home

Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:19:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

With over 300 comments on Friday's thread, it's time for a new one. This is for all topics related to the rape accusation against the three Duke Lacrosse players or the legal proceedings . What's in the news? I like Joanna Spilbor's take at Findlaw on the D.A. refusing the defense's attempt to provide evidence.

I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?

< Sunday Funnies | Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued | 207 comments (207 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    Thanks for the link to that site, TL: well written summary of what a lot of us on this board have been saying, albeit perhaps not so comprehensively.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    Another good quote from Spilbor's article: The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play "hide the ball." This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial. He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. 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. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper. D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and 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 Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    I agree that Joanna Spilbor's article is worthwhile. However it is, IMHO, not nearly harsh enough on Nifong. I've held back on comenting on this case for a while, if only because the volume of comments makes it hard to keep up with the discussion. That said, Nifong has mishandled this "case" since the beginning. From the looks of the way the case is developing I cannot escape the conclusion that Nifong has taken a meritless case (i.e., one which a proper initial investigation would have resolved into "meritless" or "unprovable") and is seeking to make his reputation on it. He'll succeed in making a reputation, all right, but not the one he thought he'd get. If he hasn't already. The three defendants are, from all appearances, clearly innocent. If I were representing them, I'd be filing (or drafting, in anticipation of filing) whatever notices are necessary for pursuing civil tort claims against Nifong. Even though the civil cases against Nifong might fail, due to immunity defenses, they might not. If ever there were a case where there should not be prosecutorial immunity, this is one of them. The problem is, the blogosphere has worried this case like my dog worries a bone - grinding every bit of it out between her teeth and devoting all her attention to it for hours and days on end. "There's some flavor still left there, I'm sure, if I just keep gnawing", she would say if she talked. In the meantime, Abu Gonzo wants to put reporters in jail for reporting, Congress still wants to sell the internet to the Telcos (no doubt in return for your phone, email and internet data), war crimes continue in Iraq, there's going to be a new war in Iran, Osama's still on the loose, judges are finding new and ingenious ways of applying to State Secrets privilege to eliminate judicial review (coincidentally making less work for themselves at the same pay), The Unitary Decider just raised taxes in violation of his solemn oath to never do that, and Halliburton's setting up to build a couple hundred miles of what looks like the old border fortifications along the East German border to separate the US from Mexico. There are more important issues, these youths have excellent representation, and the blogosphere needs to devote its considerable time and energy to more than decrypting whether a part-time dancer and escort was or was not mistreated by a bunch of college jocks (who, we hope, should have learned their lesson about strippers and escorts). OK?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    imho: is this more of the refusal to cooperate, to keep talking that you think Evans displayed? Again from the News & Observer: "Cheshire said he contacted Nifong's office March 29 and volunteered to bring his client, team captain Dave Evans, to be interviewed by the district attorney but got no response. Nifong declined to comment on whether he met with the players' attorneys. "Lawyers are always saying that people are innocent," he said. Between Evans and Nifong, which one has been the most uncooperative?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Before the grammar police call me on it: Self-correction: ". . . which one has been more uncooperative?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Why the focus on this one case? There are rapes all over the country, many by privilidged against the poor. I am amazed at how we regularly obsess over one case or another, and then forget the thousands of others. Sad.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#7)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    This morning I felt the need to take a step back and try to put all the behavior of varying parties into perspective. First, it sounds like the players were boorish and mean at the party. I wouldn't be surprised if the dancers misbehaved as well, but strippers know who the customers are and usually don't instigate things. Then after the incident, the AV seemed to be in pretty bad shape and Kim didn't know what happened. The police took statements from the two prior to the strippers being able to discuss the events amongst themselves so I expect there to be a lot of contradictions between their original statements. Remember, the AV was banged up and recovering from being under the influence of something strong. Emotions were high, they were very embarrassed. As Bob pointed out, humans naturally revise the truth in their minds to make themselves look better. Then we have the Duke Administration being brought into this. They did a great service to the boys and a great disservice to the community's right to justice when they tipped off the team about the charges and police investigation. Then two days later we have the three boys who cooperated with police. It seems to me they were prepared for a search, having the cell phone and bad in the bathroom. If you are told that there is a police investigation, you can't possibly resist the urge to be prepared for a search. I'm not saying they did anything I would condemn them for at all, it's just human nature. Their previous encounters with the police seemed to indicate that the police were willing to cooperate and listen. Their prior charges had all been waived, reduced, or suspended. They hadn't been privy to a real tough police investigation. Then they get asked questions for 8 hours or so. This sounds like a grilling which would be frustrating and make me get nervous. Then we have the entire team agreeing to provide DNA but refusing to answer any questions. They have a lawyer carefully watching over them to make sure no-one talks. Then we have Nifong responding by calling them 'hooligans' and calling them out for hiding behind a 'blue wall of silence'. Nifong knows that he has an election coming up and voters are very sensitive to town vs. gown issues. Then we have defense lawyers turning up the pressure calling out Nifong for using the case for political gain. Repeated stories of his giving 60-70 interviews point out Nifong did get his name in the press, but despite defense team claims, no substantive information was leaked by Nifong. Then we have Nifong saying he expects charges will be made. I think this is a strategic move to try to get control of the investigation. The defense team has had sufficient time to check the stories of all the boys and now they desperately want to know what Nifong has. They offer to cooperate in exchange for information. Nifong realizes that if a rape occurred, the case would be doomed by allowing the defense team to "uncover" the story. Ever since Nifong made this statement, he's clammed up and proved he's dedicated to use only the procedures allowed by the book. He became highly sensitized to the immense defense team against him and their ability to block his need to interview the boys. He needs indictments in order to subpoena testimony from all the boys. Last week, he finally got them. The boys claim they want to tell their story to the police. Why don't they provide a comprehensive story to the press? They have leaked bits and pieces in order to establish "reasonable doubt" with incomplete evidence in an open and ongoing investigation. The "reasonable doubt" at this time does not preclude the right of the community to have the police continue their investigation. Nifong is doing a good job of serving his constituents' by continuing the investigation. To me, the most telling tactic used by the defense team was to try to separate the trials of Seligmann and Finnerty. If they know the DA's case for Finnerty is stronger, they would want to establish "facts" and "timelines" in Seligmann's case prior to figuring out how to defend Finnerty. Nifong said in court last week he planned to try all three cases at once. The defense team continues to leak information to the press as quickly as they can in an attempt to move the trial to a different court. I would be surprised if one of the motions Nifong gave to the judge wasn't a request for a gag order.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    azbball: the defense did give a fairly comprehensive account in the Newsweek article. And what is the basis for your claim that the defense is trying to seperate the cases?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#9)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    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.
    I think it is dispositive of the caliber of the advice they were taking:
    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.
    What do you think the Duke University administrators thought of that photo?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    Better than having at least 42 innocent faces shown on television in the Durham area: how many like-minded persons who agree with the heckler in the courtroom might there be who might take matters into their own hands? And, as a parent, I would rather see my son covering his face so that only I could tell it was him, than giving any nut out there a video of him in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#11)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Hi azbballfan, pretty good summary - a few things:
    Then two days later we have the three boys who cooperated with police. It seems to me they were prepared for a search, having the cell phone and bad [bag] in the bathroom.
    I don't know if the phone and bag where found in the bathroom or not, have you read this anywhere?
    Then we have Nifong responding by calling them 'hooligans' and calling them out for hiding behind a 'blue wall of silence'
    I don't know if he referred to them as "hooligans" more than once, this is the only reference I've come up with so far:
    "I would like to think," Nifong said, "that somebody has the human decency to call up and say, 'What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?'"
    I took that to mean the innocent players should not protect the attackers. I thought he was calling the attackers "hooligans." Lastly, what SharoninJax asked about keeping the trials separate. I haven't heard that, but I haven't looked around for mention of it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    Bob, From the previous thread,
    The AV's affirmation of no recent sex with her boyfriend
    Where did that come from? I don't recall seeing that anywhere. Other things: You have stated or implied that there is something wrong with the AV if she "filed charges" in the past and didn't follow up on them; that she should have realized the mental fortitude required, and was somehow deficient by not following through. Are you kidding? Do you have ANY idea what victims go through when they report a rape or domestic violence or threat of domestic violence? Do you know the danger they put themselves in? Whether or not you believe her, can anyone say it's been a picnic for the AV so far? Unless you think she or her family's been lying about her current condition, it would seem she's been miserable. And...with all your speculation on impairment of the AV, let's talk for a minute about impairment of the AP's. Let's speculate for a moment on how impaired they were at this party. We have a photo of one party member apparently passed out with a wet stain on his pants. Perhaps the rest all behaved with restraint and only consumed a beer or two. How likely is that? It is not unreasonable to speculate that many of them were very drunk. I have spoken recently to college students who, either themselves or friends of theirs, drink to the point of blacking out. Not passing out, but blacking out. Therefore, they were functioning as awake individuals, but they have no memory of what they did. Alcohol could have been a big factor in this alleged crime, and who knows whether or not other drugs were involved as well? The impairment issue here has been largely one-sided. Let's balance it out. And bean, your recent posts were totally inappropriate. I felt outraged, not annoyed. I thank Teresa for attempting to reason with you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#13)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    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.
    Maybe they didn't have time to let the drug take effect?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:02:31 PM EST
    Av:
    Why don't they provide a comprehensive story to the press?
    Shades of Roxie Hart. If they did this instead of talking to Nifong, wouldn't he be furious?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    Orinoco, for the most part I find the discussions here civil if a bit snarky at times. The only troll I've noticed lately is the one calling the accuser a Pig and liberals the source of all evil. As for what evidence the DA has? The only thing I know for sure is the medical exam which may show evidence of rape. That exam is now complicated by the sex with the boyfriend. He also has cameras and at first I thought he must surely have something from them. Now that we know the guys had two days notice before the search I would think they would have gotten rid of the cameras if they had anything incriminating on them. In the article Sharon referenced above Nifong says he has medical evidence and eyewitness testimony that will prove it. I haven't heard before about any eyewitness testimony (Kim says she didn't see a rape) before. That confuses me because the only witnesses Abrams listed from discovery were the experts and SANE nurse and doctor. To summarize my rambling, I don't know what he has. If all he has is the medical exam, I think he (or the police) had a duty to investigate this charge but I don't see why it has gone as far as indictments. To any lawyers out there - if the defense asks for dismissal of charges and there really is no other evidence, is the judge likely to rule in their favor? Here is the link for the article Sharon quoted from: www.newsobserver.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    Orinoco, she said he threatened to kill her, not that he attempted to. I had the misfortune to hang out at the courthouse one day on "order of protection day". You wouldn't believe all the stories these people told when asking for an order of protection. I doubt many of the people involved would have followed through on their threats. There were probably 50 people in line and the attorney I was there with told me that is an every Thursday happening at the courthouse. I was only there about 30 minutes so who knows how many people actually came that day.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    I have been keeping quite and just reading the posts on this board for the last week ot two. I read everything written, spent many hours doing it. I am retired and have the luxury of spending my time as I wish. My conclusion after all this reading: the case against these young men is faaling apart. Some people on this board would hate to admit this. However; the writing is on the wall. The accuser was lying; Nifong was playing politics; the accused are innocent; and all this is going to come out very fast very soon. There is no stopping it. Any suprises? No, truth always wins in the end. Just imagine the cost of this case to the country? Thousands of hours spent on the blogs, God knows how much spent on legal fees? I think, the tottal cost must be in the millions. For what, for a bunch of lies. Was it worth it. No, it was not. This is just a newer verison of the "Run away bride" who was abducted and almost killed by aliens. That was only a few months ago. How could America fall for another one of these? Sad, sad, very sad. A small African country's economic probelems could have been resolved with the millions wasted on this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    Bob,
    From the previous thread,
    [Bob posted:]The AV's affirmation of no recent sex with her boyfriend
    Where did that come from? I don't recall seeing that anywhere.
    Lora, Welcome to Bob's world. It's what he does. We keep calling him on it and he keeps doing it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    Bob said:
    The evidence [on Seligmann] 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.
    The indictment of Seligmann lists the "date of offense" as March 14, 2006, not March 13, or March 13 and March 14. So, at the time he brought the indictment against Seligmann, Nifong was claiming (based, I assume, on Bissey's testimony, which has the women returning to the house just before midnight) that the "offense" committed by Seligmann occurred after midnight, March 14. I've no doubt that Nifong will now offer a different timeline. But given that he didn't offer that timeline to the grand jury (which didn't have access to the photos), and instead gave them a 3-14 "date of offense," it's hard for me to see how Seligmann's evidence wouldn't have persuaded the grand jury not to indict (unless the grand jury wanted to believe that Seligmann was raping someone while he text messaged his girlfriend, rode in a cab, and was at an ATM a mile away). No doubt we'll soon hear Nifong say he didn't mean "March 14" when the grand jury was given that date, just as he didn't mean what he said to the court when he requested the mandatory DNA samples. I'd like to think that at some point a judge will hold Nifong to his previous statements, but justice in Durham seems to work differently from other parts of the country.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    Posted by Kalidoggie May 16, 2006 02:01 PM
    It is an even more crazed suposition given that Coach Pressler had the "no-facial hair" rule for the entirety of his time at Duke, including 2005; and Pressler definitely would not tolerate it for a game, which is where the photo was snapped!
    It is time to give up on the 2005 game photo and move on to asking what where Evan's and his roommates' Halloween costumes in October 2005.
    That sure looks like Matt Zash to me. That sure looks like the 2005 Championship game just ended. That sure looks like a beard and mustache to me. Come back, Hecht. I think you were on to something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    Teresa, Perhaps he means eyewitnesses who can testify as to the extent of her injuries and when they were present. Orinoco, I'm not surprised by your post. I was not expecting you to feel any empathy toward the AV or to entertain any possibility of her story having any truth in it whatsoever. I am sorry you think she deserves to suffer. She certainly appears to have suffered, which to me makes it all the more unlikely for her to have deliberately made this whole thing up. Why should it matter whether the "boys" - let's call them men - were impaired? Well first of all, it calls their credibility into question. If you are very impaired, how can you get the facts straight as to what happened? This has been brought up many times in terms of the AV. Second of all, it opens up the possibility that they could have done things they do not remember, committed crimes, possibly. Third of all, while not intended to be any sort of proof, here's a reminder that 90% of sexual assaults involve alcohol. I have not "badgered," I am merely responding to Bob's plentiful and forceful comments. I am not proposing "medals," nor am I trying to wiggle. Nor do I take anything at face value. What exactly are you responding to, by making all these accusations? I don't understand. While orders of protection may be handed out like candy, many are all too real and often disregarded. People, mostly women, get threatened, hurt, and killed. Their abusers often punish them for going to the police. From my very limited experience, it seems to me that an order of protection offers little or no real protection; what it does is make it a little more likely that the police will actually do their job and arrest an abuser if a 911 call is made. imho, Yeah, I know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    Lora quoted me, I think, from something I wrote in the last thread: This is what I am supposed to have said: The AV's affirmation of no recent sex with her boyfriend I don't even remember saying it. I think I'm running out of steam. Since I don't remember where it was or to what it was in reference, I have no idea. I think it's because the AV is hiding behind a blue wall of silence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    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.
    and you later wrote:
    Seems to me that Bissey saw them arriving, BEFORE the dance.
    When I postulated that what Bissey witnessed was the women returning to the house AFTER the dance was interrupted, it was in response to Khartoum's claim that there was overwhelming evidence that Seligman wasn't even at the house for the full period of the alleged incident. The only claim the prosecution has made as to the time that the rape occurred is that it was after the dance ended. The time stamp interpretations the defense has offered have yet to be subjected to scrutiny. And there is a twenty minute discrepancy between when the accuser says she arrived at the party and when Bissey says the accuser arrived. The evidence is not yet whelming, (much less overwhelming) that Seligman wasn't there at precisely the time the dancer claims she was raped. We're all just being subjected to a good shill-acking.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    Lora, Which recent posts were inappropriate? Sorry, I didn't read all of your post the first time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Ori, I don't know that Nifong lied. The only thing I can think of that comes close is hedging about the phone. Besides possibly the poor dead horse phone, what lies did he make? The AV's injuries came from somewhere. Where? My comment about abusers was slightly off-topic, in ref to Teresa's post about PFA orders. No link to the AV.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    Bob, that last was to bean, not you. His posts were very inappropriate, mostly in terms of how he referred to the AV.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    You keep bagering Bob on the impaired state of the false accuser. You know why people don't care how drunk the boys are?
    Because it doesn't matter. Nothing rests on the cogency of the boys' minds because they didn't make a rape charge; they didn't identify "attackers"; they didn't have to describe in detail the facts of the "attack"
    Cheshire says he has witnesses that can account for David Evans' whereabouts throughout the evening. Lets hope this guy isn't one of them: Lora noted:
    We have a photo of one party member apparently passed out with a wet stain on his pants.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    khartoum, I don't think Bob is arguing that the DA will say the alleged rape happened before 12:00. In the search warrant the accuser states that she and Kim left and were coaxed back in and that she and Kim were then separated. Many people think the second time she entered the house was after the 12:30 picture. Bob and I have discussed many times in the past that what Bissey saw just prior to midnight may have been the second entrance, not the first. The accuser arrived at 11:30 according to the search warrant and other sources. At $400 per hour, I can't see the guys wasting one half hour on small talk and cocktails. If the women danced shortly after 11:30 and then left because of the broomstick remark, the 11:50 to 12:00 entrance that Bissey saw would be when the dancers returned with the guy who apologized. This is the only timeline that the DA could have that could leave Seligmann as a suspect (assuming the time stamps are accurate). Personally, I don't think Seligmann did anything but he would have had time to participate under the DA's theory (my opinion of his theory).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#29)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    Sharon in Jax posted:
    Cheshire said he contacted Nifong's office March 29 and volunteered to bring his client, team captain Dave Evans, to be interviewed by the district attorney but got no response.
    But got no response? So Nifong did not refuse to see him? When did Cheshire make this statement? I read it in an article dated April 22, 2006. Three weeks later and he hadn't made a second attempt? Does Cheshire even know if Nifong received his message? I would have dusted off my ego and kept trying to contact Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    Ori, he gave himself that out that was buried and ignored...that the DNA might not show up anything conclusive. He really did say it. He really did. I found it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#31)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    Why hasn't the defense released the photos of David Evans without a mustache?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    Hey Orinoco, In response to:
    I don't know that Nifong lied.
    You wrote:
    "DNA is going to exonerate the innocent and point to the guilty", for one.
    You think of that as a lie? Sheesh. Saying that David Evans is half-Jewish is twice as big a lie as that. Are you trying to get the Black Panthers after him? I'm told their almost as anti-Semitic as the LPGA!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#34)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    bean meets his hero.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    Lora, Why do you get upset if someone impugns the integrity of the AV? What does it matter to you? This is a discussion group. We have some history of the AV. She's got a criminal record for a robbery during which she acted bizarrely, she's had a hospitalization for mental illness, which may have something to do with her behavior when she stole the taxicab. She's filed criminal charges against four men and then failed to pursue the cases. That shows a tendency. Maybe you didn't like me calling Roberts a liar. But she is. She's also a convicted thief. If someone's been convicted of stealing money from her boss, has lied to the police and the security guard on the night of the alleged rape, you should take what she says with a grain of salt. +++ There are people who think we should be discussing Rove's impending indictment, or the NSA scandal or a whole bunch of other things instead of this case. When and if I discuss those things, I'll go to those threads. Maybe the minders of public discourse will take away my Madden 2006. In the meantime, I am still confused as to why you would be offended about discussing the AV's background and speculating her character. Right now her word is just about all Nifong seems to have. How good is it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    PB, I believe it's Seligmann who is half-Jewish.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#37)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    Back from a long hike, there's been some good posts. To respond to some: SharoninJax:
    the defense did give a fairly comprehensive account in the Newsweek article. And what is the basis for your claim that the defense is trying to seperate the cases?
    I thought the Newsweek article provided a good account of them presenting an alibi with a little extra information, but I was looking for more. Certainly there are different critiques. IMHO Thanks for catching my spelling error. I can't remember if it was Seligmann's lawyer on Thursday or Cheshire the prior Friday who said the boys found the bag and phone outside and the police found them in the bathroom. Regardless, the boys were tipped off about a potential search and had plenty of time to tamper with evidence. Some might be surprised that the boys didn't throw out the nails. But you never know, it sounds like the AV had extra press on nails in her bag, so if the boys knew she left the house missing some nails, they might have taken some from her bag and placed them in the trash. There could have been broken nails with flesh on them which the boys threw away. Still, I'm disappointed that the Administration didn't consider how they could have tainted the investigation by tipping off the team. I'm more surprised that the report critiquing the Administration's handling of the matter didn't discuss the appropriateness of this. Sharon/IMHO Originally Finnerty and Seligmann were scheduled to be on the same court docket. Finnerty's lawyers filed a continuance motion which pushed his arraignment out until June or July. This allowed the defense team to get access to Nifong's 1200 page files prior to Finnerty's arraignment and may alter the way his case is tried. Towards the end of Seligmann's arraignment, Nifong told the judge he expected to file a motion to put the cases together and try them as one. Procedural nuances lawyers can use to complicate the DA's job and pull pieces of the prosecution's cases apart. Orinoco It's my understanding from criminal cases I've provided information for, that the DA is granted extra powers of subpoena after charges are made and a suspect is arraigned. The DA does not need to prove his case until he gets to trial. It is not uncommon for a DA to drop charges during an ongoing investigation after a suspect is arraigned. This may be why Nifong didn't accept the evidence from the defense team. He wanted to get an arraignment in order to proceed with the investigation. Of course, the claim that the DA refused evidence sounds a bit sketchy to me, because all the defense team has to do is to mail it to the DA by registered mail and the DA can't refuse it. This is one of the reasons why I ignore the defense team's claim that the DA is refusing evidence. They can't refuse mailed evidence. Del
    shades of Roxy Hart
    Excellent point. I should have said that if the boys are dismayed by not being able to talk to Nifong, they could always just mail testimony to him or give it to the press. Nifong would be upset, but they could mail a letter to Nifong and release it to the press. Of course, no attorney would do this. But again, I think Nifong is wrestling to get control of the investigation by getting arraignments. I'm interested in finding out what motions he filed on Thursday. It looked like a stack of them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:43:48 PM EST
    I was looking for a Nifong quote when I noticed this "inconsistency." Form the one and only interview the AV gave: "My father came to see me in the hospital," she said. "I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it." Then, again in the N&O: The man said he did not know his daughter was working as an escort that night. She didn't return until late the morning of March 14, the father said. So, did the father see the AV in the hospital or when she came home?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    Bob in Paciiica: You wrote: I believe it's Seligmann who is half-Jewish. Not according to Orinoco.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#40)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:51:27 PM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    So, did the father see the AV in the hospital or when she came home?
    Very early the morning of March 14, the accuser's father and brother went to the hospital to see her. The doctors would not tell them why she was there. After waiting an hour or so they went home without ever seeing her. Her boyfriend brought her to the parents house around 8:00 a.m.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    Orinoco, You wrote:
    You keep bagering Bob on the impaired state of the false accuser.
    b-a-d-g-e-r-i-n-g

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    imho: never read/heard that. If so, then why would the father not have included that in his latest interview? The story jumps from her calling him at 11:30 to say she had arrived, then he sees her the next day. Maybe just N&O sloppiness.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#43)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    Posted by Orinoco May 21, 2006 05:43 PM
    These are moronic lies you are telling here, PB.
    I never said David Evans was half-Jewish. Seliegeman was.
    Posted by Orinoco May 16, 2006 08:52 PM
    PB,
    You are a joke and have lost all credibility on this board.
    You think a semi-Jewish person should meet an anti-semitic hate group (according to Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL)
    Shut up already.
    If you use the link and scroll up, you'll see Orinoco's comment was in response to this post of PB's: Posted by PB May 16, 2006 06:32 PM
    I didn't suggest that Evans reach out to the Black Panthers because they are fair-minded. I suggested that he speak to them because they are the group that understand his position the least. They consider him guilty, evil, and a symbol of what is wrong with white people. That's an important opinion to overcome. People respect courage. Look how much stronger Evans looked defending himself (briefly and in a controlled environment) than, say Finnerty, who looked like a deer in the headlights! 7Duke4 was impressed, she writes. Was she impressed by Finnerty?
    Here is PB's reply: Posted by PB May 16, 2006 09:40 PM Or*n*c*, You wrote:
    You think a semi-Jewish person should meet an anti-semitic hate group (according to Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL)
    Is David Evans "semi-Jewish" or are you a LIAR, sir!!!!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    Orinoco, I think the Time article is wrong. It says she left at 11:00 after being there five or six hours. We now know she was there before 3:00 so five or six hours would be around eight or nine.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    I took the time to reread the weekend's post to see where Lora's quote of mine came from. This quote: The AV's affirmation of no recent sex with her boyfriend If you'll notice, it is not a complete sentence. It was in the last thread, here: May 21, 2006 09:30 AM, if anyone cares to read it. It was in response to another post in the ongoing thread. It was regarding the believability of the SANE report. It was also in the context of several people here saying that the degraded condition of the boyfriend's semen indicated that she hadn't had sex with anyone recently. This is the short paragraph I wrote: 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. In the context of my post I was saying that what the AV may have said in the SANE report has no more believability than her testimony. I was not making any affirmative comment about her saying anything. So why would Lora go back and quote half a sentence out of context? I'll let you supply a motive, but it looks to me because she doesn't like my posts and felt the need to attack me. I invite anyone interested to actually go back and reread what was being written, to include all the posts to which I was responding. Lora seems to be dishonest here, or at least very good at taking things out of context. Beware the next time she quotes someone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#46)
    by weezie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    Wait a minute IMHO, the doctors at the hospital (although I think it would have been the ward nurses) would not let the father of the FA see her? Next of kin does not get to see patient or learn why she is there? Who said this? Maybe Papa Bear looking for some more sympathy/attention ? At my hospital, next of kin rules all. BTW, Pistons took it to LeBron and sent him packing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#47)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    weezie posted:
    Wait a minute IMHO, the doctors at the hospital (although I think it would have been the ward nurses) would not let the father of the FA see her? Next of kin does not get to see patient or learn why she is there? Who said this? Maybe Papa Bear looking for some more sympathy/attention ? At my hospital, next of kin rules all. BTW, Pistons took it to LeBron and sent him packing.
    Father of woman in Duke controversy speaks out
    The father said Tuesday that early on the morning of March 14, he went to Duke Hospital with his son and waited more than two hours to see his daughter. Doctors wouldn't say why she was there, he said.
    The father went home and waited for word from his daughter. Later that morning, she came to her parents' house with her boyfriend.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    PB, since it was Seligmann who was being threatened by the man who was either a member of an anti-Semitic hate group, let's just presume that Orinoco misspoke when identifying him. The point is that the defendant who got the "dead man walking" chat is partly of Jewish ancestry and white. So let's clarify. Which defendant do you want to reach out to the NBPP? I can see it all now: "Wait, wait a second, let this guy have his say. You know, maybe he's right!"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#49)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    Teresa posted:
    Orinoco, I think the Time article is wrong. It says she left at 11:00 after being there five or six hours. We now know she was there before 3:00 so five or six hours would be around eight or nine.
    Thank you, Teresa. I wasn't going to bother, the semi-Jewish post was mortifying enough. Poor Orinoco.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#51)
    by weezie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    Ok, IMHO, I'm not saying you are quoting incorrectly, I'm saying the father is lying. No...where, no...how a next of kin is not going to get access to an in-patient unless, SHE, has refused access. So, you're an accomplished poster, what possible reason for refusing papa's visit? Unless, again, papa is lying for the camera/reporter to make it all sound more dramatic? Frankly, I'm sinking yet again into a whirlpool of confusion. Thank goodness "The Sopranos" is about to start. Some good family entertainment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    Interesting article and viewpoint, and an incredible historical coincidence: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14749.html"> link

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    Not sure I would base anything on what her father has said, imho. His statements on a lot of things are questionable, and hurt his daughter's cause more than help, I think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#53)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:08:04 PM EST
    weezie posted:
    Ok, IMHO, I'm not saying you are quoting incorrectly,
    Oh, I didn't think you were. weezie posted:
    I'm saying the father is lying. No...where, no...how a next of kin is not going to get access to an in-patient unless, SHE, has refused access.
    He didn't say he was refused access. weezie posted:
    So, you're an accomplished poster, what possible reason for refusing papa's visit?
    We don't know that she did. weezie posted:
    Unless, again, papa is lying for the camera/reporter to make it all sound more dramatic?
    Could be neither.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:13:14 PM EST
    That man has got to be extremely gullible
    That's my take on the father Orinoco. He is as clear as mud to me. He says "I think so" to whatever the interviewer says to him. I hope he has a witness at the store where he went with his daughter because I think he's ruined his credibility. I feel really bad for him and I wish his wife would be more successful when she tries to yank him in the house and away from the media.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#55)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    Bob, We are not teasing Orinoco for making mistakes. We all make mistakes. We are teasing him about the way he treats other commenters (especially the ones he is ignoring) when they make mistakes. His "Liar!" posts are hilarious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#56)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:18:53 PM EST
    I think the accuser's father is as guileless as they come.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    IMHO, If you like Orinoco's "liar" posts, then you'll love the post above where Lora's caught up in a lie of her own.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#58)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    Weezie, she was in the hospital having a rape exam. That takes 4 or 5 hours from what I've read. When my mother had a mild stroke and ended up in the emergency room, the nurses/doctors wouldn't tell me any details about her stroke or let me in the room where her tests were being done. I don't doubt they wouldn't let him in the exam room if he really went there. After my mother was in her room, they let me in then but would only discuss her condition with me when I was in the room with her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    Wait, wait a second, let him have his say...
    Bob, I am so touched that you remembered the screenplay scenario.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:25:17 PM EST
    Del, I knew it was someone here. But then they break into a dance!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    Here's another interesting link, probably the most comprehensive (and well designed) timelines I've seen. Not enough sources given, but it seems like I've heard it all, somewhere before. Maybe not 100% accurate, but seems close to me. http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-lacrosse-rape-timeline.html

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#62)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:42:50 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    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?
    I don't think either are important, but in the interest of avoiding some other stuff I should be doing right now, I'll play along.
    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.
    I think the most important thing the cabbie has to contribute is the demeanor of Seligmann and the other passenger. What if the color blind cabbie got Seligmann's demeanor confused with the worried and agitated boys he picked up 40 minutes later? The color of the bathmat might have some import if she was trying to prove she had been in the bathroom and the players were saying she had not. Hmmmm? AH HA! Maybe the boys switched the bathroom carpets? What color is the bathmat in the second bathroom? Is it laden with semen and body fluids?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:56:06 PM EST
    Orinoco, how old are you? You seem really intelligent sometimes and worse than my young daughter at others. Please just discuss the case. You do fine with that and I don't want any of us to be banned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    TL, could you check the IP's of imho and PB?
    Orinoco, If you knew how hard you make me laugh.... TL knows PB and I are not the same person and she is not going to appreciate your using the link (again) to tattle on me (again). She asked me to remove it and I promptly did so. For your sake, I hope there is such a thing as "triple secret probation," if there isn't, you're a goner.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    Sharon, the accuser said the rug was her version of blue, but it's the police officer who listed it as his version of green. They also took a small bath mat but didn't list the color on it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#66)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    Orinoco wrote:
    That man has got to be extremely gullible, stupid to comatose levels or a bad liar.
    The times I've seen the father interviewed, he seemed very confused, upset, and a little scared. He didn't look to be of particularly good health. There is evidence that his daughter had kept information from him so as not to upset him. It seems to me that since the defense team has become so media friendly and Nifong has clammed up that the media is looking for ways to keep the story in the headlines by providing reports from the other side. The story was a local story which ESPN made a national one. ESPN had been focused on Duke basketball for the entire season and after they lost, they wanted to find a hook to keep those who followed Duke. Some of these would be fans and some would be haters. After ESPN dedicated a special section on thier website to the Duke scandal, all the other national media picked it up. The news media needs a banter from both sides to keep a story in the headlines. One-sided stories get religated to the bottom of the page or page two. Look at all the current scandals where we are only hearing one side. They don't get as much attention because there's no argument to report. So, the media keeps on going to this confused man who seems to like attention and wants to appear to be a good/concerned father. I know I'd be ashamed if my daughter was involved in a case like this and didn't feel comfortable talking to me. Regarding the patient's right to privace. All hospitals maintain a patient's right to privacy. They need approval of the patient to release any medical information to anyone. The only exception is if the person is completely incapacitated or dead. Clearly the daughter did not feel comfortable talking to her dad during her physical examination or police interview. So the father went home to wait for her. Orinoco: While I'm not suprised that you are demonizing anyone, complaining about what posters here happen to post on other forums is boorish. Signed, the original Liar

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#67)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    Slophoto, oops, The only exceptions are

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    Where is Lora? I just called her dishonest for her quote of a half sentence of mine out of context and she seems to have disappeared. Orinoco, maybe Lora is IMHO is PB. Whose left?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    Whoops, who's left?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    Bob, you are one of the posters here who I think are really trying to come to grips with this story in your own mind. I enjoy reading you argue with yourself and I think you try to see all sides. I think Lora took your post out of context because it's hard to remember what every post is being made in response to. I find myself confused a lot and I also took your post out of context until you explained yourself. It didn't bother me though because I thought it was just your statement about an article I had missed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#71)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:29:12 PM EST
    one of the posters here who is? I think I flubbed that sentence really well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    imho posted:
    I think the most important thing the cabbie has to contribute is the demeanor of Seligmann and the other passenger. What if the color blind cabbie got Seligmann's demeanor confused with the worried and agitated boys he picked up 40 minutes later?
    There is another witness who was with Seligmann for the entire cabride; we've already been told that both have given affidavits. Of all Seligmann's evidence, the cab driver seems like the least significant--he can confirm that he received the call, showing that Seligmann was in possession of his cellphone, but everything else from Seligmann is confirmed by receipts, electronic records, or the ATM video. So it might be that the cab driver, having driven Seligmann for nearly 30 minutes and given an affidavit about the cabride that's been confirmed by a variety of unimpeachable sources, "got Seligmann's demeanor confused with the worried and agitated boys he picked up 40 minutes later." But that strikes me as about as likely as the scenario that has Seligmann text-messaging his girlfriend while raping the accuser--leaving no DNA in the process--and then wildly fleeing the scene, counting on 40 teammates to participate in a criminal conspiracy to prevent evidence of his fleeing the scene from coming to light.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:35:29 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica: You wrote:
    PB, since it was Seligmann who was being threatened by the man who was either a member of an anti-Semitic hate group, let's just presume that Orinoco misspoke when identifying him.
    Orinoco posted his "semi-Jewish" quote two days before Seligman's hearing. Beyond that, can you finish your thought? The man was "either a member of" a hate group or what?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#74)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    khartoum, I don't think the color of the carpet or the color of the car impeached either person's credibility. I don't think the cabbie confused two jovial guys w/ four agitated guys. Like I said, I was just avoiding a more onerous task.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:46:07 PM EST
    Answer the question, Camp Skakel sockpuppet!
    Orinoco, I can't imagine you want me to be this happy. I'm guffawing at your posts. I don't think Talk Left will be as amused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:49:26 PM EST
    Teresa, If someone goes back to a post on the last thread and posts half of a sentence of mine, it's clear her point wasn't to explicate anything. Her point was to attack me. This was the paragraph, again: 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. I am referring to the SANE exam, the AV's testimony and jury. There is also an "if" in the paragraph. We don't know the contents of the SANE exam so I could not have referred to the actual SANE exam, only in the hypothetical. The AV hasn't testified at the trial because the trial hasn't happened so I couldn't have been referring to an actual trial that hasn't yet occurred. Only the hypothetical. There is no jury because there is no trial. There is only a hypothetical jury. If Lora were honest, she would have referred me to the post and asked me what I meant. Lora has proven to me that she's dishonest. Would I like to just talk about the case? You bet. When someone takes the time to quote a half sentence out of context in an attempt to discredit me, then she deserves to be exposed. No one should trust her as an honest commentator from now on. Time for Lora to get a new name and come back as someone else.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    I think what draws many of us to this blog as opposed to some others is that there is a real discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of this case from both sides. If everyone here agreed with only the defense position we wouldn't have a good debate. When I throw out an idea from the prosecution side there is usually someone here to show me the defense side. Kind of like a discussion from a jury. Can't we continue to have both points of view here without this constant attacking Orinoco? I don't want you gone and I don't want imho to leave either. You both make me think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    Posted by bkabka 5/21, 4:24 PM: "Just imagine the cost of this case to the country? Thousands of hours spent on the blogs, God knows how much spent on legal fees?" ++ I would like to add my thoughts, hear others, on who will be the winners and losers in this case. (BTW, I believe this case is in the crapper for the scores of reasons already cited. It is only a matter of when and on whose terms.) Winners: 1. The defense attorneys - great publicity, great fees, will be in high demand for cases, speaking engagements, book(s). 2. Nifong - Yes indeed. If he gets even a slap on wrist for his unethical behavior I'd be surprised. Not wise for defense attorneys to make the big dog mad unless you are guaranteed to never have to oppose him again. His pandering has given him a permanent bloc of voters that will be enough of an edge in all future elections. 3. Ham sandwiches. Tossup: 1. The AV - In a world of worry she caused herself right now, but Jesse's got her tuition, she's got community support, perhaps several job offers so she is not forced to be in the stripper business to support her family. When ALMOST everyone knows this is bogus via a dropped case / acquittal, but never an admission of lying, (ergo, no criminal charges against her) there will be discussions of how this case brought to the forefront all the really important issues of race and class that still exist in America today. (Look on the bright side, and "she's suffered enough" crowd, yadda, yadda bullspit, the hell with supposedly innocent people.) Losers: 1. Lacrosse players - too easy. 2. Duke - Revenue and image- There are a lot of pi$$ed off wealthy alumni, many of whom see Brodhead as bungling the PR, and throwing the players under the bus. For years to come, you mention Duke, there will be many who say: "Isn't that the elitist school where 'they' raped a stripper," or "Maybe not a rape, but SOMETHING happened." 3. Brodhead - see above. 4. Kim - I don't think this embezzler has a bright future, even in the escort business. (Imagine calling for a stripper, the doorbell rings, and she is standing on your doorstep? That's like Freddie Krueger showing up to babysit.) 5. Durham - Revenue and image - Nifong is not footing this huge bill, and I don't see Durham as high on the list for conventions, corporate relocations, etc. P.S. I can't resist. Don't think about the Kim nightmare when you go to bed tonight. Good night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#79)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    Bob, I see your quote was taken out of context. Nothing about Lora's prior posts leads me to believe she was intentionally trying to mislead anyone or dog you. I was dogging you when I said, "Welcome to Bob's World." Sorry. *drum roll* I WAS WRONG.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#80)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    Bob, I'm back, after doing something a great deal more enjoyable than wrangling with you. I'm not leaving the board, although, as TL has specifically requested that posters not attack each other, I don't know if I can say the same for you. I hope you stay, however, but I just wish you'd chill out some. I'm too lazy to count, but it seems that you've made about 5 posts attacking me after I questioned one of your statements. As for the partial quote I took from your post, about the AV's affirmation of no sex with her boyfriend, I very politely asked, "Where did that come from? I don't remember seeing it anywhere." Bob, whether I quote the whole paragraph or not, you stated it as a fact. That's how I read it. I was wondering where you got it from. That's all. Not lying, not trying to take out of context, not doing any of that stuff. Now if you'd simply explained it to me, I could simply say "thanks." I must say I'm pissed at your impugning my motives and essentially calling me a liar. I have never lied on this site. I've occasionally been mistaken, and when my mistakes have been pointed out to me, I actually acknowledge them. I only quoted the part I had trouble with, the part about the AV's affirmation of no sex with her boyfriend. The context of the rest of the paragraph didn't change its meaning for me, so I didn't include it. You said further on in the paragraph that if a jury doesn't believe her testimony, they won't believe her statements to the SANE nurse. Which statements were you referring to? Why, from the same paragraph, must be at least the one about not having sex with her boyfriend. I thought you must have read it somewhere. As far as my concern over the integrity of the AV: the arguments you've been putting forward, about her previous police reports, about her hospitalization and hypothetical mental illness and hypothetical medication, really don't affect her credibility at all unless you can prove her past police reports to be false (which you can't) or unless you can prove that she's on a particular medication and you can correlate it with a significant likelihood of memory impairment or lying (which you can't). So, that's why it matters to me. You go on about how her credibility is highly suspect, but your arguments don't hold up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    So was that an apology, Lora?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#82)
    by weezie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    Teresa, I'm sorry you were treated that way by the doctors dealing with your mother. When I have family members anxiously awaiting word, I try to get out to them as soon as possible. It helps not to have an anxious, enraged family waiting to tear my throat out so it is the least I can do. I wonder if there was a police officer present who could have kept papa company or acted as a liason. But, I admit to a small community hospital, the bigs have more layers of bureaucracy to contend with. I still don't buy pops not being able to see the FA or at the very least his not being given any information as to her status. It simply doesn't wash and smells of embellishment for the tv reporters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:44:18 PM EST
    Ironic thing is, if you had heeded her warning, your internet Sockpuppetry wouldn't be so easy to uncover.
    She asked me to "please delete the url," I promptly did so. You reposted it and just proved you knew she did not want it posted here. Dead Man Walking? I can't believe you want to make my evening this enjoyable.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#84)
    by Lora on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    Bob, what is it that I'm supposed to apologize for? For asking if you read that the AV told a SANE nurse that she didn't have sex with her boyfriend?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#85)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:48:12 PM EST
    I still don't buy pops not being able to see the FA or at the very least his not being given any information as to her status. It simply doesn't wash and smells of embellishment for the tv reporters.
    She may have been in the middle of a four hour S.A.N.E. exam. The doctors can't tell, even her father, "she's just been raped." She's 27 years old.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#86)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    lightenup: Excellent post, thank you. I especially liked the gratuitous ham sandwich winner and laughed at your rationale for Kim. I agree with most of your list. You asked for opinions, here's my changes and some rationale: Duke - Tossup. If the players are convicted then they definitely lose. If the case is dropped or the players are found not guilty, then it's a tossup or possibly even a win. True, some big supporters who are offended by boys drinking and hiring strippers or are upset with Broadhead may use their financial pressure to change Broadhead. But the school will use the unfair treatment of the players to play of the sympathy of all other donors and potential donors and this will certainly accelerate the replacement of Broadhead. This could bring a rallying cry behind the school. The school could lose some applicants whose parents don't want them going to Duke. However I think these are few. If anything all the press only helps their awareness. I wasn't sure who you meant when you said the lacrosse players were losers, it could be the accused, Duke lacrosse, or lacrosse in general. I agree that Duke lacrosse and lacrosse in general are losers. I think it's a tossup for most of the accused. Here's my rationale: If any or all of the accused are found guilty, then they all lose. Even if one is found innocent, this means they were at a party where a girl was raped and the guilt by association will be nearly impossible to avoid. If they are found innocent I look to what their future plans are and the impact this would have on it. Based on their majors, presumably they all plan to follow their fathers into wall street jobs or the legal practice. First, let me preface the following with a statement about Wall Street after working with them for 15 years. They could care less if you were accused of murdering your mother, if your name is recognized and you can entertain and bring in clients, you're hired and given a no questions asked expense account. Stripping is increasingly being controlled by companies using Wall Street for financing. There is no shame for a banker who uses strippers, it's almost a right of passage. Evans: Winner. His couragous emphatic speech on the day of his arrest will impress anyone who would consider hiring him. Seligmann: Toss up to winner. It depends on how he reacts to this. He's only 19 years old. This may delay his ability to apply to business schools, but if he's headstrong, he'll win out over the long haul. Finnerty: Loser. Big, big loser. Due to the prior charge, it will be impossible for him to remove the stain of either charge, even if they are both dismissed with prejudice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#87)
    by weezie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    The doctors can give status: stable, critical, serious, under examination, waiting for examination, about to be admitted, not being admitted. The family is also told that the doctor will be out to see them as soon as possible. Do you think they completely blew pops off? No recognition of his presence on the face of the earth? And no matter how old the patient, we always ask about the next of kin. Whatever, I guess I'm quibbling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#88)
    by weezie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    Wow, bankers hire strippers for parties? I must be living in another dimension. All the bankers I know are dorks who wouldn't think of doing anything so racy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#89)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:26:58 PM EST
    The doctors can give status: stable, critical, serious, under examination, waiting for examination, about to be admitted, not being admitted. The family is also told that the doctor will be out to see them as soon as possible. Do you think they completely blew pops off? No recognition of his presence on the face of the earth? And no matter how old the patient, we always ask about the next of kin. Whatever, I guess I'm quibbling.
    "Doctors wouldn't say WHY she was there." It sounds like the doctors did talk to them. Maybe they said "Sorry, I'm not allowed to tell you why she is here. Her condition is not serious, she is being examined, it will take a while, she will probably be released in a few hours, why don't you just wait at home?" No need to spin a web of evil intent. She doesn't have to have refused to see him, he doesn't have to be lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    The commenter going by the name of Bean has been banned for name-calling and offensive comments. All of his 35 comments on TalkLeft have been deleted. I am happy to host a continued debate on the Duke case, but I won't allow it to devolve into name calling and personal attacks on either commenters, the accuser or the Duke lacrosse players. The comment rules are here. I appreciate the e-mails from those of you who have pointed out offensive comments. I try to read the threads as often as I can, but I can't monitor them all the time. Sometimes the only way I'll see it is if someone emails me. These threads are for you to discuss the case. Disagreement is healthy, personal attacks, insults, namecalling and profanity are not welcome and won't be tolerated. And please put your links in html format, instructions are in the comment box. The commenters on the Duke threads have started their own virtual community here. You've gotten to know each other. New members are always welcome. I'm more than a little fascinated by it. I'd like to see the discussion thrive and be productive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#91)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    Talk Left, You might want to disable the link Orinoco posted here: Posted by Orinoco May 21, 2006 07:33 PM

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#92)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    weezie, I certainly will not argue with you about bankers being dorks. However they are also highly paid to be pragmatic and fund whatever can be profitable without being blatantly illegal. They also are famous for providing profitable clients with entertainment. Check the owners of the best private boxes in any entertainment venue. They could care less what their client does as long as they get paid. I'm not implying that they are unethical, but as long as they trust their clients not to "screw" them, they'll work with just about anyone. And during my tenure, I've both been asked to entertain clients at a strip club and more frequently asked by my companys' bankers if they could take me. As long as you are pretty sure you won't offend the client, it's one of the better bonding rituals. It builds mutual trust that you both can ignore petty indiscretions. I don't mean to be offensive to those who abhorr the stripping industry. I'm just trying to provide some enlightenment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:35:38 PM EST
    I am going to delete most of Orinco's posts from today. They are off topic and insulting to other commenters. I won't ban him now, this is just a warning for him to discuss the case and stop attacking the other commenters. I'm well aware of imho's Skakel board post, I asked him or her to stop linking to it and s/he did. We have had a long history of disagreeing over the Skakel case and that's fine too. That doesn't mean s/he is not welcome here. In fact, s/he does a lot of research and shares it, as does PB, and they are not the same person. It's only natural that people interested in the Skakel case would be interested in the Duke case. It's late and I will clean up the comments tomorrow after work. I'm only one person and I want to blog, not play traffic cop.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:23:36 AM EST
    Nifong is only allowed to go forward with this persecution of these players because the Media gives him cover. Only White Males could be treated like this by our "Justice" system with the Media being willing accomplishes. The prosecution is really a surreal mockery of justice. I come to this conlusion because it is the only way to Explain Mike Nifong's actions. District Attorneys don't decline to see evidence in a case. DA's don't arrest people on 3 year old warrants for crimes that have already been admitted to (the Cabbie). DA's don't wait 10 days to get statements from neighbors when they believe a heinous Gang-rape and beating has taken place (see Jason Bissey). DA's don't indict 3 men for crimes that carry 20 year sentences without examining Cell phones in their custody (Nifong claimed this in court). Where is the Media? Where is the Free Press? Where is the Federal Government? The Feds need to take this case from the Durham DA and prosecute it - if the evidence warrants any prosecution - which, I'm confident - it does NOT.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#95)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:36:54 AM EST
    Leftylou posts:
    Nifong is only allowed to go forward with this persecution of these players because the Media gives him cover. Only White Males could be treated like this by our "Justice" system with the Media being willing accomplishes. The prosecution is really a surreal mockery of justice.
    Leftylou, While I take your statements seriously, your use of capitalization begs questions on potential racist intentions behind your post. I assume I'm innacurate in my reading. Even Seligmann's lawyer has openly admitted that he views the legal system he has witnessed in Durham to unfairly treat black people. And Cheshier is a multiple generation local with deep political ties. That being said, plese expound on why you might think these boys are treated unfairly because they are white. You seem to be a relatively new poster. If you have the time, you may want to read previous threads on this subject. In particular, you may want to read my first post on this thread which presented what I think is the most logical explanation of Nifong's actions. If you've posted in the past and I'm unfamiliar, then I apologize in advance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:39:53 AM EST
    I think I read where someone said that the woman's Hospitalization for Mental Reasons in 2005 doesn't matter and her coincidental previous Gang-Rape and beating by THREE men doesn't matter? Say What? Someone is kidding right? What if Colin Finnerty had been hospitalized last year in a Pysch Ward for evaluation? Does ANYONE really think that wouldn't matter or factor in here? What if one of the players had been previously accused of participating in a Gang-rape? I suppose that wouldn't matter? If you turn it around, you see how crazy it sounds. I don't care what Rita or Oprah says. If it would be a negative for the players, if it would be a black mark on their record - if only in the public debate - then the same goes for Mary Poppins. I'm waiting for her boyfriend's record to come out. The media has been sitting on it. Remember, the AV spent the days with him until she could remember ANY details and bring herself to talk to the police. 31 hours for 2 Criminal minds - and then 3 weeks to ID the 3 wealthiest members of the team. Who among us, would want their brother, Uncle, Son, or Father prosecuted on the testimony of these charged Felons with the lack of corroborating scientific evidence?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:53:13 AM EST
    azbballfan, "your use of capitalization begs questions on potential racist intentions" Racist Capitalization? You can't make this stuff up. So you think if this had been a black team and the accuser and the other stripper were 2 white women with Serious Criminal records and DA in an White district refused to view exculpatory evidence repeatedly. And the defendants had offered to take lie detector tests and had been turned down - and then passed an ex-FBI polygrapher's test. And a witness corroborating the alibi of one the players was jailed in a highly unusual move where the lead investigator was present as asked if questions regarding the case before jailing him on a 3 year old misdemeanor warrant that someone already plead guility to and has been sentenced for. And - If the DA in this white district had refused to view pictures from the party that are not consistent with the Ex-con accuser's official statements. If when the black players in the white city where brought to court and white people yelled out threats in the courtroom - like "Dead Man Walking": You don't think the Media coverage would be different? You don't think the District Attorney would have received different treatment by the Media? I apoligize in advance if my punctuation was racist in nature. CAPITAL LOL!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:50:11 AM EST
    Wonder why conservaitves support the Duke lacrosse team?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:02:49 AM EST
    Mr Swift, You said, "Wonder why conservaitves support the Duke lacrosse team?" I have to question your motives in spelling conservatives: conservaitves? Are you implying they are weak, unpatriotic, men of French derivation? Hmmm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:52:58 AM EST
    Conservatives believe that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness so clearly this spelling alteration was intentional. However, I don't remember why I made this spelling enhancement or what my state of mind was at the time since there was a lot going on. Perhaps if I take a look at email correspondence from that time it would jog my memory and cause me to suddenly remember why I did this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:20:14 AM EST
    Hi LeftyLou, You wrote:
    I think I read where someone said that the woman's Hospitalization for Mental Reasons in 2005 doesn't matter and her coincidental previous Gang-Rape and beating by THREE men doesn't matter?
    Sexually assaulting people is obviously illegal no matter what their personal history, as is falsely accusing them. So there is certainly at least one sense in which the personal history doesn't matter at all. The approaching trial isn't a competition for who has been a better person before the party. It's about what actually happened at the party. You wrote:
    District Attorneys don't decline to see evidence in a case.
    You are a victim of shill. The defense attorneys can turn over their evidence at any time. Nifong is not an investigator. If they feel an urgency to help with the investigation, they should bring what they have to the lead detectives. Beyond that they can petition for redress. And then there is always the press.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#102)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:46:10 AM EST
    Someone is lying here: 'Weird evening' was just the start
    As the national media seized on the story, Roberts called James "Butch" Williams Jr., who told her he represented a player and couldn't advise or represent her. When Williams asked whether she thought a rape occurred that night, Roberts said no. When Williams asked her to give a sworn statement, Roberts said she would sleep on it.
    Several days of discussion ended when Williams brought up pictures taken of the dancers at the party, Roberts said.
    "He kept mentioning my statement and the pictures in the same breath," Roberts said. "What are you trying to say, Butch? Are you trying to say if I don't sign my statement there will be pictures? And that's when I said, 'You have the opportunity to tear me apart in court,' and that's when he said, 'I can tear you apart right now.'"
    Roberts said she told Williams she'd call police and hung up.
    "That did not occur," Williams said. "Never. My dealings were straightforward with her. She got upset about the pictures and totally shut down."
    Like other defense lawyers, Williams said Roberts has changed her story. "She's been trying to sell her story," Williams said. "This is not something you should exploit and profit from."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:01:28 AM EST
    imho: the cabbie's opinion on Seligman's demeanor is, without question, inadmissible in court. And if there had been a blue bathmat in the other bathroom, it too would have been seized. My comment about the difference in the colors was simply another example that the defense lawyers will most likely raise. If the prosecutors claim that she was on the floor being raped, with her face on the mat, her recollection of the color could be germane. Mostly I was only pointing out another potential inconsistency, about a minor point, in a story which has enough major ones to cause problems.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:07:45 AM EST
    lightenup:
    4. Kim - I don't think this embezzler has a bright future, even in the escort business. (Imagine calling for a stripper, the doorbell rings, and she is standing on your doorstep? That's like Freddie Krueger showing up to babysit.)
    Laughed my a** off when I read that this morning. Good one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:16:58 AM EST
    Lora, Taking half a sentence out of context is deliberately misleading. You won't admit it. Therefore, you continue to be deliberately dishonest. You said you only quoted the part you had trouble with. Perhaps you had trouble with the first half of the sentence because you didn't read the second half. Or the other sentence in the paragraph. Even in your explanation you show your dishonesty. The reference to the SANE nurse was in the same sentence. In your last paragraph you show why you misquoted me: You don't like anyone discussing the AV's past criminal and mental history. Explains you collegiality with her. You had your opportunity. You've shown yourself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:22:00 AM EST
    Various posters have said that the defense should have just sent their exculpatory evidence by certified mail, or some such, and implied (to my reading) that their failure to do so show some sort of disingenuousness. Nonsense. It could be the Mystery Cell Phone all over again, with Nifong saying he's sure the evidence is there but they haven't looked at it yet. Yes, that imputes bad motive to him, but I think that is not an unfair assessment of his attitude. Besides, if I were the defense attorneys, I would want to be in the room, with my client, when the DA looked at what I had to offer. This would enable me to judge his reaction, answer any challenges to it or questions about it, and explain anything the DA found to be unclear. Simply to "mail it in" is something that no attorney not looking to set up an ineffective assistance of counsel appellate argument would NEVER, NEVER EVER, do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:32:30 AM EST
    Mr. Swift, I read your piece a while back and thought it was absolutely hilarious. I loved the bit about we are against rape unless combined with pillaging. ROFL, etc. Bob, I'm with Teresa, I also took that historic post to mean that you thought the AV had denied recent sex with the bf, not that you were postulating "IF she had denied it." Sorry. I support you in absolutely every other respect including any discussion of blue, bluish-green, or greenish-blue colored washcloths, Swiffer Jets, duvet covers, or any other household goods yet to be called into evidence in this case. TL, thanks for deleting Bean, I don't believe the AV's story either but the pig comments were really getting on my nerves.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:36:35 AM EST
    I meant to mention, when I posted the link to the Johnsville News blog, that the AV's full name is used. I hope that posting the link will not get me in trouble, but I did find it to be the most detailed timeline I've seen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#109)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:43:29 AM EST
    Lefty Lou, I agree. As I've said before, the previous history of the AV filing four criminal charges against men in two separate instances and then failing to pursue them is certainly suggestive of something. After the first time she filed gangrape charges, and then dropped them, she would have to have known what would have been required of her in order to pursue a case. As I've offered, perhaps she decided to drop the charges because she realized the impossibility of the case. Maybe she dropped it because she didn't want her father to find out. Or maybe she dropped it because they were false charges and they served whatever her purposes were. The charge against her estranged husband for threatening or attempting to kill her, after she had filed and then dropped the first set of gangrape charges, could have been for similar reasons, but she clearly understood how the system worked. As even some of her defenders have admitted, maybe she was gaming the system for an advantage in the divorce proceedings. Maybe this, and her criminal record and mental health considerations won't be let into court, but nothing but the blindest self-censorship would keep it out of this discussion. I've pointed out that any claims by the AV in the SANE report are only as good as her word. For her to say I received this or that bruise in the rape means nothing if you don't believe her. More and more physical evidence is contradicting her story. The AV's testimony is more and more important for a successful prosecution and yet her story is less and less believable. Clearly, the AV has been a very unreliable person in the past, and to base one's belief in this case on her word is foolish. To try to censor others for talking about it shows the desperation of the AV's defenders.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#110)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:05:31 AM EST
    Del, Not every post anyone writes is absolutely clear. And we tend to skim over people's posts and not parse the language unless it's to benefit an argument one is pursuing. Human nature. And since most posts refer back to other posts, it's understandable if not all past arguments are laid out in every post. But to post a part of a sentence when the rest of the sentence shows that it's a "what if" is being dishonest. The brief paragraph was: 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. Do we know the AV's statements to the nurse? Of course not. Even if Lora quoted the next four words "in a SANE exam" she would have had to have wondered why I used "a" instead of "the." Clearly, there is only one SANE exam in this case. I also refer to her testimony. But everyone knows that there are not multiple SANE exams and everyone knows that the AV hasn't testified. The second sentence is a generalized restatement of the first. Could it have been more clearly written? Every post here can be more clearly written. I could have written, "Let's pretend this for a second..." but using the word "if" in the restatement should have cleared up the matter. I would suggest that if someone wants to pull out a statement from a hundred posts back it would be helpful if the person included the date and time to make it easier to find. And I would suggest if that person actually wants to discuss something and not attack another poster that he or she reread the entire post, the posts to which the poster was referring, and when copying and reposting, at least post enough of a sentence so that the meaning is understood, unlike Lora's exercise.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#111)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:07:25 AM EST
    SharoninJax wrote:
    imho: the cabbie's opinion on Seligman's demeanor is, without question, inadmissible in court.
    It is? I know I've heard witnesses testify to the demeanor of defendants.
    Westfield Police Sgt. David Raggazzini was one of several witnesses who testified to the defendant's demeanor in the hours after the killing.
    *****
    While the defendant stated he wanted Dave Thomas, his employer, to testify as a character witness and possibly to testify as to the defendant's demeanor the day after the murder, it is difficult to see how this would have added to the defendant's case.
    *****
    He testified further of the defendant's behavior and demeanor during and immediately after his arrest. Although this testimony was undisputed, it was a significant part of the State's evidence.
    *****
    "While lay witnesses may testify to the attitude and demeanor of the defendant, '[l]ay witnesses cannot express an opinion as to the existence of a particular mental disease or condition.'"
    Thus, a lay witness may state that a witness appeared fearful or sincere. However, for a lay witness to testify that the alleged victim "appeared to be" telling the truth is the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from all the circumstances, including his conduct and demeanor and is thus inadmissible lay opinion pursuant to Melton and Sergill.
    SharoninJax wrote:
    And if there had been a blue bathmat in the other bathroom, it too would have been seized.
    I was joking about the switched semen-laden bathmat. I don't think the color discrepancy with the bathmat will be an issue, nor do I think the color of the car the cabbie recalled will go to his credibility.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#112)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:16:25 AM EST
    Bob, Good Morning. I went back and read the posts leading up to and including your post, which you have so much trouble with. I'm going to take 2 posts to address it, and I apologize to the other posters here, but I'm getting really tired of Bob calling me dishonest. That is one thing I'm not. The previous posts were mostly about the AV's cell phone, and then a couple about whether or not Nifong talks to the AV. Here's the majority of what Slo posted right before Bob (I don't include everything here and elsewhere because of space, but it isn't because I'm deliberately trying to omit something): Posted by SLOphoto May 21, 2006 09:29 AM "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." And some other stuff. Then Bob posted (And I include the ENTIRE post, so as to not leave anything important out inadvertently): Posted by Bob In Pacifica May 21, 2006 09:30 AM 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. (end) Now. Bob, you start out with a bald statement about the AV's affirmation of sex with her boyfriend in a SANE exam. No "If" about it. No explanation that you are speculating. No link to the previous posts that I could find or understand. Then you do say "any claim." OK, that's a little more speculative. Then you do say the above is speculation. I took it to mean you were speculating about the decay of sperm cells, which you speculated as not happening, although we have read that sperm can be detected for up to 2 weeks. Then in your last paragraph, you say the evidence of the SANE report alongside the AV's statement etc. Again, you give no indication here that the AV made no statement. That's why I asked you about it. Pure and simple. Why quote half a sentence? I told you, it was the part I had a problem with. People quote half sentences all the time. I was being efficient, not dishonest. So stop it. (continued; sorry so long)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#113)
    by cpinva on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:25:27 AM EST
    i must say, reading these posts has certainly been entertaining. not particularly edifying, but entertaining nonetheless. let's see, where to begin? oh yes, let's start with the basic premise that it's the state's job, in a criminal case, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. it isn't the defense's job to prove otherwise. the bar is set for the state, not the defendant. hence, i wouldn't talk to the police or prosecutor, without my atty. present, if at all. boorishness is not a criminal offense, thank goodness. we don't have enough jail cells. as i noted on another thread, mr. nifong has retreated to an alternate reality. for our purposes, we'll call it the "kafka zone", a place where there needn't be actual evidence of an actual crime, other than bad manners, having occured, for a trial to take place. mr. nifong has nothing. the rape kit is now suspect, because of the DNA evidence of her having had sex with her boyfriend. a defense atty's wet dream. aside from that, he has nothing substantive, even her id from the photo lineup will be thrown out, for the reasons noted by many others. there is no physical evidence, anywhere, that a crime happened. it may have, but there's no actual tangible evidence of it. at least, not at this point, that's been released. the "timelines" mean................nothing, absent any actual physical evidence. who cares when who left where or returned? if no there's no crime, what possible difference could it make? none. this boils down to a "she said/47 he's said" case. guess who the jury is going to believe, should this ever actually go to trial? they'll believe, not because they're duke students, but because the overwhelming weight of their testimony will preclude any other conclusion. nifong is being quiet, because he realizes he's been taken, or his police did such a piss poor job of investigating. either way, he's screwed. if he's lucky, and this is what he's banking on, either new, compelling evidence will surface, or interest in the case will wane, and he can quietly ask for dismissal of all charges. absent one of these events happening, he might well want to consider alternative career aspirations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#114)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:26:09 AM EST
    (continued) Now, Bob, rather than calling you dishonest or misleading, let me just ask you about your motives. In my post which you chose to attack, I raised a question. I raised the possibility that many of the partyers were badly impaired from alcohol, and possibly other substances. I raised the possibility that this could affect their credibility as witnesses, and also that it is possible that some of them could have blacked out, and even committed crimes that they don't remember. You ignored my comments completely. Now, were you so incensed about my question that you simply forgot about it? Or were you deliberately getting off track so that my comments about the possible impairment of the partyers and consequences thereof (first time EVER raised on these threads, I believe) would be forgotten and ignored? Just asking, Bob. Another question, when you speculated about the AV telling the SANE nurse that she hadn't had sex with her boyfriend, did you write it in such a way as to plant the idea in our minds, that she actually said that? Again, I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I'm wondering.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#115)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:27:31 AM EST
    A statement consists of at least a subject and a verb. Feel free to decline the sentence. You are being dishonest once again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#116)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:28:58 AM EST
    Bob, point taken about including the date and time. I'll do that in the future.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#117)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:34:40 AM EST
    Dishonest about a subject and verb? Oh get off it. Talk about whistling past a graveyard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    I hate to say it, but this blog is in the throes of BDS - Blog Devolvement Syndrome. I've seen it before. When new grist is scarce and posters cannot adjust, the dialogue devolves into discussions of grammar and general carping. This has been a great blog. Let's try to put it back on track, even if it means pausing the dialogue for want of fresh information. Of course, new theories or observations about the case are always welcome.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    Lora, I could quote one half of a sentence of yours out of context. To what point? You have shown how deceptive you can be, whether with or without your wits. Regarding my "intention," my intention was for people to read the whole post, not cut off part of the first sentence and wave it like a bloody flag. The post was about the probative value of the SANE report which has not yet been released. My point was it's only as valuable as the AV's believability. If you don't want to discuss it, then put your hands over your head and walk away. Stop playing games and sniping and get back to the case. I agree with fillintheblanks. This blog is in need of an actual case. Later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#120)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    Bob, I have been unfairly attacked multiple times about a simple question asked in good faith. You've rejected all my attempts to explain it. I just did repost your entire post (May 22, 8:16 AM), so it could be read. Your response was, in response to my question about intention: May 22, 9:18 AM
    Regarding my "intention," my intention was for people to read the whole post, not cut off part of the first sentence and wave it like a bloody flag.
    I do question your motives, but I've done that respectfully. I've asked you to stop with your comments about your opinion of me, stated as fact, yet you persist and add another jab as well: May 22, 9:18 AM:
    You have shown how deceptive you can be, whether with or without your wits.
    I'm formally asking you to stop. If you continue, I'll take it up with TL.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#121)
    by chew2 on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    Lora
    Bob, what is it that I'm supposed to apologize for? For asking if you read that the AV told a SANE nurse that she didn't have sex with her boyfriend?
    You don't owe Bob an appology. He owes us all an appology for wasting so many words on a bogus personal attack. Bob said this:
    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.
    Bob's been known to take a statement or characterization made on this blog and treat it as a "fact" without checking. He often loses track of what's a fact and what's somebody's speculation. He speaks of the "AV's affirmation" here as if that was a given fact. So you appropriately asked where that fact came from. He's now claiming it was just speculation on his part. Chalk it up to poor writing on his part. Whatever it was it didn't deserve wasting so much time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:53:55 AM EST
    imho: The cabbie, having "known" Seligman for only the duration of the cab ride has no idea what Seligman's normal demeanor would be; the cabbie, being a lay person and not being a law enforcement office with training and experience cannot testify as to whether Seligman's demeanor was more or less suggestive that he had just committed a rape; and demeanor testimony must have some probative value, which in my opinion, the cabbie's does not. Unless my Evidence prof in law school misled me, the testimony might be offered, but it is highly likely that a challenge to its admissibility would be upheld.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#123)
    by chew2 on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    To return to the Jonna Spilbor comment that TL has posted above. Spilbor claims Nifong should have been anxious to listen to defense evidence partly because:
    Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way.
    In NC, if the defense requests discovery from the prosecution, then they have to provide similar evidence to the prosecution. Nifong was going to get the defense evidence anyway. I think Spilbor practices in NY, and that may be the case there, but it's not the case in NC. Why is it that the talking heads, like Spilbor, often don't seem to even bother to check the specific law and facts of the case they are commenting about. I note that while some have made snide remarks about Nifong's legal background, Spilbor graduated from Thomas Jefferson Law School, a fourth tier law school in San Diego. BTW: in NC generally expert witnesses have to be disclosed during pretrial discovery, but non-expert witnesses only just prior to jury selection. So we may not know if there is a cooperating witness until trial. --------------------- And appropos of Nifong's seeming air of confidence at the Seligmann hearing, this quote from an MSNB article.
    But there are many members of the defense bar in Durham -- including some who represent Duke lacrosse players -- who think highly of Nifong. "Mike is a level playing field. He does not do politics," said John Bourlan, a defense attorney in Durham who figures he has worked with Nifong on thousands of cases. "You're treated the same way in everything. You know you're getting a square deal." Bourlan said Nifong has never tried a case as a bluff: "He's not good at hiding emotion. He's someone who should never play poker."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    SharronInJax
    the cabbie, being a lay person and not being a law enforcement office with training and experience cannot testify as to whether Seligman's demeanor was more or less suggestive that he had just committed a rape; and demeanor testimony must have some probative value, which in my opinion, the cabbie's does not. Unless my Evidence prof in law school misled me, the testimony might be offered, but it is highly likely that a challenge to its admissibility would be upheld.
    I'm not a litigator, but I took evidence and my initial impulse is to disagree. You don't need special police training or years of acquaintance to be able to testify as to whether or not a stranger seemed calm, agitated or out of sorts. These are things that an ordinary person is perfectly capable of assessing and pretty material to this case. The prosecution will have ample opportunity to bring up the shortcomings you mentioned on cross. I think the testimony gets in.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#125)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    Thank you chew, At some point Nifong clearly realized that he did not want to hand control over the investigation to the defense team. He did not want to accept partial releases of the evidence they had. He wanted an indictment so he could file motions forcing the defense to hand over their evidence. Complaints that he is pursuing this case are spurrious. He is doing a good job. If there truly is exculpatory evidence, he can find this in the process the state controls to ensure that the state provides justice and justice isn't just what the defense team would define for the community.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#126)
    by chew2 on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    azbballfan, Some great playoff bball we're seeing. I have a different take on the fact that the Duke officials warned the team about the rape allegations on the morning of March 14. It's very likely that they told the team that the Durham police weren't treating the charges seriously, that at most it might be misdemeanor assault. (The Duke report notes parents are criticizing Duke for lulling the team into a false sense of security.) This may explain why the captains, including defendant Evans, went to talk to the police w/o attorneys. They thought they could get by with saying "nothing happened". They might have thought bringing attorneys would make them look guilty and would have meant telling their parents about something they hoped would just blow over (assuming they hadn't told them). So now they are on record with a story that "nothing happened". They didn't know that the police had medical evidence consistent with rape and/or assault. As the evidence developed Nifong became convinced that their initial statements were a lie or incomplete. If they were lieing about "nothing happening", this might also explain why they didn't identify Seligmann as being present. Of course, talking to the police could also mean that the three really are innocent and felt they had nothing to hide. BTW: IMHO do we know exactly when the team captains went down to talk to the police?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    Chew wrote: BTW: in NC generally expert witnesses have to be disclosed during pretrial discovery, but non-expert witnesses only just prior to jury selection. So we may not know if there is a cooperating witness until trial. Please post a link for this. Woody Vance {?}, a TH attorney practicing in the R/D area, indicated that the DA would have had to disclose a cooperating witness to the defense when disclosure was made on Thursday. This is the most important point in the case--so jpost support for your point please.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    Here's my theory of the timeline: 1. Kim arrives and waits for the AV. 2. Boyfriend drops off AV, who's wearing her performing outfit. Boyfriend says he'll pick her up in a couple of hours. 3. The women go to the back door and discuss the transaction with the customer. They are paid in advance. 4. They go in the house and enter the bathroom together so that Kim can change clothes. 5. They dance briefly. The AV is impaired. Kim is pissed off at the AV and the Dukies. They go back in the bathroom so that Kim can change back. 6. The women go to Kim's car. 7. The AV and Kim return to the house - either to resume the dance or to retrieve the AV's shoe. This is the tricky part. Kim's whereabouts at this point is the big unknown in my mind. Perhaps the women reenter the bathroom together. Kim may be going to change clothes again. Perhaps Kim accompanies the AV to the house but does not enter the house. Perhaps she enters the house, but not the bathroom. 8. At some point Kim realizes further dancing is not going to happen and goes to the car. The AV is in the bathroom doing her nails and otherwise trying to gather herself. 9. The AV leaves by the back door and falls, depositing nail polish on the railing and leaves her phone, etc. in the house. 10. The AV is helped into Kim's car, still without her shoe. 11. Kim and Dukies argue over money. Kim may have tried to get the AV's shoe as the AV is incapacitated in the front seat. 12. Kim calls the cops... and the rest is history.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    Chew, I will do it for you. Note that in a-1 the State must disclose all witness statments. In a-3, the names of the witnesses need to be disclosed only before jury selection. So you are at least half right. Accordinly, all the TH (read Abrahms report) throwing around the witness list were misleading us. However, my reading of the statute would indicate that if the DA has a witness cooperating with the State it must provide the statement of the witness now except under limited circumstances. 15A‑903. Disclosure of evidence by the State - Information subject to disclosure. (a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to: (1) Make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term "file" includes the defendant's statements, the codefendants' statements, witness statements, investigating officers' notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Oral statements shall be in written or recorded form. The defendant shall have the right to inspect and copy or photograph any materials contained therein and, under appropriate safeguards, to inspect, examine, and test any physical evidence or sample contained therein. (2) Give notice to the defendant of any expert witnesses that the State reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the State shall furnish to the defendant, a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The State shall also furnish to the defendant the expert's curriculum vitae, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The State shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subsection within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court. (3) Give the defendant, at the beginning of jury selection, a written list of the names of all other witnesses whom the State reasonably expects to call during the trial. Names of witnesses shall not be subject to disclosure if the State certifies in writing and under seal to the court that to do so may subject the witnesses or others to physical or substantial economic harm or coercion, or that there is other particularized, compelling need not to disclose. If there are witnesses that the State did not reasonably expect to call at the time of the provision of the witness list, and as a result are not listed, the court upon a good faith showing shall allow the witnesses to be called. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the court may in its discretion permit any undisclosed witness to testify. (b) If the State voluntarily provides disclosure under G.S. 15A‑902(a), the disclosure shall be to the same extent as required by subsection (a) of this section. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1975, c. 166, s. 27; 1983, c. 759, ss. 1‑3; 1983, Ex. Sess., c. 6, s. 1; 2001‑282, s. 5; 2004‑154, s. 4.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#130)
    by chew2 on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    nyesq
    Please post a link for this. Woody Vance {?}, a TH attorney practicing in the R/D area, indicated that the DA would have had to disclose a cooperating witness to the defense when disclosure was made on Thursday. This is the most important point in the case--so jpost support for your point please.
    § 15A‑903. Disclosure of evidence by the State - Information subject to disclosure You know I think Vann could be right, and I read the NC law too hastily. I'm not a criminal atty. (a)(1) says the prosecution must supply the police files including "witness statements". (a)(2) requires a reasonable time before trial the DA ..."give notice to the defendant of any expert witnesses that the State reasonably expects to call as a witness". (a)(3) requires the DA.."give the defendant, at the beginning of jury selection, a written list of the names of all other witnesses whom the State reasonably expects to call during the trial." Except, the DA can hide the ID of witnesses in order to protect them from coercion or other compelling need by filing with the court. I based my statement on (a)(3) without taking into account (a)(1). So it looks like, the prosecution must disclose a written witness statement if already given. However, if a statement has not yet been taken from that cooperating witness (perhaps he has only communicated through his atty), or the DA seeks to protect his identity, he might be able to hide the witness statement and identity until trial. You practice in NY? My brief reading is that defendants only have to disclose documentary exhibits in criminal cases in NY. Is that why Spilbor was wrong about NC law?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#131)
    by chew2 on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    nyesq, our posts crossed in the mail

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#132)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    BTW: in NC generally expert witnesses have to be disclosed during pretrial discovery, but non-expert witnesses only just prior to jury selection. So we may not know if there is a cooperating witness until trial.
    Chew, I'm confused. The NC defense attorneys that I saw interviewed on Thursday and Friday said that the DA is required to turn over all discovery including witness statements unless there is some need to protect the witness. Are they wrong? On Abrams, he said there are only expert witnesses listed. No Kim, no Bissey. I'm sure those experts wouldn't be his only witnesses so how is the DA getting around the discovery requirement (unless you are right and they are wrong)?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#133)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:49:21 AM EST
    Thanks guys. I hadn't read your later posts about the witness statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#134)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:00:56 PM EST
    Discovery seems to be incomplete. No tox report and part of the SANE exam is missing according to defense filing. abclocal.go.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    Based on this report there is no tox report. The motion is just to highlight the fact and get the THs going tonight. Missing aspects of the Sane report. Probably the means by which the defense is going to disclose those aspects of the Sane report they want published.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#136)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    nyesq, how so? Will be SANE report that the defense has be included in the filing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#137)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    Sorry for the typo. According to Abrams Report the SANE report is checked no for tox testing. Looks like the SANE nurse made the wrong decision.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#139)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:20:12 PM EST
    What about the AV's first stop, at the detox unit, or wherever they took her before Duke Hospital? Perhaps they already did a tox screen there, so it wasn't repeated at Duke?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#140)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    Sharon, except for this new filing there hasn't been any defense leaks about the discovery. Do you have any take on that? I really thought this case would be over, in terms of public opinion anyway, but now no one is leaking.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#141)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    Teresa One motion is just to let the world know there is no tox report. As to the other motion, I assume there is something in the SANE report the defense wants to highligt for the public. Need to see the motion, but would not be surprised to see the defense quote from portions of it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#142)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    What about the AV's first stop, at the detox unit, or wherever they took her before Duke Hospital? Perhaps they already did a tox screen there, so it wasn't repeated at Duke?
    Lora, wouldn't the DA have that evidence also though? *** I don't think the DA is the only one to fault about this case. It seems to have been mishandled all the way around. No tox test on a woman the police described as passed out drunk and no search warrant for two days just for starters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    When I first started reading this board, oh so very long ago, I asked a doctor I know about the SANE exam/ tox test. Just off the cuff he said that are far as he knew, once the word "rape" was mentioned, everything else went by the boards and no tox test would be done. This seemed crazy to me at the time, so I didn't share here. But maybe there was something to his outlandish pronouncement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Del, I could see that if the AV here had not presented initially as serverely intoxicated. I suppose the rationale would be along the lines of "just because she was drunk doesn't mean she wasn't raped or can't id the perpetrators." But it sure does further reduce any probative value for Kim's observations of the night. Not sure, Teresa. Maybe the defense has decided that there is nothing that will make the DA abandon the prosecution so now they are acting more like usual defense attorneys: not showing the DA anything more about their theory of the case at this point, not until they have to, so that he won't have more time to counter that theory. But nyesq, they could have leaked that without a motion. I suspect the motion is more along the lines of creating a record, preserving any grounds for objection either at trial or on appeal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#145)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    Del, the DA on Abrams' show also said that tox tests are not done as part of the exam ordinarily. Strange, huh? That doesn't seem fair to either side. nyesq, thanks for the answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    Maybe we should have seen this coming when Nifong did not charge anyone with introducing a drug into the AV's drink: sort of like the way he did not charge any of the guys with using an inanimate object on her. I would love to know what Nifong said that made the Newsweek reporter write that he "hinted" that blood and urine tests would show that a date rape drug been administered.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#147)
    by weezie on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    Do any of the JDs here see a scenario where Kim would be a good witness for the defense? Hostile but useful? Maybe based on her first statement that she din't think anything had happened and that the FA was drunk in her car at the Kroger's? I may need Botox after raising my eyebrows so much each time some new information is released.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#148)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    Sharon, you are probably right but that SANE exam is the only thing that still makes some believe that there might have been a rape. If there is nothing really bad in it I would think public opinion would be even more in favor of the defendents and that might pressure Nifong into dropping this. Not that he has given in to pressure or public opinion so far but an inconclusive SANE exam that contains no serious injuries would seem to put this case over the edge. Is there any chance that the SANE report will be released by either side in these filings? Does all of this stuff become public record at some point?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    I had forgotten that the grand jury did NOT charge any of the three guys with a non-sexual assault, i.e., for the "choking, kicking, beating" that went along with the rape allegations. My point being that if the SANE nurse saw bruises, swelling, cuts, etc. other than in the genital area, those injuries are not covered in the indictments. And trauma to the genital area can now be blamed on the boyfriend/other partner, can it not? If the SANE nurse's decision not to run a tox screen was discretionary, doesn't her decision, in light of the AV's reported condition, NOT to do so open up issues of her credibility, too? The SANE report, after all, is a statement of opinion, and the defense will hammer on that "consistent with" sexual assault as opposed to "proof of" sexual assault. Wonder if a urine test was done? Anyone heard about that? And why draw blood if you are not going to test it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#150)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    chew2 posted:
    BTW: IMHO do we know exactly when the team captains went down to talk to the police?
    I don't know. I assume they went to the police substation immediately following the search, the police wouldn't want them comparing stories first. They may not have known the players been "tipped off." The wording of this article suggests they went after the search, but it's not clear.
    Evans told reporters at the news conference that he had cooperated with police when they served a search warrant on his house March 16, three days after the party. Evans said he and his roommates helped police find evidence and then went to the police station without a lawyer. Evans said he gave police a statement and a DNA sample and gave them access to his e-mail and instant messaging account.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#151)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    Teresa, If a tox test was done at a different hospital, Nifong would have it. Would he have been obligated to put that in the file he handed over? Maybe the AV was lucid when she told them she'd been raped, and there was no indication of intoxication. I have proposed that trauma could account for her behavior. Perhaps the folks at both hospitals thought so, too. Although I would think that they would have screened her at the detox unit, as a matter of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#152)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    If the SANE nurse's decision not to run a tox screen was discretionary, doesn't her decision, in light of the AV's reported condition, NOT to do so open up issues of her credibility, too? The SANE report, after all, is a statement of opinion, and the defense will hammer on that "consistent with" sexual assault as opposed to "proof of" sexual assault.
    It does to me Sharon. I wonder if the person being examined can refuse to be tested. I wonder if the report would reflect that also as opposed to just stating that no tests were done.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    Page 35 of the protocol covers this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#155)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    If a tox test was done at a different hospital, Nifong would have it. Would he have been obligated to put that in the file he handed over?
    I think he would if he planned to use it. This makes me wonder if she wasn't as intoxicated as she appeared to be. How could the nurse not test her unless the accuser could flat out refuse? Based on Kim's description of the woman being fine and then acting weird after the drinks, Nifong may have wondered if she was drugged but why would he wonder out loud about it if he knew there was no test? If he's planning on using Kim's testimony alone I can't see that helping him without a test. The police officer's opinion at the time might support Kim's testimony but then why was no test done?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    "In addition, it is recommended that an additional tube of blood routinely be drawn for blood and alcohol analysis should this become an issue later if the case is charged." From the Dept. of Justice SANE protocol.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    How could the nurse not test her unless the accuser could flat out refuse?
    Maybe you have to be "with it" enough to grant permission. If you're passed out, you can't exactly give permission to test. Which is insane, because if you're passed out, don't they have to know what made you that way to help you? If you manage to mumble, "I was raped" before you pass out, do they just have to stand there wringing their latex-gloved hands in frustrated despair? Shades of Bean, but really this is starting to sound alarmingly PC. Sure, I'm hepped up on illegal goof-balls, but I said I was raped, so you can't touch me. Neener, neener. Teresa, agreed, I can't see the wily Kim's testimony ("Come to think of it, she looked glassy-eyed...") helping the prosecution one darned bit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#158)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    Per the SANE manual for another NC hospital: They don't do a tox screen if the patient refuses one. Then it's up to the police to decide if they want to threaten drunk & disorderly charges to force one. Although she wasn't found out in public, she was found in a car, so who knows?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#159)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    This is from a 2004 study of the effectiveness of the S.A.N.E. program
    Overall, the SANE-collected kits were more thorough and had fewer errors than the non-SANE kits. For example, with respect to completeness of evidence, 96% of the SANE kits versus 85% non-SANE kits collected the swabs to match the recorded orifice of penetration, 92% of the SANE kits versus 15% of non-SANE kits contained an extra tube of blood for alcohol and/or drug analysis, and in 100% of the SANE kits versus 81% of non-SANE kits a blood stain card was properly prepared. In addition, the chain of evidence was broken in non-SANE kits but was always maintained in SANE kits.
    Could it have been collected, but is yet to be tested? I recall reading a S.A.N.E. protocol weeks ago that stated they should ALWAYS collect the extra vial, but it could not be tested with out the patient's permission.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#161)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    Based on Kim's description of the woman being fine and then acting weird after the drinks, Nifong may have wondered if she was drugged but why would he wonder out loud about it if he knew there was no test? If he's planning on using Kim's testimony alone I can't see that helping him without a test. The police officer's opinion at the time might support Kim's testimony but then why was no test done?
    At the time of the exam they didn't have the benefit of Kim's before and after observations. They just had her description of the AV as passed out drunk. The SANE staff may have thought the AV was drunk or on drugs, but they might have also assumed it was self induced. It's at least plausible that they decided to pass on the toxicology screening on the grounds that it might hurt the AV more than it would help. If the AV had claimed she was drugged, I'm sure they would have tested her. She might have also refused to give a blood sample. This is all speculation of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#162)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:46:18 PM EST
    If this report is true, it's very troubling. In the Newsweek article, Nifong hinted at the existence of a date rape drug in the accuser's system. If no tox report occurred, on what did he base that suggestion? Kim Roberts' expert testimony? Normally, the defense's credibility is undermined as the prosecution produces more and more unimpeachable evidence. In this case, it's just the reverse. As to further defense leaks, what else would be in the file that they could leak? Friday's leak was no condoms--thereby undercutting Nifong's rationalization of no DNA evidence--and today's leak is that there's no mention of drugs in the police file. We already know there's no physical evidence of sex with anyone except the boyfriend.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    imho: larry kozilinsky (sp?) the forensics expert on Abrams said it would be too late to test the blood now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#164)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    Sharon, I found a national exam protocol and it said the same thing. Maybe there is still some blood that they can test? The forensic guy on Abrams' show said it's too late to test it but maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can't copy a pdf file either. :) I could at my office so maybe we don't have the right browsers or something. Maybe a nice person here will teach us how.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#165)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    Pat, I think I posted this to you before - it's really not hard! And we don't want your posts to be "disappeared"... To link, with applogies if it's too basic: -highlight the URL of the webpage that you want to link to. -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy"). -highlight the word in your comment that you want to be the link. -click the "URL" button above the comment box. -hold down the "ctrl" button and then type "v." -click "OK." -click "Preview" below the comment box.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#166)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    Hues, you said:
    The SANE staff may have thought the AV was drunk or on drugs, but they might have also assumed it was self induced.
    And maybe it was.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    Could be, Teresa, but I would think that would be a simple question, and John Jay is a very reputable legal institute. Wonder if the defense motion demanded testing now, or would they be too afraid of what it would show if it were possible to test now?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    And I think this is a first for me: something I think is wrong about this case/investigation that I can't blame on Nifong. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#169)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    khartoum, I was thinking about leaks about the extent of injuries or lack of. I know it wouldn't prove who did it but the rape she described should have some injuries that she wouldn't have from consensual sex. If there aren't any, I thought we'd know that by now. Weren't there supposed to be bruises on her neck and arms per the ESPN hospital source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    I found this when I was looking for something else. Seems like more confustion from the father: someone explain this article to me, in light of the other things that have been said, i.e., his alleged visit to the hospital that night/morning, and the supposedly obvious visible injuries. "The father of the woman who has accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of sexually assaulting her said he didn't find out that his daughter was the reported victim - and that she is an exotic dancer - until a reporter visited his house. The retired trucker who lives in Durham said he saw his daughter the day after the reported attack, but she didn't say anything was wrong. Her father, a quiet man who tinkers on cars as a hobby, said he saw news reports about the attack. "I didn't know it was my daughter," he said. Last week, a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on. He called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone. "(She) didn't tell us anything about it," he said. Posted 3/31/06, Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14236484.htm

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    SharonInJax That story certainly contradicts the notion that her face was swollen and covered with bruises, but in a way it makes the AV seem more credible. I don't know what to think of this case, other than that the police and prosecutor seem to have done a pretty sloppy job.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#172)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:48:08 PM EST
    Things to look for in the rape exam, some mentioned in a previous post of mine. 1. Did the nurse ask the AV if she had had sex with someone else prior to the alleged rape. I can't imagine the nurse wouldn't, but one never knows. 2. How did the AV answer? If she said no, was it an obvious lie or was the question vague enough so that the AV may not have understood? 3. When the nurse took the vaginal swab or swabs, did she note fluid consistent with semen? 4. Was that swab eventually identified as her boyfriend's semen? 5. If so, is that one of the elements by the nurse in describing her findings being consistent with rape? 6. Did the AV refuse a tox report? It will be interesting to see what part or parts of the SANE report the defense thinks is missing and whether they think that Nifong is deliberately withholding exculpatory information.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    Agreed, hues. Beginning to think that all I know is that I don't really know anything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#174)
    by Lora on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    Sharon, I thought that the father thought/knew she'd been attacked, but not necessarily knew she'd been allegedly raped at first. This is from memory; I don't have a link atm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#175)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    Sharon, IF I remember correctly, the father saw his daughter and knew she had been hurt in some way but didn't know until later that it was from an alleged rape. We had a big discussion about this early on and I think that's what was said.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    That sure looks like Matt Zash to me. That sure looks like the 2005 Championship game just ended. That sure looks like a beard and mustache to me.
    If that is a beard and a moustache then every man who does not shave for over a day has a beard and a moustache. NOT! It is clear from the picture that if Zash had a beard and a moustache it would be as thick and dark as his side burns.
    But got no response? So Nifong did not refuse to see him? When did Cheshire make this statement? I read it in an article dated April 22, 2006. Three weeks later and he hadn't made a second attempt? Does Cheshire even know if Nifong received his message? I would have dusted off my ego and kept trying to contact Nifong.
    If Cheshire contacted The Nifong's office and The Nifong never got the message from a defense attorney representing a person potentially involved in the biggest case of The Nifong's life, then the level of incompetence/complicity extends to the DA's office not jsut the Nifong. Moreover, you have no basis to assume that Cheshire or his office did not make multiple attempts to contact the The Nifong. DE stated that he made several attempts through his attorney to contact The Nifong. To think an attorney in this situation, let alone someone as competent as Cheshire would only make one attempt to contact The Nifong is so absurd I can't believe you would assume otherwise. You need to put your ego away, dust off your common sense and stop living by the absolutes you create with sound bites and news articles.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#177)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    imho: larry kozilinsky (sp?) the forensics expert on Abrams said it would be too late to test the blood now.
    Kobilinsky. That's the forensics expert that said people can use false mustashes. (we need one of those WOO! WOO! emoticons)
    KOBILINSKY: Well, Dan, actually, you know people can wear false mustaches...
    ABRAMS: OK. Fine.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    SarcasticOne: Thanks for the help. I've been using the following steps: 1. Copy the URL 2. Click on the URL button in the Comment box 3. Paste the URL in the box that opens. 4. Click OK 5. Paste the URL again at the end of the last character in the comment box 6. Click on the URL button again. I thought it was working, but I'll use your method. Thanks again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#179)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    IMHO: I think the explanation for your picture is that lacrosse players, like hockey players, often do not shave during the playoffs. The semi-finals and finals for lacrosse occur over a single week-end. Thus, it's likely that some of the players didn't shave Saturday or Sunday and hence, the scraggly appearance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    Teresa (& SharoninJax)
    It does to me Sharon. I wonder if the person being examined can refuse to be tested. I wonder if the report would reflect that also as opposed to just stating that no tests were done..
    That's what I was thinking...the lack of the tox report presumes that the AV/FA was cooperative with the SANE nurse. She could have refused the toxology test because she was afraid what it would reveal the amount of alcohol/drugs she consumed that evening (though I assume a SANE report would show a refusal). If the AV/FA thought she had been dosed with a date rape drug, one would assume that she would make this known to the SANE nurse and would be included in either the SANE report or the police report. The search warant was delayed for 2 days by the police because that is how long it took the AV/FA finish her statement. So she had 2 days to make her suspicions known about a date rape drug (a drug she is or should be well aware of given her occupation. Same with the broomstick for that matter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#181)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    Same with the broomstick for that matter....as it pertains to being in the report not her occupation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    Teresa (&SharonInJax) wrote:
    Sharon, IF I remember correctly, the father saw his daughter and knew she had been hurt in some way but didn't know until later that it was from an alleged rape
    . The father was quoted as saying that she had a hard time getting in and out of the car and sitting down. Could be from the rape she claims. However, it is also very reasonable that she would have the same pain and difficulty from a drunken fall on cement steps and landing on her A**.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#183)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted awhile back:
    It is an even more crazed suposition given that Coach Pressler had the "no-facial hair" rule for the entirety of his time at Duke, including 2005; and Pressler definitely would not tolerate it for a game, which is where the photo was snapped!
    You stated the above to discredit Hecht's photo. The Matt Zash photo shows facial hair that did not suddenly appear during the course of the game. Pressler, quite obviously, did tolerate it. Pat posted:
    IMHO:
    I think the explanation for your picture is that lacrosse players, like hockey players, often do not shave during the playoffs. The semi-finals and finals for lacrosse occur over a single week-end.
    Thus, it's likely that some of the players didn't shave Saturday or Sunday and hence, the scraggly appearance.
    I absolutley agree. The result is facial hair on his jaw, chin and upper lip. If Cheshire trots out a photo of Evans the day before and the day after the party that looks like that, would you say that is proof Evans has never grown a mustache? Do you think a juror might believe the accuser could describe that amout of hair growth on an upper lip as a mustache? We are not talking about what you or I or Kalidoggie considers a mustache. I think we've established how much facial hair Pressler tolerated less than a year before the party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#184)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    You stated the above to discredit Hecht's photo.
    Yes, and in that context Hecht was claiming a significant beard was coming through Evans chin strap. I maintain the same position and make the same argument. The "no facial hair" rule means no beards, moustaches, Goat Ts, Chops, Soups Lips, etc.....that is things from full grown, groomed hair, not scruff. Zash's scruff would not show through a chip strap. Obviously, it is a definitional question. Most people don't consider scruff to be a moustache.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    I leave this site for one day, so much has happened...I guess talking about my idea for the Lifetime movie, "Nightmare on Buchanan Street," seems so...but then again we're back to moustaches. May 1 Newsweek "When the case first broke in the press, Nifong, a white man who is running for election in a racially mixed county, hinted to NEWSWEEK that blood and urine tests of the woman would reveal the presence of a date-rape drug." What does that mean? Tox and Blood Alcohol results are same day, right? Yet nothing in the discovery documents. So is he playing "hide the ball?" How do you "hint" something enough that a major news org prints it? Newsweek: Hey Mikey, any chance these hooligans used a date rape drug? Nifong: Well, we got a tox report back, and let's just say I'm confident, wink, wink...hey, this place makes a great ham sandwich. The defense attorney's request today for all medical records leaves no wiggle room, whether at the hospital or the drunk tank. We should know tomorrow. So Nifong's got something that will make for good press but not prove when or where the drug was taken/slipped, or he still has bupkes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#186)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    Does anyone have an actual hard copy of the Newsweek article? I read that the blood and urine tests statement was not in the actual magazine article but it is in the website article.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#187)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:55:03 PM EST
    Thanks, Orinoco.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#188)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    Obviously, it is a definitional question. Most people don't consider scruff to be a moustache.
    Ah, yes. All I'm saying is the "Pressler don't allow it" argument isn't a convincing one anymore.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Ah, yes. All I'm saying is the "Pressler don't allow it" argument isn't a convincing one anymore.
    To whom? you? That was known before it was even made. The moustache arguemnt was known before you even made, in fact, I made it for you. NEWS FLASH: On Fox, we are learning that the police reports states that she also said 15 people raped her and that she denied the rape to another officer and at one point she said that Kim was in the bathroom when she got raped. When the police sought verification from Kim, Kim said, "That's a crock." SANE report shows no vaginal/anal tears, no bleeding and no cuts. It only shows difuse edema, which is swelling. The report notes the bruising and pain in a lower quadrant. We are also finding out that the three non-player in the DNA reports were people identified by the AV/FA indentified as possible sources for the semen...two in addition to her boyfriend...bet he feels special right now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#190)
    by weezie on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    Either that or he feels some burning associated with an infection...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#191)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    To whom? you? That was known before it was even made. The moustache arguemnt was known before you even made, in fact, I made it for you.
    This makes no sense to me. Is there a word missing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#192)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    Only caught a little bit of it, but sounded like Megyn Kendall on Hannity & Combs had a lot of info from the hospital report. Hope Greta reruns some of it. Have to keep my priorities straight and get back to 24.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#193)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    lol weezie. Though I doubt if her boyfriend is surprised seeing as how she's an escort. Were the other two men customers Kali? If there are no tears on the report, I think imho's third option of "stark raving mad" might be correct. What else could there be? It pains me to think that any DA would press forward with this with only that evidence. Initially maybe, but not now. So what is it?? Nothing? Her early statements don't mean too much to me because of her behavior according to espn and the Duke policewoman. Does the more bad info coming out from the defense make it more likely that the DA or someone from the police dept will speak up? I hope so. Don't you know Dan Abrams is steaming that he had jury duty and didn't get this scoop? No offense to Dan but he has said his show is THE source for information on this case. How does that Fox reporter get info no one else has?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#194)
    by weezie on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    I'm sure everyone will know this momentarily but the other two gentlemen were descibed as having driven her to five assignations at various Durham hotels during the previous two evenings. Say what you will about the FA, but it would appear that she is quite the tipper.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:47:28 PM EST
    Sharon's watching 24, I'm watching a crummy Yankee game, and Kali's got big news from Fox. Any more details?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#196)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:49:13 PM EST
    Teresa wrote:
    lol weezie. Though I doubt if her boyfriend is surprised seeing as how she's an escort. Were the other two men customers Kali?
    That was funny, Weezie! The two other men are her "drivers". The drivers told the police that they drop her off and pick her up at a series of three hotels each week or on the weekend they picked her up and dropped her off at three hotels/motels. I'm paraphrasing here and may be a little off but the gist was something about 3, picks/drops, hotels and that week or weekend. My mobile phone started ringing at this point...sorry.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#197)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:52:38 PM EST
    Teresa posted:
    How does that Fox reporter get info no one else has?
    Are you talking about Megyn Kendall? News Hounds has some amusing articles on her coverage of this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#198)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    Then why didn't they also test the customers if these two were drivers?
    Say what you will about the FA, but it would appear that she is quite the tipper.
    lol again weezie. I didn't get it at first. The only "good" explanation I can think of would be if they were tested because of the DNA under her nails and not the vag. swabs.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#199)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    Timber!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#200)
    by weezie on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    They weren't tested because she wasn't accusing them of rape. Just the "wealthy" Duke boys. And maybe she felt she owed it to the drivers for her share of the gas.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#201)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    weezie posted:
    Either that or he feels some burning associated with an infection..
    That's what I was thinking about Kali's friend who gets "freebies" from the prostitute that so impressed Kali.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#202)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:05:04 PM EST
    Are you talking about Megyn Kendall?
    I think so imho. I didn't see the show but I'll watch the replay as much as I can't stand Hannity. I will remind you all that there are two sides to every story. There's a prefectly innocent reason I have $90,000 in my freezer. :) (I'm a Democrat but I laughed at that.) I am surprised that Yale G. didn't know any of this because I think he really does have defense sources. Or maybe I'm just gullible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#203)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    Orinoco, I thought you were ignoring me. Look up "obsession." Here's a newer Megyn Kendall article.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#204)
    by Teresa on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:09:24 PM EST
    They weren't tested because she wasn't accusing them of rape. Just the "wealthy" Duke boys. And maybe she felt she owed it to the drivers for her share of the gas.
    Then why test the drivers? She wasn't accusing them either.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#205)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    This thread is closing. Here's a new one on the motions filed today and lack of toxicology report.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#206)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    Orinoco, imho is talking abt the high-priced call girl whose glam lifestyle was described several threads ago. Putting herself through Columbia law, or something. She had a very limited number of steady clients whom she saw on a regular, scheduled basis. Kali's friend got "freebies." I believe he said his hat was off to her. Not quite the same thing as going on one-on-one "dates" for Bunny Hole Entertainment, but I guess it's like Churchill said, we're all whores, just with different prices. Or something like that. I think it was Churchill.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:16:40 PM EST
    I found this link to a North Carolina hospital with respect to SANE procedures. On the last couple of pages of the pdf file, the toxicology procedures are outlined. Evidently, a tox screen isn't done unless the nurse feels that drugs were used to facilitate the rape. I may be wrong in this - I just scanned the document. It does say that the AV's permission is required for photography purposes. http://www.nccasa.org/SANESART/SANE/SANEProgramDevelopment/Protocols/MariaParhamHealthcare.pdf">link

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    link Obviously, this is from Massachusetts, but from this link, scroll down to the protocols (I couldn't get "copy" to work on the pdf address; not the most computer litereate person, here). They suggest that if the SANE nurse believes that the rape was facilitated by use of a drug, she must get the AV's consent before doing any testing, but that the nurse should at least try to find out if testing would help in prosecution. Still looking for a NC version, but this site is interesting on this point.

    DNA evidence (none / 0) (#207)
    by bluewater on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 10:28:28 PM EST
    It was reported that Dave Evans' DNA was found under the AV's fingernail.  I have a question about this.  Yes, it's his bathroom, but what is the liklihood out of her picking out of all those gentlemen, it's just a coincidence and by random roulette she got lucky on one?

    Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued | 207 comments (207 topical)