home

Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:04:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our last Duke thread on this week's court hearing is full. Here's a new one for all topics related to the Duke lacrosse player's rape case.

< Rove Waits on Pins and Needles | Ark. Primary 06: Republicans Not Really Admitting It >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread | 293 comments (293 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    You know, the AV is much more than just a "stripper/escort". She's an apparently diligent student and mother too, and has only been working as an escort for a couple of months,
    Aren't they all? I'm only half-kidding. The last strip club I was in, in Vegas last fall, that was almost word-for-word what most of the strippers told me and the dozen or so guys I was with. Interestingly enough, many of the Vegas strippers told us that they lived (and attended school, of course) in LA, SD, Salt Lake, etc., and would come to LV once or twice a month to work...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    SUO, Kali, Hues Re: this whole stipper explosion among the young. This new story at todays Yahoo talks of strip clubs as one of the fastest growing venues for introducing new music. At strip clubs, hip-hop is big business My last posting on this. Otherwise TL will think we're getting too off topic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    Posting rephrased from last thread. From: WRAL.com Attorney Requests Info From Cell Phone That Was Used Night Of Alleged Incident
    Nifong said prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone, such as the last 10 numbers called,
    "The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant," Nifong wrote in a court filing.
    "The state is not aware of," or "The state is yet not aware of" or "The state does not want to commit itself to acknowledging that it is aware of"? Isn't that just another way of saying that if something exculpatory does come up, Nifong can always just claim that, well he just never thought to look into that matter?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    In my other life as a corporate accountant, I worked with a girl who went to school some nights and worked at a strip club the other nights. She made so much money stripping that she quit her office job. This is a large office and it was weird seeing guys I work with teasing her about how many tips she got from them the night before. That's my only contact with a stripper. She finished school but I don't know what she's doing now. I had to throw this out here since suo has obviously been to a lot of strip shows. :) This girl was actually very nice but I don't know how she came to work each day at an office with a big group of men who often visited her other place of employment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    Regarding that the AV is much more than a stripper, that she's a diligent student, etc. That's a really stupid statement. She's not claiming she was raped in a library.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    One additional possible reason a why the police and Nifong haven't yet looked at the AV's phone. Perhaps they didn't want to obtain any embarrassing info on Durham bigwigs called unless necessary, and all the rumors and innuendo that would generate.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    SUO
    Interestingly enough, many of the Vegas strippers told us that they lived (and attended school, of course) in LA, SD, Salt Lake, etc., and would come to LV once or twice a month to work...
    The most beautiful flights in America are the Southwest 2:35pm and 3:20pm Friday flights from San Diego to Las Vegas. All forms of the advance purchase tickets are sold out for at least a month prior.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    SLO, The comment attributed to Nifong that prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone is not a direct quote and no other context is provided for it. I don't take it at face value, as his comments have been misrepresented before. The phone is being looked at. If there is anything there which gets any of the defendants off the hook, that will be wonderful. I'm not expecting it, are you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    SLOphoto, mmyy asked this last night, and I've been asking it this morning, and none of the people who have been promoting the AV's version of events seems to have an explanation as to why Nifong is dragging his feet on this. Saying that "the state is not aware" when they haven't even (at least officially) examined the AV's phone is at the very least suspicious. Lora, IMHO, PB, etc.: Don't you want to know if the AV or anyone else made phone calls on that phone from 11:30 TO 12:40? How is knowing when she made phone calls "not necessarily anything that will seriously hurt [Nifong's] case, just injurious [to the AV]"? How does it injure her except to possibly place her making phone calls when she claims that she was being raped? Why, over two months after the alleged rape, has the DA's "expert" not even checked the phone for whether or not calls had been made on it during that period? How hard is it to ask the phone company to generate a list of phone calls from that night? Lora: How about a list of times and lengths of phone calls with the court identifying who was called but whose identities are not made public? For example, if a call was made to another lacrosse player it's pretty obvious that an attendee used the phone to call a buddy. But if there is a five-minute phone call to the AV's parents or her boyfriend, why shouldn't the defense know that? This is the point when defenders of the AV have to fish or cut bait. Are you here to defend your belief that a rape occurred or do you want to know what happened? SLO, it's Kafka with a drawl

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    SUO The "I'm a student" is clearly just a pleasant cover story for many. But in the current case, the AV is pretty clearly a hard working full time student with many other responsibilities, besides her part time job as an escort.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    chew2, regarding why Nifong didn't examine the AV's phone for information for two months, It's more important for him to protect bigwigs from potentially being embarrassed in case their phone numbers turn up on the AV's cell phone rather than to actually pursue justice with due diligence and continue to indict people? Well, that's quite an excuse. Or maybe the NSA warned Nifong that there's a phone call from Osama bin Laden on her phone. If that's the best you can do, chew2, then I guess you're saying that Nifong's more interested in things other than justice in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    Teresa: I know a girl who was a high-end call girl in NYC who put herself through Columbia law school. She had 4 clients a week, a wealthy friend being one, each client paid between $500-$1000 for each visit. She became friends with my friend (she cut him deals and gave him freebies). I had an extra ticket tot eh Rangers hockey game and my friend called her up to join us, she met us straight from the law library (I saw her Columbia Law School ID). She was from Florida, stunningly gorgeous and very smart. She even acknowledged that she would have to stop her "bridge financing job" before taking the bar. I was very impressed and say more power to her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    Lora wrote: The phone is being looked at. But before the hearing yesterday it hadn't been examined. So it may be being looked at.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    Bob,
    Well, that's quite an excuse.
    I didn't give it as an excuse. Just an additional reason, out of many proposed, why they have not yet looked at the phone records. You are so blinded by your support of the team. At least I don't pretend to be neutral like you do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    chew2, I'm well aware of the veracity of her story, as you can see here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Smarty Pants.
    In fact, a former postal worker went postal there and killed four or five people, in the town of Goleta in the neighborhood known as Isla Vista, a few months ago.
    Bob, I meant "town" as in "college town." I was not referring to its postal designation. In fact, when I lived on Del Playa we used Isla Vista, CA as our address - though it must not have been official, we still got our mail. Back then, if you told someone you lived in Goleta, they'd say say, "Bummer Dude, why'd you move out of Isla Vista?"
    Welcome to Isla Vista History of Isla Vista, a college town adjacent to UCSB, where in 1969 peace marches led to free speech protests and anti-war activists burned the Bank of ... www.islavista.org/
    neener neener neener

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    Nancy Grace learned a new word yesterday--"alleged", as in "Duke University alleged multiple rape scandal". If she can turn, I guess the tide has completely turned.
    That will never happen. Nancy Grace has competition from Wendy Murphy, If Nancy Grace were to turn then Wendy Murphy would fill in and take over as the most vile Man Hater in America. Nancy Grace would be 2nd. That can't happen even Man Haters have ego's probably worse than the men they hate.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    Bob, Of course I want to know, just as I want to know what all the partyers witnessed that night. Don't you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica
    Regarding that the AV is much more than a stripper, that she's a diligent student, etc. That's a really stupid statement. She's not claiming she was raped in a library.
    Exactly, so we can to expect to hear nothing more of the lacrosse players' excellence on the field and in the classroom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    she's a diligent student
    Lets not get carried away here. She has a B average at a school bringing up the rear in the North Carolina university system. That said, I don't think it would really matter if she were failing out of school completely. There's no shortage of diligent liars in this world, and honest people with less than stellar credentials aren't exactly anomalous.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    chew2 wrote: But in the current case, the AV is pretty clearly a hard working full time student with many other responsibilities, besides her part time job as an escort. But it's irrelevant. A lot of people who get good grades also lie about things. Or look at it this way: If you have an on-the-job injury and you're filling out forms about what happened and the extent of your injuries, does the Department of Labor want to know how often you attend church services or whether or not you walk your kids to the bus stop?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    Question: It is SOP here to jump to conclusions, and minds can change from day to day, or for some, little in the way of new evidence can change their minds. Do you think juries as a whole go through the same process during a trial?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    Interesting Kali. I can't fault anyone for making that much money for a few hours a week. It leaves plenty of time for study. Orinoco, I heard that also. I wish he (Yale) had given us some details of any injuries.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    chew2, when all else fails, make a personal attack on another poster's integrity. You can ask Teresa. My position has been that I believed Nifong had proof of a rape which had not been released, but I found the AV an unreliable witness. That has always been my position. As the information has leaked out, the AV has appeared to me to be more dubious. There is a difference between my position a week or so back and my position now. Now I don't believe Nifong has anything. I'm willing to be corrected. My belief isn't going to stand in front of the evidence. My belief will change with the evidence. And thank you for at least admitting that your belief does come before evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    IMHO, So when you were correcting me, you weren't correcting me about Goleta?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    I know a girl who was a high-end call girl in NYC who put herself through Columbia law school. She had 4 clients a week, a wealthy friend being one, each client paid between $500-$1000 for each visit.
    I was very impressed and say more power to her.
    Posted by Kalidoggie April 11, 2006 12:23 PM
    Because it is common knowledge that escorts are basically prostitutes. My point, her chosen occupation does not attract the most forthright, honest and sober people.
    So sad she would go from one profession of ill repute to another.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    Hues,
    Lets not get carried away here. She has a B average at a school bringing up the rear in the North Carolina university system.
    Well true, if you similarly discount the privileged upbringing of the team members, their B average at an elite school, their hard work as students and athletes, and even their hard partying as not being a credit to them. Otherwise her achievement is quite comparable to the Dukies. Given her class background, what she has had to overcome, her responsibilities as a mother, and her need to support herself and go to school full time, that B average looks pretty damn good in my book. If what you're saying is that none of that is relevant to whether any of them are telling the truth, then point taken. But then I don't hear that as a reason for why the team members are lieing to protect their brothers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    With regard to the cell phone and make-up bag, it appears that the AV dropped these items as she was trying to leave - I believe there are some defense photos which show her with the make-up bag and purses (and presumably the phone) walkin down the back stairs. Per the defense (yesterday) these items were then retrieved by someone at the party (presumably one of the captains) and brought inside. My point to this is three-fold. First, the original notion was that the AV left these items in a panic because she was being assaulted. Thus, it would now appear that such a notion is incorrect (doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted - but it does mean she wasn't running out of the house to escape) 2. Since these items were evidently brought back into the house by (I assume) the captains, doesn't this suggest that they are either (1) very stupid criminals - raping someone in their home and then stealing property and leaving it in the home, or (2) just trying to do the right thing by returning the property to the owners when she returned. I'm sure there are alternative hypotheses, but I am very uncomfortable with the indictment of Evans. If you assume he is innocent, what more can he do to demonstrate this...volunteers to speak to the police without counsel, offers to take a polygraph (and inexplicably the police say NO - maybe they watched "A Few Good Men" and couldn't handle the truth. He returns the AVs property to his house (I assume this) and he helps the police find evidence in his house. I mean, how hard would it have been to simply throw the nails down the toilet? Third, if there aren't any phone calls on the cell phone - why weren't such calls placed. For example, if I were being attacked, wouldn't I call 911 - The AV obviously had the phone and claims she used it to call her father. I hate to sound pro-defense, but there are some things about this case that really require one to make some huge leaps of logic to explain.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    Regarding grades, If the three accused pulled better than a 3.0, should the charges be dropped? Should we use grades over an entire college career, or just this semester prior to the alleged rape in order to determine who's telling the truth? Do those of you who keep talking about how the AV is such a hard-working student realize how stupid you sound?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    By the way, chew2, there aren't many other reasons why the DA's office hasn't even examined the phone two months after it seized it. The only other plausible reasons why Nifong didn't look at the AV's phone were that he was too busy (which is irrelevant, since his lead investigator is supposed to do the examination, but maybe he's too busy, too) and he doesn't want to know. So we have the DA's office being too busy to even find out if the AV or anyone had used the phone, which was seized by police a couple of days after the alleged rape. Or we have Nifong not wanting to know the evidence to be derived from the phone. Or we have him covering up for potential bigwigs who may have had their numbers on the phone. I notice that none of those reasons has anything to do with justice, and only the first one even remotely not a violation of Nifong's oath of office. So you are coming around to agreeing that Nifong is a bad actor here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    By the way, chew2, I defy you to find anything I wrote supporting the lacrosse team, so you can tamp that line of insult back down your piehole.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, So when you were correcting me, you weren't correcting me about Goleta?
    I wasn't correcting you. I acknowledged that is the postal designation. I told you I was using the term "town" the same way the web site about Isla Vista uses the term. I defer to your expertise in these matters, I, alas, am not a "Man of Letters."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    Do you think juries as a whole go through the same process during a trial?
    Great question Prozac. That's what I find myself doing as we get each new piece of information.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    Lora wrote: Of course I want to know, just as I want to know what all the partyers witnessed that night. Don't you? I want everyone to tell what they know as an observer. I also wouldn't mind the AV giving the public her timeline and version of events, right now. For all your fixation on the students at the party, I note little concern about the lack of timeline, lack of the AV's version of events, etc. My guess is that with Evans volunteering to give a lie detector test, with other defendants trying to present evidence to the DA, that we won't hear Nifong say much more about the blue wall of silence. And I imagine that if this case ever comes to trial that we will hear plenty of those students giving their version of events. Cheshire has promised witnesses to verify Evans' whereabouts for every minute of that night. I imagine Nifong could have heard from them already, but didn't. Of course I want to know, just as you want to know what all the partyers witnessed that night. Don't you? The DA can compel every one of those students to testify in front of a grand jury. But he hasn't. Why not? As far as I know, telephone records haven't been granted the right to remain silent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Orinoco, I was just surprised that the attorneys have told him (Yale) that she told the nurse they didn't use condoms but he had no more information about any injuries or a tox report. I know they had to have told him that much but he didn't mention it. About the phone...the only honest reason I can think of for it not being examined yet is that the police have the records and she made no calls after the one she supposedly made to her father upon arrival. If that's true, I can see why it isn't important for the defense to see anything other than records. But, I think the defense has the right to determine that on their own. I can believe the theory that there may be some embarrassing calls on that phone because that would explain why the judge was already aware of an issue with the phone. If the investigators haven't even checked the phone records, I can't think of any good reason for that. Pat, it seems the accuser left the house in such a state of intoxication from however means that she wouldn't know where she left her phone. Bob, like you, I just want to know the truth. All of it if possible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    Orinoco, Very interesting point. Nifong based his indictments in large part on the rape examination. What did he have other than her story and the examination? If the AV said that the alleged rapists didn't use condoms, then Nifong's excuse about lack of DNA evidence is problematic for his own honesty and believability. I'm trying not to be indelicate here, but she should have been able to at least taste if Seligmann had been wearing a condom. If I'm not mistaken, his comment about the the possibility of the alleged rapists wearing condoms came with the first round of DNA results, prior to the indictments. That means that Nifong was making public excuses in contradiction to an important part of the AV's story before he went on to indict three men. We heard a defense attorney ask about the AV's phone information yesterday, but we don't know when the first defense request or inquiry regarding the AV's phone and records was made. It would be interesting if this has been an ongoing problem. I know that discovery is just starting, but I could imagine the defense giving a head's up to Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    Orinoco, I was just surprised that the attorneys have told him (Yale) that she told the nurse they didn't use condoms but he had no more information about any injuries or a tox report. I know they had to have told him that much but he didn't mention it.
    Hmmm? Go figure?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    Teresa, regarding phone calls by the AV, I have seen posts that someone at the party took a picture of the AV making a phone call on her cell phone. I don't know if such a picture exists. But if it does, that seems to be evidence that she made a phone call. Was it the one she made to her father? Possibly. Evidence seems to be more important if it appears to be witheld. If there aren't any calls on that phone after she called her father, then it's of very little value for evidence other than she went to the party and left the phone there. If it's got fingerprints of the three rapists, or blood from the AV, well, then I don't think that Nifong would be so blase about it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    Orinoco, Agreed about the phone records. I'm sure that they know her phone calls that night. And I bet that Nifong knows too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    think the reason is first that there is nothing remarkable about the other reports, eg. she didn't have a 3" gash pouring out blood, she didn't have drugs in her system. ie. No News
    Orinoco, that's what I expected him to say but he didn't. That was the first leak I expected to hear. Nothing remarkable about the exam is at least as significant to me as the condom issue because I think that report is all Nifong has.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 19, 2006 04:00 PM Lora posted:
    How soon you forgot me imho. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    Bob, I've also heard that a picture was taken of her while she was on the phone but I don't know if it is true or not. I've read so much that I have to check myself about what is fact and what is theory. I agree with you and Orinoco that the defense already has at least some phone records. Prior to yesterday the defense had already filed a motion that included the phone records and or the phone. Orinoco - I don't want to see the pictures but I do hope we hear what is really in that report. Abrams didn't even ask him for any details.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by weezie on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    Now there's an idea..instead of working my tail off to help send my daughter to Duke, I'll just encourage her to become a stripper and a call girl, i.e., since some of you apparently think it's character building. I wonder if that would get her extra points on her app to Columbia Law? Why didn't I think of this before now! Kali, could your lovely friend maybe write my baby a recommendation to the call girl service?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    Where is the damn tox report? It looks like to me that its the only thing holding up the shaky foundation of belief in the accuser ( I ma never using the word victim again ). that is of course except for the several trolls who dont really care what is right or not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:37:28 PM EST
    ma = may (typing challenged)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    That's true Orinoco, but that report is the only basis Nifong and initially the police had to start this investigation. I think they need to let us know how serious any injuries were to justify this whole mess. I guess I just feel the public deserves some explanation for this and the really hard core believers will never accept that the guys are innocent without some proof. Some won't except any explanation but I think most will.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by weezie on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    Orinoco, you are so right! Thank goodness I made her take ballet and tap, at least she has a gimmick. As to the genes, well, maybe someday we'll all get together in Vegas and you can judge for yourself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    Teresa posted:
    How soon you forgot me imho. ;)
    Sorry, Teresa. I get about four posts going at once and lose track of who said what.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    Go figure WHAT? You want them to release the picture of her vagina and have it plastered on the front page of every Scripps-Howard newspaper?
    hahahahaah Orinoco, You made me laugh so hard I'm going to stop using asteriks in your name (it's a pain in the ass to type that way anyway). I was thinking of the tox report. What no freakin" tox report? If they have it and don't leak it, it's not good news for them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    Silver-tongued Yale Galanter stumbles: Galanter: There is no smoking gun.... Abrams: What about the medical report? Galanter: (he paused - eyes bugged out a bit - stammering ) No.... no.... the med.. well....the medical... the medical information contained in the packet seems to consistent with what the defense has been saying all along, Dan. ************************** Hmmmm? I smell smoke..... Here's what we can expect to be in the medical report: From the search warrant:
    Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.
    Dan forgot to ask about the tox report. *Drat!*

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    "Duke lacrosse player's rape case" I thought this was the "Durham Stripper Allegedly Raped Case".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    Duke lacrosse players indicted for rape, kidnapping and sexual assault case

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    Pat, TalkLeft said no names!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    Well, the time of the AV's phone call to her dad should be interesting. Although I imagine it'll depend on the AV to convince a jury as to her actual whereabouts when she made the call...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    Pat, she also doesn't normally want anyone to cut and paste such big chunks and/or entire articles either. I think something about copyrights or something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    Pat, Good summary. Just remember the rules by the host here are for us not to use the AV's name, so I hate to see all your wrote wiped out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:59:04 PM EST
    To all: I apologize for not deleting the names. My mistake.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    IMHO's fallback is that there must be something regarding the rape report because the guy who reported that the AV said her attackers did not use condoms stammered and his eyes bugged out? Is there anything to draw from Nifong's suggestion that the attackers may have used condoms when he knew the AV said otherwise? From the search warrant: Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience. Except that it was her boyfriend's sperm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    gmax, The tox report is pretty much the last thing out there. It's possible that there may be something there, like a date rape drug, but there aren't any charges about drugging her, and for good reason. Who did it? A few weeks ago we had a discussion about how some date rape drugs are taken recreationally, so it's not impossible (but admittedly unlikely) that she may have taken it herself. That Nifong hasn't charged anyone is suggestive that a date rape drug is not in his scenario. The tox show may show nothing more than alcohol, so the question is if she had drunk some before she got there. Or did she take an opiate? The AV was reported to be out of it by Roberts, the security guard at Kroger's and the cop, so there may be something there. Or maybe a little of whatever substance there may have been in her system was interacting with a preexisting mental condition. Can't forget that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    The following is from the johnsvillenews.com website. Thus, take it for what it's worth. The interesting parts (to me) are the statements accorded to Mr. Bissey (the neighbor) regarding the timeline, and the date (and thus, time) of the alleged attack, per Nifong. [remainder deleted, please follow link for details --use this space for comments rather than reprinting long works elsewhere. And please don't use the name of the accuser.]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    Although I imagine it'll depend on the AV to convince a jury as to her actual whereabouts when she made the call...
    I read about a case where they could determine the general location of the call's origination by what cellular tower was used.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    That Nifong hasn't charged anyone is suggestive that a date rape drug is not in his scenario.
    The discovery turned over should be everything Nifong has unless he was able to get a judge to seal witness statements for the protection of the witnesses. Didn't the accuser identify #20 as the guy in the kitchen that was making a drink?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    I'm assuming we don't have a direct quote from the report about exactly what the AV said about condoms. Forgive me if I don't get too excited about it before we learn the actual wording. The defense has been known to spin. It's a fair assumption that the defense won't leak anything that isn't to their advantage. So far, it doesn't seem to be much. If they had more, I doubt they'd hesitate to use it. I don't think appearing indelicate would stop them, if their charming "swab" speech was any indication.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    It's a fair assumption that the defense won't leak anything that isn't to their advantage. So far, it doesn't seem to be much. If they had more, I doubt they'd hesitate to use it. I don't think appearing indelicate would stop them, if their charming "swab" speech was any indication.
    Yes, Orinoco's "front page news vagina photo," was hilarious, but disingenuous. They, of course, don't have to release any photos. And the idea that any subject is too indelicate for Yale Galanter to discuss is laughable. He was talking about ejaculation today. I don't think many of us would need to be revived with smelling salts if the S.A.N.E. report results or tox report results were released.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:44:40 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    The Judge has "heard" that there may be "some privacy issue" with regard to the phone. I think by definition any number on an escort's phone is a "privacy issue." It is not the owner of the phone's privacy the judge is concerned about, it is the privacy of the person on the other end of the calls made/received witht he phone. Durham is a small town.
    It is entirely possible and likely that there are some "known" Durham residents on the phone. I would not be surprised if a few showed up in city hall or the court system or the police department.
    Lacrosse case goes to court
    Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens said the phone, which was seized by police investigators, might not have belonged to the woman, and he was concerned that revealing the information it contained could violate the owner's privacy rights. He ordered Nifong and Osborn to work out a solution where they would download the material and give it to the judge to review in private.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    "Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens said the phone, which was seized by police investigators, might not have belonged to the woman..." Might not belong? How about asking her if it belongs to her? Two months on don't you think the ownership of a piece of evidence seized a couple days after the alleged rape that the ownership of the phone might have been determined? No way to figure out who owns the phone? Does anyone else find this peculiar? Who told the judge it might not belong to the AV? Nifong? Is this just another delaying tactic or has he just not gotten around to asking her if her phone is her phone? Is the AV talking to the DA? Should be really easy to determine if it might or might not belong to her. Did the AV steal it? If not she has to know whose phone it is. She has to know where it came from. Did the boyfriend loan it to her. Did he steal it? Did she buy a stolen phone? Does anyone else notice a peculiar stench from the fact that the court has not determined the ownership of the phone at this late date? Somebody help me here. Maybe that's why the AV got off so lightly when she stole the taxicab. It didn't belong to her so they didn't use it as evidence. This is beginning to sound very phony.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:08:29 PM EST
    IMHO wrote: Didn't the accuser identify #20 as the guy in the kitchen that was making a drink? Was #20 charged with anything? No.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:20:53 PM EST
    Was #20 charged with anything?
    No
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    Maybe he owns the phone the AV had too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:06:01 PM EST
    Interesting reply ( but Cheshire doesn't have a spell-checker?). The comments show a lot of the same divisiveness we see here. Ori, who is H*W*H*A*N*C? Also, don't you find it peculiar that after two months they don't know who owns the AV's phone? I'm feeling sleepy out here on the coast. A little rainstorm drifted in, little raindrops tapping on the window.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    WOW! And I thought Nifong's tirade was something. "The Cheshire Cat" really went off. I hope he can keep it together for his client's sake.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:31:02 PM EST
    The Moonlanding Investigators (good one, Kali!) are the HWHANC's: the guy who said the players should visit the anti-semitic group; and the guy who uses "uh" and "ah" in transcriptions, for two.
    Maybe you should look up the word "ignore." Giving someone special names and posting about them all the time isn't ignoring them. I agree, Cheshire must not have thought it would be published. He wouldn't have jeopardized his client's chance at a fair trial by calling a well-known community activist a racist. If I was Evans I'd be looking for a new attorney.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    Look up [ignore], Orinoco.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:02:16 PM EST
    From another blog:
    I did find in the linked story that there is "an emergency-room nurse's findings that the woman had injuries, signs and symptoms consistent with rape." Part of what Kevin quoted says "the defense say they have photos showing she had injuries when she arrived." Now what was the purpose of taking photos of that part of a woman's anatomy and how do you prove they were taken before the alleged rape and not after?
    Are these the photos Orinoco didn't want "plastered on the front page of every Scripps-Howard newspaper?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    Yale Galanter just said on Abrams she told the Sane nurse they didn't use condoms.
    Is this what Yale Galanter was referring to when he said:
    No.... no.... the med.. well....the medical... the medical information contained in the packet seems to consistent with what the defense has been saying all along, Dan.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    Re: Joe Cheshire's e-mail published in the News Observer: He knows what he's talking about when it comes to race and the criminal justice system. He is a very accomplished and dedicated death penalty lawyer. He takes his cases to trial. He often represents the indigent. He practices in the South. Do I need to say more?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:17:09 AM EST
    TalkLeft: Thank you for expressing some sanity in this aspect of the case. I thought Joe Cheshire's e-mail pretty astute. Please do say more, and say it more often.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 01:16:29 AM EST
    Imho
    If I was Evans
    Orinoco:
    If I were
    Falling behind the times? Want to impress with knowledge of subjunctive moods which have disappeared long ago? Then again, maybe IMHO really has the ability to assume the persona of whomever they wish? Thus making the outdated grammitcal subjunctive rule inappropriate. ... all day long I'd biddy biddy bum.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:50:35 AM EST
    Posted by IMHO: If I was Evans
    Posted by Orinoco: If I were
    Posted by IMHO: Look up [ignore], Orinoco.
    Posted by azbballfan: Falling behind the times? ... Want to impress with knowledge of subjunctive moods which have disappeared long ago? ... Thus making the outdated grammatical subjunctive rule inappropriate.
    The colloquial licentiousness you are proffering -- in your disdain for employing the imperfect subjunctive tense, implying a conditions which is contrary to fact -- speaks more to your own personal disdain for those who do not share your high regard for an undifferentiated use of the current patois, and not in the least to any alleged "outdated appropriateness" of being able to distinguish articulate speech from the patois and choose to employ it at will -- or not -- as the individual social situation may require.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:27:12 AM EST
    Bunny Hole Entertainment the agency of the AV is nationwide.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by roger on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:51:58 AM EST
    Sad that the Duke case gets more comments, on more threads, than torture, or the loss of civil liberties. Any blonds go missing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:26:31 AM EST
    Roger - Indeed. But, having thought about it, I have decided that it must be a factor of age. You and I are obviously too old to be fascinated by strippers, strip clubs, etc..... Ah, yes, tis true what was said. Youth is wasted on the young. But let them enjoy. Spring will turn into autum much to fast.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:38:02 AM EST
    Cheshire wrote:
    We saw in OJ an acquittal on race/political grounds by a largely African American jury paying the man back for years of injustice.
    TL writes:
    [Joe Cheshire] knows what he's talking about when it comes to race and the criminal justice system.
    Blaming the OJ verdict on a black jury out to pay back "The Man" doesn't strike me as the statement of a person who has any particular insight into race issues. It's perhaps the most typical response found in the white community. It's almost a "unique identifier" of a white person. The abstract of Cheshire's letter goes something like this: Listen, black people, you've already let a black murderer go free on racial grounds. Please don't convict make it worse by convicting my innocent white boy client on similar grounds. If there is apparent symmetry to the fellow in court calling Seligman a racist and Cheshire calling the accuser a "False Accuser," it is that both these statements are examples of prejudgments. Both statements are designed to construct a Bayesian in people's minds that will influence how they think about the case. Hoodwinking makes for great entertainment, but nobody should confuse it with truth. It's not always a bad thing, by the way, to be "The Man." The reason blacks AND whites voted Nifong into office is largely that, no matter how this thing comes out, he'll always be "The Man." Cheshire wrote:
    When articles like you wrote today insinuate that this case is about race because one or two boys may have spouted racial epitahs in response to same being hurled at them ...
    I'm not sure Cheshire will win over many people with his argument that the cotton shirt statement can be mitigated by portraying it as a tit for tat exchange. That's because most people don't have that grandfather statement in them, no matter how drunk they are. It's rare breed of meme from the very bottom of the gutter. Anyway, I hereby designate Cheshire the "Rodney Dangerfield" of race relations. And David, if you're listening, go give Oprah a call. Go public. It's the only way to thoroughly redeem yourself. Even the black public will support you en masse if you don't hide behind your lawyers coat-tails. The one thing all cultures universally respect is a stand-up guy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:39:58 AM EST
    Bean, would you please TRY and stay on topic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:56:54 AM EST
    Sorry... Above, among other typos and word gaffs, it should have read "If there is apparent symmetry to the fellow in court calling Seligman a rapist and Cheshire calling the accuser a "False Accuser," blah blah blah...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:17:00 AM EST
    Hi Bean,
    Roger brought it up-just responding. Truth hurt?
    No, no. I'm just being churlish because TL deleted a thread of mine, one about as short as yours, which I made "in response" to an earlier thread commenting on race. I wasn't making any comment on the "truth" of what your saying. Just because I disagree with you on the appropriateness of having a trial in Durham doesn't mean I disagree you on, say, Iraq.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:46:08 AM EST
    The colloquial licentiousness you are proffering -- blah...blah... blah... blah... blah... blah... blah... blah...blah...blah... blah...blah...blah...blah...blah... blah... blah... blah... blah... blah... blah... blah...blah ...blah...blah... blah... blah...
    Colloquial licentiousness? Is that how educated people say "phone sex?" It's obvious Orinoco fears the idea that Cheshire may have harmed his client with that e-mail. Orinoco countered my post by correcting my grammar. What does that tell us about his ability to attack my ideas? Cheshire's e-mail:
    That said, however, there is absolutely no question that there are people pandering to the race issue in this case for their own agendas.
    Isn't that what he is doing by calling Victoria Peterson a racist?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    As I see it, we are all trying to fill in the blanks of this case - as the human brain is wont to do. If there is a tapestry with holes we attempt to make it whole - each in his own way, more or less objectively. In attempting to fill in the blanks, I've hypothesized that the DA boxed himself in - the genesis of which was his initial belief of the AV's story or his ambition, or both; is now aware that he screwed up and is boxed-in; and is hoping for the case to be resolved without trial. This hypothesis is shared by more than a few observers, I suppose. But, when I watched Thursday's administrative hearing, when RS's lawyer claimed an "airtight alibi," the DA smirked, smiled, and shook his head, all actions serving to refute the staement. So, if my hypothesis is correct - that the DA knows he's brought charges when perhaps he shouldn't - why would he smirk, smile, and shake his head? Is it that he has to stay "in character?" I would think that he'd sit there impassively. His body language has me puzzled and questioning my hypothesis.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    I thought that Cheshire's comments about the racial divide were right on point. I don't think he should have used the OJ case, because first it wasn't an all-black jury, secondly, if you watched the case you should have found a lot of reasonable doubt in the prosecution's presentation. But I think his point about this case is correct. What happens if the three men are convicted by a black jury and it's clear that they didn't do it? Does the cause of civil rights get advanced? Are rape shield laws further enhanced and protected? Quite the opposite. This case will be an excuse to start dismantling those things. People outside the courthouse should be cheering for justice, but I'm afraid they're cheering for a conviction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#92)
    by roger on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    Jim, I thought that it was my years of experience with "professional victim" strippers that made me lose interest. When I think about it though, I fear that you are correct. The only thing that I find more boring than strip clubs is gambling, but to each his own. Bean- My "illegal activities"??? I am much more boring than you think. I just believe in old fashioned morality, like the Constitution.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    Bob in Pac wrote: Why, over two months after the alleged rape, has the DA's "expert" not even checked the phone for whether or not calls had been made on it during that period? How hard is it to ask the phone company to generate a list of phone calls from that night? >> I'd even like for the Defense to turn over all cell phone records of all the attendees to the party... I think that's one way of presenting clear evidence. The defense attorneys should have thought of that, turn over all cell phone records to the prosecution. Any photos on the cell photos, would have better credibility than those photoshoppe pics. But there's one problem..there were more than just the lacrosse players in attendance...hmmn... I guess the ones that are known is all they can work with... The burning question that we all have is: "what are in those 1200 pages of discovery along with the video tapes and computer disk?? Where are the articles? Are the results of the AV blood tests in there? But then if the defense leaked what was in discovery, then the circus would only continue..

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    His body language has me puzzled and questioning my hypothesis.
    Nifong did appear to be saying, "Bring it on!" He's either got something he hasn't had to turn over yet, or "trusted attorney" Yale Galanter isn't telling us everything that is in "the med.. well....the medical... the medical" report. Or Nifong is stark raving mad.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    I asked about this last night, and no one seemed to find it peculiar: "Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens said the phone, which was seized by police investigators, might not have belonged to the woman..." Two months after it was seized the ownership of a key piece of evidence hasn't been determined? How do you find out about the ownership of the phone? The DA asks the AV, "Is this your phone?" If she says no, you ask whose phone it is. If she says she doesn't know you ask her how she came about getting it. Did she steal it? Did she buy a stolen phone? Did her boyfriend lend her his phone? How hard is it for law enforcement to find out by the telephone number who owns the phone? Someone is getting the bill. It sounds to me like a delaying tactic, and if I were the judge I'd be a tad suspicious about the DA coming up with this excuse at this late date. Does anyone else find this suspicious? Will phone theft be a charge that Nifong overlooks in his pursuit of these convictions?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    SuddenImpact, The search warrant listed cell phones, computers, etc., so there is a presumption that those things that Nifong wanted were seized. All cell phone records of the attendees would be interesting. Apparently, Seligmann is more than willing to turn over his records. But since you are the only one who touched on my question, why do you think it's so hard to figure out who owns the cell phone that the AV had? Why doesn't the AV know who it belongs to? Why wouldn't the DA ask her whose phone it is?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    fillin, To be a good public speaker who've got to have a bit of the actor in you. For the most part I'm a terrible public speaker. Does it mean I'm less likely to tell the truth in front of a crowd or a camera than to a couple of people? No. All trials are performances to a certain extent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    SLOphoto, Through your editing of my post, you missed the point. I pointed out how in this case, imho could have been appropriate since the subjunctive might not have applied. Recheck the grammar rules. And your own disdain for those who carefully follow them. Then feel free to post again something that 80% of the readers have difficulty understanding. (know your audience)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    IMHO, Regarding medical evidence, so far: The AV told the nurse her attackers used no condoms. The DNA test found only the boyfriend's sperm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:18:16 AM EST
    Roger - Gambling? Boring? Now you're getting personal. ;-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:25:52 AM EST
    MEDIA...REALITY CHECK... Someone in an earlier post said the AV told the nurse the rapists did not use condoms. I know I saw an article that the AV's father told the media that they DID WEAR CONDOMS. I read earlier that someone thought the AVs purse was dropped outside, so an unknown person brought it back INTO THE HOUSE AND ALL THE WAY IN THE BATHROOM?? WHY NOT just inside the door, anticipating she would RETURN FOR IT?? AND THE other funny media report is one of the captains handed the nails to the police. C'mon..people..do you really believe the police collected evidence in that manner with no gloves and a lacrosse captain physcially handing over false nails???? IF THIS is the case then the police deliberately mishandled evidence. I hope everyone on this thread realizes we are doing nothing more than speculating on a "talk show forum". I entirely believe the media has added drama to their articles purposely for ratings. That means they have fabricated their own stories for entertainment. I don't think there is anything entertaining about rape. Until the facts are released officially in this case noone really knows...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#102)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    Rogerp posted:
    Sad that the Duke case gets more comments, on more threads, than torture, or the loss of civil liberties.
    Any blonds go missing?
    JimakaPPJ posted:
    You and I are obviously too old to be fascinated by strippers, strip clubs, etc....
    The indicted players are not charged with hiring strippers, they are charged with first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense and first degree kidnapping. These are crimes even when committed against Americans.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by Lora on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    Happy Saturday! It's nice to see that at least some regulars here have lives ;-) Let's have an actual quote and context for the condom comment. Defense regularly spins. I'm waiting on that one. The famous phone that is now also being continually beaten: Here's a possibility: DA has so much evidence he didn't need the phone. He didn't see the need to hurry on it. And...that's why he smirked or whatever he did at the mention of the exculpatory timeline. He knows it's BS. (Unless, as imho said, he's stark, raving mad.) Cheshire's badly misspelled email:
    ...insinuate that this case is about race because one or two boys may have spouted racial epitahs in response to same being hurled at them (and by the way it is not alledged that those very few statements came from any of these indicted young men)...
    Geez that's not how I heard it! THEY made "offensive remarks", that's why the dancing was stopped, way back before the lawyers were having to come up with the "she was impaired and injured when she got there" theory. And, Cheshire, who DID shout those remarks? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#104)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    IMHO, Regarding medical evidence, so far:
    The AV told the nurse her attackers used no condoms.
    The DNA test found only the boyfriend's sperm.
    So, unless she said her boyfriend used a condom, there is no conflict in what she said and the results of the report.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:55:58 AM EST
    I think it was TL who suggested that what may be real at the bottom of all this could be some sort of dustup over money. And I think one of the questions that remains to be resolved either way is "what happened to the money?" The only story we have right now on that score comes from the accuser, who says the boys took the money from her purse. But nobody's being charged with that crime, interestingly enough. In my imagination, the $800 for the strippers was originally raised through the generous donations of forty hungry-to-party young athletes, each of whom contributed $20... I would expect that any refund would be expected to be returned to the players in equal units. Was it? Maybe that's one of the reasons so many people are keeping their mouths shut. It will be interesting whether they continue to keep their mouths shut throughout the trial. Forty Duke boys taking the fifth would be newsworthy. Even if the three defendants are acquitted of rape on a motion to dismiss, they could still be subject to the less onorous robbery and simple assault charges at some later date, I would think. Perhaps Crazy D.A. Nifong is just using this trial as discovery for that one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    Geez that's not how I heard it! THEY made "offensive remarks", that's why the dancing was stopped, way back before the lawyers were having to come up with the "she was impaired and injured when she got there" theory. And, Cheshire, who DID shout those remarks? Inquiring minds want to know.
    The accuser claimed the racial slurs started right when they began to dance. If the dance only lasted four minutes, the broom taunt quickly followed. What was the player that coaxed them back in apologizing for? "Sorry about the bad names, but you called us "limp-d*cked white boys first?" Cheshire is foolish to attempt to justify or mitigate the players' behavior. The attitude some of the players displayed is disturbing, and if the individual offenders are too cowardly to come forward, the whole team will remain suspects, including the three indicted players.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    Sudden Impact: I don't know if the purse was recovered from the bathroom, do you? If so, what's your source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:41:08 AM EST
    IMHO: If the "no condom" report is true, then the lack of a DNA match to any of the players is a huge problem for the prosecution. Not a mixed sample with the boyfriend's, not just no sperm but no DNA period after two seperate men an*lly and vagin*lly penetrated her, with the swabs taken within 3 hours or so of the event? But no skin cells, no bodily fluid cells, no pubic or other body hair on or in her? Seems highly unlikely.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    What exactly did happen to the white male pubic hair? Was it too small for testing or was it just a made up rumor from the DA's office when they leaked the fingernail results? Bob, since the judge was the one who mentioned that the phone might belong to a third party, I think he had already been informed of that before the hearing. Nifong didn't deny that so I think it's true. So it's at least been investigated to that point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    Perhaps the phone was a "business phone" provided by Bunny Hole.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    Not a mixed sample with the boyfriend's, not just no sperm but no DNA period after two seperate men an*lly and vagin*lly penetrated her, with the swabs taken within 3 hours or so of the event? But no skin cells, no bodily fluid cells, no pubic or other body hair on or in her? Seems highly unlikely.
    Where did you get that information?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:14:49 AM EST
    IMHO: That is my understanding of the DNA tests: only sample found inside her was the boyfriend's, correct? Rape exam done at the hospital around 3 am, based on when she was taken there by the cop (after the detox center). Other than not mentioning the one hair, what do you think I misstated?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#113)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    Other than not mentioning the one hair, what do you think I misstated?
    I don't know that you misstated anything. I thought maybe Cheshire had released the results of the second round of DNA results. I guess he's still redacting it. It's a ten page report. Big job.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion said
    Cheshire is foolish to attempt to justify or mitigate the players' behavior. The attitude some of the players displayed is disturbing, and if the individual offenders are too cowardly to come forward, the whole team will remain suspects, including the three indicted players.
    the players are definitely malicious when they shouted at racial slurs at the dancers and attempted to insult them based on their biological identity. I believe that the boys should be condemned for their improper language and attitude. However, whether they should be condemned for rape, the judgement and the answer should be left until the investigation is complete. I don't think we should mix the two, and if one could be sued for shouting racial slurs, I hope the dancers sue the boys for that. The reason why I think Duke University is not handling this case very well is that, I think they should admit that their students did not use the language well and the university should lead the players to apologize to the community for the bad language. On the other hand, however, the university should have the guts to tell the community that the students should not be judged or condemned as having committed something criminal until the due judicial process is finished. So, these boys are rowdy and used bad language. These are facts and cannot be defended. they are white, rich and priviledged, that's not their fault. There are still some people that are white, rich and privilegd and still have good manner. Yet, whether they have committed rape or not, no one knows yet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#115)
    by weezie on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    I'm reading on another site that there is going to be an expanded interview with the cousin/spokesperson for the FA tonight 5/20 on Fox. Does anyone know what time? Maybe 9:00pm during the Guilfoyle show?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#116)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    No, nothing new IMHO, just my sensitive side thinking you thought I was "spinning" too far or too fast. mmyy: And what dollar value of damages do you see if the most (and I do not mean to minimize it) that was done to the dancers was racist comments? Generally, one needs to have suffered an actual injury, something more than hurt feelings. "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" could be a cause of action, but then the players could counterclaim for being called limp dic*ed, whatever. That is known in legal circles as the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" doctrine of jurisprudence. The lawsuit I see on the horizon is by one or both of the strippers against Duke for some sort of lack of institutional control over its students, especially since Duke owns the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    deleted for using name of accuser, commenter warned this is not allowed and cause for being banned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#117)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    Nobody seems to have an answer as to why Nifong, who thought the phone was important enough to seize as a piece of evidence within days of the alleged rape, still does not know who the phone belongs to. It's a little weird to say the phone "might not belong" to the AV. Why couldn't Nifong make a determination as to whether or not the phone belonged to the AV? Where did he get the idea that it might not belong to her? If it might not belong to her, then it might belong to her. Very curious thing to say. And very easy to find out. Why would you suspect that the phone doesn't belong to the AV? She had to have said something. Did she say, "This phone might not be mine"? If she did, why wouldn't NIfong ask her who's it is? I mean, what kind of witness is it who can't tell whether or not a phone she has is hers? What kind of DA is it who can't find out if it's hers? It indicates to me that Nifong is maybe not as sharp as some think. Or he's stalling. Or the AV isn't cooperating with Nifong. I have to presume that the question of ownership means that it isn't the AV's phone. It seems unlikely that the AV couldn't say that the phone belongs to the business she works for, or couldn't say who loaned her the phone. That suggests to me that the phone was stolen. Anyone have an idea why it isn't? Lora is whistling past the graveyard on this one. Who's been missing a phone for two months? Nifong has so much evidence he hasn't gotten around to figuring out who owns the cell phone? Like what? This is one of the first pieces of evidence taken. I'll give this excuse for Nifong. He saw the request by the defense, went to the AV who told him it wasn't her phone but couldn't identify the owner. He knows it was stolen but doesn't know from whom it was taken. And this all happened within a day or so of him walking into court Thursday.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lora on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    Maybe her parents have a family plan and pay the bill, so technically it's theirs. But she uses it, so practically speaking it's hers. So, from a privacy viewpoint, whose is it? Just speculating again, as I like to do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    From what little we know there were gross sexist remarks initially inside the house. Gross, sexist remarks made to strippers by a drunken audience of men? Shocking! The infamous comment about the cotton shirt was spoken outside during a dispute between Roberts and attendees where she insulted their manhood. Do the men have a basis for a countersuit for Roberts' sexism? Do I think that the men at that party have been informed by racism? You bet. Just like every poster here, like everyone in Durham, everyone in America. When Cheshire said you'll hear racist comments from a large enough group of black men or Asian men, or sexist comments from a group of men or women, he was right. Not a great thing to say about humans, but something that's true.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    I have to agree with Bob in Pacifica, that the AV may be being uncooperative with the DA. I think it was Bob in Pacifica, some time ago, who wondered why the AV has not accepted free counsel despite several offers for the same. I can only conjecture that the reason for stiff-arming the DA and refusing free counsel is the same - namely that she does not want anyone to test the veracity of her statements or find fresh evidence of inconsistencies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    Bob: On the topic of Nifong's intelligence, or lack thereof, his bio on the website for his campaign said that after law school, he could not find the kind of job he wanted, where he wanted. So, he offered to work in the Durham DA's office FOR FREE. They did find some money for him, and as soon as a permanent position became available he was hired for real. But, come one: working for free? Doesn't that make it NOT work?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    His bio is an interesting read: mikenifong.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion
    Colloquial licentiousness? Is that how educated people say "phone sex?" It's obvious Orinoco fears the idea that Cheshire may have harmed his client with that e-mail. Orinoco countered my post by correcting my grammar. What does that tell us about his ability to attack my ideas? Cheshire's e-mail:
    That said, however, there is absolutely no question that there are people pandering to the race issue in this case for their own agendas.
    Isn't that what he is doing by calling Victoria Peterson a racist?
    Orinoco countered your post by correcting your grammar. It was a small, witty piece of pedantry. It was a cute exchange. I just added to it. But you admitted that Orinoco "corrected" your grammar. What azbballfan asserted was far more serious -- i.e. that articulate speech using the imperfect subjunctive is "outdated." In other words your grammar was just fine. I took umbrage at that assertion. People should not be put down because they chose to speak English well. I stand by that. azbballfan also said that I had "missed the point" about the other assertion -- i.e. that IMHO could somehow actually turn herself into being Dean Evans himself.
    Then again, maybe IMHO really has the ability to assume the persona of whomever they wish?
    I admit I did not even take that part seriously. My bad -- to use the colloquial. I took it the way you meant it, as a situation understood to be contrary to fact. "What if I were in Dan Evens' shoes? Would I look for a new lawyer?" TalkLeft made it clear that she feels Cheshire is doing a good job as a very experienced trial layer in the South. I agree with her. I know you do not. As for Cheshire saying that there are "there are people pandering to the race issue in this case for their own agendas," I also agree, and I believe that Victoria Peterson's attempt to hijack the Q & A session to make a political speech was just that -- pandering to the race issue. I don't regard her as a community activist. I regard her as a community agitator, with a personal agenda. You probably don't agree, but that is why we are here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on a Herbert W. Jackson scholarship, graduating Phi Beta Kappa with an A.B. degree in Political Science in 1971.
    Sharon, at least in his younger days he was a pretty smart guy. I think both of his parents are Duke graduates and he probably could afford to wait for the job he wanted. Now whether he is being smart now, that remains to be seen but he may be having a massive brain cramp. mikenifong

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    well, neither of our links will work.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#126)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted;
    But you admitted that Orinoco "corrected" your grammar.
    I have no problem with being corrected. I appreciate it, especially when the correction is germane to the point being made, and sometimes the correction makes a point all its own. Thank you, Orinoco.
    TalkLeft made it clear that she feels Cheshire is doing a good job as a very experienced trial layer in the South. I agree with her. I know you do not.
    She has also made it clear he is one of her "pals." She thinks her "pal" Mickey Sherman did a good job for Michael Skakel - he's doing 20 to life.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 01:49:20 PM EST
    Posted by Bob In Pacifica It's a little weird to say the phone "might not belong" to the AV.
    It's more than just weird. It is saying that the AV's phone might not belong to the AV. Supposedly the service on that phone was canceled the next day, but that doesn't affect the phone itself. Doesn't the real owner want their cell phone back? That's weird.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    Bob, I suspect the cell phone story is simply another example of how unprepared both Nifong and the police have been throughout this case: The late inclusion of three non lacrosse players for DNA testing, the late attempt to find out who may have actually not been at the party, not knowing who had likely air tight alibis, the late and bungled ID process, etc. This investigation, under a microscope, with over 50 DNA tests, is a budget buster in money and talent. Combined, the two lead detectives have less than six months experience as detectives. From the 4/30 N&O: Benjamin Himan, the lead investigator in the Duke lacrosse case, is an officer with four years' experience who became a detective in January. His partner on the case, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, has spent 15 years with the Durham police as a patrolman, investigator and supervisor. [my note - his investigator job started February this year]. Sharon, to amplify on your post re the lack of DNA evidence of any real substance: From experience with my son in college - a jock's bathroom, also used by beer drinking buddies, is a cesspool of DNA. You can knit a sweater with the hair on the floor. And if that image is not gross enough, 20 year olds without steady girlfriends.... A clawing AV during a violent thirty minute rape, by three men in a tight space teeming in DNA, no condoms, no broomstick and only 3 hours later, (no shower, same clothes), no lacrosse player's DNA on, in, or on the clothing of the AV. The best they have is a "consistent with" match on top of a fake fingernail in a trashcan, mixed with Qtips, tissues, and unimaginable other stuff. From my previous post: To the moon-landing-was-a-fake crowd - 5 minutes only seems like 30 minutes when you are watching Nancy Grace. No need to "attack" the AV. No DNA, you must acquit. (Can Johnny Cochran get that to rhyme?) P.S. Bob, great posts in both quality and quantity. I'll ask the same question I ask of my friends who consistently beat me in golf: Do you have a day job?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    Just stop it, all of you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#130)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    Agreed, Lightenup. And add to all you mentioned that we are talking about a bathroom in a 1470 sq ft house built before 1920. I would love to know just how small an area we are talking about, because I bet it is very small. I wonder if Nifong viewed the scene?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    Ooh, I'm scared. Hey Bubba, post something meaningful or go find a site that only allows your opinion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    Hey Lightenup, You wrote:
    a jock's bathroom, also used by beer drinking buddies, is a cesspool of DNA.
    Not only do they appear to have found a paucity of dna on the victim, they seem to have found a paucity of dna in the bathroom itself. I would think if your theory were correct, that there would have been more dna found in the cesspool than appears to have been the case. You wrote:
    P.S. Bob, great posts in both quality and quantity.
    Everyone keeps shooting barbs at Bob. I frankly don't get it. I regard him as relatively harmless in the best sense of the phrase. Take on someone your own size, big guy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    A compliment to Bob. NOT barb. lightenup. Regards, lightenup Ori, you have a great future.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    PB No DNA on AV because she never rolled around in the hair piles, never rubbed against the walls or garbage, perhaps. Just used the restroom like a lady?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    No bathroom bio, not even sh*t, tho' we searched both hard & long. The Durham jury must acquit, and confound this pernicious Mike Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#136)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    IMHO, I don't want the thread to turn to Skakel, so please don't respond here, but the fact that Skakel was convicted does not mean Mickey Sherman didn't do a great job for him. I'm aware of reports to the contrary and they are wrong. I have a lot more knowledge about the defense of the case than the critics. This is not the place for a debate on the topic and you have made your views known on the various Skakel threads on TalkLef, so please, drop it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    There are protestors against everything. I mean, underage drinking is arguably wrong. But prostest about it? in a serious criminal case? WHY UNDERAGE DRINKING IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE (and worth protesting about) When teens and young adults drink too much: *unwanted sex occurs -- either on the part of boys who press for sex when they would otherwise not do so, or girls (or boys) who have sex when one would otherwise not do so *loss of judgement leads to decisions to drive or behave dangerously or inappropriately *health is seriously endangered (kids who drink too much end up with alcohol poisoning and can die) *those who drink heavily are more likely than the average to become alcoholics For some, heavy drinking is 'cool.' For others it's so dangerous that parents, other adults and friends really do need to pay attention and keep drinking under control.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    Posted by mmyy the players are definitely malicious when they shouted at racial slurs at the dancers and attempted to insult them based on their biological identity. I believe that the boys should be condemned for their improper language and attitude.
    I agree the boys should be condemned for their improper language and attitude. As well as all the grownups -- who have had more time to learn better -- who have ever gotten mad and yelled, "Yo mama!" or "Up yours!" or all those other bad words out there. Now we are up to well over 90% of the American population. And as for having an improper attitude, well, I couldn't agree more -- an "attitude" no less. Well, that says it right there for all for the rest of the population too. But in proportion to the actual severity of all those offensive things, I do agree that they should certainly be condemned. But then Kim Roberts also should be condemned for tying up 911 emergency lines -- while she is safely driving around in her car afterwards -- not to report that she felt threatened or even frightened, but that she was mad because some guys earlier had called her a bad name. Kim even admitted it on the phone at the time, "Hi, I don't know if this is an emergency or not necessarily," Well, it's not. She could have driven one mile up the road to report it at the police station if she was really determined to do something about it -- unless of course she was also trying to hide her own identity, conceal the fact that she was on an escort assignment when it happened, and may have participated in the heated verbal exchange by calling the lax players "dumba*sses" and "limp-d*icked white boys!" among other things. So which is the worse offense? Calling someone a bad name, or tying up the 911 emergency lines to report that someone has called you a bad name?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    Lighten up, You wrote:
    No DNA on AV because she never rolled around in the hair piles, never rubbed against the walls or garbage, perhaps. Just used the restroom like a lady?
    I agree that the lack of dna on the accuser does not constitute a proof that the players kept a clean bathroom. If you don't want to address the fact that the lack of dna in the bathroom speaks directly to whether the bathroom was "a cesspool of dna," that's fine with me. If the bathroom was a cesspool, As a dna address pool, the police could do no better. But what if it was wiped clean long before it was a crime scene. Did those dancers knit a sweater?.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#140)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    lightenup, thanks for the kind words. Actually, I don't have a day job. I retired last fall and haven't figured out what I'm going to do with the rest of my life. Posting at Talkleft doesn't pay much. I've been taking hikes in the coastal foothills out here, working off my boiler and clearing my mind, which seems like a pretty good way to spend my time right now. I spent a lot of time at my job representing people in grievances for the union, so while I'm not a lawyer I have some understanding about investigating and when something doesn't make sense I want to know why. People here (like in most internet discussion groups) tend to cast aspersions on others who don't agree with them. No big deal. I try to raise issues that I think need to be considered. If someone doesn't want to think about certain evidence or aspects of the case, that's their choice. Until the last round of DNA results I'd presumed Nifong had something (although I always found the AV unreliable). Now I don't think Nifong's got much. I'm not a betting man, so maybe he'll prove me wrong. I've really got no dog in this fight. Nifong showing up on Thursday not knowing whose phone the AV had is bizarre. At the least, it shows him as being unprepared. Perhaps Nifong is intentionally delaying evidence that will slam dunk sink his case. Or maybe the AV isn't cooperating with him. If it's the last thing, he's in a kind of dilemma. He can't abandon his case without drawing a lot of heat from the African American community in Durham. If he goes ahead with a loser, he'll still get heat from the locals and get destroyed in the national media. My guess is that the AV is not a very stable person and hasn't been particularly honest in her past before this. I don't think she's been honest with the DA. If you are claiming rape in a trial like this you've got to be very tough. And you better not be lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#141)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    Anyone going to write a sonnet about the bathroom in the Buchanan house?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:14:15 PM EST
    TalkLeft posted:
    IMHO, I don't want the thread to turn to Skakel, so please don't respond here, but the fact that Skakel was convicted does not mean Mickey Sherman didn't do a great job for him. I'm aware of reports to the contrary and they are wrong. I have a lot more knowledge about the defense of the case than the critics. This is not the place for a debate on the topic and you have made your views known on the various Skakel threads on TalkLef, so please, drop it.
    I was going to respond in the Skakel thread, but it looks like PB beat me to it. I'll just say I have a lot more knowledge about the defense of the case than the critics and you. I think you know that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    Bob, why do you think the DA doesn't know who the phone belongs to? How did the judge know that it is likely a third party if the DA didn't tell him? I agree that Nifong's wondering why the defense thinks the phone itself could be helpful to them is strange though. Of course they'd want to know of any text messages or incomplete calls. I think it could belong to the escort service as someone posted earlier. Just one more of the little mysteries about this case that keeps our interest. Sharon, I think the house was remodeled at some point. I doubt many two bedroom houses from the 1920's had two bathrooms. My ex-husband and I rented a two bedroom house once that had a large bathroom that was at one time a smaller third bedroom. And my grandmother's really old house has a bathroom that was converted from another room and it is bigger than most normal bathrooms. Is there anyway to find out if that home was remodeled?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:17:58 PM EST
    Slophoto, Please don't misinterpret my intentions. First, let me say, as I've said before, Cheshire is the defense attorney which has impressed me most. His artful use of the language and charm help him come across well and help him veil some of his lawyerly spin. Second, I took your correction of IMHO's grammar as cute, yet a little gratuitous. Feel free to hold your right of maintaining high standards of grammar for yourself, but correcting questionably outdated grammatical rules can test some people's nerves. That being said, I did appreciate your cute post and I'll admit I baited you with my response; which was intended to also be cute. I apologize. By the way, I think that Bob could ignore the imperfect subjunctive in just about any situation. Not only do I believe Bob could assume the persona of Dave Evan's but also his shoes. (grin)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#145)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    az, I could assume Daven Evans shoes if they're 13Es.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#146)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Supposedly the service on that phone was canceled the next day, but that doesn't affect the phone itself. Doesn't the real owner want their cell phone back? That's weird.
    Do you think the players want their lap tops, cell phones, and digital camera back? They are evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#147)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    Teresa, the language I've seen is that the judge said that the cell phone "might not" be owned by the AV. Someone else may have an actual quote, and the judge might just be being snarky, but it seemed that there was a lack of clarity as to who owned the phone, something that should have been known to the DA if the AV owned it, or if she knew who owned it and communicated that to the DA. And that lack of clarity raised privacy issues of the actual owner, if the actual owner is not the AV. Like I've said, if the AV is making a ten-minute call to her boyfriend or kids or whatever at the time she claims to have been raped, the DA's got problems.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted: Supposedly the service on that phone was canceled the next day, but that doesn't affect the phone itself. Doesn't the real owner want their cell phone back? That's weird. IMHO responded: Do you think the players want their lap tops, cell phones, and digital camera back? They are evidence. The big difference is that the police know who owns the the players' cell phones and laptops, and the players know who has them. If the AV's alleged phone belongs to someone she knows, one would presume that the AV would have told the police just who owned the phone she was carrying around. So either the AV doesn't know who the phone's owner is, or she's not telling the DA. Either option does not bode well for the case. A very good reason why the actual owner of the phone doesn't know it's in the DA's custody is because it was stolen. Might explain why the service was turned off the next day, too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    Teresa: Even if the house had been remodeled to include a second bathroom, you're still carving 3 bedrooms, a kitchen, living area, hallway(s) AND 2 bathrooms. I can't see either bathroom having enough area to allow a 3 or 4 way sex scene/struggle as the AV described.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#150)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    lightenup posted:
    PB
    No DNA on AV because she never rolled around in the hair piles, never rubbed against the walls or garbage, perhaps. Just used the restroom like a lady?
    According to the defense, the accuser spent up to twenty minutes in that DNA cesspool, nearly nude with one foot bare, high heel on the other, painting her nails, while stumbling drunk. More importantly, according to Cheshire, only two DNA samples were found in the bathroom - one from the floor and one from a towel that was just outside the bathroom door.* Where's all that DNA? Where's all that hair? If the players put the nails in the trash, where did they find them? On the floor? Four nails lying on that filthy floor and only one picks up detecable DNA? It sounds like these guys are untypically neat or there was a clean up after the party and before the search warrant was served. *Both of these samples were from residents of the house, one was from semen. I wonder if it was Evans' semen on the floor or on the towel?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    Bob & Slo, I read the report of the cell phone being turned off the next day differently. During the interview, certainly the police asked about the belongings she took to the house and those missing. In addition to being SOP, she was missing a shoe, which would naturally lead someone to ask: "What else is missing?" I've had my car broken into twice to steal cell phones (back before they fit in your pocket). Both times, the police reminded me to call the cell phone company and cancel my service as soon as possible. She certainly wasn't expecting to go back to the house to get it back herself. If she said she would, the police would tell her to leave it where it was because it was evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:28:37 PM EST
    IMHO, Maybe I'm behind on sources, but I thought Cheshire said the DNA was found on one of the three fingernails in the trash, not from the four found elsewhere (presumably the bathroom).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    Didn't Cheshire also say at the press conference where Dave Evans spoke that it was the players who threw the nails into the trash can in the bathroom? I havent' checked the transcript lately but I thought I heard him say that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    azbballfan, If it's not the AV's phone, how does she turn off the service? Then again, the phone might not have belonged to her but the chip inside did. But if that's the case, where's the privacy issue?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:38:00 PM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    Even if the house had been remodeled to include a second bathroom, you're still carving 3 bedrooms, a kitchen, living area, hallway(s) AND 2 bathrooms. I can't see either bathroom having enough area to allow a 3 or 4 way sex scene/struggle as the AV described.
    When I picture the smallest bathroom I've seen, that was not on a boat, I don't know how you could not fit four people in it. In my college days, I've been in a small bathroom with four other people. ;) I've never been to a high school party where I didn't see gaggles of girls going into the bathroom together. Placing four people in a small bathroom, even if one is struggling against the other three, is not a problem the prosecution has to worry about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#156)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    TL - My recollection is that Cheshire did say the boys put the fingernails in the trashcan. If they did, there would be more chance that the fingernails would have their DNA on it. We still don't know the nature of the DNA found, if it came from tissue or was just incidental. The crime scene had a lot of time to be compromised by the inhabitants of the house. It sounds strange if the boys found the cell phone and handbag/purse outside and placed it in the bathroom. Almost staged.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#157)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica asked:
    If it's not the AV's phone, how does she turn off the service?
    Who said she was the one that called to have the service turned off?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#158)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    I think it was IMHO who said that DNA was only found in two places in the bathroom. I think that may be misleading. The police probably didn't check in a number of places because it wouldn't be probative. What does it prove if Evans hair is behind the toilet seat or on a counter? My guess is that the cops looked at places where they could find something with both the AV's DNA and the students. If IMHO is suggesting that Evans et al superscrubbed the bathroom to remove any of their DNA, they might have thought to have emptied out the trash. Or maybe they're all evil geniuses.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    IMHO, I was responding to az. I guess we won't know who turned off the service until we know who owns the phone. Just as soon as the AV shares the information, if she knows.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    az, we don't know where in the house the phone and purse were do we? If they brought it in from outside they probably didn't put it in the bathroom. I don't think the items seized list says where each of the items were found. Sharon, the house is two bedrooms isn't it? bean, I'm as liberal as they come and I love men.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#161)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion
    SLOphoto posted: Supposedly the service on that phone was canceled the next day, but that doesn't affect the phone itself. Doesn't the real owner want their cell phone back? That's weird.
    Do you think the players want their lap tops, cell phones, and digital camera back? They are evidence.
    IMHO, What are you ... I'm lost? I am sure the players do want theirs back, but at least we KNOW who those items belong to. Their ownership is not in question. And they were seized for the evidence they contained, not simply to demonstrate that the players possessed them. Bob's question -- and mine -- is who owns the cell phone that the DA has had in his possession for 2 months if it does not belong to the AV? And what is Nifong intended evidentiary use of the phone in court if he has no interest in any information contained in the phone? "Yes, your honor, we located a cell phone in the house which did not belong to the AV." "Well, so what?" "Well, it's evidence." "Evidence of what?" "Well the AV alleges that she had it with her that night, even though it is not her phone." "Well, then who does it belong to?" "Well, we're not sure who it belongs to." "Well, then what is your purpose of introducing it as evidence?" "We submit that she may have had it with her in order to make calls." "What calls?" "Well, we're not interested in that." "Then why do you want to introduce the phone as evidence at all? What bearing does it have on this case?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#162)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    Bob, since the Duke admin notified the captains the morning of the 14th, I have no doubt they straightened up that house. Wouldn't you if you knew the police would be coming? I'm not saying they had any bad motives but that is what I would do. Two of the residents were cleared and aren't suspects and we don't know who put the fingernails in the garbage. I'm actually surprised they didn't get rid of the nails unless they were told the accuser's story in enough detail to know that they had better not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    To all: I have a question I would like the group to address - Some people have speculated that the AV was given a "date-rape" drug. Kim suggested that the AV acted strangely after drinking half of her own drink and all of Kim's. Now, let's assume that this assertion is true - that she was given a date-rape drug. During the photo ID process, the AV specifically identified one player as the one who was "mixing drinks." Now, if she was able to identify the person who was mixing and, presumably, gave her a drink, why hasn't this person been indicted? While I suspect that police do not find any drugs in their search (I don't think it was mentioned in the warrant), given my initial assumption, the DA would have more evidence against this person than he has with all the others who have been indicted. Thus, why no indictment. I have two possible explanations. 1. No date-rate drug was found in the tox report. 2. The person who was mixing drinks "flipped" and was granted immunity. What do you think?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#164)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:10:57 PM EST
    Talk Left posted:
    Didn't Cheshire also say at the press conference where Dave Evans spoke that it was the players who threw the nails into the trash can in the bathroom?
    I havent' checked the transcript lately but I thought I heard him say that.
    At Seligmann's hearing - OSBORN: ...led them [the police] to the fingernails they'd thrown in the trash can.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    No disagreement, Teresa. SLOphoto, maybe Nifong wants to introduce the phone into evidence to show that the stolen phone in her possession was stolen from her. Of course, if you've got a stolen phone you've got to figure you've only got a limited amount of time to use it before the service is shut off. Maybe she figured she'd gotten her use out of it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#166)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    IMHO posted: It sounds like these guys are untypically neat or there was a clean up after the party and before the search warrant was served.
    More likely is that they did a guys-type sweep-up and wipe-off clean up job on the guest bathroom before the guests for the party arrived. Especially since they were going to have professional ladies over later that night (who might have been a pair dazzling porn stars for all they knew ahead of time). It's more likely to have inspired them to feel self conscious enough to clean the bathroom before the party, instead of afterwards.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    Thanks, imho. I guess the import is that if the players threw the nails in the trashcan without bothering to dump it outside, they weren't worried about concealing evidence. Sounds like they were just cleaning up the house after a party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    Pat, I don't think there was any date rape drug at all. I think we'd have heard that by now from the DA leaks. Depending on how strong the one and one half drinks she had were, that would explain her intoxication to me. The North Carolina attorneys that were on TV last night said that if the DA has a witness cooperating he would have had to turn that over as part of discovery unless there was a need to protect him. I think they said the only way that could be kept out of discovery at this point would be if it was just discussions with the player's attorney and no official statement had been taken yet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#169)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    First time commenting on any blog site. I have followed the Duke thread for some time and would like to offer some observations and ask some questions. 1.Accuser has history of passing out. With etoh level of .19 she passed out at police station in 2002. Same in 2006? 2.What took so long between leaving LAX house and arriving at Kroger? Over 30 minutes for a 5 minute drive. 3.Evidence #30- KY jelly bottle. Who does it belong to? 4.Sane report, if similar to SC, would have descriptions of assailant/assailants, method of assault and if condoms and other objects were used. (Patients memory of events.) Sane nurse is not to make judgement of whether a rape occurred, only state the physical findings. DA should have had a good idea as to whether condoms or broomstick used from the very beginning. 5.Hate to cloud the issue but an*l and va**nal injuries can be happen with many of activities and not just with forceful rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    Teresa: Okay - I guess your observations support the first explanation. But, without drugs and without a corrobarating witness - the evidence against the player's really turns into a she-said/they-said situation. I have another question then. If one assumes that Seligmann's alibi holds and if you assume the DA will try to argue that the rape occurred within a few minutes (not the 30 minutes stated), isn't this then a double-edged sword? What I mean by this is that if the DA argues the alleged rape occurred in 10 minutes, then won't this open the door for the defense to argue that the alleged rape occurred in a 10-minute period before she arrived? I know some have argued that if she was raped she wouldn't have been able to perform - but, in fact, she didn't perform for very long... Further, if the injuries were severe, wouldn't there be blood or other evidence in the bathroom and in Kim's car? I doubt, however, that the detectives searched Kim's car...another error that will make it harder to find the truth. I've been observing a self-imposed "time-out" for violating the name rules - again, I apologize for screwing-up yesterday.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    Posted by Pat: Thus, why no indictment. I have two possible explanations. 1. No date-rate drug was found in the tox report. 2. The person who was mixing drinks "flipped" and was granted immunity.
    I think at this point it is pretty doubtful that any player has flipped. There's been enough time and enough pressure for somebody to opt out if anybody knew that anything really happened. And with the AV's history of mental... well -- depression, moodiness, whatever -- I think it is highly likely that she was taking some sort of medication/s for it. She may have augmented them with some mild street drugs. Combined with alcohol it probably had a multiplying effect. There would be no clear-cut way to establish either by tests or by recollections of the AV how "out of it" she should or should not have been on some sort of combination of substances such as that combined with 1 1/2 mixed drinks with strong alcohol. I don't think she took anything in the usual classification of a "date-rape" drug. Just my feeling on it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by weezie on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:07:02 PM EST
    Sorry to be dense about some previously discussed items but was the make-up bag found in the bathroom by the police or the guys renting the house? Does it stand to reason that she either forgot the bag (if she was drunk) or left it there on purpose to give her story legs?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    Spartan, you wrote:
    3.Evidence #30- KY jelly bottle. Who does it belong to?
    I'm a bit confused on this issue. In the search warrant item 30 is actually referred to as "KY jelly bottle photograph." (Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm following Bob in Pacifica's lead and just saying whatever comes into my head without actually checking anything myself.) Maybe it's like the "shocker." A poster glorifying KY jelly would look beautiful in the bathroom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    Teresa: Yes, my mistake, it's 2 bedrooms, built in 1910. But, IMHO: I wasn't suggesting that four people couldn't fit in the bathroom, just that to for her to be raped as the search warrant affidavit described it, I can imagine there being logistical problems. Regarding the possiblity of a date rape drug being used: if one were administered to her, it surely didn't work as advertised, did it? She supposedly fought like a tiger, and has a clear recollection of what was done to her, by whom, and where. Does anyone know if that is consistent with a GBH or whatever effect? Then again, maybe that's why it took her 30 hours, according to the City Manager, to give enough details for the search warrant to be issued.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    Pat: Or in the time post-party and pre-Kroger.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    Weezie: There is a defense picture of her grasping what appears to be a make-up bag and purse as she left the house. I'll try to find it for you

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#177)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    Talk Left posted:
    Thanks, imho. I guess the import is that if the players threw the nails in the trashcan without bothering to dump it outside, they weren't worried about concealing evidence. Sounds like they were just cleaning up the house after a party.
    That's not clear. Osborn could have been referring to an outdoor trash can into which the bathroom trash can had been dumped. Maybe Cheshire was more precise in saying the police took it out of the bathroom trash can. I don't know. The search warrant included the garbage at the residence. The police could have seen the bathroom trash can had been emptied and asked the players where it had been dumped then the players led them to the out door trash can. When the police came a-knocking, it is possible the players had already been told by their coach to cooperate, the police were not taking the accuser's story seriously and "this would all blow over." That may be why they didn't tell their parents what was going on or, according to Kalidoggie's definition, why they lied to their parents.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    Would like to see if tox screen was done at hospital in 2002 . Would give a clue to accuser's actions/ behavior then and now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:14:34 PM EST
    Bean: And, as a blogger on another site said, Seligman and Finnerty are sophomores, and not starters on the team. Likelihood that all the other guys, the upperclassmen, who paid to see "dancing" would let them monopolize the AV's attention for half an hour? Not likely. "Wait your turn, soph."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by weezie on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    Pat, I know about the picture but I thought I read that some kind of purse or bag was found in the house along with fake nails that were unused and also some that had fallen off her fingers. Never mind, I'm worn out with all the discussions anyway. Have a nice Sunday everybody. I'm going to cut the grass and cheer for the Pistons!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#181)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    Weezie, You wrote:
    Sorry to be dense about some previously discussed items but was the make-up bag found in the bathroom by the police or the guys renting the house? Does it stand to reason that she either forgot the bag (if she was drunk) or left it there on purpose to give her story legs?
    I'm more confused than you are. There used to be talk of two bags, one a makeup bag, the other a purse. The makeup bag was recovered, but I'm confused about the purse. I think sometimes the makeup bag is referred to as a purse. One lawyer actually claimed that the accuser was carrying her purse and her makeup bag in the 12:30 photo, and that the purse fell out of her hand when she fell on the stairwell. Osborn claims the boys found the purse outside and brought it inside. Don't know what's true.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#182)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    Pat, if there are injuries severe enough to indicate rape, I think the defense will argue that it happened prior to her arrival if it happened at all. I guess that puts the boyfriend on the hook but I think I read that he is not a suspect. That makes me wonder how severe the injuries really are. Spartan, according to Kim, she tried to find out the accusers address and even called the escort service for help. I can easily see that taking a while and then she had to find the security guard and fill her in on her story. I don't think anything happened to her after leaving. IF she was raped and it isn't the lacrosse players, I think it happened before she got there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    Absolutely, SLO: Combining alcohol, a depressant, with an anti-depressant medication can have some extreme results. Had this thought the other day when Wendy Murphy (what IS her problem?) scoffed when Evans said not only he but Seligman and Finnerty, too, were innocent. Something along the lines of "how does he know? were they holding hands and having a prayer meeting or something?" But what if the story that the players' attorneys put out first is true: the only time the dancers were out of sight of the players, the only time that the AV was alone with anyone, was when Kim and the AV locked themselves in the bathroom and wouldn't come out. If that were the case, then Evans COULD be sure that no rape occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#184)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    Pat, I don't believe for a minute that you'd violate a rule on purpose. Don't beat yourself up. :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:26:48 PM EST
    Teresa: But Kim lied to the Kroger guard, too, told her she'd seen the AV walking down the street and, being nice, gave her a lift. Why was she trying to find the address? She knew it when she made the initial 911 call about the racial slurs.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#186)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:30:40 PM EST
    Welcome, Spartan. I hope some of the other commenters here who are more familiar with the evidence that I am at this point, will answer your questions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#187)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    PB, You maybe be right about ky bottle photograph but it would make more sense if they collected the bottle and an isolated photo. What value is a picture of KY? Teresa, I didn't believe an assault happened in that time period. I was more curious about second dancer's activities. I am sure her phone records will be interesting to confirm all her statements

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by wumhenry on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    Good stuff at Findlaw: Spilbor "In my professional experience, a prosecutor's refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of." "When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and 'see what the jury says.' These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted.... Nifong should ... drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#188)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    Sharon, Kim said she was trying to find the accuser's address to take her home, not the lacrosse house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    spartan: Good Qs
    1. See my above post on alcohol and drugs. 2. Before Krogers Kim was trying to dump the AV off, but the AV was so "out of it" she couldn't tell her where she lived. Rumored calls to the escort agency were of no help, especially since the women worked for two different agencies. One theory goes that Kim thought the AV was holding out on her about some of the money and Kim may have stolen the rest of the money from the AV. 3. KY jelly I believe attributed to the AV, but I'm not sure about this one. Still would the alleged rapists be so considerate as to show it to the AV directly and ask, "Would this be all right with you, ma'am?" Maybe it was in the SANE report as a substance. 4. Yes, the SANE report is pretty well decide whether or not there is a case here at all. Apparently the AV did not provide very many coherent details that night, was released after only 3 to 5 hours, spent the rest of the day with her boyfriend, family, whomever. it was only the following day -- 31 hours later -- that she filed a formal report with details. That allowed her quite a bit of time to discuss those details with someone else she trusted to help her clarify what is alleged to have happened before she committed her story to paper and signed it. 5. Sex with boyfriend is already established. Maybe he's a rowdy guy. Maybe she likes toys. Maybe he likes toys. A lot of sex is not as conventional as many people envision just offhand.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#190)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    apologies, Teresa, I misread your post, "accusers" I read as accused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#191)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:52:15 PM EST
    Spartan, I also don't think anything happened to the accuser after she left with Kim. When Kim first heard about the alleged assault she didn't believe it. I think she would have jumped all over that if she was involved in anyway. Bean, your comments are getting to me. This woman is not a pig, she is a human being. Maybe a mentally ill one but not a pig. Please stop. And liberals are not the root of all evil. I think that is very apparent right now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#192)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica said,
    Nobody seems to have an answer as to why Nifong, who thought the phone was important enough to seize as a piece of evidence within days of the alleged rape, still does not know who the phone belongs to.
    I think Nifong must have known what the phone calls are about and probably will not make him look good. I am just wondering how did Nifong find out that there are 3 men other than Duke lacrosse players having had contacts with the AV on the same day. He got to known there were 3 other men, either by (1) checking with the AV's agency record, or, (2) the AV confessed it, or (3) from her cellphone record. If the three are clients, the first one and the third one should somewhat correspond, as girls usually need to report back to the agency about the transaction. However, there might be other scenarios and other 3 men may not be clients. So, my take is that Nifong probably knows that the cellphone record may hurt his case so that he claims that it may not be hers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    Been gone for a while and I see the discussion has advanced rapidly; backing out for now. To PB and IMHO: I see Bob, TL, Ori, SLOphoto, had good thoughts re the DNA cesspool in my absence. PB: your Cochranesque rhyme was very good, but a distant second to Ori and Del. Bob, my comments re day job was an homage to superior golfers and your insightful posts here, and my jealousy in not having more time to just reading this site vs posting. Checking back when I can. Adios all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#194)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:10:24 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    5. Sex with boyfriend is already established. Maybe he's a rowdy guy. Maybe she likes toys. Maybe he likes toys. A lot of sex is not as conventional as many people envision just offhand.
    Since the DNA sample came from a swab that was weeks old when tested, there is no way to determine when the sex with the boyfriend took place. It could be as distant as 14 days from when the S.A.N.E. test was performed. If this goes before a jury and the accuser testifies she had not had consensual sex with anyone for a week prior, the evidence will not refute her claim and the jury may believe her. If the S.A.N.E. nurse testifies the injuries are recent, and the accuser told her she hadn't had consensual sex for a week prior, the jury may believe her too. Maybe that is what Yale Galanter's stammering was about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:12:22 PM EST
    Posted by SharonInJax: But what if the story that the players' attorneys put out first is true: the only time the dancers were out of sight of the players, the only time that the AV was alone with anyone, was when Kim and the AV locked themselves in the bathroom and wouldn't come out. If that were the case, then Evans COULD be sure that no rape occurred.
    Sharon, I have not been able to track it down, because I only saw it once several weeks ago. But there was a story that said that Kim had been asked the question directly, "Were you ever alone in the bathroom with the accuser?" and that she turned her head away and refused to answer the question at all. Sorry, as I said, I cannot find the source again. But if it is true, and Kim is being evasive about it, then there would be some particular reason for that. And if that were the case, then it is possible within the timeline that Evans COULD be sure that no rape occurred. Also, I am very inclined to believe that the players did talk to each other within the first few hours and KNEW by the end of the 2nd day exactly what did and did not happen inside that house -- for better or for worse. I believe that their stories are all based on what they know amongst themselves to be the truth. I'll qualify that and say that doesn't mean they are telling the truth, but all of them do know it. That's my own personal feeling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#196)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    imho, in the first test the swabs weren't weeks old and they showed nothing. If she had had really recent sex, don't you think it would have showed up with the first test? At least that's my impression.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#197)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Nobody seems to have an answer as to why Nifong, who thought the phone was important enough to seize as a piece of evidence within days of the alleged rape, still does not know who the phone belongs to.
    Do we know if Nifong had anything to do with the application for the search warrant or the serving of the warrant? Nifong didn't need that information to get three indictments. As long as he doesn't have it, neither does the defense. Maybe he figures they need it more than he does. Maybe he's yanking their chain by doing things on his time, not theirs. Maybe it's payback time for the stonewalling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:23:27 PM EST
    SLO, the bathroom question to Kim was in the AP interview that she did. I can't find a link to the entire interview but that's where she refused to answer that question.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#199)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    Sharon said:
    But what if the story that the players' attorneys put out first is true: the only time the dancers were out of sight of the players, the only time that the AV was alone with anyone, was when Kim and the AV locked themselves in the bathroom and wouldn't come out.
    A few days ago Kim went to see the AV's parents and the meeting was an emotional experience for both. Kim said to the AV's parents that she is sorry that she "left early." What Kim said really to the AV's parents really got me to think about the question of how the AV got out of the bathroom if she was so impaired and need people's help to get into the car. I imagine of the possible scenario might be like the following-- Both women were coaxed back to the house. They went into the bathroom trying to getting ready for a second performance. Somehow the AV got more impaired, and it looks that it's not going to happen. Kim came out of the bathroom first, told the players to help the AV got into the car. Otherwise, had the AV locked herself up alone in the bathroom, how could she get out of the bathroom if she was inside nearly unconscious and other people outside didn't know what she was doing in there? or, another possibility is that there were indeed players in the bathroom with her. By the way, any legal document has mentioned that where the cellphone and the make-up bag were found? Did it just say "from the house" or as specific as "in the bathroom"? Somehow I kept thinking that these items were found in the bathroom, and was surprised to learn the defense attorney say that those were left outside. Wouldn't it be a little contradictory to say that the make-up bag was found outside the house, while the AV is trying to apply the nail in the bathroom?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#200)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:33:04 PM EST
    IMHO, I'd like to go back to the SANE exam. The nurse should have cheked off the box as to whether the accuser stated she had sex prior to the alleged rape. If she was so incoherent to give answers, then why did the hospital discharge here before she was coherent enough to give answers. Most patients that "messed up" are admitted for 24 hour observation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#201)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:38:55 PM EST
    Teresa posted:
    imho, in the first test the swabs weren't weeks old and they showed nothing. If she had had really recent sex, don't you think it would have showed up with the first test? At least that's my impression.
    I don't know why they missed it the first time around. What I do know is, now, it is too late to prove that DNA came from recent sex, which is a loss for the prosecution. Motile sperm would have been better news for them, but still would only have placed the sex within 72 hours of the exam. The injuries may be convincingly more recent than that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    Sorry everyone for typos. don't usually type anything but i think you can make out what i am trying to type

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#203)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    IMHO, I agree. It does look like Nifong is deliberately witholding evidence from the defense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#204)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    IMHO posted: If this goes before a jury and the accuser testifies she had not had consensual sex with anyone for a week prior, the evidence will not refute her claim and the jury may believe her. If the S.A.N.E. nurse testifies the injuries are recent, and the accuser told her she hadn't had consensual sex for a week prior, the jury may believe her too. Maybe that is what Yale Galanter's stammering was about.
    Well, of course you are right. The jury may believe her no matter what the evidence is, for that matter. One of the comments by the main ex-DA in Los Angeles during the O.J. trial was that when he heard some of the dismissed jurors talk about the case, he said to himself, "Some of these people are candidates for a mental poverty program." I have a lot more confidence in the innocence of the lax players than I do in whether or not a North Carolina jury is going to find for an acquittal on the charges against them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#205)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:43:58 PM EST
    imho, why is that a loss for the prosecution? Isn't it in their favor if the sex was not recent since the DNA is her boyfriend's? I would think the more recent the better for the defense. When reading my quote, I see that I should have said shown rather than showed. Don't be mad at me Orinoco. :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#206)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 08:51:29 PM EST
    Posted by spartan: If she was so incoherent to give answers, then why did the hospital discharge here before she was coherent enough to give answers. Most patients that "messed up" are admitted for 24 hour observation.
    That has been one of the questions that has bothered me all along. Why is somebody that messed up allow to leave after only 3 to 5 hours, and not kept for further observation? I don't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#207)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:06:11 PM EST
    Sorry everyone for typos. don't usually type anything but i think you can make out what i am trying to type
    spartan: If you want, try typing your message in a word processing program, run your spell check on it, and then copy and paste it from your clipboard into the blog space. It's a lot easier than trying to scroll up and down in that little tiny blog box.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#208)
    by spartan on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:12:31 PM EST
    Thanks SLOphoto. I am a true novice to word processing and cut and pasting. Will try to learn so that my posts are not "incoherent". Nite everyone. It is midnight on the east coast.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#209)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, I agree. It does look like Nifong is deliberately witholding evidence from the defense.
    Legally, I hope. I meant to get back to you about the lawyers being actors in the court room. What was interesting about Nifong's performance Thursday was what he was trying to project. He did not have the demeanor of someone that was going to quietly back out as soon as he could do so. He was having fun with Osborn. Mocking Osborn's claim it took an expert to recharge a cell phone: "we have our own, dare I use the term, 'expert'.... Excellent delivery, "give me a f*ckin' break" facial expression, it was funny. Seligmann looked scared. When I watched the hearing live, I hadn't heard about the the jeering outside or the outburst from the man that had been sitting right behind him. I'd be scared too. Once heard about that, I felt even more sorry for Seligmann. Great leadership, captains. Good stonewalling advice, attorneys. I don't think Seligmann would be sitting there if the 40+ players had not stonewalled.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#210)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    Teresa posted:
    imho, why is that a loss for the prosecution? Isn't it in their favor if the sex was not recent since the DNA is her boyfriend's? I would think the more recent the better for the defense.
    DUH. Thanks Teresa. I meant what you just said.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#211)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:27:23 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Well, of course you are right. The jury may believe her no matter what the evidence is, for that matter.
    If the evidence is irrelevant, why discuss it? Because it's not. Even an impartial jury likes something to hang their hat on. No medical proof of recent sex with her boyfriend is one example. For all we know she told the S.A.N.E. she had rough sex with her boyfriend in the car in front of the house and that's why she could hardly stand up to dance. We don't know. If her story is "no recent consensual sex," the DNA results will not refute her claim. That's one for the prosecution.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#212)
    by chew2 on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    Slow news day. I can't believe you spent so much time rehashing who owned the cel phone. It did illustrate how class and race shape our perceptions. Nifong says to the judge that he doesn't know to whom the recovered cel phone belongs. Some of the usual suspects leap to the conclusion that the cel phone belongs to someone else and the AV may have stolen the cel phone so they can continue to villify her. After all she's poor and black. These same people then claim that, of course, the police knew who owned the computers and cameras recovered from the house. And they assume, of course, that they belonged to the rich team captains and that they weren't stolen. In fact there is no evidence the police know to whom those objects belong. They could have been left there by other people. Maybe they could have even been stolen from some fellow student. The understaffed police most probably haven't spent any time trying to track down who owns what. Why? Becasue it probably isn't very important to them. Listen to the WRAL video of the hearing again. The judge says he "heard" that the phone could have belonged to a "third party or even a fourth party". He then adds or possibly the AV. Nifong replies that he doesn't know who the phone belongs to. It's not that important to him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#213)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:32:18 PM EST
    Don't be mad at me Orinoco. :)
    Don't worry, Teresa, Orinoco only is perturbed by people he is ignoring. ;(

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#214)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    IMHO: I don't think Seligmann would be sitting there if the 40+ players had not stonewalled.
    :::: Ahem :::: But that still does not explain why Dean Evans was indicted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#215)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:36:45 PM EST
    chew2 posted:
    Some of the usual suspects leap to the conclusion that the cel phone belongs to someone else and the AV may have stolen the cel phone so they can continue to villify her. After all she's poor and black.
    Yep, but you forgot the theory that the third party may have been her "johns." Pretty disturbing conclusions by some of the commenters here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#217)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    SlOphoto posted:
    :::: Ahem :::: But that still does not explain why Dean Evans was indicted.
    Now if I was...er...were Orinoco I would say, Dean Evans was NOT indicted. You, SLOphoto, are a liar! (I called him Dan Evans yesterday. Luckily, Orinoco didn't catch me lying.) :::: Ahem :::: Those witnesses that Cheshire says can account for Evans' whereabouts every minute that night?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#216)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#218)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:00:55 PM EST
    chew2:
    These same people then claim that, of course, the police knew who owned the computers and cameras recovered from the house.
    Everyone assumed these belonged to the players and the phone belonged to the AV until the DA himself expressed doubt about the phone. That is where doubt came from, not class privilege.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#219)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    Oh, dear, excuse me all to h*ll. David Evans. I stand chastised. But David Evans was one of the three lax players who did not stonewall the police. You said,
    I don't think Seligmann would be sitting there if the 40+ players had not stonewalled.
    But not David Evans? I told you I don't see your consistency.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#220)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:07:29 PM EST
    And yes, of course you are right that some of the cell phone theories today were pretty far-fetched. But the fundamental issue is that the computers and cameras in the house were seized for any evidence they might contain. They didn't seize the toaster, the coffeepot or the TV set. The DA does not seem to be interested if the AV's cell phone "contains" any information. The DA is introducing it as evidence but not for any evidence that it might contain. So why is it relevant to the DA as "evidence" for anything at all?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#221)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:12:36 PM EST
    Posted by noname Everyone assumed these belonged to the players and the phone belonged to the AV until the DA himself expressed doubt about the phone. That is where doubt came from, not class privilege.
    Exactly. Well said. Thank you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#222)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:19:43 PM EST
    Everyone assumed these belonged to the players and the phone belonged to the AV until the DA himself expressed doubt about the phone. That is where doubt came from, not class privilege.
    noname, am I going to have to listen to that hearing again? I think it was the judge who brought up the phone's ownership. I don't doubt that Nifong knows who owns that phone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#223)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    But David Evans was one of the three lax players who did not stonewall the police. You said,
    I don't think Seligmann would be sitting there if the 40+ players had not stonewalled. SLOphoto posted:
    But not David Evans? I told you I don't see your consistency.
    Those witnesses that Cheshire says can account for Evans' whereabouts every minute that night? How many of those witnesses do you think are among the 40+ players that stonewalled? ALL but two, I would guess. All but two of Evans' witnesses refused to account for his whereabouts - until it was too late to prevent his indictment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#224)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:40:57 PM EST
    Enough on the phone. I'm going to turn into a pumpkin. Goodnight everyone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#225)
    by Lora on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:43:01 PM EST
    Teresa,
    "I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred _ and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview.
    Sorry Teresa I lost the link. I found it in the "Second Dancer Speaks Out" thread I think. Is this the quote/interview you meant? Kim's a little vague here; she doesn't directly say whether she ever was in the bathroom with the AV, she just says she wasn't in the bathroom with her at the time of the [alleged] rape. On DNA: I'm wondering if any of the samples from the SANE exam were for testing DNA from semen only, and that the fingernails were the only ones that were tested for DNA from the recovered "tissue". That might explain the dearth of DNA that you might expect from being in the bathroom, whether being raped or not. It might not be possible to sort out miniscule amounts of foreign DNA from unknown sources from the AV's own DNA which would give an overwhelming signal in a test. If you could actually identify and isolate the sperm cells you could hopefully get a decent amount of the DNA separate from the AV's. Same thing with the "tissue" from the fingernail. You could isolate it so it wouldn't be overwhelmed by the AV's own DNA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#226)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    IMHO: Now it's his WITNESSES and not his own cooperation? Now I am going to turn into a pumpkin. This is too much Kafka for one night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#227)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    The McFayden search warrant states four red polished fingernails had been recovered from 610 N. Buchanan as a result of a previous search. They were recovered inside the residence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#228)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    IMHO: Now it's his WITNESSES and not his own cooperation? Now I am going to turn into a pumpkin. This is too much Kafka for one night.
    SLO, what don't you get about the 40+ guys not cooperating hurting EVERYONE? Gee Dave, I'd like to help you out. I know where you every minute the whole night, but I've got this noise ordinance thing hanging over my head....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#229)
    by Teresa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 10:57:45 PM EST
    Lora, I think the comment most refer to is when she said "no it didn't happen, I didn't see it" when she was asked about the accuser painting her nails and about the money being put under the door. Many took that to mean that she was in the bathroom and did not see these events happen so the accuser is lying and that Kim tripped up and admitted to being in the bathroom at that time. I took it as Kim wasn't in the bathroom at all so I don't see it as her lying. When she was asked directly whether if she was in the bathroom with the accuser, she said she's not going to talk about it. I assume she has been told not to talk about it. I think that comment is why so many people think that Kim was in the bathroom. I didn't take it that way at all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#230)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:44:06 PM EST
    The defense has said the accuser was in the house alone for about ten minutes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#231)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 20, 2006 at 11:46:21 PM EST
    But Teresa, Kim did change her clothes before leaving that night. The defense said that was one of the things that was happening when the women were locked in the bathroom. "Cooperating" didn't help Evans a whole hell of a lot did it, imho? Sorry, but I have heard nothing from Nifong to indicate that unless and until "cooperation" meant telling a story that he wanted to hear, not reiterating what the house-mates had already told the police, they would all remain under suspicion. He was already threatening them with obstruction of justice charges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#232)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:13:00 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    "Cooperating" didn't help Evans a whole hell of a lot did it, imho?
    Actually it did. Didn't you hear his speech? That was the most compelling part of it. SharoninJax posted:
    Sorry, but I have heard nothing from Nifong to indicate that unless and until "cooperation" meant telling a story that he wanted to hear, not reiterating what the house-mates had already told the police, they would all remain under suspicion.
    You heard nothing from Nifong until the 40+ guys refused to talk. SharoninJax posted:
    He was already threatening them with obstruction of justice charges.
    Before they refused to talk? Do you think Cheshire was lying when he said he has witnesses that can account for David Evans every minute of the evening?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#233)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:08:15 AM EST
    Slophoto, You wrote:
    The DA does not seem to be interested if the AV's cell phone "contains" any information. The DA is introducing it as evidence but not for any evidence that it might contain. So why is it relevant to the DA as "evidence" for anything at all?
    The accuser told police she left her phone at the house and that it had been taken from her by her assailants at one point. So unlike the toaster, it is relevant simply as a confirmation of her story... That said, it's the kind of item police might expect to find fingerprints on, which could be match some as yet unrevealed as of yet source, I suppose. Is that the kind of information the defense would rush of the paper with? If Nifong puts Finnerty and Seligman in the bathroom with the accuser on the basis of the accuser's photo ID alone, that would be astonishing. There are people who claim that this is OBVIOUSLY what happened here, (Nick O'Hara's eenie meenie miny moe mom, for example) but of course, wishful thinking isn't any more helpful here than it is in Vegas.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#234)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:33:24 AM EST
    Bean, You wrote:
    The Duke accuser was so drunk when she got to the house she couldn't perform-boys refused to pay for nothing.
    I thought they paid in advance. Where'd you get the idea that they "refused to pay." Even Bissey, an independant witness, has the players grousing in the alley about getting their money back, doesn't he? You wrote:
    People are entitled to their opinions but not their own set of facts-people here like to make up their facts.
    Didn't you make up the "fact" that they "refused to pay." If not, where did you get it from? You wrote:
    No crime committed here except a BIG false accusation.
    Well, if they "dusted up" anyone to get their money back, would that not be a crime? You wrote:
    The woman is an OBVIOUS lying PIG
    Well, Justice is blind. It's two parts blessing to one part curse, I would think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#235)
    by spartan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:45:21 AM EST
    Good morning everyone. Hate to revisit the cellphone issue but this is a very important piece of evidence. The information as to the actual owner is probably not as important as the phone history of outgoing/incoming calls prior to and after the alleged crime. If the accuser had this phone in her possession then the call history could potentially give more info to the time line of events. (Modern technology gives accurate times to calls, not approximate times.)The problem is that when service is cancelled the call history was lost from the phone. When the battery dies you don't need an expert to retrieve the info, only when the service is discontinued. Hopefully the service provider may be able to retrieve the data from their data bank. For the DA not to appreciate the significance of the phone history content is a little sad.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#236)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:01:48 AM EST
    Rogan1313:
    Oh, I think Nifong appreciated the significance of the cell phone content all too well. If the call history is really lost as you say then it was lost on purpose. If it wasn't lost, then bring it on.
    The call history is part of the billing information and is retained by the cellphone service provider. Shorter: It isn't lost. InMyHumbleOpinion - Yes. Indeed. Uh-huh.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#237)
    by spartan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:12:49 AM EST
    I believe billing statement from service provider only lists completed outgoing and incoming calls. I am not sure about missed incoming and outgoing calls not reaching the intended party. Tried to log in on my sprint account to view my billing statement and they are not responding. Somebody may have more info regarding what actually is on statement. I suspect missed calls and outgoing calls not completed would also help in defining the time line of events.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#238)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:24:22 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ posted:
    InMyHumbleOpinion - Yes. Indeed. Uh-huh.
    JimakaPPJ posted:
    You and I are obviously too old to be fascinated by strippers, strip clubs, etc....
    These are crimes even when committed against strippers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#239)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:55:37 AM EST
    chew2, 1. Photo of AV using phone at party. 2. Records of calls would narrow window of opportunity for rape. 3. Gee, we don't know who the phone belongs to. If you are a seeker of justice and you have a piece of evidence you examine it. If you are only going for a prosecution you are disinterested. Why is there any doubt that the phone that the AV has is not her phone? Why, since the defense has asked for information regarding prior to the hearing hasn't Nifong even asked the AV whose phone it is? Could the question about ownership be an indication that it was stolen property? Yes. Could it be that it is an indication that Nifong is concealing something too. It doesn't matter that Nifong is so unconcerned with the phone as to not produce evidence in discovery. It's his job to produce the evidence or argue reasonably why it shouldn't be shared. Not getting around to it isn't much of an excuse. Getting around, in this case, would have merely asked the AV whose phone it is. Are you saying that Nifong is so casual about the case that he doesn't talk to the AV?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#240)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    If the AV was in the house without Roberts for ten minutes wouldn't that have been around 11:20 to 11:30? If so, shouldn't the police be searching the house for an ATM machine?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#241)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:17:30 AM EST
    bean, constantly ragging about your political beliefs doesn't add much to your cred about the case. If you keep burying you comments about the Duke case in bluster about your hatred of liberals, people tend to skip over your comments. Try sticking to the case. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#242)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:29:39 AM EST
    Bob posted:
    Are you saying that Nifong is so casual about the case that he doesn't talk to the AV?
    I have seen no hint at all that Nifong is in any sort of constant or even infrequent contact with the AV. My personal feeling is that when this is all over it will be seen that Nifong took her initial statement pretty much at face value, saw the political potential for himself in it, and then ran with it. He could find out later whether or not he had a real case. In the meantime he either had a winnable case based on what he might find, or else he had an acquittal based on what he could not find. Either way he got elected. He can always way, "Well, I did my part."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#243)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:30:11 AM EST
    The AV's affirmation of no recent sex with her boyfriend in a SANE exam is no more or less believable than her testimony. If the jury doesn't believe her testimony, they won't believe her statements to the nurse. Any claim of not recently having sex with her boyfriend may be controverted by the presence of his semen in her. When the SANE nurse testifies, she will undoubtedly be asked about the swabs she took. If she swabbed something with the appearance of semen that eventually tested positive for the boyfriend's semen, that would suggest that there wasn't much time for decay. In other words, it wasn't a stray cell or two. Of course, since I concentrate all my expertise in cellular communications, the above is speculation. Nevertheless, the examination of the SANE report alongside the AV's statement could go a long way to dismantling her as a credible witness. Or not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:41:31 AM EST
    Even if she had had sex w/ the bf recently, couldn't she have douched or something? Wouldn't that clear away most of the material? Frankly, the cell phone debate is a welcome change from focusing on the AV's naughty bits. Interesting question about completed/received calls having data records at svc provider, but missed/dialled-but-not-completed calls disappearing when the battery dies. Hmmm. I have a real hard time believing that Nifong's office wouldn't have punched up every menu on that phone as soon as it came into their possession. SLO:
    Nifong took her initial statement pretty much at face value, saw the political potential for himself in it, and then ran with it
    I agree completely. FWIW PB, I think your Cochran poem was much better than mine :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#245)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:43:13 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    If the AV was in the house without Roberts for ten minutes wouldn't that have been around 11:20 [12:20]to 11:30? [12:30]
    I'm not relying on the time stamps that have been superimposed on the cropped photos, but even the defense has not narrowed this ten minute window to the 12:20 - 12:30 range. They had to make this "ten minute" concession because Kim knows the accuser was inside, while she was outside and they have no photos (that are exculpatory, at least) of the dancers during the 12:04 - 12:30 time range.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:44:33 AM EST
    imho: my point was based upon hindsight, granted, but my opinion is that unless one of the players implicated another, he would continue to claim they were not cooperating, "blue wall of silence," hooligans, etc. And no, Evans press conference does not prove my point: full cooperation still got him indicted in spite of it. Do you, or does anyone, know if they refused outright to give statements? give an interview with the Durham PD WITH counsel present? Not meaning to be argumentative, but are the details (other than that they cancelled the group grope that Nifong and the PD wanted? I know you will laugh (chortle, guffaw, ROFLYAO) but no, I don't think Cheshire was lying about having witnesses who could account for Evans evening: other party attendees. And before you bust a gut over that, if Kim can be a witness as to the AV's actions, why not the other guys for Evans?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    Rogan: it may be anecdotal, but try mixing say, Celexa with alcohol - not a happy trip. And no, we don't know that she had been prescribed medication, but one might think that after a week long stay in a hospital allegedly for stress related disorders tied to her mounting money problems (statement from her family in Essence, I think), that the attending would not simply cut her loose.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    Does anyone know if things like photos or text messages on the phone would or could be lost, both in or outgoing? I have a VERY basic cell phone, am of a certain age, and so I haven't a clue about how all of that works. But if the model in question had those capabilities, it's one more possibility of what could be gleaned from an examination of the phone itself, and the urgency of recovering the data. Not sure if I've seen anyone else comment about this: in the back porch photo, taken around 12:30 I believe, where the AV is holding the makeup bag, only wearing one shoe, etc. her outfit looks to be in remarkably good shape. Granted, hard to tell from the web display of it, but she does not look at all dishevelled and the outfit looks to be fitting just right. Now, if Nifong has a torn, bloody teddy, the defense has a BIG problem, wouldn't you say? But it does not look that way, in that photo, to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#249)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    Hey everyone- I'm new here after a few weeks of reading yor comments. Sharoninjax, The "Blue Wall of Silence" was anything but. The captains and ALL of the boys agreed to help police, but at some point some scared kid let it slip to mom and dad BEFORE they all were taken in for statements that they were in serious trouble. It was then that the sh*t hit the fan. The parents got ahold of Administators at Duke who had informed them of NOTHING and the parents had a field day. You can imagine what must have been said...It was after that that the boys stopped talking and Duke started to look at "how they handled" the situation. Of course the parents DID not want their kids talking to the police without representation, they didn't know what the situation WAS! You all have done an excellent job debating the "facts"!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#250)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    In my years representing people in grievances when it involved charges against them it was much like being a defense attorney. I've found that a most important part of representing someone is making sure you are not being lied to. People who do something wrong are going to try to mitigate their actions by putting forth the best version, which may stray into the realm of untruth. There was actually a BBC story a while back that suggested that people who are good and frequent liars have their brains wired differently so that lying is easier for them. The way the brain is wired is in large part adaptive based on one's life during his formative years. I remember one case where the person I represented was such a good liar he had me fooled. Unfortunately for him, I directed the case based on his lies and when the truth came out there was no way I could save him. It would have been better for him to plead for mercy. +++ I look at this case and see Kim Roberts as being the most obvious liar. She will steal from her boss by fraud. She has even said that she didn't need the money she stole from her employer. She will lie to the police to get even with customers she has a grudge against, lie to the Kroger's guard to get rid of the passed out AV in her car. Of all the people in this case, I find her the most dishonest. She lies with the ease of a psychopath. She has demonstrated an ability to lie at the drop of a hat for rather insignificant reasons. The problem is that she is a witness to events. Whatever Roberts says has to be weighed against her facility to lie. Comparing past comments with future assertions will be critical. +++ We've seen criminal behavior from the AV and we've seen irrational behavior, and we know she has a history of mental illness. We know she has filed charges and then not pursued them, which could mean the charges were false, or that she had other reasons not to pursue them. If a person files a criminal charge against someone else there is a presumption of what difficulties will lie ahead for the accuser once those charges are filed. If the accuser filed those charges of the previous alleged rape three years after the fact, she should have known that it would require her cooperation with the police. We also know that it would require a lot of mental energy on her part. It would also require that her father would discover that a rape had occurred. It's possible her boyfriend of the time convinced her to file the charges and she hadn't been able to consider the consequences of filing the charges. Or she may have filed those charges all the while not planning to follow through. The same can be said of the charges against her husband during their divorce. She either invented the charges or did not consider beforehand her part in any criminal case that would follow those charges. If she could not have foreseen her obligations the second time she filed criminal charges, it suggests some serious mental deficit. If she could foresee her obligations for pursuing the "death threat" charges against her husband, it suggests she was gaming the legal system, fully intending on not proceeding with the charges. This would indicate dishonesty on her part, or it may indicate a certain organic inability to anticipate the consequences of her actions. Stealing the taxicab indicates the same. If she made false charges of rape on March 14 it may have been that she thought that she could walk away from it like previous charges she'd made. She may not have anticipated fully what would devolve from her actions. We do know that there is a problem with information she gives to her father, whether those are lies by her, inventions by him, or what. The AV's history isn't proof that she lied about this rape, but it should be a caution to those who are willing to believe her story without any question. +++ We know almost nothing about the accused other than Evans' drinking misdemeanor and Finnerty's assault charge. We hear snippets from former schoolmasters singing their praises. So far in public appearances Seligmann has looked like a deer in the headlights. Evans talked a good game at his press conference. Finnerty has been a cipher. We don't know how dysfunctional their families are. Some or all of them may have grown up in a house where lying was necessary for their mental well-being and survival, or not. My guess is that they were all rich enough that they didn't have to develop many skills in the way of deception as poor and working class kids would have to do to get by on the streets. Their daddies probably bought their way out of any past minor trouble with the police. +++ Deception is a human defense mechanism. It's developed in childhood and generally exploited in adulthood. Somebody's lying here, maybe everybody's lying about something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:25:21 AM EST
    jstamom, I agree with everything you said... But how is that not a Blue Wall of Silence?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    Del, You wrote:
    FWIW PB, I think your Cochran poem was much better than mine
    No, no. Mine's too forced... I mean, there's only so many things you can rhyme with "cesspool." "Nifong" is a tough rhyme too, but I thought you made a valient try. Orinoco wins the prize, of course, with this beauty:
    The case has nothing to do with riches of Duke, Victoria Sheehan has to change her attitude.
    Rhyming "Duke" and "attitude" is pure Big Apple chutzpah. And conflating Victoria Peterson's name with Ruth Sheehan's is proof to the world that his is one poetic license that hasn't expired. The greatest rhyme in human history is by another New Yorker, Lou Reed, by the way, from Caroline Says:
    Just like poison in a vial, Hey she was often, very vile...
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#253)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:35:00 AM EST
    Oh my lord, Bob, Was it Mexican night last night? That's a lot to digest.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:36:08 AM EST
    imho: how about we start calling it the Blue Wall of Exercising Their Constitutional Rights?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#255)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    PB: You quote Lou Reed but have no sympathy for the Duke players wanting to Take a Walk on the Wild Side, PB? "and the colored girls sing . . ."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#256)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    Bob, Reade looks like a deer in the headlights because he is one. The kid has never, ever been in trouble before and I might add that his family is NOT disfunctional in the least bit. I have it on extremely good information and from a source that I would bet my life on, that he is a great kid with a Mother who took NO CR*P from her four sons- This is a kid who is scared and feels like he's running for his life ( he is ). Wouldn't you look stunned? Did he make a bad choice going to said party and participating in "extra" ciricular activities? YES! Is he to blame for choosing to be there? YES! Should he be walking into court with the NBP yelling "Rapist" and other horrible things at him? In my view, NO! This is a sad story for everyone involved and the only one who has benefited from any of this is Nifong. Is it possible that something horrible happened in that house? Yes, it is possible. But in a rush to get re-elected are we sure that Nifong "got" the right players? I'll leave that question up to you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#257)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    PB, It may still be a "BWoS" but not as many people perceive it. I think most think that the players made a pact that night that nothing should be said. In my version the parents were trying (whether they did them a disservice or not) to protect their kids from something that may have been out of control.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#258)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    jstamom, To say that we don't know much about Seligmann's family history doesn't imply that what we don't know is bad. There are plenty of people who grow up in "good" families who turn out to be the most dreadful criminals. We usually can't figure out what went wrong until after the fact. For example, there are many here who would describe our current President as deceptive to the point of criminality, and yet he was raised in a "good family."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#259)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    Touche, Bob!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#260)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:02:26 AM EST
    mom, I tend to agree with you. Seligmann looks innocent. I don't know if he is or not. People see different things. IMHO is sure the rape and tox reports will support the AV because of her perception of the manner a defense spokesman behaved on TV. I remember how people would constantly say how OJ looked guilty, until he spoke post-trial on BET. Then he didn't look guilty because he was acting. Our own perceptions play into it more than we'll ever admit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#261)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: my point was based upon hindsight, granted, but my opinion is that unless one of the players implicated another, he would continue to claim they were not cooperating, "blue wall of silence," hooligans*, etc.
    If they had cooperated he couldn't "continue to claim they were not cooperating or cited the "blue wall of silence." He could have said, "I don't believe their stories," but that would not have brought the shame to Duke that the "Blue Wall of Silence," clearly did. That is what got this story going in the press and created the climate that got Presser fired. SharonInJax posted:
    And no, Evans press conference does not prove my point: full cooperation still got him indicted in spite of it.
    Evans stopped talking, that is not full cooperation. My point with SLOphoto was that the 40+ players' cooperation could have prevented Evans' indictment. Are these players some of Cheshire's witnesses that could have supported Evans' statement to the police? SLOphoto got very sleepy when I asked him that question last night and is yet is to respond. SharonInJax posted:
    Do you, or does anyone, know if they refused outright to give statements? give an interview with the Durham PD WITH counsel present? Not meaning to be argumentative, but are the details (other than that they cancelled the group grope that Nifong and the PD wanted?
    News & Observer March 24, 2006 DNA tests ordered for Duke athletes
    Bob Ekstrand, a Durham defense lawyer who has represented Duke students, stood outside the lab holding a briefcase.
    "Don't answer any questions," he told the young men as they prepared to go in the building. When asked whether he was representing any of the students, he replied, "No comment."
    A woman who works in Ekstrand's office intercepted more lacrosse players as they arrived, instructing them to cover their faces, wear hats and pull their jackets up to conceal their identities.
    *I'm looking into Nifong's use of the term "hooligans." Did he call all of the players "hooligans" or was his only reference to "hooligans" when he talked about the others protecting the "hooligans" that were responsible for the assault? I don't know. I'll report back on that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO is sure the rape and tox reports will support the AV because of her perception of the manner a defense spokesman behaved on TV.
    Source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#263)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    Can't see how you can say Evans did not fully cooperate, even after his initial offer to take lie detector, picking out pictures of party attendees, 6 hours of interview w/out counsel, offering up computer passwords, going to hospital for DNA exemplars, etc. Up to the day of the indictment, Cheshire was STILL offering to meet with the DA. Where is the lack of cooperation?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#264)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    Bob: And, as imho (I think) noted yesterday, Seligman looks scared. Even imho found some sympathy for him in that. If the AV is getting death threats (and I do not have any reason to doubt that she is) can you imagine the hate that is being directed to the accused and their families? I, for one, would not like the NBPP and their ilk, their followers, knowing my name, address, etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#265)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:18:48 AM EST
    Of course, with Seligmann we have a wholly clean disciplinary and academic record (unlike Finnerty) and overwhelming evidence that he wasn't even at the house for the full period of the alleged incident. I find it hard to believe that, whatever Nifong's wishes, the grand jury would have indicted Seligmann had it: (a) been presented with the evidence that the defense offered Nifong before the indictment; and (b) was told that the photo ID procedure violated the guidelines laid down by the NC Actual Innocence Commission.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#266)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: how about we start calling it the Blue Wall of Exercising Their Constitutional Rights?
    That works for me. I never said silence is not their right, I'm just saying the "Blue Wall of Exercising Their Constitutional Rights" is what got them where they are. As PB has said, choosing to excercise their First Amendment Right may have better served everyone involved.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#267)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:22:32 AM EST
    Wonder why Nifong didn't haul all of the guys in as material witnesses. Let them each bring an attorney, give them immunity for any misdemeanors (underage drinking, noise and the like, maybe even for obstruction) and see what they have to say. I'm not sure I can be convinced that if their stories did not support the AV's that Nifong would have been satisfied, and he would have backed down even then.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#268)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this, imho. You want to use the right to speak to impose a burden to speak, and that is not what the First Amendment is about. A right to speak carries a right not to speak.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#269)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    If they had been truly uncooperative they would have appealed the order requiring all of the white players on the team to submit DNA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#270)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    Bob: And, as imho (I think) noted yesterday, Seligman looks scared. Even imho found some sympathy for him in that.* If the AV is getting death threats (and I do not have any reason to doubt that she is) can you imagine the hate that is being directed to the accused and their families? I, for one, would not like the NBPP and their ilk, their followers, knowing my name, address, etc.
    And how does that fit into your campaign to "humanize" the accuser by using her name? Did you know when the accuser's father said this was not a racially motivated crime and that they didn't want the NBPP's help, a member of the NBPP said, "He should shut up?" *"Even imho found some sympathy for him in that?" Have I said anything about Seligmann that led you to believe I would delight in his predicament?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#271)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    More grist for the mill: I just reread the News & Observer's article about the sperm found from the vagin*l swab. "The lab report, requested by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and released to defense attorneys May 12, ruled out all 46 lacrosse players who submitted DNA samples as sources of the sperm and said there were no matches with the company's in-house data bank of 3,561 DNA profiles. The report said the boyfriend, who is not a suspect in the case, could not be excluded." Doesn't this leave open the possibility that there is someone who did not give a sample as being the depositor? Only a reading of the actual report will tell whether the lack of a match to the boyfriend was due to the degraded quality of the swab sample or for another reason. Another point from the same article, which quotes the father about what he knew of the evening of the 13th: she left his house sometime after 10 pm. I doubt that she left dressed as she was when she arrived at the Buchanan house, so she went somewhere to get ready. To the boyfriend's place, perhaps? Could account for her being late in arriving at the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#272)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    c'mon imho, I used her first name only, and I still do not see the harm in that. Please explain how using her first name would cause her any harm. And, I have said all along that I commend her and/or her family for disavowing and declining the NBPP offer of protection/support. I never suggested that you would "delight" in the predicament that the defendants, and the other players, find themselves in. But I bet a poll of the posters on this site would agree that your position has been more unsympathetic than not to Seligman and the others. And one more thought about the cell phone: in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, an aunt of the AV said the family had been having a hard time getting in touch with the AV. Perhaps because the AV no longer had her cell phone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#273)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    If they had been truly uncooperative they would have appealed the order requiring all of the white players on the team to submit DNA.
    I imagine their legal counsel advised them of the expected outcome of such an appeal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#274)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Here's another fun fact: search warrant specifically states, in items to be seized, a blue bathmat. Items seized: a green bathmat. Maybe it was turquoise? Or maybe that is another detail that the AV was a little fuzzy about. I know, I know: way too much time on my hands.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#275)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: Source? regarding my assertion that IMHO believes the tox and rape reports will support the AV. So simply correct me if I'm wrong. Real simple. This is what I believe about the tox and rape reports. My assertion was based on what you post. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. Tell us what you believe or tell us you don't want to tell us, or say that I can't read your mind or whatever. I am not going to read your old posts to prove anything. It's a waste of time. I don't really care about you parsing phrases about yourself. I'd much rather talk about the case. Speculation regarding the people involved in the case is a lot more interesting than your protestations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#276)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    SharonInJax: I got the feeling that the semen wasn't identified because it wasn't matched to the players. They didn't seem to have a problem identifying it once the boyfriend's DNA profile was given. The theory about the DNA that was eventually identified as the boyfriend's being degraded seems to have popped up here around the time of the second round of DNA results. Teresa, you seem to have been talking about this. Where anywhere was there information that the boyfriend's semen had degraded before it was tested?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#277)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    I find it tiresome that some posters here routinely blame the accuseds' indictments on the "blue wall of silence" without actually showing how anyone's silence led Nifong to the wrong conclusions. This is a variation of blame the victim, just like some posters over at Essence who said that it was the AV's fault for whatever happened to her because she was a stripper. The men are indicted because the AV accused them of rape. Nifong has shown an incuriousness about anything from any players which might have been exculpatory.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#278)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted"
    Here's another fun fact: search warrant specifically states, in items to be seized, a blue bathmat. Items seized: a green bathmat. Maybe it was turquoise? Or maybe that is another detail that the AV was a little fuzzy about. I know, I know: way too much time on my hands.
    Seligmann's cab driver seems to have confused a dark blue car with a dirty white car. Fuzzy detail? Should it discredit him?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#279)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    You quote Lou Reed but have no sympathy for the Duke players wanting to Take a Walk on the Wild Side, PB? "and the colored girls sing . . ."
    "Walking on the wild side" and "hurting people" are two different things. Can ou guess which one I don't have sympathy for? Jstamom, You wrote:
    It may still be a "BWoS" but not as many people perceive it. I think most think that the players made a pact that night that nothing should be said. In my version the parents were trying (whether they did them a disservice or not) to protect their kids from something that may have been out of control.
    I agree with all of that. Khartoum, you wrote:
    Of course, with Seligmann we have a wholly clean disciplinary and academic record (unlike Finnerty) and overwhelming evidence that he wasn't even at the house for the full period of the alleged incident.
    The evidence has been offered but remains untested. I don't consider it overwhelming yet, because the timestamps don't line up with Bisseys independent observations. He apparently witnessed the two women being lured back into the house before 12:00. That would have occurred after the dance. So that's an issue to be settled in court, not by the Grand Jury. As Nifong has pointed out, we don't know his timeline. Sharon, you wrote,
    The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this, imho. You want to use the right to speak to impose a burden to speak, and that is not what the First Amendment is about. A right to speak carries a right not to speak.
    The fifth carries no burden to remain silent. The fifth and the first are actually compliments of one another. If we didn't have a right to remain silent , the first wouldn't be a right at all. It would be an obligation. And if we didn't have a right to talk to the police, the fifth would be a right either. But both are in fact rights, invoked by choice. You wrote:
    If they had been truly uncooperative they would have appealed the order requiring all of the white players on the team to submit DNA.
    And failing that, they would have armed themselves and holed up in a foreign country somewhere like Alex Kelly. You wrote:
    I, for one, would not like the NBPP and their ilk, their followers, knowing my name, address, etc.
    I feel a lot more comfortable among the NBPP than among the LPGA, but I recognize that's probably a guy thing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#280)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    Sharon, It would be hard for the AV to have left her parents' house dressed like she arrived without the father noticing. The father says he didn't know his daughter was working as an exotic dancer. Where'd she go? All signs point to the boyfriend. If she was late getting to the job was she having sex with her boyfriend? Getting high? Or wanting to catch the headlines on the eleven o'clock news? P.S.: Don't let anyone rake you over the coals for using the AV's first name. The rules here are what they are, so we go on from there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#281)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    I know you will laugh (chortle, guffaw, ROFLYAO) but no, I don't think Cheshire was lying about having witnesses who could account for Evans evening: other party attendees. And before you bust a gut over that, if Kim can be a witness as to the AV's actions, why not the other guys for Evans?
    I'm so misunderstood. First you show suprise I would have sympathy for a twenty year old being jeered in what I would image was a very scary situation, now you think I was implying Cheshire was lying about Evans' witnesses. I believe Cheshire has these witnesses. My point is his witnesses where advised to cover their faces and told "don't say a word." While the three captains were extremely cooperative before they were represented by attorneys, they then stopped talking. That is not full cooperation. My point with SLOphoto was that the 40+ players' cooperation could have prevented Evans' indictment. The "Blue Wall of Exercising Their Constitutional Rights" hurt everyone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#282)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    P.S.: Don't let anyone rake you over the coals for using the AV's first name. The rules here are what they are, so we go on from there.
    Zabmom was threatened with banning for posting the accusers first and middle name. If Sharon wants to "humanize" the accuser, she will be doing it at her own peril.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#283)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    imho: I have not, since that one night, failed to abide by the rules, imho, just reiterating my disagreement with them. That First Amendment you love to cite so often allows me to disagree, doesn't it? And didn't Evans, by and through his attorney, offer to keep talking (according to his attorney, of course) As Bob noted: if (and I agree it is an "if" but seems a fair inference) the 40+ as you refer to them say the same thing as the captains did, on the key points, how does their not speaking harm Evans?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#284)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    And how does their covering their faces help or hurt Evans' chance of being indicted? You keep including that as part of their "don't say a word" mantra, but I do not see it as dispositive of anything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#285)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    I find it tiresome that some posters here routinely blame the accuseds' indictments on the "blue wall of silence" without actually showing how anyone's silence led Nifong to the wrong conclusions.
    If the accuser is claiming she was raped, the S.A.N.E. report seems to back her claim, the three initially cooperative players claim "no sex." Further investigation is needed. The players refuse to cooperate. Jurors are not allowed to draw conclusions when defendants choose to remain silent, but police investigators are not bound by similar obligations when dealing with witnesses or suspects. If they had not chosen to remain silent the players may have avoided indictment. We have seen where silence got them, how about imagining how cooperation may have changed that outcome? How about if Seligmann and the guy that took the taxi with him told the police their version of events? How about if all the witnesses Cheshire has that can support Evans' story told the police they could account for Evans every minute that night? How about if the all players Finnerty's lawyers say can alibi him....oh yeah..

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#286)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    AND, imho, would you not agree that an alleged victim's confusion or misidentification of the color of a rug which, by inference, one might think she had seen up close in the course of a rape, is a bit more important than the cabbie's confusion or misidentification of the color of a car? The police would not have specified the color of the bathmat if she had not added that as a detail of her story. The relevant evidence in the form of testimony of the cabbie boils down to (1) the time of Seligman's call to the cab company; (2) the time the cabbie picked up Seligman; and (3) the place where he picked Seligman up. The cabbie's statement about the color of the car has no relevance to his other testimony, goes to credibility. But the time of the call and the pickup, as well as the address where he was to make the pickup, are more in the form of written or electronic records of the cab company, not just his recollection. The importance of the AV's recollection compared to that of the cabbie is in the mountain v. molehill realm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#287)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    PB: Just trying, and failing, I guess, to inject a little levity, as your initial quote from Reed seemed to be.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#288)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    PB: Meant to include this in my last post - You said: "The evidence has been offered but remains untested. I don't consider it overwhelming yet, because the timestamps don't line up with Bisseys independent observations. He apparently witnessed the two women being lured back into the house before 12:00. That would have occurred after the dance." I thought Bissey saw them going around to the back of the house, talking with (getting paid?) around 11:50 pm. In other words, that was when they arrived to start the show, not when they were "lured" back in. Prejorative word, that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#289)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    IMHO, Okay, let's get this straight- We've heard from 2 of the lawyers(Osborn and Cheshire) that they tried to bring Nifong exculpatory evidence to NO AVAIL! What makes you think that all of the 45 boys, including Finnerty and his lawyer haven't tried to do the same to be met with a door slamming in thier face. I believe it was a week or so after the indictments that Osborn went and waited to talk to Nifong, someone he's know for years, to be met with, "evidence, no thank you". We can not be sure that all of these kids haven't TRIED to talk and Nifong has dismissed them, entirely!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#290)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    Teresa, you seem to have been talking about this. Where anywhere was there information that the boyfriend's semen had degraded before it was tested?
    Bob, I was just guessing about the quality or quantity of the semen because the first tests, according to the defense, showed that she hadn't had sex with anybody much less the players. I was just assuming that recent sex (like just prior to the party) would have shown up in the first test. I believe the lab director for the second tests said the swabs were too old when tested to indicated when the sex occurred. I'm sure if this case goes to trial that there will be experts who will say that recent sex with the boyfriend would have been detectable by the state lab. Sharon, I agree that the outfit the accuser was wearing at 12:30 doesn't look damaged. But at some point that night she was "nearly nude" as those who have viewed the pictures have said. I don't think that outfit was on her part of the time while she was there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#291)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    People see different things. IMHO is sure the rape and tox reports will support the AV because of her perception of the manner a defense spokesman behaved on TV.
    I asked for his source. He replied (in part)
    IMHO wrote: Source? regarding my assertion that IMHO believes the tox and rape reports will support the AV.
    Backing down a bit I see...
    My assertion was based on what you post. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. Ah, that's better...
    Tell us what you believe or tell us you don't want to tell us, or say that I can't read your mind or whatever. I am not going to read your old posts to prove anything. It's a waste of time.
    Yes, it would be a waste of your time to prove I said I am sure the rape and tox reports will support the AV, for any reason. Because I never said it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#292)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    PB: From the News & Observer: "11:30 p.m.: Bissey, after being out for a while, returns to his apartment. Several young men are gathered near the back door of 610 Buchanan. 11:50 p.m.: Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them. Midnight: Bissey sees the two women go into the house. 12:20 TO 12:30 a.m.: Tuesday, March 14, Bissey hears voices in the alley beside the house. At least two men are discussing money, one saying, "It's only $100." Bissey sees a man leaning into the window of a car parked outside the house. One of the women he saw earlier gets out of the car and says she needs to get her shoe. She walks to the back door of the house. The AV says she arrived around 11:30 pm, father says she called him around that time to say she had arrived. Seems to me that Bissey saw them arriving, BEFORE the dance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#293)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    We're on comment overload here, so this thread is closing. I've started a new thread here. Great comments everyone, you are hitting all sides of the case. Please continue.

    Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread | 293 comments (293 topical)