home

Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fair

Exotic dancer Kim Roberts doesn't want to wait for the courtroom to tell her story. Here she is in Vanity Fair.

With every statement she makes, she provides impeachment for the defense on her prior statements. Will she never learn?

< Quote From Gay Marriage Debate | DNA Frees Conn. Inmate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:17:41 AM EST
    not to be too harsh, but as a general rule, the individuals populating that particular occupation aren't doing it because they decided it would be more lucrative than the other option open to them, neurosurgeon.

    Talk Left posted:
    With every statement she makes, she provides impeachment for the defense on her prior statements. Will she never learn?
    cpiva posted:
    not to be too harsh, but as a general rule, the individuals populating that particular occupation aren't doing it because they decided it would be more lucrative than the other option open to them, neurosurgeon.
    I wouldn't underestimate Kim or the accuser. If they were a couple of ignorant skank 'Ho's, this would have been over a long time ago. Kim's story is not all that complicated. I think she used the word "elementary" to describe the facts of the case as they apply to her knowledge of what went on that night. The players obviously have the means to have committed the assaults, Kim can supply the motive and opportunity. Kim is THE ONE PERSON the defense wishes was in their corner. Butch totally "screwed the pooch' when he applied pressure to get Kim to sign a statement. She is not one to be pushed around.
    "We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."
    And what self-interests do the defense eyewitnesses to the party have? Hmmm? Jurors are not that stupid. From the Newsday article:
    "I fit the bill as Hispanic, so they were assuming the next girl would be white," Roberts told the magazine, explaining that she is sometimes mistaken for Latina. "And then here she comes, walking around the corner."
    This could just be a figure of speech, but it does seem that Kim may have been waiting in the backyard Keg party area watching the gentlemen urinate off the back porch when the accuser "comes, walking around the corner." Kim says she and the accuser chatted behind the house, so they did not go to her car to get to know each other, how did Bissey witness them walking up the alley/walkway together upon their arrival? from the same article:
    In the Vanity Fair story, defense attorney Bill Thomas said Roberts used her own racially charged insult by calling the player who shouted the broomstick remark a "white boy," then questioning his sexual prowess.
    How pathetically lame an excuse is that for the athlete scholars to have used their own racial epithets? This is some of the worst PR I have ever seen defense attorneys generate for their clients.

    Well, Kim didn't say a whole lot in the vanityfair.com piece. Perhaps there's more in the July print issue? With her probation violation hearing looming, this may be all she's willing to tell for now. If it's a matter of cash, I'll chip in $20, as would many from all around the globe.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#4)
    by james on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 06:37:34 AM EST
    That's right, both women are manipulative. You should understand that Kim definately has some things (in her mind) to gain from this episode. #1 is a resolution of her probation issue which would send anyone else in NC to a work camp and #2 she has said in the News and Observer that she wishes to profit off of this (to feed her kid, of course). You can't 'sell' a story if it's boring. Actually though, the more important one for her is probably the parole issue. If she didn't cooperate she would have found herself headed to Butner, NC (women's prison) and probably on to Wilmington (work camp). They don't let you run from probation and then let you go here... The lawyer didn't 'pressure' her if talking to her is pressuring her. The 'truth' is that she apparently went cold on him in the space of a day - the day during which Nifong spoke to her and a day before she got special bail treatment.

    fillintheblanks posted:
    Well, Kim didn't say a whole lot in the vanityfair.com piece. Perhaps there's more in the July print issue?
    That's just a teaser from the Vanity Fair Press Room. James posted:
    The lawyer didn't 'pressure' her if talking to her is pressuring her. The 'truth' is that she apparently went cold on him in the space of a day - the day during which Nifong spoke to her and a day before she got special bail treatment.
    According to Kim, when she hesitated to sign a statement, Butch Williams kept mentioning the photos they have of her from that night. Kim is not stupid, she knew what he was doing. She says she told him she was calling the police and hung up on him. He blew it. Plain and simple. It's one thing for her to not sign the statement, it's another to have her pissed off at the defense attorneys. Do you know what day Kim hung up on Butch?

    I didn't see any times mentioned. Maybe Nifong is still juggling his timeline. I guess this is going to be the theme: "You have to think of two little girls among how many big boys?"em> Which finger did Roberts wave at the press at her hearing?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 07:08:19 AM EST
    "Kim is not stupid" And how would you know this?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#8)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 07:10:34 AM EST
    Sharon wrote:
    by all accounts, the cancellation of the (I know it is an unfortunate term, but it is a term for group counselling) group grope was at the insistence of the players' parents, not attorneys. The majority of them had not even retained counsel, at that point.
    If you go back and read the accounts of the morning the lacrosse players gave sample DNA, a lawyer for the defense was present holding the front door of the office open reminding them all not to say a thing. The group meeting was cancelled shortly thereafter. wumhenry: I have addressed your call outs. You simply chose to have selective reading (and editing of my posts). I can't figure out if you and Sharon think Nifong is part of a vast right wing conspiracy or a vast left wing conspiracy, but you both are sounding a bit like vintage Hillary.

    It will be interesting to examine Roberts' various public statements and measure them against not only each other but also any sworn statements made in this case. She's already moved herself to the position of being a "little girl" in a dangerous place. Can we expect court appearances by Roberts in school uniforms with a short plaid skirt and white knee-high socks and patent-leather shoes?

    imho posted:
    "Kim is not stupid"
    Jlvngstn posted:
    And how would you know this?
    She hung up on Butch Williams. That makes her smarter than Dan Flannery.

    It is sad that our court system does not provide for the future of the victim or the players. Because is is limited to showing 'right' vs 'wrong' the current court system does not acknowledge everyone's suffering, and does not offer a path to a better future for any. A 'fair' system would acknowledge the suffering of the victims -- who went to this drunken LaCrosse party, were slobbered on and insulted by the players, and probably hit-on. It would also acknowledge the suffering of the players, who were shamefully drunk in public and have been accused of heinous crimes. A 'fair' system would have the players acknowledge the impact of their behavior on the victims, and make sincere apology. A 'fair' system would have the victims acknowledge their stupidity in coming to the party ready to strip, and in staying once the conditions were known. Suffering or jail should not be the outcome any of us is seeking. But that seems to be the only choices now offered by the system that sees things in black and white, and does not ask questions that would make the future better for any of the parties involved.

    IMHO says: "How pathetically lame an excuse is that for the athlete scholars to have used their own racial epithets?" First off, it was the lawyer who offered the excuse. From his statement, it was Roberts who first began using racial epithets. Wrong that the attendees replied in kind, wrong that "little girl" Roberts spit out the first racist comment. The next time IMHO, PB, Lora or any of the defenders of the AV's version of reality that night mentions the racial epithet about the "cotton shirt" remember that Roberts cast the first racist remark that night. And I am shocked! shocked! that men who hired strippers may have made rude, sexually explicit remarks to the dancers. One can expect sexual banter in the audience of a strip show, why else have a strip show, but Roberts could have voiced her displeasure of out-of-line comments without resorting to racial commentary. Now that we've taken care of the preliminaries, where's there any evidence of a gangrape?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 07:26:35 AM EST
    Congratulations to every american that hangs up on telemarketers, you are definitely not stupid.

    Bob in Pacifica asks:'
    Can we expect court appearances by Roberts in school uniforms with a short plaid skirt and white knee-high socks and patent-leather shoes?
    Kirk Osborn's description of Reade Seligmann:
    "This young kid wants to go to school in the fall."
    Yeah, maybe Reade will offer to carry her books.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    Congratulations to every american that hangs up on telemarketers, you are definitely not stupid.
    I don't think Butch Williams was trying to sell Kim a Popeil Pocket Fisherman.

    IMHO wrote: If they were a couple of ignorant skank 'Ho's, this would have been over a long time ago. And so after Nifong took their statements and reviewed their sexual histories, he had them take IQ tests before he asked for indictments? Seems to me that ignorant skank hos should have justice under the law, too. By the way, with your use of phrase "ignorant skank ho" in defense of Roberts and the AV, does this mean that it's okay for people who don't find the AV's version of events to be credible, or who view Roberts as an unreliable manipulative convicted embezzler, to use the phrase "ignorant skank ho"? That is, do you own the phrase or do you share it?

    Roberts waited for approximately 30 minutes for the other dancer to arrive and during that time she observed some of the young men relieving themselves outside. "There was plenty of pissing off the porch," she says.
    It looks like it was not a big deal for these players that the bathroom was locked for sometime during the allaged rape or dancers locking themselves inside.

    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    First off, it was the lawyer who offered the excuse.
    Yes, and I was criticizing the lawyer that said it:
    How pathetically lame an excuse is that for the athlete scholars to have used their own racial epithets? This is some of the worst PR I have ever seen defense attorneys generate for their clients.
    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    The next time IMHO, PB, Lora or any of the defenders of the AV's version of reality that night mentions the racial epithet about the "cotton shirt" remember that Roberts cast the first racist remark that night.
    That is one version of the story. Even if it is true, do you not find it amusing the attorney is using the behavior of a stripper to explain the behavior of the scholar athletes? I do.

    Hicht posted:
    It looks like it was not a big deal for these players that the bathroom was locked for sometime during the allaged rape or dancers locking themselves inside.
    Yep. Good point, Hicht.

    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    And so after Nifong took their statements and reviewed their sexual histories, he had them take IQ tests before he asked for indictments?
    I think he made an assessment of their credibility. Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Seems to me that ignorant skank hos should have justice under the law, too.
    You might want to see how potential juror wumhenry feels about that: wumhenry posted:
    How likely is it that a *prostitute* would be reduced to hysteria by shame and guilt because she was dicked without her consent?
    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    By the way, with your use of phrase "ignorant skank ho" in defense of Roberts and the AV, does this mean that it's okay for people who don't find the AV's version of events to be credible, or who view Roberts as an unreliable manipulative convicted embezzler, to use the phrase "ignorant skank ho"? That is, do you own the phrase or do you share it?
    It is a phrase I use in jest. I don't care what you call Kim or the accuser. In my opinion you, Bob, couldn't go lower than you all ready have. I'm sure the defense attorneys wish Kim and the accuser were not intelligent, educated women.

    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: the defense was adamant, and I think it is a telling point, that the "sample" was NOT under the nail. Life or death struggle (according to the search warrant affadavit) and all the DNA that can be found is on one nail?
    Do you have a source for that? abcnews.com
    Chesire conceded Friday that the results show that genetic material from beneath a plastic fingernail recovered from a garbage can at the scene of the alleged crime has "some characteristics'' of "one or two'' players' DNA, but that none of the tests show any conclusive matches. He acknowledged that the report names a third player, but declined to identify that player.


    MS wrote:
    A 'fair' system would acknowledge the suffering of the victims -- who went to this drunken LaCrosse party, were slobbered on and insulted by the players, and probably hit-on.
    So they are victims simply by doing the job they voluntarily agreed to do? Good grief! They took money to take their clothes off in front of group of men. That makes them strippers. No one forced them to take their clothes off. It was a job they agreed to take from their employers. The whole idea of the job is to make the guys "slobber on" them.

    In the last thread TL asked:
    Question: Does anyone have any thoughts as to the cases Nifong may be neglecting in favor of prosecuting and investigating this one?
    Freda Black, arguably not an unbiased source, made some comment after the re-instatement of the open container/public urination/etc. deferred prosecutions that I found interesting. I don't recall the program (they all tend to run together), and I'm paraphrasing the quote, but it was to the effect that the Durham court systems are already significantly backlogged, to the tune of several months, as there weren't enough judges and prosecutorial staff to handle the load. She seemed to think that the re-instatement of the charges was not only a bad prosecutorial move on Nifong's part, but also an unnecessary burden on an already taxed court system in the area. Take it for what it was worth, but I do think it an interesting point to ponder. I also feel bad for those stuck twiddling their thumbs for timely due process because they didn't have the luck(?) to end up on the Abrams Report.

    Roberts tells Bissinger she could sense the hesitation in the young men milling about when the second dancer, who is black, arrived. The person who had told her that a white dancer had been requested "expressed in some way that they might not be happy" with the second dancer, says Roberts. "I can't remember how he put it or what way he said it, but I said to him, 'Well, they're going to have to make a decision and make it now.'
    I remember there were allot of av supporters here that had the conjecture that the white players hired black strippers specifically because they liked demeaning black women and thought they could get away with raping a black stripper. Her statement kind of blows that out of the water, huh?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#25)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:11:05 AM EST
    I neither said nor implied that raping a prostitute is OK. Rather, I asked how likely it is that a prostitute would be "reduced to hysteria by shame and guilt" (quoting someone else's conjectural description of the AV's state of mind)if dicked without her consent. Someone who frequently and routinely has sex for money with any stranger who'll pay her price might be very frustrated and angry if someone forced her to submit to do it for nothing, but it's far from clear to me why she'd feel either ashamed or guilty, let alone be reduced to hysteria by those emotions. So far no one here, including the person who took it for granted that the AV, who is a prostitute, would react in that way if forced to "give it away for free," has deigned to answer the question, but I still think it's a good one.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    The next time IMHO, PB, Lora or any of the defenders of the AV's version of reality that night mentions the racial epithet about the "cotton shirt" remember that Roberts cast the first racist remark that night.
    Do we know Kim was the first one to use a racial epithet that night? Dancer gives details of ordeal N & O Mar 25, 2006
    Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing.
    Mother, dancer, accuser Apr 16, 2006
    The woman said she and another dancer sent by a second escort service stopped dancing because several men at the party yelled a racial slur. In a court document used to obtain DNA samples from lacrosse team members, the woman said one man in the room threatened to sexually assault her with a broom handle.
    Kim didn't think the accuser heard the "cotton shirt" taunt. She also didn't think she heard them call Kim a "damn n*gger." Perhaps the players used racial taunts before the altercation spilled out into the street. The defense attorneys are owning up to the "cotton shirt" remark because Bissey heard it.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#27)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion wrote:
    In my opinion you, Bob, couldn't go lower than you all ready have.
    Is there a rule against ad hominem attacks in this forum?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    My apologies to all americans who have hung up on telemarketers. If you want to prove you are not stupid, call a lawyer and hang up on them. I have it on great authority that hanging up on an attorney will permanently place you in the non stupid category.

    wumhenry posted:
    I neither said nor implied that raping a prostitute is OK.
    Your "dicked without her consent" comment was serious? I thought you were just being insulting. So, now you are comparing a prostitute being raped to someone being forced to "give it away for free?" You think she might feel "very frustrated and angry if someone forced her to submit to do it for nothing," but doubt she'd feel shame or guilt "let alone be reduced to hysteria by those emotions?" wumhenry, it is a very good question, in that, it answers more than it asks.

    IMHO says: In my opinion you, Bob, couldn't go lower than you all ready have. For finding the AV unbelievable? For wondering about why she was hospitalized for a mental illness last year? For pointing out that she's made four previous charges against men, three for rape and one for a death threat (or attempt) and then failed to pursue any of them? That she stole a car and drove while drunk in a reckless manner and tried to and was charged with trying to run over a cop with the stolen car? For changing her story about whether or not there was a rape that night? Yeah, those are terrible things to do. But maybe I was just talking in jest. Hey, maybe you were talking in jest when you were insulting me. Ha ha ha. +++ By the way, can anyone tell me of any evidence that a gang rape occurred that night? Even "Little Girl" Roberts doesn't seem to have anything.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    My apologies to all americans who have hung up on telemarketers. If you want to prove you are not stupid, call a lawyer and hang up on them. I have it on great authority that hanging up on an attorney will permanently place you in the non stupid category.
    When an attorney tries to intimidate you into signing a statement, hang up on the attorney. '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."
    Who won that round the attorney or the stripper?

    GUNSHY posted:
    I remember there were allot of av supporters here that had the conjecture that the white players hired black strippers specifically because they liked demeaning black women and thought they could get away with raping a black stripper. Her statement kind of blows that out of the water, huh?
    Being one of those "av supporters" you are mentioning about, I never thought this was a rape planned so much in advance. Considering the case involves race it was a valid question to ask if they asked for a black dancer or not at the time? It is good this point is cleared. But from the same quote that you have wrote it is evident that the tension rose because of the race of the dancers. Additionally, It is interesting that players lied to dancers to convince them to perform, saying it is a baseball and track team not lacrosse. They were trying to make dancers believe that there was a diverse group of people inside not just white players.
    She was initially told that the boys inside were members of the Duke track and baseball teams--she later learned that they played lacrosse.


    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    you are right, someone get her an Oxford scholarship. What is really significant is this:
    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.
    Roberts said "no". Is it stupid to not speak your conscience? Or is it stupid to try and get a book deal because you were the "other stripper" that night. Being that no book deal has arrived yet, I will leave that up to the people taking calls from telemarketers.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Hey, maybe you were talking in jest when you were insulting me. Ha ha ha.
    Did you take my opinion that you couldn't go any lower as an insult? You are clearly comfortable operating at that level. I couldn't imagine you would view it as such.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    Roberts said "no". Is it stupid to not speak your conscience? Or is it stupid to try and get a book deal because you were the "other stripper" that night. Being that no book deal has arrived yet, I will leave that up to the people taking calls from telemarketers.
    Do we know what was in the statement Butch was pressuring her to sign? Do we know that she tried to get a book deal?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#36)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    imho:
    In my opinion you, Bob, couldn't go lower than you all ready have.
    Bob seems to have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today. And wumhenry sure seems to be the wrong kind of incite-ful. Sharon wrote:
    imho: the defense was adamant, and I think it is a telling point, that the "sample" was NOT under the nail. Life or death struggle (according to the search warrant affadavit) and all the DNA that can be found is on one nail?
    I think Sharon is referring to the press conference the defense team called to discuss the second round of DNA evidence. The press conference was called 2 days after the evidence was leaked. At the time of the leak, Cheshire was quoted as questioning the source of the leak - asking if the DA's office could have leaked the information. Then 2 days later at the press conference, the press started hounding Cheshire on the source of the leak - Cheshire looked like a deer in the headlights - he wouldn't say who was the source but when asked directly if it was Nifong, he said he it wasn't. He knew he was caught and couldn't lie. Then when asked about the DNA evidence on the nail, he started blasting the press for saying it came from skin under the nail - stating emphatically that he never said it came from skin under the nail and the press didn't have a copy of the report, so they couldn't report those details. When asked if he would give the press a redacted version of the report, he said he'd consider it (but didn't).

    Hicht posted:
    Additionally, It is interesting that players lied to dancers to convince them to perform, saying it is a baseball and track team not lacrosse. They were trying to make dancers believe that there was a diverse group of people inside not just white players.
    How do you know that? It seems pretty likely to me that the team (which had received warnings about their conduct in the past) was simply trying to keep its identity a secret while hosting a party the Duke administration would obviously not approve of.

    People lie all the time about their true identity when involved with strip shows. On both sides. Does anyone think the mothers of strippers all named their daughters "Sugar", "Candy" or whatever? It means nothing.

    noname posted:
    How do you know that? It seems pretty likely to me that the team (which had received warnings about their conduct in the past) was simply trying to keep its identity a secret while hosting a party the Duke administration would obviously not approve of.
    By lying to a stripper? How could Duke Admin hear that from a stripper? If they were so concerned about their troubled past, would they really host that party in that house where three Lacrosse captains living? I don't think it seems any likely.

    IMHO quoted ABC:
    Chesire conceded Friday that the results show that genetic material from beneath a plastic fingernail recovered from a garbage can at the scene of the alleged crime has "some characteristics'' of "one or two'' players' DNA, but that none of the tests show any conclusive matches.
    In today's Herald Sun, an article quotes court papers filed:
    In addition, DNA Security discovered tissue "consistent" with Evans' genetic structure on a fake acrylic fingernail retrieved from a trashcan at the Buchanan Boulevard house. (emphasis mine)
    I think that "on" doesn't necessarily mean "on the top" of the fingernail, but it also doesn't explicitly say "underneath." Until someone releases the actual report where the sample was lifted from the nail, we will just have to agree to disagree (I know, party pooper).

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#41)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    So, now you are comparing a prostitute being raped to someone being forced to "give it away for free?"
    Not comparing, *equating*. Raping a prostitute means forcing her to do something for free that she'd be perfectly willing to do for money -- and not very much money at that, in the case in question.

    mik posted:
    I think that "on" doesn't necessarily mean "on the top" of the fingernail, but it also doesn't explicitly say "underneath." Until someone releases the actual report where the sample was lifted from the nail, we will just have to agree to disagree (I know, party pooper).
    I haven't seen a quote by Cheshire that says the DNA wasn't under the nail, though he may have said it. I read a newspaper report that says he made the claim that the under the nail report was incorrect. I'm still looking for what he did say about the location of the fingernail DNA.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#43)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    Additionally, It is interesting that players lied to dancers to convince them to perform, saying it is a baseball and track team not lacrosse. They were trying to make dancers believe that there was a diverse group of people inside not just white players.
    Your logic escapes me. Why would the players have supposed, when they made the call, that a pair of professional strippers, one Hispanic and one white, would refuse to perform for a group unless it included more than one black guy? (There was one black guy on the lacrosse team.)

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#44)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    Cheshire looked like a deer in the headlights
    According to azbballfan. If you trust azbballfan to present an unbiassed report of anything said or done by anybody in connection with this case, there's a bridge over the East River I'd like to sell you. (Yeah, it's ad hominem, but *they* started it!)

    wumhenry said:
    Your logic escapes me. Why would the players have supposed, when they made the call, that a pair of professional strippers, one Hispanic and one white, would refuse to perform for a group unless it included more than one black guy? (There was one black guy on the lacrosse team.)
    Indeed. And according to the photos on the site of the Duke baseball team, the team has NO black players. So how exactly would this (obvious, and unsurprising, under the circumstances) lie of the person who hosted the party have had anything to do with race? Would strippers be more likely to appear before a team with no black players (baseball) than with one black player (lacrosse)? It seems sometimes that those intent on defending Nifong's view of events have to engage in the most tortured applications of logic to fit contradictory facts into their perspective. That sort of thing is usually done by the defense in high-profile trials, not the prosecution.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    So no argument on the conscience front, but as to the profit? Perhaps not a book deal but she did say "i am involved in the biggest story of the day and I think I should try and capitalize on it" or words to that effect. So principle over profit it sounds like to me. Funny how self-righteous you are about the men and conveniently ignore that. Then again, she is not stupid, merely a capitalist, correct?

    Additionally, It is interesting that players lied to dancers to convince them to perform, saying it is a baseball and track team not lacrosse. They were trying to make dancers believe that there was a diverse group of people inside not just white players.
    Last Friday night, at a bar during a bachelor party weekend, several of the 40-something, single, looking-for-love woman that our group of guys were talking to seemed mighty interested in getting to know the one guy specifically of our group who was hanging in the background - he was the correct (middle) age, no wedding band, good looking, well-dressed, looked successful, etc. Two of the girls said "he looks familiar." We said "well he should, he's Mit Romney, Gov of MA" and referred to him as "Governor" for the rest of the night. Why? Because we were drinking, it was funny, and the girls had no business knowing his real name or anything about him unless he wanted them to. My bet is that there was nothing nefarious about some the on the lacrosse team telling some sketchy strippers "We're baseball players. Oh, and track guys. Yeah, that's the ticket." (obviously not a real quote) Especially funny if you know guys on the baseball and track teams and are spoofing to be them while engaged in something that you might not especially want to be identified with later...like hiring strippers...

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#48)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    wumhenry:
    Not comparing, *equating*. Raping a prostitute means forcing her to do something for free that she'd be perfectly willing to do for money -- and not very much money at that, in the case in question.
    Some use ad hominems to describe others, some just let the words of others speak for their emotional intelligence. Shortly after the story ran, there was a story run with Durham strippers interviewed. They wondered how the lacrosse team was able to arrange the party because the local agencies had rules against dancers working for small groups of college boys - individiual teams and fraternities in particular, because of past incidents. The agency was quoted that when the boys called, they claimed to represent multiple teams and that there would be 'at least' 40 attendees. Apparently the number was closer to 15-20.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jo on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    Raping a prostitute means forcing her to do something for free that she'd be perfectly willing to do for money ...
    If she was forced, then it is rape. If she had sex willingly but did not get paid, I don't think it's rape. If you take a ride in a taxi and run out without paying, is it carjacking?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#50)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    Jo wrote:
    If she was forced, then it is rape. If she had sex willingly but did not get paid, I don't think it's rape. If you take a ride in a taxi and run out without paying, is it carjacking?
    I agree with you in principle. However if she had sex with Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty and they tried to stiff her (no pun intended), then they are just about the dumbest college atheletes ever. It'll be interesting if the case winds it's way down that path.

    From the Vanity Fair article:
    The two women chatted for a bit behind the house and had "a regular, normal conversation, nothing that set off any alarm bells in my head. We talked. We joked a little bit," Roberts says. "I told her I was new to this and didn't really know what I was doing. [The AV] told me that she danced at a club and was a little more experienced.
    I thought we were under the impression that the AV hadn't stripped before? Or was it that she'd never stripped for a private party before? Or never for Bunny Hole before?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#52)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    I wouldn't underestimate Kim or the accuser. If they were a couple of ignorant skank 'Ho's, this would have been over a long time ago.
    IMHO, interesting turn of phrase, one i wouldn't have thought of. coming from someone as obviously politically correct as you, i am deeply shocked and offended! (snark warning!) not being ignorant, being manipulative and being reasonably intelligent are not, by definition, mutually inclusive attributes. yep, ms. roberts is such a bright star, she just can't seem to talk enough, as long as she thinks it will benefit her economically in the long run. i didn't notice whether or not she was compensated by vanity fair for the interview. she has, however, stated on multiple occasions her desire to financially profit from this episode. perhaps, when all is said and done, a consulting deal with abc for a "movie of the week" gig? at this point, were i a defense atty., i would be salivating at the prospect of cross on ms. roberts, should DA nifong actually be foolish enough to call her as a witness. why he would is a mystery, since all she can do is place the AV & the accused in the house. she's already admitted she saw nothing nefarious occur, and that she doesn't think it did. that, and the total absence of any compelling forensic evidence, make this a case begging for dismissal.

    Hicht posted:
    By lying to a stripper? How could Duke Admin hear that from a stripper?
    This is a college town and these guys were on a nationally ranked team with a relatively loyal following. Word gets around college towns (even in townie circles), and it can easily start with, "Who did you dance for last night?" "The lacrosse team." The point is, if they were trying to keep it a secret, why wouldn't they lie to her. Hicht posted:
    If they were so concerned about their troubled past, would they really host that party in that house where three Lacrosse captains living?
    What were their other options? In order to have the party, they had to host it somewhere. Maybe this was the safest option they had (they had certainly gotten away with other parties there), and therefor a risk they were wiling to take.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#54)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    Posted by azbballfan June 7, 2006 12:53 PM wumhenry: [quote]Not comparing, *equating*. Raping a prostitute means forcing her to do something for free that she'd be perfectly willing to do for money -- and not very much money at that, in the case in question.[unquote] Some use ad hominems to describe others, some just let the words of others speak for their emotional intelligence.
    More precisely, if you're referring to your own tactic, you're relying on ad hominem innuendo in lieu of rebuttal on the merits. The favorite dodge of hack polemicists when at a loss for an argument.

    IMHO likes to think of things in terms of rounds, like a boxing match. She asks: Who won that round the attorney or the stripper? My guess is that Butch Williams will be paid by his clients. Roberts may very well go to prison when she can't help Nifong. Who won that round, the media or Roberts' middle finger? Maybe the judges haven't given their decision quite yet.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#56)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    if she had sex with Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty and they tried to stiff her (no pun intended), then they are just about the dumbest college atheletes ever. It'll be interesting if the case winds it's way down that path.
    Could've happened, but there's not a scrap of reported evidence to support that conjecture. On the other hand, there's a good deal of evidence that the AV and/or Roberts stiffed the players by taking $800 to perform for two hours and then quitting afer dancing for only a few minutes. Which suggests a plausible self-interested motive for the rape accusation: i.e., to serve as an excuse for the early departure should the players complain about it to the ladies' employer.

    wumhenry, Just tell IMHO that whatever you said that offended her was in jest. As long as IMHO is laughing, it's cool. After all, we're all nothing but a couple of ignorant skank 'Ho's here.

    Jo asked, in honing the difference between raping a prostitute and a prostitute not getting paid: If you take a ride in a taxi and run out without paying, is it carjacking? But what if on an audition at a strip club you steal a taxicab and try to run over a cop? Is that attempted murder? Apparently not in the wacky world of North Carolina.

    But, az, you're right. My back's been a little out of whack. Makes me a little cranky when I don't take my morning hike.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#60)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    Better still, to *pre-empt* the players from complaining to the employer.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    So principle over profit it sounds like to me. Funny how self-righteous you are about the men and conveniently ignore that.
    What is self-righteous about asking you if what you posted was correct? Do we know what was in the statement Butch was pressuring her to sign? No. Do we know that she tried to get a book deal? No.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#62)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:15:40 PM EST
    In response to my comment that to rape a prostitute is to force her to do something for free that she'd be perfectly willing to do for money, Jo wrote:
    If she was forced, then it is rape. If she had sex willingly but did not get paid, I don't think it's rape.
    You're right; in the second case it's merely fraud, but what you're saying does not refute what I said.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#63)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    Bob, Sorry to hear about your back - I try to get a hike in 5 days a week. It's a great way to clear the mind. When my back twists up, I have to find flatter paths. Back to stream of consciousness writing!

    at this point, were i a defense atty., i would be salivating at the prospect of cross on ms. roberts, should DA nifong actually be foolish enough to call her as a witness. why he would is a mystery, since all she can do is place the AV & the accused in the house. she's already admitted she saw nothing nefarious occur, and that she doesn't think it did.
    The defense wanted Kim in their corner so bad. Butch blew it. She can provide the motive and the opportunity.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#65)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    Do we know what was in the statement Butch was pressuring her to sign? No.
    Do we know that her account of interaction with defense lawyers is accurate? No.

    Jo posted:
    If she was forced, then it is rape. If she had sex willingly but did not get paid, I don't think it's rape. If you take a ride in a taxi and run out without paying, is it carjacking?
    I agree Jo, assuming she was willing during the sex acts, but that is not what anyone here says happened.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#67)
    by azbballfan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    wum
    More precisely, if you're referring to your own tactic, you're relying on ad hominem innuendo in lieu of rebuttal on the merits. The favorite dodge of hack polemicists when at a loss for an argument.
    Ad hominum innuendo requires you to have presented an argument in the first place, rather than sophist attacks to the AV's rights. Your subsequent direct personal attacks at me however do qualify as ad hominem attacks. Changing tone from one post to the other has a muting effect on one's argument.

    It seems that Kim's Vanity Fair comments fit the Defense's time-line. They seem to line-up perfectly with the time-line from Johnsville News. This would also indicate that the AV must have quickly consumed half of her drink and all of Kim's. Johnsville timeline In particular, Kim says that she had to wait 30 minutes and that she then spoke with the AV for a few minutes before entering the house. This also coincides with the interview given by "Brian," who stated that he had trouble finding the address - and that the gig might be cancelled because of their tardiness. Finally, it is information that is consistent with the time-stamps on the photos. Per the Johnsville News: 11:15 p.m., Kim Roberts, exotic dancing partner of the accuser arrives at the party. She drove herself. 11:30 p.m., Bissey, after being out for a while, returns to his apartment. He sees approximately 30 people enter the house. Several young men are gathered near the back door of 610 N. Buchanan. Team captains have told the police that 41 of the 47 Duke lacrosse players attended the party. The team captains left Reade Seligmann off the list they gave to the police although he had been photographed watching the dancers. sometime between 11:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., The accuser is dropped off at the party house. She was wearing a negligee and shiny white strappy high heels. Brian Taylor and his passenger, the accuser, were flagged down by a man outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. awaiting their arrival. "On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled," Taylor said. The were late, because Taylor had difficulty finding the address. 11:50 p.m., Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them. 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. 11:55 p.m., Bissey sees the two women go into the house (Accuser & Kim Roberts). After the two women had entered the house Bissey went inside to take a shower. Midnight (photo time stamp) The dancer is sprawled on her stomach on the floor, as a second dancer stands over her. Students are watching the show but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the alleged victim. As far as the "pissing off the back porch" comment is concerned - this supports the notion that the bathrooms were pretty busy - as one can imagine with almost 50 people drinking beer for some period of time and only two bathrooms. Further, in my experience, most guys don't lock the bathroom door in a single-gender setting just to take a "pee." In most cases, they would simply leave the door slightly ajar - so someone would know the bathroom was occupied - but would be ready-for-action shortly. In public bathrooms the urinals are always "open" and I've never locked a bathroom stall door simply to urinate. Thus, the point is...someone would have noticed if there was a 30-minute struggle in a locked bathroom.

    wumhenry posted:
    Do we know that her account of interaction with defense lawyers is accurate? No.
    Jlvngstn was using Kim's reluctance to sign the statement as an example of her not speaking her conscience:
    Roberts said "no". Is it stupid to not speak your conscience?
    We don't know what she refused to sign. It may be an example of her unwillingness to lie for the defense. We don't know.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    wumhenry, Just tell IMHO that whatever you said that offended her was in jest. As long as IMHO is laughing, it's cool.
    Bob, did the expression "ignorant skank 'ho" offend you? Bob in Pacifica posted:
    After all, we're all nothing but a couple of ignorant skank 'Ho's here.
    If you read my post you'll recall I didn't call anyone an ignorant skank 'ho. I said Kim and the accuser were not ignorant skank 'ho's.

    The Vanity Fair July issue is on newsstands now in New York and LA. If a TL blogger in one of those two cities would be so kind as to buy one and report its contents...

    ABRAMS: All right. My subjective opinion of looking at these pictures is they are two-buck naked women performing sexual acts on one another in front of a lot of different people. Now again...
    What was the point of this party?

    From an WRAL posting: Second Set Of Duke Lacrosse DNA Tests Cost Nearly $23,000
    District Attorney Mike Nifong sent dozens of samples to DNA Security of Burlington at the suggestion of the State Bureau of Investigation, whose testing failed to link any lacrosse player to an exotic dancer who alleges she was raped at a March 13 lacrosse team party.


    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:04:10 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    I neither said nor implied that raping a prostitute is OK. Rather, I asked how likely it is that a prostitute would be "reduced to hysteria by shame and guilt" (quoting someone else's conjectural description of the AV's state of mind)if dicked without her consent. Someone who frequently and routinely has sex for money with any stranger who'll pay her price might be very frustrated and angry if someone forced her to submit to do it for nothing, but it's far from clear to me why she'd feel either ashamed or guilty, let alone be reduced to hysteria by those emotions. So far no one here, including the person who took it for granted that the AV, who is a prostitute, would react in that way if forced to "give it away for free," has deigned to answer the question, but I still think it's a good one.
    All right, let me give it a try. It's about choice, consent, power, and control. We can argue till the day is long about how much actual choice and consent prostitutes really have...but let's assume for the sake of argument that the AV, if she is acting as a prostitute during her escorts, freely consents to sex for money. In this case, the money is irrelevant. What is relevant is that she gave her consent. It was her choice to have sex. People have sex for many reasons: recreation, attention, love, intimacy, money, pleasure, etc. A person could have sex eight times in two days willingly for any reason at all, but if the ninth time was forced, and the person was violated, pinned, beaten, hurt inside, terrified she might be killed, humiliated, had her sense of safety and control completely taken away from her... Can you get a sense that that person might feel hysterical and traumatized? The shame and guilt factor in if the person blames herself, or if she feels humiliated. Both reactions are very common. The money doesn't matter. What matters is being forced, terrorized and hurt in an intimate activity you normally perform willingly at your discretion and choice.

    Motion protests DA's bid for data
    Nifong issued two subpoenas May 31. The first asked Duke University for home addresses for 47 lacrosse players and two other students; the second asked for identity card data that could track where the 49 students were in the hours before and after the alleged rape.


    Sounds like Nifong is still on a fishing expedition trying to determine who was present at the party. Why wasn't this done BEFORE indictments were handed down?

    Lora, That was an excellent post, but if wumhenry can not imagine that someone being forced to have oral, vaginal and anal sex with three people while being restrained and strangled could be traumatized and humilated by such an assault simply because they have had sex for money, why bother? wumhenry's comment is not about a lack of understanding, it is about contempt.

    mik posted:
    Sounds like Nifong is still on a fishing expedition trying to determine who was present at the party. Why wasn't this done BEFORE indictments were handed down?
    Maybe he's trying to identify the four "agitated" players that got in Mostafa's cab around 12:50 a.m.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#79)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:08:45 AM EST
    Wow, I'm no rocket scientist (yes, I hear the resounding applause) but is Nifong really that far behind the curve on requesting the team ID card info this late in the process? So his idiocy is the reason this case may drag on to spring '07 and not just his desire to torture the three indicted players. Lawyers, please, is this standard operating procedure for prosecutors? And would Duke have to come across with the info?

    IMHO wrote:
    Maybe he's trying to identify the four "agitated" players that got in Mostafa's cab around 12:50 a.m.
    No, there are other ways to get that information. Nifong knows Mostafa has the info on the cell phone number that made the call for the pick up. He needs to go through that avenue first, not just a blanket request for personal information from essentially the entire lacrosse team. Their information is priviledged unless Nifong can identify which ones he needs information from. I recognize his request for DNA was legitimate. The SANE nurse found male genetic material in the victim, and he wanted the most expediant way to identify the perpetrator. He claimed in his petition to compel the team to provide DNA samples that it would indicate the guilty AND exhonorate the innocent. Unfortunately for Nifong, it didn't belong to anyone on the team.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:24:46 AM EST
    IMHO - Are you implying you don't know about her email, or are you obfuscating?
    Hi! My name is Kim and I am involved in the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me. I'm so confused as to who to talk to for relevant advice and I hope that you can return my e-mail. If you cannot help, do you know of any names and numbers I can call?


    I must come to wumhenry's defense here. Sure, he could have worded it to be more palatable, although my guess is that some of the people who like to say "skanky ho" when it suits them would still roil with any trace of indelicate phrasing by others. The underlying question continues to be avoided by the defenders of the AV's version of reality. Was this woman so traumatized by being gangraped that she could not talk coherently with a police officer about it? Was her erratic behavior in the hours after she left the party the result of being traumatized by rape, or were they the result of being drunk and not wanting to go to the drunk tank? The chorus of defenders of the AV's version of reality range from admitting that she was high (but maybe drugged) to that she was sober and all of her bizarre behavior was due to her state of shock and that all of her contradictory statements weren't contradictory at all. I would advise wumhenry not to expect much headway in convincing the DOTAVsVORs. A woman who works in the game knows brutalization. It's a lousy career choice for women who haven't been dealt a very good hand in life. To pretend that a woman who's been doing strip jobs and one-on-ones and has two "drivers" is not familiar with the dynamics of sexual coercion is pretty naive, a naivete that they don't share with their presumptive martyr in this drama. The AV didn't just get off the bus. That night she was keening this way and that way, not functioning on all neurons, trying to figure a way out of the maze she put herself in by getting so drunk. This was not unlike trying to get away in a stolen taxicab. She was behind the wheel. With a moral certainty her defenders are incapable of understanding she aims the car. It's everyone else's responsibility to get out of the way.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:27:14 AM EST
    When asked if Kim thought there was a rape that night, she said "no". Not, I don't know. Not, It wouldn't surprise me with the way they were acting. Not, I did not see the other woman for at least 20 minutes. It was, "no". When you scream "I AM RIGHT" it does not make you right, only load and obnoxious......

    Another question that I ponder here: It's been suggested before that "Little Girl" Roberts may have stolen the AV's share of the $800 while the AV was passed out in the car. I am curious as to how the money is broken down in the business. How much, if any, of the AV's $400 is owed to Bunny Hole? To the driver? If we are looking for motives for the AV making up such a story we could have: 1. To divert her parents' inevitable discovery that their daughter was, as IMHO likes to say, a "skanky ho." 2. To avoid being incarcerated, either in a lockdown for public intoxication or in some other public institution for substance abusers. 3. To avoid the consequences of not bringing back money owed to Bunny Hole. Once the AV declared that she had been raped, she was, shall we say it, in the driver's seat.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:38:40 AM EST
    "Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."
    IMHO - I am sure "profit" in this instance means that she will be booked for only high rollers strip parties, making like $500 per show instead of $400.

    Bob wrote:
    I am curious as to how the money is broken down in the business. How much, if any, of the AV's $400 is owed to Bunny Hole? To the driver?
    From the Washington Post:
    She was also moonlighting with an escort service. Nearly two dozen such services are listed in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill yellow pages. One owner who agreed to be interviewed but identified only by her first name, Jamie, operates escort services under six names. She employs three to four women. Escort fees are $160 an hour -- $100 for the escort and $60 as Jamie's take. Occasionally, a customer will request a dancer for a party, a complication because the job requires a bouncer for safety. "We can't send one girl for five guys," Jamie said. But often no bouncer is available, and the escort needs the cash. "Everybody loves money," Jamie said.


    Here's an interesting quote from the story about Nifong's fishing expedition: Nifong could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 06:45:21 AM EST
    Roberts' attorney called the e-mail regrettable.
    Hmmm. An embezzler sends a note to a PR firm looking to profit from a crime not only did she not witness but in response to a question as whether the crime even happened she said "no". An embezzler. : to appropriate (as property entrusted to one's care) fraudulently to one's own use Notice the pattern????

    It seems that Nifong is asking for data about all lacrosse team members including the one black player -- 46 white + 1 black = 47 -- plus 2 mystery guests. Is it known that the black player was or was not there that night?

    What could Nifong want with information about what other students were doing before or after the party? Well, maybe he realizes that the AV fingered the wrong people and he's trying to figure out who, if anyone, really did it. Or could have done it. Or maybe he wants to find out how off the AV's identification of others at the party was. There are stories circulating that some of the people she IDed as doing various things were out of town. That can be a problem when you embroider your lies. Maybe Nifong wants to confirm or deny her IDs so his main witness isn't completely destroyed on the stand. Or maybe Nifong's just an incredible dolt and only with national attention can the full depth of what he is be fully appreciated.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:04:21 AM EST
    After the party...... Easy question. If they were hanging out with people who were not at the party and decided to talk about what happened he would most likely want to interview said peoples to determine if in an act of drunken stupor or sudden clarity allowed for one of the attendees to make a statement that something bad happened, i.e. a rape. Perhaps the same thing before the party if it were premeditated....One of the men that yelled thanks for my cotton shirt perhaps may have told someone before the party that there was going to be a stripper and he planned to rape and sodomize her.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#92)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:42:59 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    If we are looking for motives for the AV making up such a story we could have: 1. To divert her parents' inevitable discovery that their daughter was, as IMHO likes to say, a "skanky ho." 2. To avoid being incarcerated, either in a lockdown for public intoxication or in some other public institution for substance abusers. 3. To avoid the consequences of not bringing back money owed to Bunny Hole.
    Yes. #2 deserves a high place in the shortlist in view of the fact that she first alleged rape immediately after being told that she was going to be held in the drunk tank overnight. I would add a fourth: 4. To pre-emptively discredit any complaint by the players to her employer that she showed up impaired and danced for only a few minutes after taking payment for a four-hour performance.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#93)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    That didn't come out right. Let me try again. Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    If we are looking for motives for the AV making up such a story we could have: 1. To divert her parents' inevitable discovery that their daughter was, as IMHO likes to say, a "skanky ho." 2. To avoid being incarcerated, either in a lockdown for public intoxication or in some other public institution for substance abusers. 3. To avoid the consequences of not bringing back money owed to Bunny Hole.
    Yes. #2 should be high on the shortlist in view of the fact that she first alleged rape immediately after the police told her they were going to hold her in the drunk tank overnight. I would add a fourth: 4. To pre-emptively discredit any complaint to her employer from the players that she showed up impaired and danced only a few minutes after taking payment for a four-hour performance.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#94)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:49:34 AM EST
    Dang, it still didn't come out right. I give up.

    mik, You wrote:
    I recognize his request for DNA was legitimate. The SANE nurse found male genetic material in the victim, and he wanted the most expediant way to identify the perpetrator. He claimed in his petition to compel the team to provide DNA samples that it would indicate the guilty AND exhonorate the innocent. Unfortunately for Nifong, it didn't belong to anyone on the team.
    The process was not a waste. The dna found on (or under, I suppose) the fingernail exonerated everyone but David Evans of being the person she scratched. As did the photo identification. That's a lot of exoneration! It still remains for David Evans to use other means to join the exonerated. DNA can't do everything.

    Bob wrote:
    What could Nifong want with information about what other students were doing before or after the party?
    Exactly! When he went before the grand jury, he should have presented enough information to demonstrate that 1) a crime had been committed and 2) the indicted were likely to be the perpetrators. After Evans was indicted, he publicly stated that he would NOT be seeking further indictments. What information could he possibly want from people he CANNOT confirm or deny were at the party? He should have investigated this PRIOR to seeking indictments before a grand jury. Too much of this investigation has taken place AFTER. If he has specific information he is seeking from a witness or witnesses at this point in the case, I cannot believe this would be the proper course of action to obtain it. BOTH Nifong and defense attorneys have agreed that not every player was present at the party. Devon Sherwood comes to mind (he's the lone black player). Why, then, is Nifong entitled to information about Devon Sherwood's comings and goings for some time before and some time after the party? I can't imagine that he is.

    PB:
    That's a lot of exoneration! It still remains for David Evans to use other means to join the exonerated. DNA can't do everything.
    I agree! I believe Nifong was entitled to use DNA samples from all of the players he believed had an opportunity to commit the crime. I don't think that Nifong is entitled to the information on their ID cards from the ENTIRE teams at this late date. It includes when they enter (and presumably exit) campus buildings, when they used their meal cards and who knows what else! I think that Nifong botched whatever case he may have by rushing to get indictments on Seligmann and Finnerty on the eve of the primary election.

    az: The DNA sample donation day was the same day the group interview was scheduled: the parents learned of the interviews and that was the first time attorneys were involved for the players. We're both a bit right: it was the parents who were concerned and wanted attorneys present, the attorney(s) were hired, and the interview was cancelled. Nifong in, not necessarily a "conspiracy" and certainly not "vast" by any stretch of the imagination, but a plan to get elected. Not a vast conspiracy, more like a Confederacy of Dunces. And, PLEASE, don't confuse me with Hillary: I was the one baking cookies while she was trading on her husband's political position to get ahead. Ironic, that later on it was her husband getting (a)head.

    imho: my under the nail v. on the nail location of the incomplete sample was based, as my post indicated, on Cheshire's statement at the Evans' press conference. When the reporters characterized the DNA as being found "under" the nail, he challenged them. Not sure if that's a distinction from "beneath," nor do I know if his concession of a non-exclusionary finding included the location. Also, on Yale Galanter said on Abrams that he had seen the DNA report, and that it did not describe the DNA as being found under the nail.

    thinkandtype: Not just Freda Black. The Durham paper has had a couple stories on the family of one of seven homicide victims killed in a single incident. As of the date of the articles, the DNA evidence in that case has yet to be submitted even to the State lab. The Duke DNA was given priority in testing. Found the link. I especially liked this part of the story:
    City Manager Patrick Baker, supervisor of the police department, said Friday that the homicide case remains a top priority. "The investigation has obviously not progressed as quickly as we would have hoped, but it is not from a lack of attention," Baker said. "But the point isn't to rush out and arrest somebody, it's to arrest the right person. I am confident the killer or killers will be brought to justice. It just might take some time."
    (Emphasis mine.) Change "arrest" to "indict" and you've got the Duke case.

    imho: my recollection is that Kim did not mention any racial slurs during the dancing, that it was the broomstick comment that put them off. And what "motive" information do you think Kim has? I'll give you the "opportunity" evidence she might be able to provide, but what motive do you think Kim could provide?

    So the window of opportunity gets smaller and smaller. From today's N&O:
    "She heard that (the accuser) was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a 'crock' and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left," according to Himan's notes. "The only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than five minutes."
    And YES, the accuser DID change her story:
    The accuser told the nurse "that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the sexual assault," the lawyers wrote in a sworn statement. The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said. The lawyers filed the accuser's medical records under seal with the court.


    mik posted from an N&O report:
    The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said.
    That seems to contradict the claims that she was badly beaten and bruised as stated by some of the posters here, which I think was attributed to her father. Has anyone else stated she was (or was not) badly bruised? If so, it must have occurred after the nurse exam, but before her father saw her. I guess it is possible that mild bruises would show up after the exam, but hard to believe that it would be as bad as some posters here have claimed. Any thoughts?

    statistics101: I've made this point before, that in light of the alleged brutalization (non-sexual) that the AV, and her family, described, why was no one charged with assaulting her? Even if bruises and/or swelling were not visible at the time of the SANE exam, there would have been tenderness, soreness, etc. at least, and the nurse would have described that as not being "normal." Read the affidavit in support of the search warrant to learn what the police went forward with, for the story that they decided to believe (with, perhaps, some encouragement from Mr. Nifong.)

    The article said the filing addresses the issue:
    Seligmann's lawyers said there were major discrepancies in the reports of the doctors and nurses who examined the accuser at Duke Medical Center.
    Apparently, Sgt. Shelton wasn't the only one that heard an inconsistant story from the accuser that night/morning. She told the nurse she was NOT choked, yet Nifong has maintained that she was choked from the beginning. As to the bruising, who knows?

    The defense wanted Kim in their corner so bad. Butch blew it. She can provide the motive and the opportunity.
    Apparently, her first statement to police on 3/20 gave the accused a five minute window of opportunity. It doesn't expressly say in the N&O article, but it appears to be the time frame when she approached the back door to retrieve her belongings. I cannot reconcile a five minute unaccompanied trip to the back porch with a 30 minute forcible rape.

    The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said.
    Does this statement means to you she doesn't has any bruises on other parts of the body that is not mentioned here?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#108)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    I want to be careful and not offend anyone, but, what about the premise that the players might not be very familiar with bruising on African-American skin? Maybe what they saw as bruises were instead normal skin discoloration and blotchiness. The nurse at Duke might have been more experienced with with AAs as patients and observed no bruising. So, again, was Nifong smoking crack that day (yea these many months gone by) he began his television career?

    She saw 23 photos in all, which attorneys say prove their clients' innocence, in part, because they show that the woman was already bruised and cut when she arrived at the house.
    Maybe defense attorneys who claimed she had bruises in the photos were smoking crack. Or maybe as usual instead of showing the report, defense is just giving out pieces of the facts from the report as an usual tactic of disinformation.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#110)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    One of the men that yelled thanks for my cotton shirt perhaps may have told someone before the party that there was going to be a stripper and he planned to rape and sodomize her.
    The remark bespeaks anger and frustration, which is consistent with reports that the players were unhappy with the performers' early departure and with the neighbor's testimony that some of them were shouting that they wanted their money back. If the guy had just finished beating and raping the AV, on the other hand, I doubt that he'd feel a need to hurl a lame insult at her and her co-worker as they were leaving the premises.

    I want to be careful and not offend anyone, but, what about the premise that the players might not be very familiar with bruising on African-American skin? Maybe what they saw as bruises were instead normal skin discoloration and blotchiness.
    Blacks can get a sort-of dry skin like us pasty white people do, except it is sort of different. It is mostly on the knees and elbows and it is referred to as "ashy". As for having skin discolorations, maybe, but white people also frequently have skin discolorations and blotchiness so I don't see how you couldn't distinguish as much. However, at this point, I wouldn't put it past the players to be that thick and non-worldly. This is either a bad spin tactic or the defense better pray it is a cross-racial mistake cause this can back-fire on them given the whole, "the photos clearly show bruises on her"; that can either suggest a pre-emptive strike on their part, or call the examination that they feel exonerates them into question.
    She told the nurse she was NOT choked, yet Nifong has maintained that she was choked from the beginning.
    The problem is, rape victims often don't initially relay such details due to embarrassment, fear, or they haven't recalled other exact details yet (as in they're still on the fact that they've been raped). Many don't even contact police right away and i n this case it wasn't the alleged victim who did so. So, I don't know just how significant that can be. They're just releasing a bunch of incoherent details that confuse the whole case; I think it is better to wait for more context.

    So, again, was Nifong smoking crack that day (yea these many months gone by) he began his television career?
    This continues to confuse me. How does one explain the DA's actions? The idea that he was politically motivated is not at all compelling to me. One does not enhance one's political stature by championing a case that clearly has no merit. And please don't suggest that he just needed to get past the primary date. That is aburd for a hundred reasons. Either there is more to this case than meets the eye or the standards for bringing charges on this type of case are much lower than I imagined (and probably much lower than I feel comfortable with).

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#113)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said. Does this statement means to you she doesn't has any bruises on other parts of the body that is not mentioned here?
    No, but the report that her neck and throat were "normal" suggests that she wasn't strangled.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#114)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    How does one explain the DA's actions? The idea that he was politically motivated is not at all compelling to me. One does not enhance one's political stature by championing a case that clearly has no merit.
    What political stature would the acting DA have had in the black community that comprised nearly half the electorate if, as of the date of the election, he had not brought charges against anyone for raping the accuser?
    And please don't suggest that he just needed to get past the primary date. That is aburd for a hundred reasons.
    Would ya mind stating one or two of those reasons for the benefit of the rest of us?

    Talkleft said: "With every statement she makes, she provides impeachment for the defense on her prior statements. Will she never learn?" This assumes Kim Roberts wants to help the prosecution. I see no evidence of this. In any case her story, as reported so far, seems to favor the defense.

    blockquote>What political stature would the acting DA have had in the black community that comprised nearly half the electorate if, as of the date of the election, he had not brought charges against anyone for raping the accuser? He could have explained that the worst possible outcome would be to rush the indictments without having sufficient evidence to support a conviction. It was obvious that he was pursuing the case diligently. It is also my understanding that he was leading before any of this happened. It is also my understanding that his main opponent was trying to make political hay out of the notion that he had rushed the indictments.

    jlvngstn posted:
    IMHO - Are you implying you don't know about her email, or are you obfuscating?
    Yes, I know about the email. I didn't see any mention of the book deal you said she was trying to get: jlvngstn posted:
    Or is it stupid to try and get a book deal because you were the "other stripper" that night.


    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    Ah yes, if not a book deal, how else would she profit? A movie? Please enlighten us as to what "take advantage of the situation" really meant.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    I thought you only cared about the truth? Why not discuss her motivations? Or are you really Kim Roberts????

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    although my guess is that some of the people who like to say "skanky ho" when it suits them
    1. To divert her parents' inevitable discovery that their daughter was, as IMHO likes to say, a "skanky ho."
    You keep forgetting "ignorant." It's "ignorant skank 'ho." You also keep forgetting that I didn't call anyone an "ignorant skank 'ho."

    fughedaboutit Jl. imho would rather spend hours picking nits then recognize the actual intent or true meaning of someone's comment. Especially if it doesn't support her position. It's not worth it.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    But he has been so insistent with his speculation relative to the players' motives and opportunity yet so blatantly intellectually dishonest with the other side. I would love to hear the speculation from him as to what she meant by taking advantage of the situation and the 'was there a rape" "NO" comment...

    Jlvngstn posted:
    Ah yes, if not a book deal, how else would she profit? A movie? Please enlighten us as to what "take advantage of the situation" really meant.
    All I did was ask you about the book deal you said she was trying to get. Seems you just made that up. Jlvngstn posted:
    I thought you only cared about the truth? Why not discuss her motivations? Or are you really Kim Roberts????
    Are you feeling all right, Jlvngstn?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    Of course I am feeling well, thanks for asking. Care to comment on what her motivations were or are you going to hide behind your cowardly rock?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    And I ask again, are you really Kim Roberts?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    No more than you made up the rape scenario in the bathroom with the men involved. I guess you could say we are even, but I think you are a disingenuous miserable schlotnick so I guess you owe me one again.

    And please don't suggest that he just needed to get past the primary date. That is aburd for a hundred reasons.
    Would ya mind stating one or two of those reasons for the benefit of the rest of us?
    One would be that it is unethical for a DA to indict individuals he knows to be innocent. Worse would be for a DA to do so cynically, knowing that he would drop the charges once the indictments had served their political purpose. Most knowledgable accounts suggest that the DA in this case is an ethical person. Another would be that championing a case vigourously and then reversing course would have the opposite of the intended effect - your political stature would decrease. If this case proves to be as flimsy as some here seem to believe, that will be this man's legacy.

    He could have explained that the worst possible outcome would be to rush the indictments without having sufficient evidence to support a conviction. It was obvious that he was pursuing the case diligently.
    Do you really think that the New Black Panther Party, and those whose favored method of discourse involved banging pots and pans would have responded favorably to this sort of thing? Especially after it had already made the national news? And do you think that those who already call Seligmann a "dead man walking" or "rapist" or those who would prefer that, regardless of the facts of the matter, this case be used to right real or imagined past wrongs would respect that? Once this thing got going, some people were out for blood, and a significant portion of the electorate would not have been happy with a wishy-washy response. That isn't to say he threw a dartboard and landed on Finnerty and Seligmann, but maybe he used the same tactics as some on this board--namely a firm belief that "something" would come up, and a strongly slanted interpretation/maneuvering of the "facts" as presented.

    DO posted:
    One would be that it is unethical for a DA to indict individuals he knows to be innocent. Worse would be for a DA to do so cynically, knowing that he would drop the charges once the indictments had served their political purpose. Most knowledgable accounts suggest that the DA in this case is an ethical person.
    That's true, but also keep in mind that Nifong went out of his way (and probably violated another aspect of the NC bar's ethics guidelines in the process, which requires d.a.'s to look at all evidence) to avoid even having to look at any contradictory material before the primary--either the accuser's cellphone records, or the video of Seligmann someplace else while the rape allegedly was occurring. It's possible to assume that he really wanted to believe the accuser and also recognized that aggressively prosecuting the case would serve his political interests. And by confining himself to the evidence that might have allowed him to believe he was guilty, he was able to seek indictments without having to worry about at least some of the ethical dilemmas of indicting people who likely are innocent. Also, it's by no means clear that even if the primary were held today, Nifong would lose. It seems pretty clear that a sizeable portion of the Durham electorate views this case symbolically, and is concerned much less with the facts of the matter or the DA's ethically challenged behavior. The three people indicted by Nifong are not voters in Durham County. Their families aren't voters in Durham County. And most of their supporters aren't voters in Durham County.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4251472 More details.

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#131)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    He could have explained that the worst possible outcome would be to rush the indictments without having sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
    Do you think that would've any mustard with the local black community on election day if he hadn't given the AV a chance to identify culprits from a lineup before then? Or if he hadn't brought charges against the players that she fingered?

    Of course I am feeling well, thanks for asking. Care to comment on what her motivations were or are you going to hide behind your cowardly rock?
    Who doesn't have motivations to lie in this story? The "boys" are lookin' at 16 years.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    No more than you made up the rape scenario in the bathroom with the men involved. I guess you could say we are even, but I think you are a disingenuous miserable schlotnick so I guess you owe me one again.
    What are you talking about?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    on top of being a schlotnick
    Who doesn't have motivations to lie in this story? The "boys" are lookin' at 16 years.
    Again, no acceptance or acknowledgement of the women's inaccuracies and an attack on the men. Can I also add self-absorbed to the descriptor?

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    so was she looking for a book deal or what? Answer the question schlotnick. lol.

    This comment will probably get deleted or truncated, but, wow, every sentence here is a blockbuster:
    Investigator Benjamin Himan says Roberts told him the rape allegation was a "crock." Roberts also told police that she was with the accuser for all but five minutes that night.
    The motion also says the alleged victim told Durham police that she had performed for a couple at a Raleigh hotel hours before the Duke lacrosse party. She told police that she used a vibrator.
    Osborn says the only evidence of physical trauma the nurse could find was a scratch on the accuser's knee and a small cut on her heel, which was not bleeding.
    The motion also alleges the police investigator stated the accuser was hit, kicked and strangled, but did not reveal that the examining physician found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness.
    The motion says medical records indicate she told a doctor that she used no alcohol or drugs. The accuser told the sexual assault nurse that she had consumed one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a prescription drug used to treat muscle spasms.
    The alleged victim told a doctor the next day at UNC Hospitals that "she was drunk and had had a lot of alcohol that night," the motion said. She later told police that she had consumed a 24-ounce bottle of beer and then told police she had two 22-ounce bottles of beer, according to the motion. The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said. Osborn says a man named Jarriel Johnson drove the accuser to the Durham Police Department to pick up her belongings March 21. The motion points to a statement from Johnson saying the accuser engaged in sexual activity with at least four different men from March 10 to March 12.
    imho?

    The defense attorney also takes issue with the rape examination itself, pointing out that the nurse who assisted in the exam was in training. Osborn says the only evidence of physical trauma the nurse could find was a scratch on the accuser's knee and a small cut on her heel, which was not bleeding.
    Wow. She obviously missed the injuries the defense attorneys described:
    Durham attorney Bill Thomas said some of the photographs, taken when she arrived at the house, indicate the woman was injured before getting to the party March 13. They show extensive bruises and scrapes on her legs, especially around the knees, he said.
    +++
    12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.
    +++
    A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding.
    I wonder other other injuries the accuser may have had that the trainee missed?

    Anyone want to say the accuser didn't change her story, just didn't finish telling it? Anyone?

    Jlvngstn posted:
    Can I also add self-absorbed to the descriptor?
    You are so thoughtful. You sensed I was missing Orinoco.

    Jlvngstn posted:
    so was she looking for a book deal or what? Answer the question schlotnick.
    I haven't heard that, you are the one that posted she was trying to get a book deal. Do you have a source for that, or did you just make it up?

    Khartoum, You wrote:
    ... It seems pretty clear that a sizeable portion of the Durham electorate views this case symbolically, and is concerned much less with the facts of the matter or the DA's ethically challenged behavior.
    I don't think the electorate views itself as a finder of fact. If the electorate is suspicious that the defense team infomercials on the subject might be shaded to favor the defendants, I don't think it's because they are naive. Defense attorneys are paid to do just that. Were the defendants ever in the bathroom with the accuser? It's a pretty simple question. If the answer isn't "no," I would think Nifong would be well within his discretion to let a jury be the arbiter of this case.

    From the ABC article:
    The accuser told the sexual assault nurse that she had consumed one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a prescription drug used to treat muscle spasms.
    Click here for more information about Flexeril.
    Flexeril is a muscle relaxant prescribed to relieve muscle spasms resulting from injuries such as sprains, strains, or pulls.
    Side effects cannot be anticipated... More common side effects may include: Dizziness, drowsiness, dry mouth Less common or rare side effects may include: Abnormal heartbeats, abnormal sensations, abnormal thoughts or dreams, aggressive behavior, agitation, anxiety, bloated feeling, blurred vision, confusion, constipation, convulsions, decreased appetite, depressed mood, diarrhea, difficulty falling or staying asleep, difficulty speaking, disorientation, double vision, excitement, fainting, fatigue, fluid retention, gas, hallucinations, headache, heartburn, hepatitis, hives, increased heart rate, indigestion, inflammation of the stomach, itching, lack of coordination, liver diseases, loss of sense of taste, low blood pressure, muscle twitching, nausea, nervousness, palpitations, paranoia, rash, ringing in the ears, severe allergic reaction, stomach and intestinal pain, sweating, swelling of the tongue or face, thirst, tingling in hands or feet, tremors, unpleasant taste in the mouth, urinating more or less than usual, vague feeling of bodily discomfort, vertigo, vomiting, weakness, yellow eyes and skin Problems such as confusion or hallucinations are more likely in older adults.
    Avoid alcoholic beverages while taking Flexeril.
    All bolds are mine.

    The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said.
    I commented that the accuser had not changed her story from the Krogers parking lot to the Durham Access Center as Bob in Pacifica claimed she did. My comment had nothing to do with the above statement. I'm not sure why Osborn is trying to discredit the trainee.

    JLvngstn, I am unfamiliar with the term "schlotnick." Is a "schlotnick" anything like a "sock puppet?" You wrote: (to Imho):
    I would love to hear the speculation from him as to what she meant by taking advantage of the situation and the 'was there a rape" "NO" comment...
    I don't see why anybody cares what Kim Roberts opinion was as to whether the accuser was raped, anymore than we should care about the Kroger's security guard's opinion on that, or Hinman... If we concern ourselves with the underlying facts upon which they based their opinion, we can form our own opinions. Roberts says the other dancer wasn't loopy when she arrived at the party. Who, other than a defense attorney, has yet claimed otherwise? The accuser's father says she looked like a boxer who lost a fight when he saw her. Who that was at the hospital that day, has disputed that claim?

    sarcastic unnamed one and others posted this link - a pounding barrage directed at AV, Kim, and Nifong. Reading it brought to mind a term I hadn't thought of since the Cold War - MIRV. This case is freaking unbelievable. AV accusing Kim of assisting in the rape! Wow. Wickedly strange bedfellows in crime. Tonight, live from Durham, Little Girl Kim and the Limp White Boys singing the same song. I'm curious as to the timing of the motion. Perhaps it's to preempt the full text of the Vanity Fair story.

    From WRAL:
    Roberts also initially told police, according to the motion, that the alleged victim never went back in to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., even though authorities have said in court documents that the two left the party and later returned at the urging of some of the partygoers. Instead, the motion says, Roberts -- also identified as Kim Pittman -- locked the alleged victim in Roberts' Honda Accord while she proceeded to the back of the house to look for some of the accuser's personal belongings.
    Hmmmmm. Seems like Kim Roberts has changed her tune over time as well.

    PB posted:
    I am unfamiliar with the term "schlotnick." Is a "schlotnick" anything like a "sock puppet?"
    That's good.

    Hmmmmm. Seems like Kim Roberts has changed her tune over time as well.
    Well -
    Roberts also initially told police, according to the motion, that the alleged victim never went back in to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., even though authorities have said in court documents that the two left the party and later returned at the urging of some of the partygoers. Instead, the motion says, Roberts -- also identified as Kim Pittman -- locked the alleged victim in Roberts' Honda Accord while she proceeded to the back of the house to look for some of the accuser's personal belongings.
    Either she refers the second time they went outside, or she initially said something that would benefit the defense but the truth appears to be otherwise. Imho said-
    I wonder other other injuries the accuser may have had that the trainee missed?
    That's what I keep wondering about. I thought there were pictures of visible bruises, scrapes, and cuts all on her rear-end, ankle(s), knee(s), thigh(s), and leg(s). I mean, okay, I'm critical due to defense spin (ie. "there was no DNA" when it was actually inconclusive) but they said what they said what they said. What is this supposed to mean: they lied about the marks? If they did, were they fearful that some would appear and wanted to account for them or suggest that her behavior is a conductor of as much in order to hide something? The examination was insufficient? Does that render *all* the findings/lack of suspect then? I still don't know what went on though I do still think those men are less than find and upstanding and that they deserve all the criticism they get for their known behavior. But, I've about had it with this case until we get some freakin' context.

    PB wrote:
    I don't think the electorate views itself as a finder of fact.
    I'm not a voter in Durham, but I'd be rather worried about voting for a prosecutor who refused to follow at least two elements of the state bar's ethics guidelines and conducted a witness ID procedure that didn't follow the state's Actual Innocence Guidelines. But, as the defendants and most of their supporters in this case aren't voters in Durham County, Nifong didn't have to worry about them. As to the susceptibility of voters to "infomercials" from either side, Nifong himself admitted the day after the election that his stance helped him with black voters. As to the recent revelations by the defense, it's of course possible that several prominent NC defense lawyers are willfully filing false claims about the evidence Nifong presented to them in motions to the court, thereby risking disbarment. I'd say that's about as likely as Kim Roberts winning a Miss Congeniality contest.

    I'm looking forward to reading the latest motion, and especially the supporting documents. This case just gets crazier and crazier.

    The motion points to a statement from Johnson saying the accuser engaged in sexual activity with at least four different men from March 10 to March 12.
    Sounds like that could result in trauma "consistent with rape" to me. And then there's the "vibrator" she used that evening. Oh my.

    I wonder other other injuries the accuser may have had that the trainee missed?
    Perhaps the trainee disregarded injuries that were clearly too old to have been sustained that evening.

    khartoum posted:
    As to the recent revelations by the defense, it's of course possible that several prominent NC defense lawyers are willfully filing false claims about the evidence Nifong presented to them in motions to the court, thereby risking disbarment. I'd say that's about as likely as Kim Roberts winning a Miss Congeniality contest.
    The Herald-Sun
    Nifong fielded a question Tuesday night about a motion filed Monday in which defense lawyer Kirk Osborn accused him "prostituting" the truth and using the alleged rape for political gain.
    "Mr. Osborn has said many things," Nifong said. "There is some possibility there might be one kernel of truth in one of his motions somewhere."
    Osborn asked that Nifong be removed from the rape case.
    "If I were Kirk Osborn, I'd be trying to get me off the case, too," Nifong grinned.


    Well, imho, if there is a lack of truth in Osborn's latest motion it comes from (a) the Durham police, or (b) Kim Roberts, or (c) the AV's driver, or (d) the AV, or (e) all of the above. Anyone think Nifong is still grinning?

    http://mikenifong.com/news13.php Originally published in: The Herald-Sun Wednesday May 03, 2006 Edition: Final
    Nifong was still grinning on May 2nd.

    Khartoum, You wrote:
    I'd be rather worried about voting for a prosecutor who refused to follow at least two elements of the state bar's ethics guidelines and conducted a witness ID procedure that didn't follow the state's Actual Innocence Guidelines.
    Khartoum, I'm curious about all this. 1) Could you make the explicit case against Nifong on the ethics violations, citing direct quotes from him if possible... and 2) could you answer me this about the photo lineup? We now hear that there were two lineups conducted prior to the lineup in question... Do you know whether those earlier lineups violated the guidelines and if so, how and why? And was anybody named in those prior lineups? I'm sorry if you've already made these cases. I've been trying to pay attention, but it's tricky with all the shilling going on in the background.

    Wow. I cannot hold it in any longer. (I have been following for weeks, but have never posted.) IMHO, you are astounding. Sharon, Bob, and others, thank you for keeping it REAL. By the way, thank you for letting me "silently" observe the Duke discussion.

    Osborn says the only evidence of physical trauma the nurse could find was a scratch on the accuser's knee and a small cut on her heel, which was not bleeding.
    noni mouse posted:
    Perhaps the trainee disregarded injuries that were clearly too old to have been sustained that evening.
    Defense attorneys' claims:
    Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding
    visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.


    So, because Nifong said it, it must be true? Sorry, but I think I'll give these statements from Nifong the same weight that I give his hints that a toxicology report will show evidence of a date rape drug (when apparently no toxicology reports were done) and his statement that perhaps there was no DNA match because the attackers might have worn condoms (when he knew that the AV said that they did not).

    Back to an earlier thread, re Nifong's latest subpoena, for information from the entire team: he didn't get full names and home addresses from the players when he had them photographed and give DNA samples? And wanting, at this late date, key card info for their on-campus activities before, during and after the party? I agree with those who see this as indicative of Nifong still not being sure who was really there at the party at the time the alleged rapes occurred. I also think it's interesting the way the three defendants' attorneys are handling the case. Osborn, for Seligman, the one who has the best alibi evidence, files the bulk of the motions. Cotter keeps Finnerty in the background for now. Cheshire and Evans take the point in the public. They are tag-teaming Nifong. Dare I say, "rope-a-dope"?

    quinnie, I'll agree with you on Sharon, but you are thanking Bob for keeping REAL? hahaha

    PB said:
    I'm curious about all this. 1) Could you make the explicit case against Nifong on the ethics violations, citing direct quotes from him if possible... and 2) could you answer me this about the photo lineup? We now hear that there were two lineups conducted prior to the lineup in question... Do you know whether those earlier lineups violated the guidelines and if so, how and why? And was anybody named in those prior lineups?
    On the photo lineups, I don't believe the first two have been made public. But the full transcript for the third is on WRAL's website. It violated the NC Actual Innocence Guidelines (also up on the web) in at least two ways--in that it contained no fillers (non-suspects) and was conducted not by a neutral law enforcement officer but by the lead investigator on the case. A summary of Nifong's most inflammatory statements is here; many, if not all, of these seem pretty clearcut violations of Rule 3.8(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires prosecutors to "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused"; and his refusal to meet with Seligmann's and Evans' attorneys to consider exculpatory evidence contradicted Rule 3.8, comment 2, of the ethics guidelines, which forbids prosecutors from intentionally avoiding "pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused."

    imho - are those really the defense attorneys' claims, or are those interpretations of the photos by members of the media who looked at them? At any rate, the ankle and heel cut could be one and the same - it probably had stopped bleeding hours later. The elbow might have been more dusted than actually scraped. And just because some cuts did not appear in other photos does not mean they they were not old cuts.

    Welcome, quinnie. I don't know how you've done it though: I'll come to this site promising myself that I will just read, and not post. But, as you can see, I break a lot of promises to myself. NO self-control, that's my problem.

    imho says:
    The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said.
    I commented that the accuser had not changed her story from the Krogers parking lot to the Durham Access Center as Bob in Pacifica claimed she did. My comment had nothing to do with the above statement. I'm not sure why Osborn is trying to discredit the trainee.
    There are a couple of problems here, because there is conflicting evidence. There is evidence, from Sgt Shelton, that the AV did change her story. We have to decide which evidence on that matter is more believable. Secondly, there is now evidence that the AV said some pretty preposterous things about what went on that night. Moreover, there is an additional problem. This is not a case of the AV remembering more details over time. This is a case of the AV saying some pretty contradictory things. Of course, we will have to wait for the motion to become available to see who is claimed to have said what, but I think the defence lawyers would be very careful about what they put in motions.

    awww, imho, I'm touched. I think. I do try, but I still feel like Alice down the rabbit hole, (or Bunny Hole in this case,) through the looking glass, or something. Instead of things getting clearer with time and information, they get murkier. Curiouser and curiuoser.

    Sharon, I have conversations with myself! They are, however, beginning to get louder. So, here I am! As you tend to speak "my mind", I'll continue to "stand in the shadows". Again, thanks for letting me listen. IMHO, watch out. Bob is REAL. Ha, ha, ha.

    I don't get it. When does the AV have time to do her laundry?

    SharonInJax posted:
    Back to an earlier thread, re Nifong's latest subpoena, for information from the entire team: he didn't get full names and home addresses from the players when he had them photographed and give DNA samples?
    N & O Mar 24, 2006:
    Bob Ekstrand, a Durham defense lawyer who has represented Duke students, stood outside the lab holding a briefcase.
    "Don't answer any questions," he told the young men as they prepared to go in the building. When asked whether he was representing any of the students, he replied, "No comment."
    BLUE WALL OF SHAME

    Good link, khartoum. I was looking for my favorite, the one that sent me off about this case in the first place: On March 28th, Nifong said:
    "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."
    I ranted and raved to friends and family: "He's acting this way, saying these things and he's only PRETTY sure a rape occurred?!?!?!?!?!" (There was great weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth over that one.) Now, from that site, I learn that on March 29th he said:
    "I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir."
    "Pretty sure" on the 28th, "convinced" on the 29th. Wonder what evidence tipped the scale for him? I have my suspicions.

    khartoum: think Nifong would dare try a Slick Willie/Lawyer-ese defense to alleged ethics violations? No one individual had been accused at the time Nifong made his comments, when he declined to meet with the defense attorneys. Violation of the spirit, but not the letter of the canons?

    I'm trying to develop the list of witnesses for the prosecution. While we obviously don't know the whole story.....how about this list. 1. AV 2. Kim 3. Bissey 4. Shelton and other officers 5. SANE Nurse 6. Physician 7. Brian (driver) 8. "Expert" witnesses Over time, I've been trying to assess the credibility that each would have and the degree to which they would help or hinder the prosecution's case. It's been clear for some time that the AV and Kim would be subject to extensive cross-examination. Bissey seems to be credible - but his testimony doesn't speak directly to the crimes that have been alleged. Shelton and the other officers now being quoted appear to be very weak prosecution witnesses - but I assume the DA would have to call them. The SANE Nurse and Physician - I thought they might be the strongest witnesses for the prosecution. But if the quotes attributed to them by the defense are accurate - they too would be very weak prosecution witnesses. Brian - I assume the DA would have to call him to the stand to testify that he drove the AV to the house...but, cross-examination would support much of what the defense is asserting, especially the previous consensual sexual relations with others. When the lack of a match for DNA is added to the mix, it's hard to see a viable case. Which leads me to a question for the attorneys. Can a NC judge dismiss the charges if s/he feels that there is insufficient evidence (a summary judgement or something like that) and can s/he set aside a verdict by a jury is s/he feels that it is not supported by the evidence? Finally something I can't understand is that the ABC story says, "the accuser told the sexual assault nurse that she had consumed one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a prescription drug used to treat muscle spasms." If this is true - why wasn't a tox screen performed?

    But it would have been sort of question, like name, rank, and serial number that they would have to give, if asked. Name, home address, age, maybe even produce driver's license or photo id. I've never seen a copy of the order compelling the DNA, but it would surely have included "innocent" information like that, and they would have had to answer.

    AND, imho: publishing that picture. Tsk, tsk.

    noni mouse posted:
    imho - are those really the defense attorneys' claims, or are those interpretations of the photos by members of the media who looked at them?
    According to Ekstrand:
    A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding.
    noni mouse posted:
    At any rate, the ankle and heel cut could be one and the same - it probably had stopped bleeding hours later. The elbow might have been more dusted than actually scraped.
    The defense is now going to minimize the injuries they claimed the photos documented? noni mouse posted:
    And just because some cuts did not appear in other photos does not mean they they were not old cuts.
    You think this description is incorrect?
    12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.


    SharonInJax posted:
    AND, imho: publishing that picture. Tsk, tsk.
    I didn't photograph the Duke students hiding their faces. Tsk, tsk. I didn't run the photo in the News & Observer. Tsk, tsk. I didn't walk down the street hiding my face. Tsk, tsk. What's wrong with the photo? They're just excercising their constitutional right to walk down the street looking like a bunch of idiots. Makes me proud to be an American.

    Yep - so, all that can be attributed to Ekstrand is that she fell down. The actual descriptions of the photos, I believe, are interpretations by members of the media.
    The defense is now going to minimize the injuries they claimed the photos documented?
    You think this description is incorrect?
    Where exactly did I say that? I believe that part of the point of the photos is that many of the injuries were old - not sustained that night. And maybe if it was obvious that they were old injuries, the trainee disregarded them.

    Pat: first, I think you might add the other drivers the AV used for her other "dates" in the days/nights immediately preceding the night in question. 7 a, b, and c on the prosecution's witness list. I don't know if NC has what a lot of states do, a sort of "either/or" for bringing charges in a case like this: the DA can choose to present his case to a grand jury, or a probable cause hearing can be held. A probably cause hearing would be held before a judge, and both sides would present, ususally, limited evidence. The judge could find, as a matter of law, that there was not probably cause to proceed to trial against the defendant(s) in question. But because the defendants have already been indicted, doubtful that is an avenue that the defense could demand. It is unlikely that a motion to dismiss the chages would be granted before the trial begins. In theory, the AV's charge that she was raped that night, by these defendants, is all a jury needs to convict them. The judge cannot decide, as a matter of law, based not upon testimony but only on the pleadings, that the State would be unable to meet its burden. The defense, after the prosecution rests and before they put on any witnessees or produce any evidence, can again move for a dismissal: on the grounds that the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime was committed by the defendants. If this case is as weak as it seems now, I could see a judge granting that motion. BUT, that is extremely rare. Lastly, if the jury were to convict the defendants, or any one of them, th defense could move for a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict," on the basis that no reasonable person could not have reasonable doubt, based upon the evidence presented. Again, a rarity, but again, I could see that happening here if the case is as weak as it now seems.

    lol: I said "probably cause." Scrivener's error.

    imho posted:
    I commented that the accuser had not changed her story from the Krogers parking lot to the Durham Access Center as Bob in Pacifica claimed she did.
    beenaround posted:
    There are a couple of problems here, because there is conflicting evidence. There is evidence, from Sgt Shelton, that the AV did change her story.
    Yes, I noted that change in my post on the subject. It had nothing to do with Bob's false claim about the Durham Access Center. beenaround posted:
    We have to decide which evidence on that matter is more believable. Secondly, there is now evidence that the AV said some pretty preposterous things about what went on that night.
    I haven't commented on this new story. I'd like to see a source other than a defense motion. The defense motion to recuse the DA was a pretty amusing ploy filed the day before the election. Even Yale Galanter thought that was a loser of a motion. beenaround posted:
    Moreover, there is an additional problem. This is not a case of the AV remembering more details over time. This is a case of the AV saying some pretty contradictory things.
    I agree. I'd like to hear more.

    SharonInJax posted:
    my recollection is that Kim did not mention any racial slurs during the dancing, that it was the broomstick comment that put them off.
    This may sound odd, but is it possible Kim never did have any racial insults hurled at her that night? "Thank your grandfather for my nice cotton shirt" is singular. Do we know that the "n" word was actually used in the plural that night? When Kim first reported it she was mad. The AV is obviously a dark-skinned African American. I'm not certain that the lax players ever did know during that evening that Kim -- light skinned and 1/2 Korean -- was not Hispanic. In fact she might actually be Hispanic (a surname category, not a racial one). Unless Kim's father is 100% African Black, then Kim is an Amer-Asian of mixed heritage, only a lesser part of which is actually Black at all.

    imho says:
    I haven't commented on this new story. I'd like to see a source other than a defense motion. The defense motion to recuse the DA was a pretty amusing ploy filed the day before the election. Even Yale Galanter thought that was a loser of a motion.
    So, are you saying that the defense lies in its motions? Because that is what you are implying there. So what if the defense motion to have the DA recused was a loser. Did it contain any inaccuracies, and more importantly, did it contain any deliberate inaccuracies? From what I have seen of the previous defense motion (the one claiming that the prosecution did not provide all discoverable material) their motion stuck to the facts as they could be discerned from Sgt Shelton's report and other documents. Moreover, if this motion comes to light, I would expect it to contain copies of other police reports, so we can see for ourselves.

    noni mouse posted:
    I believe that part of the point of the photos is that many of the injuries were old - not sustained that night. And maybe if it was obvious that they were old injuries, the trainee disregarded them.
    NEWSWEEK:
    April 24, 2006 issue - Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team are presenting their fullest accounting yet of what happened the night a stripper says three players raped her. The timeline--illuminated by photos from one partygoer's digital camera that NEWSWEEK has viewed--offers a preview of the defense strategy should indictments come as expected early this week.
    There are photos of her "buck naked" taken before she "fell." The decriptions of the photos offered by the defense to establish their timeline note injuries to the accuser's legs and buttocks that are not in the earlier photos. The defense was pushing these as fresh wounds, they were saying the wounds line up with the screen door. Now you are saying maybe the nurse didn't note them because they were not fresh wounds?

    There is no doubt that a heinous crime occurred on March 14, 2006, that is, either (1) the three Duke Lacrosse players raped the AV or (2) she falsely accused three innocent men. The resolution to this case MUST include a lengthy prison term for the guilty party. Clearly, if the Duke players are guilty, they deserve significant prison time. However, if no sexual assault occurred, the AV/FA deserves a lengthy prison term. Her crime was willful and calculated, as she met with the police and DA on at least four occasions and at any time could have backed out of the charges by saying she simply could not identify her attackers. Once she positively identified three LAX players, she committed an unconscionable crime that can never be totally undone. A partial list of the consequences of her false accusations includes: 1. Threatening to deprived three men of their liberty for over 15 years, 2. Labeling the three players as rapists, which will always stick with them, 3. Subjecting the players to treats, including "Dead Man Walking," 4. Costing the three players excessive sums of money for bail, lawyers, investigators, etc., 5. Disrupting the education of the two sophomores as they will not be attending Duke next year, 6. Smearing 40+ LAX players and the team, 7. Costing the rest of the team money for lawyers, etc., 8. Suspension of the LAX season for the Duke team and fans, 9. Costing the Duke LAX coach his job, 10. Smearing Duke University, one of the finest educational institutions in the world, 11. Enflaming racial tension in Durham and to a lesser degree throughout the US, 12. Costing the Durham community extra money for investigation and prosecution of the charges, 13. Depriving other Durham criminal cases of the sevices of the police and DA, thus delaying justice, 14. Adversely affecting the ability of all women to come forward when raped. In summary, "To falsely accuse was her decision, As a result she should go to prison."

    I was curious about the statement that the AV had had a prior engagement to perform in Raleigh earlier that evening. Specifically, all of the below are alleged to have happened prior to her (time-disputed) arrival at the party: 1.)Private shoing in Raleigh 2.)Presumable drive back from Raleigh (~40 mins) 3.)Interaction w/her dad, walking to the store with her kids, purchase of soda, candy, etc. 4.)Brian's house, including: --Shower --Impromptu fashion show/outfit selection --Other socialization (?) Plus the drive to the party, inclusive of extra travel time, because they got lost. So, what's the order? When did her "evening" start? When did she have what to drink? If her father saw her at six and she was fine, what bearing does that have on her state at 11:30? Slightly different if he saw her later. What kind of injuries, both internal and external could she have sustained at each place? Was the hotel room in Raleigh carpeted--rug burns? Also, the Flexoril, a muscle relaxant--quite powerful stuff, with some crazy side effects. . . for what condition was she taking it? Would that have lead to her feeling as though her hip was dislocated (according to the father) the next day? I'll second Sharon's take on this. . curiouser and curiouser. . .

    Re: Second Duke Lacrosse Dancer Talks to Vanity Fa (none / 0) (#187)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    Hold on a minute, the local ABC WTVD station is reporting that the FA went to the UNC hospital the next day claiming that she had consumed a large quantity of beer the night before. What in heaven's name was going on down there along Tobacco Road. How did the visit to Tarheel General escape Nifong's crack staff?

    thinkandtype: I think you can take her father's recollections out: there is no way to square them (specifically, that she left his house at 10 pm that night) with any of the others. Raleigh in early evening; driver (Jerreil?) takes her to Brian's, she gets there around 9 pm. Showers, gives him a little show, then on to Buchanan. Not particularly important, but where was the money she made in Raleigh? Happy to say I don't know how it would work, but wouldn't it be likely that she would give the driver his/the escort services cut and keep hers? If so, she was missing more than the $400 the Duke players paid her. Total supposition, but maybe the $160 that was seized in the search warrant was her money from the earlier performance. See, quinnie? If you're going crazy, you are not alone. In my case it's a short trip, though.

    Sharon, How completely can we discount the father? I mean, yeah, I don't buy the 10 pm thing, but it's an awful detailed memory (trip to store, what they bought) to be completely out of the picture. I could see him getting confused about the day she, say, stopped by to pick up some mail or something, but not something that involved a trip. Maybe earlier in the evening, I sure don't know. Your scenario does make sense, but if the driver dropped her off at Brian's at 9, count back to ~8:15ish to leave Raleigh, how long a show for those folks? From where did she get picked up for that voyage? Her folks' house? Did she have time to grab dinner? Silly point, but a muscle relaxant and alcohol on an empty stomach could make for some crazy side effects. And what about the injuries? I'd love to know the true story from the SANE--whether it's a matter of no NEW injuries (within a specified time frame), or perfectly unmarred skin. I can see the SANE nurse maaaaaaaybe missing some fluid to be swabbed (though I doubt it), but how could she miss what is/was visible in grainy photos taken at night? So many questions!

    I understand what you're saying about the father, thinkandtype, and it may be yet again my injection of personal experience where it does not belong. But he reminds me, in some ways, of my father after he'd begun "the long goodbye" of Alzheimers/senile dementia. PLEASE, everyone, understand: I am not saying that is what is going on with him, but it would not surprise me, and it would explain a lot.

    The defense was pushing these as fresh wounds, they were saying the wounds line up with the screen door.
    Again, are you sure that the defense was pushing those as fresh wounds? What you posted was the media's interpretation of the photos. Just because there were photos of the AV naked and those wounds were not visible, does not mean that they were not old wounds. It might just mean that they could not be seen in that particular shot, from that particular angle.

    beenaround posted:
    So, are you saying that the defense lies in its motions? Because that is what you are implying there.
    Yes. These motions are meant to be persuasive. They are not always factual. From the Motion for Recusal of the District Attorney:
    The defendant, an innocent person, has been falsely charged by District Attorney Mike Nifong...
    An opinion, not fact.
    District attorney Mike Nifong neglected his duties as a prosecutor to seek the truth and a fair prosecution.
    An opinion, not fact.
    The above undisputed time line is derived from the state's own reports and witnesses.
    Nifong has not verified that time line.
    Officers from the Durham Police Department responded to the 911 call and arrived at approximately 1:51 a.m.
    The above is an example from the "undisputed time line" that is incorrect. beenaround posted:
    Moreover, if this motion comes to light, I would expect it to contain copies of other police reports, so we can see for ourselves.
    That's all I'm saying. I wouldn't rely on a motion by the defense, let's see the source.

    re the motions: The attorney has to aver facts that are "true to the best of my knowledge and belief." The attorney cannot "lie" but he can state what he believes to be true, and the reasons therefor. That is why they will, likely have attached statements and reports turned over in discovery. I thought the prosecutor on Greta made a good point: if Nifong doesn't want to make statements to the press, I can see that given the trouble it got him into earlier. But why has he not filed any answers to the defense motions?

    noni mouse posted:
    Again, are you sure that the defense was pushing those as fresh wounds? What you posted was the media's interpretation of the photos. Just because there were photos of the AV naked and those wounds were not visible, does not mean that they were not old wounds. It might just mean that they could not be seen in that particular shot, from that particular angle.
    If you read the Newsweek article Ekstrand is giving the setting and time frame for each photo:
    A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding.
    Elbow dusted and scraped, ankle bleeding isn't it pretty obvious that is a fresh wound?
    12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.
    Do you think this means that they don't have clear photos of her legs and buttocks from earlier in the evening?

    Pittman (Kim) said in a handwritten note dated March 22 that the accuser, to whom Pittman refers as "Precious," wanted to stay at the party and earn more money, even after one of the players made a verbal threat. "Precious became 'crazy' and eventually passed out and had to be carried to Pittman's car by some of the Duke athletes," the statement says. Another police note obtained by the defense says the alleged victim acknowledged having two beers before arriving at the party and that she and Pittman both had a rum and coke after their arrival. The accuser also told police that she used a vibrating sex toy during a dance in a hotel room for a male and female, but she told police that she had not had sex in the week before the party, the note says. However, a male friend of the accuser said that he had sex with her that week and that he drove her to three other sexual encounters, according to the friend's statement.
    I really wish the motion and attachments were posted somewhere. I found this on CNN and it seems like different outlets have different pieces but no one has the entire motion yet.

    Sorry to be late with a new thread, but here it is. Please continue the discussion. Comments here are closing.