toward them, in favor of their students, BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW. That is just where 7Duke4 and I are coming from. Seligman and Finnerty could be guilty, and if they are, I want their hides nailed to the wall, along with anyone else who helped or tried to cover it up. But don't think that because one of 46 (please, I beg all of you, NO MORE STATISTICS: logic, not math, right?) players/students/boys/men/young men did say that, is that a reason to destroy all the others? Maybe that idiot who sent that sick e-mail, and was rightly, and promptly, sent home. Are you really ready to vouch for every single player on every single team in the Ivy League?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    Sharon, all good points. I would certainly not trade the full range of benefits arising from our First Amendment rights in order to secure privacy rights for a few. However, it does seem that in a rape case (unlike most other crimes, like murder, for example), prosecutors could be given the power to keep the entire case out of the news, without either party being adversely affected in any way. There would be so many advantages -- privacy, an unbiased jury, cost, etc. If we can pass national security laws that keep some trials out of the press, is there some constitutional reason why we could not also pass "rape privacy" laws too, if we really wanted to?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#67)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    huesofblue posted:
    To be fair, two of them have been charged with kidnapping a stripper and violently gang raping. her
    Given the choice, I'd rather have a drunken car stealing arrest on my rap sheet. Just saying
    Me too. Heh Heh.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:49:34 PM EST
    The DNA on the vaginal swab comes back to the accuser's boyfriend. New thread here.

    Duke Lacrosse Attorneys Respond to Reports of New DNA Tests | 68 comments (68 topical)