which of course begs the question of whether or not I can post it here once I find it.

Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains.

The only point is whether there is 'reasonable doubt' that the 3 did nothing. I would say that there is 'substantial doubt' that the 3 did nothing or at least did not do what they are *charged* with doing.

A handwritten narrative report by Sgt. J.C. Shelton that is attached to the motion says the accuser first reported being raped after officers had decided to involuntarily commit her.

Posted by scribe May 30, 2006 02:16 PM It never ceases to amaze me, how these commenters continue to worry this case and every development in it like my dog does with an old bone.

I didn't know you could highlight the link text first and the closing tag would be put in automatically (thanks Cymro)

btw: I followed Cymro's directions, it was easier. Thank you, Cym.

TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.

TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.

Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

My pleasure. If you think about it, the way it works is natural, because it follows the same data entry model as other buttons, all of which deal with methods of formatting the text of a post.

"The victim and her fellow dancer decided to leave because they were concerned for their safety. As the two women got into a vehicle, they were approached by one of the suspects. He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated."

"I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out, met with the gentleman and then walked back to the back of the house. Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house"

"I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out,

What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.

And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution.

Want to see your amazement cease immediately? Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

from what Bissey said, he saw a car "drive up" and then two woman got out, not two woman were inside a parked car and a guy talked to them and then they got out.

Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."

The problem, imho, is that NC does not guarantee the right to a speedy trial............

And when I came out, this entire alley was full of men kind of yelling, and I overheard a lot of talk about getting money back and the money they'd spent or whatever. And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside.

And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley. The situation seemed pretty calm.

PB posted: The reason I "support" the AV is because she may have actually been raped, and if she was that's not something I'm willing to be wrong about.

But I am convinced that these three young men should not have been indicted on what little evidence we have seen so far,

and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.

A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.

12:4x - Kim sees AV still minus one shoe. Kim gets out of the car to go get the shoe.

According to WRAL's website, their timeline has the accuser arriving at 11:53 p.m. I don't know their source for the information, but I doubt the defense concedes the accuser arrived 30 minutes before they say the dancing begins at 12:00 a.m.

If Kim arrived at 11 and the accuser at 11:30 (this is per the player's attorney) then why were they walking to the back of the house together at 11:50.

[The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.

What I thought was funny about your post was that you found it necessary to opine that following my "confusing" directions was the cause of Sharon's troubles (I'd never shared with her how I linked articles before posted she had a problem) and your declaration that she wouldn't have trouble if she had done it "the right way." You could have just said, "Sharon, this is how I do it....." I wonder why you didn't?

Which is it? One, or both? Or possibly, as I suggested before, first "one of the girls" (Kim), who, according to the AV, wanted to go back anyway, then the AV. When or where did all the men go? Some with Kim, and some with the AV? Maybe most went with Kim and a few pulled the AV out, and brought her back in, groping her along the way. Speculation, of course, but how is it inconsistent with Bissey's account, or any other account?

and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.

I feel like Kim was more careful than any of the other side players to be cagey in switching only her "interpretation" not the facts of her story (as much as I've been able to ascertain).

A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.

[The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.

That's two confirmations...

Despite being a woman who is provocative and therefore responsible for the actions of the men around her, I'm really liking this woman. She's had more guts than about anybody in this.

Takes a lot of "guts" to steal $25,000 from an employer who trusted you, doesn't it? Takes a lot of "guts" to try to profit from anothe woman's nightmare.

This woman had a 4 year degree, from a great university, and she blew it and ended up dancing naked in front of drunk guys.

That is not "guts." That is stupidity

the idea of a salaried public prosecutor long postdates the grand jury. At the time of the American Revolution, there were no salaried prosecutors and indictments were farmed out to private counsel after the grand jury had found an indictment. [...] Those who wrote the US constitution may shown a certain prescience, but I doubt they were prescient enough to create the grand jury to restrain prosecuting officials who did not then exist.

PB: NOTHING the AV's father says can be taken for confirmation of anything, unless one is willing to accept all of his statments, even the ones that contradict her story.

Didn't you post her first name?

Which has everything to do with how straight forward and direct she has been...

"Straight forward and direct"? She lied on the 911 call, she lied to the Kroger security guard, she lied to the reporting police officers. No matter her reasons, did she not lie each of those occasions? My point was, at some point, Kim had her life going in a good direction.

Thought we were talking about your admiration for Kim Roberts, were we not?

[The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.

PB: Do we also take as "confimation" his statement that the two of them went to the store at 10:00 that evening, or the driver's statement that she arrived at his house at 9:00?

Do we take the father's statements that the AV told him she was sodomized with a broom, or no such charge in the indictment?

Do we take the father's statements that he knew about the Creedmore incident and that "nothing happened, she wasn't raped by those boy,s" or her mother's insistence that she was?

Do we take her father's statements that her face was bruised and swollen, or no simple assault charged in the indictments?

He is not a credible witness, PB. That was my point. He seems like a dear, injured man, but he is not a source I would rely upon for confirmation of anything about this case.

What does my, one time use, of the AV's first name have to do with my comments about Kim?

He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.

See, Cymro? I can DO IT NOW.

He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.

Thanks Cym. Still not entirely sure how I'm doing it, a little of everyone's suggestions added together, and it works. Magic.

Yeah, right, easy for her to say, she wasn't the one hung by her heels over the laundry chute.

More than anything, i feel sorry for anyone who doesn't look at [Kim] with a healthy dose of skepticism, since I think her #1 priority is how her (well-chosen) words represent not the truth, but Kim.

But sometimes, sometimes it feels personal and I feel the need to react.

I'm no expert. There is a strong argument that something like a grand jury was used before jury trials replaced trial by battle. But are you sure "prescience" was required by the founders? The Zenger case was a pretty big deal, and it was hardly ancient history at the time of the Revolution. The Attorney General who convened the Grand Jury in the case of Captain Preston and the other soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre was a salaried prosecutor, was he not? That's 1770, not too far from the time of the revolution.

The answer is no. Colonial attorneys-general, like modern ones, were not salaried public prosecutors.

You mean they weren't paid to be Attorneys-general? Or they weren't paid to do prosecutions...

Are you claiming that the fifth amendment grand jury provision had nothing to do with protecting people from government prosecutions by information, such as occurred in the Zenger case?

Felony suspects who desire to contest the existence of probable cause to support a formal accusation against them presently face a substantial handicap when accused by a grand jury indictment as opposed to being accused by information. Under the latter procedure, they are entitled to the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses and the right to present evidence--rights which protect fundamental interests at a critical stage of the proceedings.[105] Yet, those rights may be entirely denied in the absolute discretion of the district attorney to proceed by grand jury indictment in lieu of prosecution by information.

Incidentally, I feel Evans would be better off splitting with the other two. He'd have an 'easy' time getting an aquittal because of the lineup uncertainty.

REPORTER:

There was no DNA taken from any of the materials in the bathroom - the towels, the rugs, the paper towels?

CHESHIRE: There was, and I will say this to you all, there was DNA found of two of the boys on a towel and on the floor, but you need to remember that none of that matches up with her in any way, shape or form and that the bathroom where this DNA was found happened to be the bathroom of the two boys that the DNA was found

One sample was from a player's semen and another was a different type of DNA, Cheshire said. He said that was to be expected in a bathroom shared by the three men who lived in the house.

Posted by PB May 30, 2006 04:36 PM GSDFAN, You quoted from the search warrant: "The victim and her fellow dancer decided to leave because they were concerned for their safety. As the two women got into a vehicle, they were approached by one of the suspects. He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated." Now this from Bissey: "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out, met with the gentleman and then walked back to the back of the house. Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house" The women did not arrive together. And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution. What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.

Did you think I thought I was describing their arrival at the party?

Posted by Lora May 30, 2006 12:03 PM From the end of the previous thread: (posted by GSD fan from the search warrant) He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. There is no inconsistency here. A couple of players still could have pulled the AV out of the car, EASILY groped her with no one else noticing (people, especially men who post here, please understand that women can be quickly and furtively groped with no one around them ever being the wiser!!), and then escorted (dragged) her back inside. Here's a speculation (reasonable I believe, and from the perspective that the rape could have happened): Kim, who wanted to go back inside, did in fact go in on her own, and attracted the majority of attention and interest. We still have no idea what she did during the time of the alleged rape. The AV may have stayed right in the car, until she was pulled out, groped, brought to the bathroom, and assaulted and raped. This way, few if any other players might have had any idea of what went on, as they would have been eagerly and busily (and noisily perhaps) watching Kim. I have another speculation as to the reports by the defense that the two women were in the bathroom together. They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember. If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.

Posted by PB May 31, 2006 12:31 AM GSD Fan, You wrote: Did you think I thought I was describing their arrival at the party? No, no. My post wasn't actually a response to you at all, (although perhaps it began as such, I can't remember)and I'm sorry if it seemed to be. It's been people's assumption, because the defense has been trying to control the timeline, that Bissey witnessed the women's arrival. The section you published of the search warrant made me think that might not be the case for the reasons I gave. Bissey's second sighting of the dancers, when one of the dancers appears to have been coaxed back in, happens in a driveway that is crowded with complaining players. That doesn't seem so good a match for the description in the search warrant. I'm just working that angle.

You have a slight logical problem if you're arguing that the grand jury is good both because it controls prosecutors and because the grand jury does not control prosecutors.

Until fairly late in the piece, attorneys-general took their income from various fees rather than a salary.

I guess that means you feel sorry for me then. I've had the glib psycho-biography bit done to me, and it was so distasteful I resolved not to do it to others.

Their constant presence is "extraordinarily telling," said Cheshire. He said unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."

"You're talking about young men running the risk of being kicked out of college, of having their names in the newspapers and losing jobs, and they're standing in there because they know what the truth is," Cheshire said. "And the lawyers are standing in there because they've reviewed this case with great care and they know what the truth is."

So, maybe when the s*** hits the fan with all of this, it looks (per Nifong's public statements) to be pretty cut and dried against the accused. So here's Kim's big chance to be the star witness, make a dramatic statement on the stand, rescue the privileged sons of deep-pocketed, grateful parents, and come out smelling like a rose. Incidentally, she gets back at the AV for the shambles of an evening, and those who made vulgar/disrespectful statements owe her.

But then along comes Butch Williams, who indicates that yeah, they need her, but maybe not as much as she thinks. And maybe she won't be the start witness, but just an angry exotic dancer adding her part to a larger narrative. Less glory for Kim, so she shops her experience around to a different audience. An element of the public sentiment in Durham (the most visible, element, attracting the most media attention) is very pro-AV/anti-Duke. So if she throws her slant to that crowd, she can be a hero again.

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."

The timing is interesting--her big interview comes when serious holes start to be poked in the tidy Nifong scenario. She goes public, she claims, as some kind of preemptive strike, because she feels that she'll be named either way, hindering her ability to find gainful employment. I somehow doubt that, given that her current line of work was not noticeably damaged by her previous (more serious) run-ins with the law.

But Kim is cagey. On some level we don't know what her "story" is, because she's kept tangible facts out of the media. She hasn't changed her story, per se, but stories have been made out of her impressions. . .which I argue are quite changeable, based on how she feels like she can or cannot benefit from her role in this affair.

And I wonder if she would have felt as comfortable making her faces/gestures in court today if she hadn't already had her bond fees reduced by Nifong.

I'm sure that has to give the ego a l'il boost--to feel that you have the DA over a barrel in a rapidly-sinking high-profile case with few other eyewitnesses who could prove as compelling.

Durga: you brought up my use of the AV's name, in a post long ago for which I have made as many, and more, apologies and explanations as I can.

We don't know if the DNA that was semen was found on the towel or on the floor. I wonder if either sample belonged to David Evans?

I would guess that IF Nifong wins his case against any of the three indicted, the others might get into some kind of trouble for aiding and abetting/covering up that could get them into trouble with the University's honor code.

The whole Kim scenario was, as I thought I made clear, conjecture. I tend to believe Mr. Williams' account of the interaction because he's got more to lose by behaving badly than Kim. Others might find her more believeable, and it's certainly their perogative to do so.

If the defense was/is lying, it certainly gives her reasons for switching teams more weight. If they weren't lying, what's the incentive for the swap?

I didn't think that the players' interiew wasn't cagey. They simply weren't part of my Kim post. To that end, this whole event has been a bit of a tapdance routine for many parties involved.

Compelling testimony, maybe. Maybe in terms of establishing the elusive timeline, the most useful. Her impressions, less compelling, as I think they're more. . .flexible. . and while she doesn't have as much to lose as either the AV or the ARs, she, witnessed by her letter to the PR firm, seems to think there's something to be gained.

Compelling in that she was the only sober person in that house that night and in that she has far less to gain or lose from the outcome of a trial from than any of the other principals. I think Kim will make a good witness.

She can establish that the opportunity existed. The defense has a tape recording of her conversations with Williams and the police have a statement. She is pretty much locked into what she has told both parties. If this goes to trial, Kim will be the defense's biggest problem. Without her they can tell this thing any way they choose. Kim's presence put retraints on them.

My source for claiming she was the only sober person there is from a person that was there, Kim.

Still, where did she claim that she was the only sober person in the house? I honestly do not recall this statement from her.

My source for Matt Zash sitting in his room watching letterman is a statement from his lawyer.

My point is Kerry Sutton was not there.

My point is Kerry Sutton was not there.

This is form over substance. She is Zash's attorney relaying his account of events. They speak as one.

And I just reviewed the video of Kim mentioned above. She said she WAS in the house but didn't see anything "because she wasn't in the bathroom." OK, but she had to have seen and heard everything else. I ask again, why didn't she scream? I find that inexcusable, short of being held forcefully (which she would be mentioning and prosecuting if that happened).

This also goes to my theory of her being a "bad samaritan," ignoring the AV's plight (whether injured or incapacitated) and trying to kick her out of her car - especially if she saw something happen earlier. Ugh

According to court documents, she allegedly failed to pay financial restitution in the case, missed appointments with her probation officer and left North Carolina without permission to visit California.

As the two women got into a vehicle they were approached by one of the suspects. He appologized and requested they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated...

She said that they left and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time, she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an arguement about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money.

But my opinion changed when I saw an interview with her and she said, in answer to whether the the players were slipping money under the bathroom door, said (forcefully and snorting in disgust), "didn't happen. Didn't happen." How did she know that, unless she was there in the house? I realized right then that she was working the system for all she was worth.

This is my problem with the line of logic here. Your assumption is that Kim is telling the truth. I do not think her comments have been believable

The defense has conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes.

"ignoring the AV's plight"? Do you really want to go there?

(In my house, depending where I am, I can just about scream bloody murder and no one in my house will hear me. Done that.)

It is, I suppose, pure speculation on both of our parts to choose sides in the he-said-she-said of Roberts v. Williams.

Unless, of course, those statements and tapes (if such tapes exist) don't support a timeline conducive to a rape having occurred. In which case she's not as much of a threat to the defense, but her impressions and delivery could have a great deal of weight with a jury less impartial and reasoned than you are :).

I think in a 1470 sq. ft. house someone would hear, unless the music was cranked up. Did Bissey say anything about the noise level that night?

imho: it may be more "form over substance" but Kim denied there were $100 dollar bills being slipped under the door, but did not say that no bills of any denomination were passed under. Maybe nothing, but I see room for the defense story still to be true, in that respect.

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth and I'm not assuming she is lying. I know she lied about some things that night to avoid being indentified as being a stripper and Dan Flannery told some lies that night to avoid being identified as the person hiring strippers and perhaps to get strippers to the party without a bouncer.

And this brings me to my pet peeve - presumption of innocence. Not seeing it in these posts. And, as a passionate defender of the constitution (on the steps of the Supreme Court several times), I find this horrifying.

I don't even know if a rape happened or if it did that any number/any one of these guy did it, but please. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the legal view. When did anybody get handed a gavel or put on this jury? I didn't see anybody sentence these men to jail. What's more is that inaccurately applying "innocent until proven guilty" has amounted to "alleged victim lying until proven to be telling the truth".

The defense has conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes.

Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains. The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile.... ...Defense attorneys said last week that no DNA had been found on or inside the accuser. She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.

20 vs. 3,

her probable lying to her boyfriend about how many people she slept with etc., her past history, etc.

These convenient lies to protect family or dignity or legal status are simply not in the same league as what she says when she is using the very powerful arm of the criminal law. Much, much different. And so it bothers me to compare a 21 year old using a false name to hire apparently legal entertainment to not being "consistent" the commission of sodomy and rape.

Then, if you're saying that the AV was alone in the house from 12:20 to 12:30, then Seligmann is home free.

localone posted: These lies are not comparable, however, of making statements charging people with crimes that carry a life sentence in a state penitentiary. .... And so it bothers me to compare a 21 year old using a false name to hire apparently legal entertainment to not being "consistent" the commission of sodomy and rape.

One thing I am convinced of beyond any reasonable doubt -- the person who made that phone call to the escort service from his own house did not commit a rape in his own house that night.

IMHO,

Then, if you're saying that the AV was alone in the house from 12:20 to 12:30, then Seligmann is home free.

My understanding is that everyone is innocent, period, and the evidence has to be shown to prove their guilt.

My opinion on this does not change inside or outside the courtroom.

Your argument appears to be that this equates to assuming an accuser is lying.

20 vs. 3, no rape, rape etc etc., rape while Kim's in the bathroom, etc. She hasn't been "proven" to be lying, but frankly, her own statements require that some of them be discounted as not true. How can 3 be 20?

These lies are not comparable, however, of making statements charging people with crimes that carry a life sentence in a statepenitentiary.

But the two timelines are pretty much one and the same. Bissey indicates they reentered the house at 12:18.

Posted by JT posted: I lived in a 1500 square foot house with a bunch guys after I graduated college. We did a lot of partying there, lot's of drinking lot's of people over (although no strippers) and I'd like to make two points. Consensual 1. You are always fairly aware of what is going on in the bathroom during a party because people are drinking and quite simply, drinking makes you pee. The attack was alleged to have taken place in the main (only?) bathroom. [No, there was a second one, private and used only by the players who lived in the house.] Which would have been the bathroom everyone at the party was using.

Our local papers claim that she originally said 20 instead of 3.

She also apparently denied rape and then alleged it.

The differences between those inconsistencies are much greater in terms of consequence than lies to her parents, who HAVE said they didn't know she had gone back to stripping. On the boyfriend I was totally speculating that her boyfriend might not have known the full truth about how many men had to be tested for having sex with her, and the drop offs to hotels. That was just to make the point, not to assert it as fact.

imho,

What's your source for McDevitt being at the party again?

I didn't see that he gave a specific time like 12:18. I remember he is saying around 12:15-12:30. His giving a 15 minutes time frame indicates that he is not perfectly sure about it.

Some would believe this confidence comes from some kind upper-class, blue wall of silence the lawyers were (or weren't) privy too. But I don't buy that for a second, in fact as a "upper-class" kind of guy myself, who grow up in environment where many of my friend's parents were lawyers, I find the whole concept of blue wall of silence consisting of up to 40 people (with only three are now accused of a crime) completely improbable. Comically so.

The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.

But don't you figure the women went into the bathroom together after the aborted dance? To get dressed?

Thus Seligman had, at most, 4 minutes to participate and arrive at a point 1.5 blocks away from the house before climbing into the taxi. Not to mention his call to the taxi dispatcher at 12:14. Sounds pretty much home free to me.

Thus Seligman had, at most, 4 minutes to participate and arrive at a point 1.5 blocks away from the house before climbing into the taxi. Not to mention his call to the taxi dispatcher at 12:14. Sounds pretty much home free to me.

He can be homefree. It is possible that AV confused him with Tony McDevitt as IMHO suggesting. But it is possible that he could have attended the beginning of the sexual assault but got scared or came to his senses when things started to get ugly and left the scene in hurry. It will be clear when we see the detailed description of assault from AV's statement

IMHO keeps bringing up Tony McDevitt. Yes, he looks like Reade Seligmann and he was at the party, but is there a shred of evidence that he assaulted anyone?

And if it turned out that Tony actually was guilty even though the AV mistakenly identified Seligmann, do you really think that Seligmann, his lawyers, and his parents would be advising him to take the fall, keep his mouth shut, and cover for his rapist teammate?

As to the example of your husband's hearing, don't we all know that our husbands suffer from occasional deafness by choice?!

azbballfan posted: The lacrosse team is basically a fraternity. 1/3 of the students of Duke are in fraternities and sororities.

azbballfan: There is no way that a parent is going to pressure their kid to cooperate with the police.

Negative, and crying fowl. Fraternities choose whom they will and will not allow inside in terms of a brotherhood code. The members can veto anyone they don't want. Not so with athletic teams. The players have no such voice, and the basis for "joining" is "athletic skill" as determined by the coach. That can include any number of players who don't fit in altogether tight with "the brotherhood." And in this case it would only take one.

Or they could be telling the truth. Why would their solidarity preclude that? Why would the fact that they play on the same sports team (and how is it basically a fraternity again? Besides being all-male and college-aged?) automatically mean that they were willing to commit to conspiracy in the face of a crime?

Duke Lacrosse has been described as having a "clannish" or "pack" culture that is distinct from other Duke athletic teams and organized groups on campus. Like other athletic teams, the strict discipline of training and play enforces community for a significant amount of time both in season and out of season. Lacrosse transfers this community to life off the sports field more fully and more visibly than other Duke teams for a variety of reasons. They are a small enough unit (in contrast to football) to have remarkable social coherence and they are a large enough unit (in contrast to golf) to be socially prominent as a group. The players' backgrounds contribute to that cohesiveness. The majority of the players come from middle-class, suburban families (there are a few players from both very wealthy and from working-class settings). Most members of the team are recruited from the northeast-New York, New Jersey and Maryland are the traditional centers of the sport; many of the players competed against one another in high school. Many of the athletes' families participate fully in their son's athletic events-lacrosse is distinctive for its parent-organized tailgates after lacrosse games, for example.

Well, Azbballfall, if that's the case the parents must all be the reckless gambling types. Granted it looks like the case is beyond done, but it wasn't always that way, and nobody spoke out from the beginning. Worse for your child team to be associated with rapists or to be for your child to be known as someone who conspired to cover up a brutal racial charged rape? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that question.

The lacrosse network may even extend, it seems, to post-graduation employment. Apparently more than other teams, many of the LAX players are second-generation players or have siblings who have played the sport at Duke. In other words, the cohesiveness of the Lacrosse team is an expression of a tightness of a broader order.

The rape would have been taking place when his phone was making the calls. Which is more believable - hey Joe make these calls, I'm going to rape the stripper or Seligmann actually using the phone himself!!

One thing I am convinced of beyond any reasonable doubt -- the person who made that phone call to the escort service from his own house did not commit a rape in his own house that night.

And to follow up on my statement, that person is the only one involved who has taken -- and passed -- a lie detector test showing that he not only did not commit any rape, but also has no first hand knowledge of any rape being committed that night.

Which is more believable - hey Joe make these calls, I'm going to rape the stripper or Seligmann actually using the phone himself!!

I come from the same background and joined a fraternity. First rule of a fraternity, watch your brothers' backs at all costs.

You never tell your parents, girlfriend, or anyone what goes on in the house.

The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.

I don't want to get too far into, but anyone who thinks fourty people are going to cover up such a heinous and well publicized crime is making a startling character indictment against (basically) a whole class of people. If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative, but I don't think it would happen that way.

And I still keep on comming back to why Nfiong doesn't seem to be leaning on the other players at all. Why would you make a statement like "there will be no more charges."

"At the outset of this investigation, I said it was just as important to remove the cloud of suspicion from the members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were not involved in this assault as it was to identify the actual perpetrators," Nifong said. "For that reason, I believe it is important to state publicly today that none of the evidence that we have developed implicated any member of that team other than those three against who indictments have been returned."

Moreover, no student at Duke is going to let someone's stupidity, let alone alleged criminal behavior, interfer with getting their Duke degree. The hint of suspension would cause a break in loyalty faster than greased lightning.

He didn't make any cell calls between 12:14 when he called the cab till he leaves for the cab. That is the time frame we were speculating on.

Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 31, 2006 03:24 PM

Posted by SLOphoto April 24, 2006 01:22 PM I mean REALLY ... Neither one of those two women just "disappeared" inside the bathroom with three guys for 30 minutes, and NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual.

Posted by inmyhumbleopinion April 24, 2006 01:44 PM The second stripper, Kim, may have been in her car when the alleged rape took place. Are you saying three guys must not have been in the bathroom with the accuser or someone would have come forward by now?

Is this what you were talking about, SLO?

Someone can correct me on this but I believe Nifong turned down attempts by Seligmann's attorney's to show him his alibi.

"I've known the guy for 25 years," Mr. Osborn said. "I went over and thought surely he'd listen to me on it. And he sent some messenger out and said: 'I saw you on the TV saying your client was absolutely innocent, so what do we have to talk about?' He wouldn't even see me himself."

What reason does Kim have to tell the story other than to explain why they are trashing her? They courted her, she balked, they threatened, she walked, they trashed her.

You lived on Del Playa.

I mean REALLY ... Neither one of those two women just "disappeared" inside the bathroom with three guys for 30 minutes, and NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual.

Are you saying three guys must not have been in the bathroom with the accuser or someone would have come forward by now?

Advise your innocent client with an "airtight alibi" to not cooperate with the investigation, then once he is indicted for first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping, run to the DA's office with receipts in hand.

Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened. Even if you don't believe that any of them have a shred of human decency in them to have intervened, there's no way they could lie their way through such intense scrutiny. They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?

Looks like stand-up behavior to me. Seligman, or anybody else on the team who could've proved that he was absent at the crucial time, might well have spared himself from being indicted had he disclosed the alibi evidence to Nifong early on -- but in doing so, he would have made things worse for those teammates who had no such out by making it easier for Nifong and the AV to pick a set of defendants who couldn't refute the accusation so readily.

The condom theory is ridiculous -- can one honestly believe these players wore condoms to the party or that they managed to put on a condom, in a small bathroom with a fighting victim and two other attackers?

Moez Mostafa said he picked them up at 12:19 a.m. 1½ blocks from the party. Even if he ran, it would take a minute. That leaves exactly four minutes to perpetrate the assault. I think Seligmann walks. Due to the 100% certainty with which the accuser identified him, I think she undercuts her credibility in identifying her attackers.

They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?

4. The house is small and someone would have heard noise of a struggle from the bathroom. Despite the lacrosse team's reknown for public urination, there were likely people who wanted to use that bathroom. Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened. Even if you don't believe that any of them have a shred of human decency in them to have intervened, there's no way they could lie their way through such intense scrutiny. They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?

azbballfan, the point you're highlighting is simply that the lacrosse team is listening to their lawyers once they knew false claims would be filed. There is no secret to keep -- the guys are innocent but they correctly take actions to reserve the truth for court. Bad PR strategy but smart legal strategy.

Image 34: Victim: He was in the master bedroom. Sgt: What was he doing? Victim: Sitting on the couch watching television.

Image 35: Victim: The guy before this one. He made the comment about the broomstick. Sgt: #34 was the gentleman who made the broomstick comment. Victim: Um hum. Sgt: What was the comment about? Victim: He said um he was going to stick broomsticks up your a**es.

Image 40: (Collin Finnerty)

Sgt: Is he the one who strangled you or not? Victim: No.

Where did that allegation come from, and where did it go? This clearly bothers me more than it does others, so I won't bring it up again, but it remains an issue to me.

It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."

It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."

Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.

Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened.

Unlike other forms of rape, gang rape, especially in close knit groups, is more about the group reinforcing their self image of power and control in a ritual. It's a sick and twisted bonding ritual. Gang rapists are more into the ritualistic aspects of the act than the sexual pleasure.

While telephone records can be independently verified, the accuracy of the time stamp photos cannot.

Being 100% certain that someone looks like the someone who raped you is a worthless id, then.

Do you just keep charging and prosecuting until you find the right one?

if the photos came from a camera phone, the timestamp CAN be proven to be accurate.

For the first time Sunday, news reporters got a look at the photos, which were taken with a digital camera with an internal time stamp.

Sources said the 19 photos, taken between 11:02 p.m. and 12:41 a.m. by a person they would not identify, matched watches in the photographs.

It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."

Image 34: Victim: He was in the master bedroom. Sgt: What was he doing? Victim: Sitting on the couch watching television.

#34 is the guy who made the broomstick comment, but her first recognition/description is not of him doing that. That would be the first thing I would remember about him.

1. I would think a camera phone would qualify as "a digital camera with an internal time stamp".

It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."

The date and time stamp of the file was the date and time the file was taken from the camera - not the date and time of the photo.

Please excuse me if this next question doesn't make any sense, I'm just guessing based on previous posts. Is there some date/time "metadata" encoded in the photo taken by your phone-camera?

How likely is it that a *prostitute* would be reduced to hysteria by shame and guilt because she was dicked without her consent?

How about: to avoid being stigmatized as a "house nigga"

Of course, the California "call me Krista, not mom" would say, "Oh sweetie, why didn't you just access my porn site for your party, then you wouldn't be in this mess would you? With the season canceled, I guess I'm not going to get to play with the team this year either. Its Ok, I'll be alright."

No one denies that the accuser had been on several tabs of acid as well as alcohol and had sex with 4 members of a fraternity.

Is there any attorney, prosecutor or other officer of the court who could explain to me why Nifong would not want to review what the defense had? If he were a seeker of facts in this case, what harm does it do to see this information?

I knew someone would mention the book "Fraternity Gang Rape". It is important to note this book was based on an accusation that resulted in acquittal of the accused. No one denies that the accuser had been on several tabs of acid as well as alcohol and had sex with 4 members of a fraternity. However this was not uncommon behavior for her. Even her boyfriend admitted that she had seduced him under similar circumstances when they first met. She did not want to press charges afterwards but was influenced by an activist friend to do so.

I may have missed this, but I haven't heard an explanation for how this serves the pursuit of justice, or even how it would weaken Nifong's case to see what the defense has. The only logical explanation I can guess is that somehow it allows Nifong to pretend he still has a case.

As far as DNA goes, clearly the three defendants did not ejaculate in or on her (which they wouldn't do if they didn't have sex with her). Having forced sex with a struggling woman would presumably leave some DNA trace from at least one of the men on or in her. No guarantee, though. I guess the experts will testify as to the odds.

Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.

Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.

I really don't know. Kim has shown an ability to lie at the drop of a hat, and attorney are paid to bend reality to comfortably fit their clients.

And although you may not want to hear this, the jury may think that her wanting to keep her job and "contacts" quiet from boyfriend, Daddy, or whomever, may be a motivation for some of these claims. It's certainly happened before, and juries are made up by people who watch TV and have real life experiences.

Is there any attorney, prosecutor or other officer of the court who could explain to me why Nifong would not want to review what the defense had? If he were a seeker of facts in this case, what harm does it do to see this information?

In-training doesn't mean incapable of wielding a cotton swab.

The S.A.N.E. protocol for the collection of physical forensic evidence is more involved than that.

I'm quite sure. But she DID find physical evidence. If absolutely nothing had been collected, I might have thought it more likely that the physical collection portions of the SANE had been goofed. But she did, apparently, manage to do some effective collection (swabbing, what have you), just not of fluid that matched the accused.

Posted by 7duke4 RE: the camera and potential for modification of the time stamps This would be extremely difficult to do, even for a computer expert. ... [detailed explanation]

Posted by 7duke4 Considering the carelessness with other potential evidence by the players, it really stretches the bounds of probability that they would "conspire" to fix this one thing but forget the rest.

Considering the carelessness with other potential evidence by the players, it really stretches the bounds of probability that they would "conspire" to fix this one thing but forget the rest

Also, to be clear, we're talking about the time stamps in the camera/card, not on the photos downloaded to a computer. Those are easily modified - I've done that myself.