home

Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing

TalkLeft commenters have been on top of the new defense filing for hours, but I'm just getting to it. Check it out, the defense tells the court Dancer #2 said the accuser's allegations were "a crock," there was no physical evidence of rape, the rape examiner was a trainee who only found signs of edema and did not attirbute it to a cause, and the accuser's father says the accuser is under the care of a shrink and in no condition to testify.

Joseph B. Cheshire, another defense lawyer, called on Mr. Nifong to dismiss all charges. He said there was no medical evidence to show the woman had been raped or injured. "All the things that Mr. Nifong said in his press conferences, the vast majority of those things, except his opinions, have proven to be untrue," Mr. Cheshire said in a telephone interview.

The filing by defense lawyers on Thursday also quoted details from the medical examination of the woman by doctors and a sexual assault specialist. Twenty-three pages of medical records were attached in a sealed envelope.

The lawyers said a trainee working as a sexual-assault nurse examiner at the hospital had reported the woman had "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls," or swelling, but made no conclusion as to whether it was consistent with a sexual assault. They also said the detective had not told the judge that the nurse was a trainee.

Time to dismiss? I think the case should never have been filed.

< PlameGate: Waas on Ascroft's Recusal, Rove, Novak and Libby | Yearly Kos: We're Not There >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#1)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    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.
    WRAL.com
    "There were no kind words of the things I heard that were directed at the girls," said neighbor Jason Bissey.
    It sounds like Jason heard more than just the "cotton shirt" remark. I wonder what else he heard?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:22:26 PM EST
    Maybe Bissey heard, "You danced ten minutes for $800. We want our money back." Just keepin' it real, Immie.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:25:52 PM EST
    You know, there's the story about the 24 ounce bottle of beer. Then there's two 22 ounce bottles of beer. There are the one and a half mixed drinks. There's the flexeril. I wonder how many she took. A nice buzz. If only there was a taxi to steal. I bet if that cabbie who picked up Seligmann had recognized the AV he kept both hands on the steering wheel and the motor running.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:30:59 PM EST
    IMHO, remember how I was castigated for suggesting that since the AV had been hospitalized a year ago, and since she had shown some erratic behavior and a tendency in the past to accuse others of criminal activity against her, that it would be interesting to find out what exactly her mental condition might be. And now "the accuser's father says the accuser is under the care of a shrink and in no condition to testify." I thought I said just the other day that that's how it was going to end. Immie, I'm just keepin' it real, baby.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    TL: You're right about the case should never have been brought, but now we wind up with the defendants in the Sec'y Ray Donovan/Schiavone Construction situation: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" Even with an unequivocal with-prejudice dismissal, Nifong will never come out and say "the defendants were wrongly accused and were innocent." So, even if he were so inclined, they're still screwed. Nifong has to litigate to save face and win election. Defendants have to litigate to save freedom and demolish false accusation and accuser's credibility. No end in sight.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#6)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    Keepin' it Real BIP posted:
    Maybe Bissey heard, "You danced ten minutes for $800. We want our money back."
    Those are unkind words. A very real possibility.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    imho posted:
    Keepin' it Real BIP posted:
    Maybe Bissey heard, "You danced ten minutes for $800. We want our money back."
    Those are unkind words. A very real possibility.
    it sounds more like a business deal not lived up to, and a refund demanded. not sure how you get "unkind words" out of that. however, we have no idea what was said, so it's all speculative. what isn't speculative is the huge black hole in DA nifong's case, waiting to be filled with actual pertinent evidence. it will be interesting to see how this motion is ruled on. of course, in the end, it matters only as far as trial costs, and possible loss of freedom is concernced, all parties have had their reputations shot to hell.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#10)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 11:31:37 PM EST
    Bippy posted:
    IMHO, remember how I was castigated for suggesting that since the AV had been hospitalized a year ago, and since she had shown some erratic behavior and a tendency in the past to accuse others of criminal activity against her, that it would be interesting to find out what exactly her mental condition might be.
    That's not how I recall it. I don't recall you having an interest in finding out what her actual mental condition might have been. I recall you entertaining the possibility the accuser had been hospitalized for schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#9)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    BIP posted:
    I bet if that cabbie who picked up Seligmann had recognized the AV he kept both hands on the steering wheel and the motor running.
    I wonder if he saw Finnerty and thought he was going to be taunted and beat up?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#8)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    cpinva posted:
    it sounds more like a business deal not lived up to, and a refund demanded. not sure how you get "unkind words" out of that.
    I agree with you, cpinva. I was being sarcastic. I do not think Bob's offer of what Bissey may have considered unkind words was realistic. Just another example of BIP "keepin' it real."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:39:44 AM EST
    Can you kids stop the endless sniping at each other? You know who you are. This is a good site to follow this case. Having to wade through the endless personal cheap shots reminds me of being at an adult dinner party with two five-year olds at the table. It gets old real fast.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:18:08 AM EST
    Defense has been caught in errors before. Until we see the actual complete reports of the hospital exams and police interviews, and not just choice pieces taken out of context that bolster the defense's stance, there is plenty of room for huge amounts of spin. Neither Kim nor Bissey have provided clear, consistent narratives of what happened that night. I do not trust their estimates of how much time passed (how long does a shower last, for instance?) nor do I trust the AV's. It is very difficult for most people to judge how long an event lasts. How clear and consistent the AV was has yet to be determined. The last time she was accused of changing her story, it was nothing close to how the media presented it. If she did recant, (which I am not convinced she did, as we don't really know exactly what she said and in what context) it was only once, to Shelton. She was not inconsistent three times as erroneously reported in the abc11 article, and which I reported twice to two different people at abc11 and never heard back. Since the "AV was inconsistent" turned out to be questionable and mostly wrong, and the "3 vs. 20 rapists" story turned out to be hearsay and never confirmed, I would not be surprised if a great deal of this current defense motion will turn out in a similar fashion. Opera ain't over.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:18:35 AM EST
    She shouldn't just be allowed to shrug off the case with the bs excuse that she's under no condition to testify. Given the mounting evidence that there was no rape if the case is thrown out she should be charged with making false statements etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:53:02 AM EST
    banco55 You wrote:
    She shouldn't just be allowed to shrug off the case with the bs excuse that she's under no condition to testify. Given the mounting evidence that there was no rape if the case is thrown out she should be charged with making false statements etc.
    It's premature to think the complainent is preparing to hide behind a psychiatric excuse. If she takes that road, however, I would not expect the players to push for charges to be pressed against her. It's not in their interest to swap seats with her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:29:50 AM EST
    Of course, the case isn't over. And for my own personal curiosity I like more and more informtion, although I think it's pretty clear to most people here that the case is unwinnable. I did ask a couple of days ago how everyone thought the case would end. I suggested that the AV would have some kind of breakdown and the charges would eventually be dismissed. Nifong could claim he couldn't go ahead without his chief witness and the AV wouldn't have to testify. The father's statement that the AV "is under the care of a shrink and in no condition to testify" is throwing in the towel in all but legal definition. A complainant who is incapable of testifying because she is in no condition to do so, considering there is no physical evidence to support her various versions of reality and no witnesses to support her version of events kills this case. But being in no condition to give a coherent version of events is consistent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:41:03 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky said: June 9, 2006 01:39 AM Can you kids stop the endless sniping at each other? You know who you are. This is a good site to follow this case. Having to wade through the endless personal cheap shots reminds me of being at an adult dinner party with two five-year olds at the table. It gets old real fast.
    Amen to that!!! btw, I like your screen name :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:44:09 AM EST
    Lora says that the "defense has been caught in errors before". But the NY Times story is pretty unambiguous in reporting that this information is from "documents in the court filing". I can see the benefit of the defense spinning to the media, but what's the benefit of trying to spin what's in an actual court filing? What's the benefit to them of claiming - to the court, rather than to the media - that the documents say something (i.e., Kim says the AV's story is "a crock") if the documents in question (documents that the court has access to) clearly don't say that? Doesn't the defense then run the risk that a blatant, transparent lie is (a) not going to make for a successful motion, and (b) could hurt their chances at trial? Or is the claim that the gullible NY Times reporter got suckered by the wily defense team into reporting the defense's version of what was in the filing without actually seeing it? Given the way the story is written, I find that a little suspect (but maybe Lora's a big-time MSM-basher from the right side of the blogosphere who's wandered over here for a change of pace ...). Further, Lora - who I take to be fairly sympathetic to the AV's story - is now arguing that Kim's estimates of how much time passed have to be discarded. Would Lora make the same argument (Kim's memory is hazy and not to be trusted) if Kim estimated that she was separated from the AV for "about 30 minutes"? And would Lora then be sympathetic to the defense lawyers making that argument?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:50:09 AM EST
    She only recanted her story once? LMFAO!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:53:13 AM EST
    Bob in P,. You wrote:
    The father's statement that the AV "is under the care of a shrink and in no condition to testify" is throwing in the towel in all but legal definition.
    Just because she's in no condition to testify today, doesn't mean she won't be in a condition to testify tomorrow. When's the trial? Surely they can postpone it until at least tomorrow?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:47:00 AM EST
    Bob, it could be she is suffering from PTSD which does not reflect past psychological states, so saying that she is under the care of a professional does not demonstrate or lead one to believe that she made up the story rather if it is PTSD it supports the story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:04:51 AM EST
    Least she'll have the insanity defence if she gets charged with making statements etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:05:38 AM EST
    Sorry I meant false statements etc. of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:13:02 AM EST
    Jliv, If you are the chief (perhaps only witness) to events for which there is no physical evidence, you have a history of erratic behavior and recent mental illness to the point of hospitalization a year ago, and now the father says that she is in no condition to testify, that tells me the white flag is being raised. There is no point in saying that she is in no condition to testify NOW, because there isn't a trial now, and wouldn't be one until next year. I haven't seen the context of the father's statement, maybe someone could post a link, but saying out of the blue that his daughter is under a psychiatrist's care and can't testify now isn't the kind of thing you'd make public if you were gearing up for a big fight in court. You'd say something like, "Yeah, she's still shook up from the event, but she's gonna do all she can to get justice when this case comes to trial." That would sound like a resolute father expressing his daughter's desire to pursue this. What the father apparently said sounded like the first in a series of excuses that will end up with the case whimpering and then drying up and going away. Of course, it's the father talking. His daughter and wife apparently lied to him about the last gang rape, so maybe they're lying to him about the AV's state of mental health now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:14:16 AM EST
    SomeWhat Chunky, I can stop sniping, but I'll have to ignore IMHO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:19:03 AM EST
    This is from a post on a courttv message board, a fair description of some of what was said on Greta by Jim Hammer, guest -
    nurse describes diffuse edema - that's a 1 or a 2 on a scale from 1 to 10 as far as sexual assaults go. it means no tearing or even bruising. if he really believes in the case, and really believe this woman was raped, he has the obligation to respond in pleadings to protect the reputation of this woman. the facts that he hasn't said a word speaks volumes if he didn't tell the grand jury about her implicating Kim Roberts in the actual rape, it's wrong, unethical, and the indictment needs to be tossed out
    When the prosecutor-types are saying things like this, it really makes one wonder.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:23:22 AM EST
    The sexual assault nurse's report "contains no opinion or conclusion that (the woman) had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted," according to the filing. It's not clear whether sexual assault nurses are required or expected to give those opinions, but they can.
    Here How did the the DA come up with the statement that her "injuries were consistent with a rape"?Was it just his conjecture? Also new to me:
    Defense lawyers also accuse Himan of withholding information about an encounter the woman said she had before going to the lacrosse party. It involved a couple in a hotel room, and she told Himan she used a vibrator. That, the statement said, "clearly could have caused signs or symptoms of vaginal penetration."


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:31:17 AM EST
    I don't know Bob, I take into consideration her past behaviors but I do find it reasonable to believe that if she was assaulted she could be suffering from PTSD and that would not put in her condition to testify. I also find it difficult to srutinize the fathers words after all, he is not a preacher or a politician and may not be able to parse words to say nothing like our represented officials. That said, I tend to agree that there is a direct link to her psychosis and the latest episode but PTSD is a very strong possibility.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:41:21 AM EST
    Does anyone know how Roberts helped the three men rape the AV? When Evans got tired of holding her for the other two did she take over? Did she tell the inexperienced young men where to put their little lacrosse sticks? Did she cheer them on? Could one of the defenders of the AV's version of reality explain this? And does anyone agree with the AV that Roberts ripped off the AV's share of the money? And what beer comes in 22-ounce containers? Malt liquor? Did she put down a couple of tall ones over at her driver's place? What's the whole story about a previous engagement that evening? Does that mean that her poppa was hallucinating his daughter's visit and the trip to the grocery store? If the AV had been drinking beer, what does that do to Kim's report that the AV was sober when they arrived? Osborn says the accuser gave conflicting accounts of what happened. 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. So she told a doctor she hadn't had a drink, she told the nurse she had a mixed drink and a flexeril, and she told a doctor the next morning that she was drunk on beer. This is consistent as the rest of her stories. Why did Nifong pursue this again? Oh yeah, the election.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:45:16 AM EST
    Is the 24-ounce beer a different story than the two 22-ounce bottles of beer story, or are they part of the same story? That is, are we talking about 24 ounces of beer, 44 ounces of beer or 66 ounces of beer (and a flexeril or two) prior to her arrival at the party?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:48:34 AM EST
    Himan, they say, also left out statements from the nurse that the woman told her she wasn't choked and that no "condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used the during the alleged sexual attack."
    I know this has been stated before, but to me the one thing that indicates these guys are innocent is the fact that everyone of them stated unequivocally that there was no sex between any player and the woman. If they didn't use a object to rape her or use a condom they would have to think there would be DNA, wouldn't they at least say there was sex but it was consensual, or there was a lap dance, or something? They had plenty of time to think about it to come up with a excuse.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:53:44 AM EST
    BIP can you link that story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:56:39 AM EST
    GUNSHY, A good point that always bears repeating. All the men repeatedly said that no sex occurred. It's also interesting that the AV herself stated that no foreign objects were used in the rape, which means the defenders of the AV's version of reality can put the broom back in the closet. No choking either. Now, what evidence do we have of a rape? Any defenders of the AV's version of reality help us here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:58:01 AM EST
    I wonder if that mystery "white male pubic hair" that was supposed to be such a smoking gun could have come from her Raleigh-based engagement earlier in the evening. Could the defense subpoena the records of her booking agency? And then her earlier clients? It's mean, but would/could they compel said clients to describe for a jury exactly what they got out of their encounters with the AV? I know that rape shield laws protect against some of this, but would the argument that her changed/incomplete story merits further investigation allow this sort of tactic?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:00:09 AM EST
    As someone posted on another board: "At least this clears the broomstick."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:06:34 AM EST
    Well I have to admit I am not too surprised. ( I am shocked at Nifong I thought he must have something to go on). NO I mean as if it never changed anything, a new court filing stills brings howls of the Defense is just spinning. Lora and IMHO will probably go to their grave wanting this rich white boys convicted of just about anything. Virtually all the other skeptics have left the scene as its obvious what happened here now. Gone and wont return this time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:06:54 AM EST
    If we don't dismiss the motion as being an absolute bold-faced lie, what about this: 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. How does the police investigator say that she was strangled when the AV told the examiner at the hospital she hadn't been choked? Am I missing something here? Doesn't the police investigator look at the hospital report? Did she tell the cops she was choked but tell the hospital personnel she wasn't? I know this is consistent with her version of events, like being raped and not raped. But how did the police investigator come to arrive at the idea that she was strangled? I imagine that one of the first questions on cross-examination for Himan would be, "So before you wrote your report you saw the hospital report?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:11:39 AM EST
    GUNSHY, I won't even attempt to link the story, but it's on the abctv11.com website.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:17:42 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:19:34 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:19:55 AM EST
    Bob, your post raises an interesting question. I wonder whether the nvestigator would necessarily have had access to the hospital records at the time of the request for DNA to Judge Stephens. In a huge system like UNC Hospital's, getting everything in terms of records can take weeks, even when there's authority to get it, especially when reports may have come from different departments, and different providers. Having said that, the case has gone so totally awry for the prosecution. They can only hope, as we've said before, for a moderately less horrible out (in terms of PR) like the AV's mental condition "forcing" her not to fully prosecute the case. I keep wondering why an independent candidate for DA hasn't emerged yet, given Nifong's fall.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#41)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:33:24 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    Until we see the actual complete reports of the hospital exams and police interviews, and not just choice pieces taken out of context that bolster the defense's stance, there is plenty of room for huge amounts of spin.
    I thought she was going to say "... plenty of room for *hope*." heh

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:47:50 AM EST
    If all of this in fact turns out not to be spin, and as it seems, that the only one that had been "spinning" was the da, I hope they impeach the guy. He will be forever totally unbelievable, and totally ineffective as a prosecutor.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#43)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:06:02 AM EST
    I would not expect the players to push for charges to be pressed against her. It's not in their interest to swap seats with her.
    If she made it up she should be prosecuted regardless of their preferences. Declining to prosecute someone who lodged bogus rape accusations and didn't recant before her story was disproved would be a very perverse object lesson.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#44)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    to all of you wondering why this case has gone on, in spite of the clear lack of any substantiating evidence, i offer a simple answer: DA nifong is using other people's money, to prosecute this case. unlike the accused, mr. nifong isn't reaching into his pocket, to pay the bills, he's reaching into the taxpayer's pockets. it is incumbent upon him to use those funds wisely, he doesn't appear to be doing so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#45)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:23:55 AM EST
    From the Herald-Sun article:
    Durham Police Investigator Benjamin Himan failed to note that exotic dancer Kim Roberts Pittman submitted a handwritten statement in which she said the rape accusations by her dance partner were "a crock."
    That it was a handwritten statement from Kim Roberts herself is important. If it were merely a report from a police interviewer, Roberts could deny that she said it and contend that the interviewer must have misunderstood.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#46)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:28:32 AM EST
    cpinva wrote:
    to all of you wondering why this case has gone on, in spite of the clear lack of any substantiating evidence, i offer a simple answer: DA nifong is using other people's money, to prosecute this case.
    And, as Ralph Waldo Emerson astutely remarked, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Small-minded people typically prefer to persist in error than admit they were wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    The full Seligmann motion is now available.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    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.
    Why isn't Roberts up on charges for assisting with the rape? If the da believes the av's story about being raped by the players wouldn't he believe the av's story about Roberts? There would be no way to misidentify her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:51:15 AM EST
    5. Attached hereto ... While the Defendant believes the complainant has waived any privacy rights she may have under any state or federal law, in an excess of caution the Defendant tenders them to Court under seal and requests that the Court issue an order unsealing them.
    We might get to see the medical records!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:54:18 AM EST
    Hoo boy. There is a handwritten statement from Pittman AKA Roberts in the motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    Just read the motion. According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car. That period of time (length not specified, but it was long enough for Roberts to change her clothes) between Roberts leaving and the men carrying the AV to her car would seem to be the only time the AV could have been raped. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Roberts says that upon enterring the car, the AV said they should "go back to the house because there was more money to be made there". What jury will believe the AV was gang raped if just minutes after the alleged incident she was trying to convince her partner that they should go back to the house and make some money?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    Unfortunately for the prosecution, Roberts says that upon enterring the car, the AV said they should "go back to the house because there was more money to be made there". What jury will believe the AV was gang raped if just minutes after the alleged incident she was trying to convince her partner that they should go back to the house and make some money? It must have been post-traumatic stress disorder. Or maybe that's what the AV meant when she said that Roberts stole her money, though. +++ This is the train wreck that keeps on wrecking. +++ So what evidence do we have that a gang rape was committed?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    Are we going to hear from IMHO or PB? Ya'll fought a good fight trying to defend the av's story, even you have to tired of this up hill fight. Assuming that all of this new info ends up being true, do you concede that she's lied?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#54)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    Here's another tasty nugget from the Seligmann motion: Sgt. Shelton then determined that she met the criteria for involuntary commitment (i.e., she suffered from a mental illness or substance abuse dangerous to herself or others) and directed another officer to take her to Durham Access to be committed. Must be post-traumatic stress disorder, though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    It must have been post-traumatic stress disorder.
    Yeah, I figure someone will try to say that. Of course in the same statement, Roberts describes the AV as "uncontrollable at this point" while they are in the bathroom. The AV was again talking about trying to "get more money" (how did she plan on making more money, BTW?). Of course, she was also yelling at the players on the other side of the door. It sounds like the AV was losing it (a non-technical term, I know) even before the alleged rape could possibly have occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#56)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:37:40 AM EST
    Or post-malt liquor chasing muscle relaxers disorder.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    Of course in the same statement, Roberts describes the AV as "uncontrollable at this point" while they are in the bathroom. The AV was again talking about trying to "get more money" (how did she plan on making more money, BTW?). Of course, she was also yelling at the players on the other side of the door. It sounds like the AV was losing it (a non-technical term, I know) even before the alleged rape could possibly have occurred.
    Probably pre-traumatic stress disorder.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    This is unbelievable. I honestly feel sick to my stomach, thinking of this case. EVERYTHING in the motions thus far seems to support the players' story of that night. Someone PLEASE tell me how Nifong could proceed with getting indictments in this case, with this as his information. I am stunned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#59)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    Why isn't Roberts up on charges for assisting with the rape? If the da believes the av's story about being raped by the players wouldn't he believe the av's story about Roberts?
    Going after the players was crucial to his election prospects. Charging Roberts wasn't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    The av/fa story is ALL a crock! When is Nifong going to get Real?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    Nifong did the AV no favours by bringing these charges. The kindest reading of the Pittman statement (with its brief window of opportunity for the alleged rape) is that the AV has an underlying mental disorder which caused her to fabricate these charges. The alternative is that the AV is a deliberate liar when she imagines she can gain something by lying. Nifong's running with this negligent investigation has done nothing except expose the AV to the real possibility of criminal charges and almost inevitable civil actions. PTSD was mentioned upthread as:
    PTSD which does not reflect past psychological states.
    That is untrue. The PTSD suffered by veterans from the First Gulf War reflects past psychological states. Ditto the PTSD suffered by Vietnam veterans. Ditto the PTSD suffered by survivors of child abuse when the PTSD continues into adult life. Ditto the PTSD which could feasibly be suffered by the defendants in this case. It is possible the AV suffers from PTSD. That would not explain her conduct at this party and afterwards or prove that the PTSD was caused by the alleged rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    noname posted:
    According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car.
    Actually, in the handwritten statement, Kim states that AV came back to the car a first time, then left the car "because she felt there was more money to be made," then came back to the car a second time - this second time she was helped by one or two boys. So, for the record, there may have been two time intervals where AV was in the house without Kim. The first interval is after Kim went to the car and before AV went to the car for the first time. The second interval begins when AV left Kim's car and headed in the direction of the house - wanting to make some more money.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    Alan, I have trouble imagining that any attorney voluntarily would take on a civil case against a prostitute with a mental condition who obviously has few assets...there is nothing to recover even if there is total victory---she doesn't even appear to own a car. Unless it's just for the principle of it, why would anyone throw good money into such a thing?t?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:09:06 AM EST
    fillintheblanks says:
    noname posted:
    According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car.
    Actually, in the handwritten statement, Kim states that AV came back to the car a first time, then left the car "because she felt there was more money to be made," then came back to the car a second time - this second time she was helped by one or two boys.
    I don't think that is true. Roberts'/Pittman's statement is turgid (difficult to read) at that point, but I think that what Pittman says is that she (Pittman) left the AV locked up in Pittman's car and she (Pittman) went back inside to search for the AV's stuff.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    Oddly enough, Nifong is unavailable for comment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#66)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    According to Kim Pittman's handwritten report dated 3/22/06, Kim was with the AV from the time the AV arrived until someone made the notorious ribald remark about a broomstick, at which point Kim (who had never done a stripping gig before) told the players that "the show is over", went into the bathroom with the AV and told her she wanted to leave. The AV told her she didn't want to leave yet because she wanted to make more money. Kim went out to her car and changed clothes, leaving the AV in the house with the guys. After she'd changed, some of the players came out to the car and told her that the AV was passed out and asked Kim "could I please do something with her." Kim told them that if they could bring the AV to the car, she "would get [the AV] out of their hair." A few minutes later, someone helped the AV to the car. After the AV got into the car, she "told me [i.e., Kim] that we should go back into the house because there was more money to be made there." But, according to Kim's report, the AV did not go back into the house. Instead, KIM went back in to look for the AV's bag, after first locking the car with the AV inside. Dan (one of the defendants) helped Kim search for the bag, but they didn't find it, so Kim went back to the car. Neither of them left the car after that until Kim drove away, with the AV, to the grocery store. Main points of interest here: 1) the *only* time when Kim and the AV were separated was from when Kim went to the car to change clothes until someone helped the AV out to the car; 2)*after* that period of separation, the AV tried to coax Kim into returning to the house with her because "there was more money to be made".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#67)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    Correction: I should have said that there was only time that they were separated while the AV was *in the house*.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    fillintheblanks - I think you are mis-reading the statement. beenaround and wumhenry did a better job than I could have of showing how.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    I think that the AV is lucky that she does not live in Kenya. They recently change rape laws there to make the penalties harsher, but to also make the penalty for a false accusation of rape the same as the penalty for a proven accusation of rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    beenaround, Look at the bottom of Kim's page 6: "- forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car she left because she felt there was more money to be made. It was after then that the boys helped her to the car." Seems like she left the car and some time later was helped back in, no?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#71)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    fillintheblanks, you're right. I missed that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    In light of these reports, it seems highly unlikely that a rape occurred. But it seems inconceivable that Seligmann could have committed the crime, since the Roberts timeline basically has the AV alone in the house only after Seligmann was either text-messaging or on his way to pick up a cab. But Nifong will no doubt press forward anyway. He can still hope for a jury nullification that will convict despire evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    Alan, I have trouble imagining that any attorney voluntarily would take on a civil case against a prostitute with a mental condition who obviously has few assets
    I'm not thinking about the AV as sole or even principal defendant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    fillintheblanks - Nice catch. So now I'm confused. When was the first time the AV went to the car? After they were both in the bathroom? Doesn't this further shorten the time in which a rape could have occurred? The original timing of the alleged rape would have been between between Roberts leaving the house and the AV being helped to the car. A "first" return trip to the house would have to seperate that one time period into two smaller time periods. The important thing to note is that Roberts says the AV's final trip is the one in which the players helped her to the car ("it was after then [leaving the car] that the boys helped her to the car"). Earlier in the statement, Roberts clearly says that the "we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there" comment occurred after the players helped the AV to the car. Therefore, the comment was still made after any possible rape, as I understand it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    Interesting to note: Roberts' handwritten report mentions that the players told her they were grad students and played sports. It's Himan's summary that has them claiming to be track/baseball team members. Could be something she mentioned in person, or it could be his conjecture. I do find it interesting to note, as many have suggested that the specific mentioning of which teams they claimed to be on was evidence of nefarious premeditated plotting along racial lines. More understandable is the claim to be grad students as, generally speaking, grad students wouldn't have to worry about underaged drinking.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    Fillintheblanks, yes, you are correct. I saw that the first time, but did not note the significance of it. However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    Alan says:
    Alan, I have trouble imagining that any attorney voluntarily would take on a civil case against a prostitute with a mental condition who obviously has few assets
    I'm not thinking about the AV as sole or even principal defendant.
    Isn't the DA immune from prosecurion in relation to his job? Or does this not apply in civil cases?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    beenaround:
    However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.
    There is no need to assume the AV was actually in the house when she went back. Wasn't there a defense story about her returning and knocking on the door to get in only to be turned away? She then could have been helped back to the car (at which point she tries to convince Roberts to come with her and try again).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#79)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    Isn't the DA immune from prosecurion in relation to his job? Or does this not apply in civil cases? You'd have to ask someone who knows something about the laws of North Carolina. In my hemisphere you'd be looking at an action for malicious prosecution and you'd be considering the city of Durham as first defendant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    Alan, it's very very difficult to sue a DA because of their immunity, and likewise the City. The DA has a lot of discretion, and if there is some evidence, even if it's conflicting, I'm not sure it's a case worth bringing. On the point of the trips in and out, what about those pictures of the AV, standing alone on the porch, and allegedly smiling. Was that the second entrance?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    noname says:
    beenaround:
    However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.
    There is no need to assume the AV was actually in the house when she went back. Wasn't there a defense story about her returning and knocking on the door to get in only to be turned away? She then could have been helped back to the car (at which point she tries to convince Roberts to come with her and try again).
    Yes, you are correct. I assumed too much there. Hmmm, I wonder why IMHO or PB or chew2 weren't the ones to correct me? Perhaps they simply hadn't gotten around to it yet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    And she told one medical staffer she drank at least 44 ounces of beer, and told another she took a powerful muscle relaxant and drank beer before going to the party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13
    So if she drank that beer, took the powerful muscle relaxant, drank 1 1/2 mixed drinks once she got to the party, and the players gave her a date rape drug, wouldn't that knock her out for quite a while?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    localone asked:
    On the point of the trips in and out, what about those pictures of the AV, standing alone on the porch, and allegedly smiling. Was that the second entrance?
    That's got to be her second exit. I figure she's on the back porch from 12:30 - 12:40. She fell during this interval and lay there a while and then was helped to the car at 12:40.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    Wow, the statement by her driver Jarriel is interesting. How is it that his first account of their activites in the days prior to and the day of the alleged assault fit with the Brian statement, but then he "remembers" by checking his (faulty (?)) phone's datebook that maybe that the detailed memory of sex and chinese food on the night of the 11th/12th was perhaps a week earlier? Wonder what his cross examination will be like. . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#85)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    One of the interesting aspects of this is that, according to Kim Pittman's statement, the AV was *not* frightened away by the broomstick comment. Rather, she stayed until she collapsed and had to be dragged away.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    Sgt. Shelton then determined that she met the criteria for involuntary commitment (i.e., she suffered from a mental illness or substance abuse dangerous to herself or others) and directed another officer to take her to Durham Access to be committed. Would the state take her kids of that happened? That is a good motive to invent a story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    beenaround posted:
    However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.
    Kim's narrative has the revision where she relates the AV leaving the car to go back in to make more money. But my hunch is that that's the only time the AV mentioned going back in. I don't think the AV mentioned going back in after being helped to the car (the AV's second entrance to the car). I've reread the narrative and I think that Kim, in the main part of the narrative, was commingling the AV's statements from both of the AV's entrances into the car. When she revised the narrative at the bottom of page 6, my hunch is that she didn't bother to correct her earlier relating of the commingled events. Besides, it seems incredulous to me that the AV would say she wanted to go back in again after being carried to the car. I think she was too far gone at that point. That's my hunch anyway.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    fillintheblanks -
    Besides, it seems incredulous to me that the AV would say she wanted to go back in again after being carried to the car. I think she was too far gone at that point.
    You could have a point, this does make the AV's actions seem strange, at best. However, Kim described the AV as both "uncontrollable" (in the bathroom) and "talking crazy" (in the car just before Kim went back to look for the AV's stuff). You add that to Sgt. Shelton deciding to commit her, and I can't discount the possibility that she wanted to go back despite being turned away earlier. Here is what Kim actually wrote:
    She was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. At this point, she did not have the bag that I saw her come with and I asked her if she had the most important thing, her money. She told me yes but she did not seem coherent. She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was money to be made there.
    Kim goes on to describe how she left the AV in the car and went to the house to search for the money before driving away. Here is Kim's correction from the end of the statement:
    Forgot to mention that the first time Precious came back to the car, she left because she felt there was money to be made. It was after then, that the boys helped her to the car. They carried her by throwing her arms over their shoulder and assisting her walking to the car.
    This all revolves around the players helping Precious to her car. The first quote establishes that Precious tried to convince the AV to go back to the house after the players helped her to the car. The second quote establishes that Precious' (I like this better than "the AV") first return to the car came before the players helped her to the car (her second and final arrival at the car). Kim's words are pretty clear, here, and the sequence of events she lays out are clear. I wouldn't try to attribute alternate meanings to them just to reconcile irrational behavior by Precious, especially when Kim's statement specifically points out this "uncontrollable" behavior and "crazy talk".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#89)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    fillintheblanks, I agree. (First time I've said anything here that in any way cut in the AV's favor. But I hasten to add that IMO the publicly-known evidence against her story is now overwhelming.) ProzacNation wrote:
    Would the state take her kids if that [i.e., involuntary commitment for apparently dangerous state of mind due to substance abuse or mental illness] happened? That is a good motive to invent a story.
    It is, indeed, though it would be more apt to call it "powerful" rather than "good." As I've pointed out before, it was immediately after learning that she was going to be committed that she cried "rape!" for the first time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    IMHO, stop using that hyperlink in your name. Either use your own blog site or don't leave it blank. I don't have time to individually edit all 1,300 of your comments on TalkLeft, and you have been warned about this before (albeit different link).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    To TL, Sharon, LocalOne, and others: As I am not an attorney, could you briefly discuss what happens with the motions that have been filed by the defense. For example, I assume there is some sort of meeting within the judge's chambers with the DA and the defense attorneys to discuss the merits of the motions. Also, in your experience, have you seen a situation that resembles what now seems to have happened (and is happening) with this case? Thank you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    noname, Sure, I grant you it's quite conceivable Precious was sort of fixated about going back in and mumbled, like a broken record, that she wanted to return. But, I think my interpretation is more true-to-life. My confidence about this is not high, however, nor am I particularly attached to its certainty. wumhenry, In no way am I disputing the (lack of) evidence here nor Precious' motives to fabricate such a story. I simply want to keep us on track and avoid "piling on" after learning what we learned yesterday. There's a tendency to go in for the kill once blood is smelt and I want to avoid that kind of thinking in myself and on this blog. I recognize that you agree with me on this, based on your last post.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Pat posted:
    To TL, Sharon, LocalOne, and others: As I am not an attorney, could you briefly discuss what happens with the motions that have been filed by the defense. For example, I assume there is some sort of meeting within the judge's chambers with the DA and the defense attorneys to discuss the merits of the motions. Also, in your experience, have you seen a situation that resembles what now seems to have happened (and is happening) with this case? Thank you.
    I second this request.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#94)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    fillintheblanks:
    In no way am I disputing the (lack of) evidence here nor Precious' motives to fabricate such a story.
    Understood.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    fillintheblanks - Agreed. I'm not married to this interpritation either. I just wanted to flesh out the timeline as it is given in the statement before we started changing of augmenting it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#96)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    TL, et al: I'm surprised I haven't seen or read more commentary related to this story. It's a difficult link to reach in that their server appears to be getting hammered with hits. FWIW, highlights include: 1) "The exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping her was drinking while taking medication that night, and had sex with at least four men and a sexual device in the days immediately leading up to the off-campus party," 2) despite what Durham police have contended, a medical examination showed no signs of the sort of sexual or physical attack of which the dancer complained 3) Among other previously undisclosed details... the woman at one point accused her female dance partner of helping the lacrosse players rape her and of stealing her money. 4) she told one medical staffer she drank at least 44 ounces of beer, and told another she took a powerful muscle relaxant and drank beer before going to the party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13. To the attorneys on the forum, what are your thoughts about this vis-a-vis prosecutorial misconduct?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    To be more precise: fillintheblanks - Agreed. I'm not married to this interpretation either. I just wanted to lay out the sequence of events exactly as given in Kim's statement before anyone started changing or augmenting it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    blcc - These aspects of the motion have been discussed to an extent. Personally, I was drawn to Kim's written statement instead of these equally important subjects only because it was the only part of the motion involving a first-hand description of that night. I would be more willing to discuss the medical report, for instance, if I could see the original as opposed to the defense attorney's or police' second hand account of what it says.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    Anyway, I didn't want to inject myself into the discussion to this extent, so I'm gonna cool it on the posting. I look forward to reading what you all think about this case, as usual.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    Did anyone else hear the Florida DA Pam Bondi on The Abrams Report just now say, "The [Duke] DA is probably trying to keep the second dancer from testifying"? What! Is that how they manipulate evidence?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#101)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    Posted by noname:
    These aspects of the motion have been discussed to an extent. Personally, I was drawn to Kim's written statement instead of these equally important subjects only because it was the only part of the motion involving a first-hand description of that night. I would be more willing to discuss the medical report, for instance, if I could see the original as opposed to the defense attorney's or police' second hand account of what it says.
    I'm sorry, I've been following this conversation off and on. Thus, I beg your pardon as I don't mean to be disrespectful or repetitive. Clearly I've missed the forum's consensus whereby everyone agreed that the AV's accusation wasn't further compromised (much less completely destroyed) by the sum total of these revelations. If someone would just point me to that conclusion I'd be grateful.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#102)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    I thought Georgia was rather tame on Abrams today. A slight shift in her tone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#103)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    One other thought, if the SANE nurse was a trainee, wouldn't there have been another qualified nurse in the room and didn't the examining physician have to sign off on the report? That's how we do things at our hospital.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    blcc - I think you got the wrong idea. I wasn't criticizing you or your post. Your information was good, and accurate. I was just telling you why I, personally, focused on one aspect of the motion as opposed to those you brought up (in response to your quote, "I'm surprised I haven't seen or read more commentary related to this story"). Please don't take offense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#105)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    My apologies to all for posting a stale link. I thought I'd refreshed my browser window; I didn't realize it had frozen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    weezie, did you hear Pam Bondi say something like that?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#107)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    noname - Thx for the shout-out & the effort to explain. I must be misunderstanding something (mis-underestimating?? Yikes! surely not that!;) ). I'll go back and re-read. We don't have to agree for me to appreciate your cordial response, which I do. Happy Weekend.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:21:35 PM EST
    This is kind interesting:
    The flow of paper from the defense continued Friday, as Finnerty's attorneys filed three discovery motions seeking reports from two police officers who were with the accuser in the hours following the party before she arrived at an area hospital. They also sought original notes and documents from investigators, and more detailed reports on all photo lineups conducted by investigators.
    The last motion suggested that police may have conducted six or more photo lineups, in which the accuser was shown photos of Duke lacrosse players and asked if she could identify her attackers.
    Finnerty's lawyers are waking up, and there may have been 6! lineups?! I'd sure like to read the transcripts of the 5 that haven't been released yet...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#109)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:21:45 PM EST
    ProzacNation, no I was only asking the question, I haven't heard or read anything about whether or not a trainee at Duke would be let loose to conduct an exam by herself. Just wondering.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:52:53 PM EST
    Pat and fillintheblanks: I just tried to check the NC rules to compare them with how things are done in FL, but not much luck online. One thing I did note, not pertinent, but for once something GOOD about FL (i.e., no hanging chads and no sexual predators paroled too soon) is that, generally, under our speedy trial rule, a defendant has a right to a trial within 175 days from the time he is charged with a felony. Much better than NC's "maybe in a year or so, you're out on bail, why do you care?" But I digress . . . (Speaking generally and with no knowledge of how they do it in NC and with much more civil experience than criminal. There's my disclaimer. I will also try to limit my response to what could/should be happening in this case, not in something simpler.) When I file a motion with the court, I also serve (simply by mailing) a copy on the opposing attorney. The motion then has to be given time on the judge's calendar for him/her to hear arguments in favor of and against my motion. The other attorney and I, and likely in this case the judge, would then talk/meet to decide how much time both sides will need to be heard, whether witnesses will be called, what evidence will be offered, etc. on that particular motion. This could done in the judge's chambers or in open court, and in this case it may be one of the matters to be decided at the next hearing on June 22: when to schedule a hearing on the motion. The judge then finds a sufficient block of time on his calendar and a hearing is calendared. The opposing attorney can, but does not have to, respond to my motion before the hearing. He/she can wait and present all of his/her reasons why the motion should be denied at the hearing, unless, of course, the judge wants something responsive, in writing, before that time. Then, a hearing is held on the motion, and the judge rules to grant or deny it. The point made on Greta's program last night is that Jim ?????? (can't remember his last name, but the prosecutor-voice) is that if Nifong still really believes in his AV, he should file something, some response, to discredit/discount/answer the defense motions. He's (allegedly) already turned over all his evidence to them so it's not as if Nifong would be spilling secrets, ruining a surprise theory/witness/document by doing so. If there is another way to view the information contained in the defense motions, TELL THE COURT (and WRAL, of course), and support your AV - don't leave her (and your case) out there "slowly twisting in the wind."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    Jim Hammer was the prosecutor who called on Nifong to file something: felt bad I forgot his name. Now Hannity and Colmes on it. Hear, hear for the NC Attorney General to take a look.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    weezie, sorry for the confusion. Did you hear the Florida DA Pam Bondi on The Abrams Report say something like, "The [Duke] DA is probably trying to keep the second dancer from testifying"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:17:47 PM EST
    I don't know if anyone is old enough to remember the old Alfred Hitchcock TV show and I have no idea if it's in reruns anywhere on cable, but this case reminds me of one particularly great episode. The husband leaves the house for work. He's concerned for her because his wife looks like she's depressed or under a lot of mental strain. She sits rigidly and stares out into space. A door-to-door salesman comes up and rings the bell. Fade to black. The husband comes home from work and the wife is sitting rigid. "He raped me!" she says stiffly. "Who raped you?" "The door-to-door salesman raped me." The distraught husband goes out and tracks down the door-to-door salesman to a hotel in town. He gets a monkey wrench from the trunk of his car and goes up to the salesman's room, knocks on the door, then goes into the room. You hear a "Hey!" Then fade to black. The last scene is the husband coming home and hugging his wife. She's still rigid staring into space. "He raped me," she says. "Don't worry, baby, he won't hurt you anymore." "He raped me. The mailman raped me." Then, slowly, the realization spreads over the husband's face that he just murdered an innocent man and his wife is stone crazy. +++ This case reminds me of that story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    Alan, Thanks for your comments a while back on post-traumatic stress disorder. I worked at a VA hospital over a period of five years back in the 70s, and I saw a lot of guys who got "nervous in the service," as they used to call it. PTSD is a serious condition and has historically been neglected. I don't dismiss the possibility that the AV may possibly have been raped a decade ago and that she may have PTSD from that. But I find it unpersuasive that her behavior on the night of the party was post-traumatic stress from a rape that night or from back in 1994. For her sake I hope this is the result of a mental condition. Otherwise, she should be finishing her college degree behind bars.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    Gunshy, You wrote:
    Are we going to hear from IMHO or PB? Ya'll fought a good fight trying to defend the av's story, even you have to tired of this up hill fight. Assuming that all of this new info ends up being true, do you concede that she's lied?
    I don't regard the things that the accuser said between the time she was helped to the car and the time she got to the SANE exam, a time when she was in a clearly reduced state (whatever its proximate causes), as dispositive of her rape claim. People say all kinds of things when they're screwed up. You can hire cognitive neuroscientists to interpet her statements if you like, but they probably won't do much better than your average bartender, or anyone who has logged their share of hours with people in dysfunctional states of mind. It's a dreamworld that we don't have access to. The defense artists can make hay of these statements all they want. I'm more interested in what the accuser said when she was back in the saddle again. It must have been incredibly convincing, no? Given all the information that police had that might lead them to believe her story was a "crock?" Kim Robert's statement isn't particularly dispositive either. Her estimate that she was with the accuser for all but "five minutes" isn't even true by defense attorney estimates. The defense has the accuser helped into Robert's car at 12:41. That's 11 minutes after they have the accuser exiting the house, and that's without taking into account the undisclosed amount of time the defense has stated that the accuser was alone in the house trying to retrieve her purse before that. When you add to this the fact that we are all completely over-influenced by those time stamp photos which we do not know the origin of, it suggests that this is exactly the type of case that ought to go to trial. A jury can find that the accuser lied about all sorts of things, if they choose, without it being the case that she lied about the rape. That's because it is illegal to rape liars. I have never predicted that the accuser will prevail, nor can I claim to believe that her claim is true. I simply believe the claim is justiciable. Nifong knows a lot more about the case than I do, to be sure, and he considers it prosecutable! I suppose there's a difference between that which is prosecutable and that which is justiciable, but it can't be a very serious difference.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#116)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:35:39 PM EST
    Re: Prosecutorial Misconduct The Innocence Project has this on their site The question is, fellow posters: how many of the various examples, it seems now, of prosecutorial misconduct on Nifong's part can you spot? (Sort of a sick "Where's Waldo?" exercise.) I'm waiting for the ACLU (or maybe Willie Gary wants to switch sides now) to fight in behalf of the Duke players: civil rights suit charging the City of Durham, the Durham PD, and the Durham DA's office with depriving the defendants of their constitional rights to due process in this case. IF Nifong did not present the exculpatory statements when he presented to the grand jury, on top of all the media appearances and public statements, he is in deep trouble with the NC bar. I used to think the next legal proceeding in this case would be the AV as plaintiff against the players and Duke University. Now I'm seeing a different case, this one in federal court, with the players as the plaintiffs, and DA, DPD, etc. as defendants. Wonder how Nifong will like having to hire, and pay for his own attorney. He has a lot of protection, as does the PD and the City, but it is not an impenetrable shield.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    PB, Perhaps you've mentioned this before, but I'm curious as to what, exactly, you find to be the merits to the accuser's case. Is it simply the probability of unreleased statements, presumably taken after her release from the hospital? Is it because Nifong seemed SO convinced that a crime occurred? What makes you think, from the evidence that has come to light thus far, that there is merit to her case? What's your methodology for choosing which statements by which players in this show veracity? What of the "hard" evidence (non-testimonial) do you find to be meritorious or not? Not attacking at all, just curious about the logic path you're taking, since it isn't the prevalent one on the board.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    Oh to clarify, by "players" I meant players in the dramedy that is this case, not necessarily lacrosse players.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    Sharon: Thank you for your response - it is very helpful. I think the thing that keeps this topic alive on this blog is that most people (myself included) are not able to believe that:(1) the players raped the AV, or (2) the AV falsely accused the players, and (3) the DA acted so recklessly. These behaviors just seem so bizarre. Yet, the information we have available (as of now) suggests that the AV falsely accused the players (perhaps to avoid being held overnight and perhaps because it seemed like a good way to "make more money"). And it also appears that the DA acted out of short-term political gain - how else can one explain his statements and actions with the information we now have? Quite frankly - my wife and I both are more than a little troubled by the DA's behavior. I'm also somewhat surprised that civil rights groups have not taken-up the players' cause - yes, I said the players' cause. If a DA wants to (apparently) abuse his/her power with people who have some financial wherewithal, what chance do the rest of us have? Finally, from reading the notes of investigator Himan, he states that he was trying to get more information from the AV regarding identification of the alleged assailants. This is interesting because, in the one of the pictures of the party, Seligmann is shown with a red shirt. Now, since the AV claims that he forced her to have or*l sex with her, wouldn't she notice a red shirt? Perhaps a small detail - but how could one not notice a red shirt and still be able to make a facial ID? Perhaps she did make this statement - but one would assume that the DA would have made that information available, and the search warrants would have listed a red shirt (not just "clothes.")

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    But, PB:
    I suppose there's a difference between that which is prosecutable and that which is justiciable, but it can't be a very serious difference.
    There should be, if one is looking for fairness. BTW, glad to see you here, still speaking for the AV: it keeps those of us who favor the defense in this case honest. It's as I tried to convey when I told of my experience as a juror in a rape case: every potential juror was asked, "if there is no evidence other than the victim's statement that she was raped by the defendant, and you find her credible, can you convict on her word alone?" We all said yes. And it was not so much that she was not credible, but that the rest of the case was so INcredible that brought us to our verdict. {Side comment: if any of you are called for jury duty, and it would not be an awful hardship for you to serve, submit yourself to the process. The process itself is interesting (or maybe it just was to me) and the experience of sitting on a jury was fascinating to me. It will give you an insight into the legal system that is worth learning.} That, ultimately, is the problem here: there is too much, way too much, for the AV, and her story, to be believable. From what we know at this point, it would be hard to find any reasonable doubt that the defendants are, not just not guilty, but innocent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    Like the "Way Back Machine" post, Bob.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:12:38 PM EST
    YW Pat: In earlier posts I have expressed much of the same thoughts you just did: I am, almost always, a prosecutor-friendly minded person. That's one reason why my first job as an attorney, doing criminal defense, did not work for me. When I first heard of this case, I was afraid that the charges were true, and I would not have been surprised if they were. No offense to the guys on this board, but "men behaving badly" is not a small category (especially when you don't have the calming, reasonable, civilizing influence of females with you at the time.) And I am familiar with the games defense attorneys play. A line from a book I like says "I never lie, but the truth is not for everyone." But almost everything, and EVERYTHING of import, that the defense has spoken to the press about has been backed up. They are not "spinning" generalities about "stone cold innocent," they are saying WE CAN, and WILL, PROVE . . . I would note, however, that just as none of us knows the AV, or the Duke players, we do not know Nifong either, other than the generalities. I have read good things about him, but I have also read of a stubborn streak in him. I know that he has not tried a major case in 8 years or so. I know that he has never run for political office before. I know that he was running against an African American and a former prosecutor from his office who had tried, and won, a Court TV worthy case not long ago. Posted this before, but have to say it again: (remember these oldies, Bob?) I keep seeing Humphrey Bogart in the Cain Mutiny, Gregory Peck in Moby Dick, Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. I see, (and he has said and done and filed nothing to make me think otherwise) a man from a modern day tragedy: hubris is bringing him down. (And, no, Bob: neither you nor I can remember the ancient Greek tragedies from personal experience.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    Hi Thinkandtype: You wrote:
    Not attacking at all, just curious about the logic path you're taking, since it isn't the prevalent one on the board.
    From Dr. Henry Lee we have learned of the concept of "indirect evidence," by which is meant, the evidence that one would have expected to find at the crime scene but which is not there. It was not my expectation that Nifong would present his case to the public before presenting it at trial, and he has not, except for the few vague snippets people have complained that he should be disbarred over. The defense can always present its case to the public if they want to, but instead they are keeping the key essentials to themselves. That is a strategy that creates the need for a trial. That, to me, is the indirect evidence that keeps the dispute justiciable. Nothing I have read contests the idea that the three defendants may have spent time alone in the bathroom with the accuser. Someone, I forget who, CPinva perhaps, accused me of wrong thinking in this because it is up the prosecution, not the defense, to prove its case. But that is the standard for a trial. If the defense hopes to avert a trial, I consider it their burden to demonstrate that the case is not justiciable. They haven't come close to meeting that standard, in my opinion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:14:26 PM EST
    Should have read: " . . . calming, reasonable, civilizing influence of females with their clothes on, with you at the time.)"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    Another point on Nifong: since 1998, he has been up against traffic case defense attorneys. If it were a vehicular homicide, the case would leave his department and be moved to the homicide DAs. Now he is up against some, reportedly and likely given the means of the defendants, upper tier defense attorneys. And his "if I were them, I wouldn't want to face me either," complete with grin, becomes more and more laughable.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    "Irresponsible, has hidden evidence, or is insane. Or cruel." Greta's possibilities on Nifong. Good point: not just Nifong's presentation to the grand jury, but what he did not tell to the judge to get the DNA order?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    PB: My point was, don't you see reasonable doubt as to their being guilty? Doesn't everything, to date, point to beyond that, to no reasonable doubt that they are innocent? Kim's statement (and I am well aware because I keep reminding myself that she could be lying in her statement) fits the defense version. But remember that her statement, as given, was made before she had any idea of what would be good for her to say. It was, also, closest in time to the events of that evening. And it is MUCH closer to the story that was given to Nifong by the housemates than the one given by the AV. If something awful happened to the AV at that house that night, then Nifong has raped her again by his handling of this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#128)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    I see this as a lesson for everyone about prosecutable misconduct. It happens. If something like this happens with all the national attention focused on Durham, think about if you're poor and black in the middle of East St. Louis and you're poor and black and no one gives a damn except that someone's been pulled off the street for a crime.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#129)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    If we were serving on a jury together today, and the world, for some perverse reason, had been turned upside down in such away that we were were supposed to rule not on whether the defendants were guilty, but on whether they were innocent, and in order to find them innocent we were instructed that we had to find them innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and we had the information we now have before us, there is no way I could join you in your verdict based on what we now know.
    And I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you, PB, do not sexually molest prepubescent children and nosh on dead babies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#130)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:09:09 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    Nifong knows a lot more about the case than I do, to be sure, and he considers it prosecutable!
    Wow, I wouldna believed it if I hadna read it with my own eyes: somebody is STILL trotting out the lame old argument that "Nifong prosecuted, ergo there must be a good case"! PB, hasn't it ever dawned on you that Nifong had an ulterior motive for prosecuting no matter what and therefore that his *ostensible* belief in the AV's story might not jibe with his *actual* opinion?(!)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    wum: haven't even read all of it, but don't go off on PB. PB, as I said before, and the others who are still speaking for the AV, keep the rest of us honest. At least PB is HERE. Where is imho, where i azbball, where is lora, where is durga?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    wumhenry: You make the point I have made before, and the answer keeps getting tougher and tougher: If Nifong "knows more than we do" then where is his information, and more importantly, what is it? No DNA? No problem. Even though Nifong said the DNA would prove who was guilty. Seligman's timeline? No problem. Nifong has a different timeline. BELIEVE ME, I am STILL wondering what Nifong has that we have not seen. But I ask all of you who support the AV: what evidence do you think Nifong has, and had, to bring this case, to move it forward so quickly? As an attorney, I do NOT want Nifong to be out of control. I do NOT want him to have put political expediency ahead of the tremendous burden a DA should feel. But ever since he was elected, Nifong has done NOTHING to counter the defense efforts. If he has something, NOW is the time. Not to try the case in the press, in public, but to show everyone SOMETHING more than he has. I am left with his back pedallling on every significant issue. He may be able to avoid legal responsibility by saying "I believed the accuser." In light of all of the reports, statements (not defense spin but sworn statements, under penalties of perjury) how could he have believe her, as opposed to every other version of the events?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#133)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:58:54 PM EST
    SharonInJax wrote:
    wum: haven't even read all of it, but don't go off on PB. PB, as I said before, and the others who are still speaking for the AV, keep the rest of us honest.
    And I'm returning the favor. She shouldn't get a pass on specious arguments just because she's now in the minority.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#134)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:06:11 PM EST
    SharonInJax wrote:
    He may be able to avoid legal responsibility by saying "I believed the accuser."
    Even if accepted at face value, that can't excuse misrepresentation of the evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:10:10 PM EST
    Wumhenry, You wrote:
    Wow, I wouldna believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes: somebody is STILL trotting out the lame old argument that "Nifong prosecuted, ergo there must be a good case"!
    When did I say he had a good case? I just said he considered it prosecutable. Do you doubt that? You wrote:
    And I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you, PB, do not sexually molest prepubescent children and nosh on dead babies.
    That's right, you don't. And if I were to find myself ignobly indicted for such crimes against humanity, I would hope for the sake of prepubescent children and dead babies the world over that you would try and genuinely ascertain whether the charges against me had any merit before dismissing them as the ravings of a spontaneously over-zealous prosecutor hell-bent on finding a white feminist to take down. Is noshing on dead babies a crime? Just asking!!!!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#136)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:20:02 PM EST
    I'm with you, wum, you know that. But I give PB a lot of credit for being her, bloodies but unbowed. One of the worst things anyone can do in dealing with the criminal justice system is to be overconfident. I couldn't imagine OJ being found innocent, just as I cannot imagine these defendatns being found guilty. Not that our dialogues here carry that weight, but still I want PB and the others here, to speak and throw things at my belief. I don't want to be wrong, for many reasons. But I don't want to go blind about this case either. The lawyer part of me, the part who knows what we are taught in law school, what our bar associations teach us, what our canons of ethics teach us keeps wanting to hear Nifong come out with something that will put me back in the "yeah, that, or something like it, could have happened." I do not want this case to be as frivolous and fragile as it does now. If Nifong has nothing more than what we have seen thus far, this is as bad a lynching as the South has seen in some time. I am ready to take criticism for my use of that term. But I used it carefully, with thought. For me, the burden is on Nifong now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    PB, and indeed anyone who cares to answer, In a general sense, away from the particulars of this case, what would it take for you, as a member of a jury to believe that an alleged rape (gang or otherwise) had occurred and that whoever was accused of that crime was, indeed, the guilty party? That is to say, what's the threshold? Do you need only a victim's word? Do you need her word, but only if she displays a certain level of credibility? Do you need supporting DNA? Eyewitness identification? Specific results from a SANE exam? Presence of roofies or GHB? THe word of a prosecutor? How much of this is enough to believe that a crime was committed, and how much to believe that the specific person(s) on trial committed it? Is the bar higher for one element than another? Now, thinking of these general criteria, what does this particular case either posess or lack that either falls in line with or strays from your generalized crieria as explained above?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:31:17 PM EST
    Jeez, wum and PB, y'all are beginnning to sound like imho and Bob in P. Good thing I was raised in such a strangely liberal/conservative, both sides of the aisle household. There is no joy in this case. Not if one side is proved right, not if the other side is. BUT Made us think, didn't it? Would I like to be one of the sacrificial lambs (and yes I include the AV and the partgoers, especially the indicted, the Duke Three,) in this case? Of course not. Has it made people think, and react, and think again? Yes. Is our lesson a terrible burden on those involved in this case? Yes. And we are not done thinking, I fear. My thinking is that there is no way Nifong can convince a jury to convict these defendants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#139)
    by spartan on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    Talking Heads on TV tonight feel that the DA will have to respond to the defense motions since they suggest the police dept. intentionally misled the Judge with the omissions by the detectives.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#140)
    by spartan on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    Sharon, reading the statements of the driver and Kim, I don't see how the DA could convince the Judge to continue with the case .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#141)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    gmax posted:
    Lora and IMHO will probably go to their grave wanting this rich white boys convicted of just about anything.
    I have never posted that I wanted anyone in this case to be convicted of anything. I enjoy watching Nifong stick it to the fancy pants attorneys, but that's not going to get anyone convicted of anything. I have been posting that I thought had the players not taken their attorneys' advice they may have avoided being indicted. gmax posted:
    Virtually all the other skeptics have left the scene as its obvious what happened here now.
    I am a skeptic in that I have suspended judgment on who is lying in this case. We'd have a more lively debate here if more commenters thought about what is being reported - consider the source - rather than merely believing everything that supports their notion of what happened that night. What would you all do without a few skeptics in the mix, pat each other on the back all day? "Way to keep it real, Bob in Pacifica!" hahaha GUNSHY posted:
    Are we going to hear from IMHO or PB? Ya'll fought a good fight trying to defend the av's story, even you have to tired of this up hill fight. I have never posted that I want anyone in this case convicted of anything.
    Ya'll fought a good fight trying to defend the av's story? I never posted that I believed her story. I have defended her against Bob in Pacifica when he posts things like - no evidence of crying suggests "yet another false report of fact by the AV in the morning of the 14th." Of course, he had not shown she had made any false claims, but don't let that stop him from claiming "yet another." Tired of an uphill fight? You might have noticed I enjoy commenters getting in a dither over every word I post. Pat got in a dither over the way he thought I posted a word.
    Further, IMHO, in your response, you purposely capitalized Finnerty's position as ATTACK - I for one have grown tired of you constant distortions - get a grip. Would you have capitalized his position if he played defense?
    How "wack" is that? I have asked Pat for examples of more of these "constant distortions." He never came up with one, nor did he apologize for FALSELY ACCUSING me in the above post. Maybe Pat/FA was chasing Flexeril with 44 ounces of beer? Why would Pat feel the need to discredit my posts? I haven't been shown to post lies or make misleading statements. All I do is question what seems to be the "party line" around here. What's the threat in that? GUNSHY posted:
    Assuming that all of this new info ends up being true, do you concede that she's lied?
    If it turns out it is true that the captains said Reade Seligmann was not at the party, will you concede that they lied? hahaha About this new info, from the motion:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Didn't Mr. Johnson stay in the car when he took the accuser to the hotels?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#142)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:03:09 PM EST
    Didn't Mr. Johnson stay in the car when he took the accuser to the hotels?
    Maybe he just really likes crossword puzzles? The only time I've ever had the patience to finish one has been on long car trips.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#143)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    Maybe he just really likes crossword puzzles? The only time I've ever had the patience to finish one has been on long car trips.
    DOWN 1. from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:41:05 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man.
    Please tell us truthfully what you think she was doing? Giving people tuition in how to respect a hardworking mother of two?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:55:31 PM EST
    PB says:
    you would try and genuinely ascertain whether the charges against me had any merit before dismissing them as the ravings of a spontaneously over-zealous prosecutor hell-bent on finding a white feminist to take down.
    I will assume that your rhetoric here was deliberately designed to deflect Wumhenry because the situation you outlined is in no way analogous to what has been alleged here. As far as I can remember, no one claims that Nifong wants to take down the defendants because they are privileged white males. The claims are that Nifong is ambitious and wanted to win the election, and the case was a convenient way to ensure he did that by pandering to obvious community interest in Durham. I invite you to find a more appropriate reverse situation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:24:57 PM EST
    I've read Kim's narrative and I'm looking at it and a lot of the other reports like so: I believe there are omissions in a lot of the stories. In Kim's case we gain some new information too. I think there are probably some embellishments, and a rather glaring omission. I think it's human nature to want to put oneself in the best possible light, and I think that's happened in some of these narratives. I think the defense is spinning it to try to discredit the AV. I don't think they can with Kim's statement. The essential story remains consistent: Kim arrives, then the AV. Then there is new info (and my guess, btw): They both go into the bathroom for Kim to change. Then they dance. The show stopper is the broom comment. (Consistent with the defense) They return to the bathroom. (Omitted but not inconsistent - from previous narratives attributed to the AV and Kim.) As to the AV being uncontrollable and eager to make more money, I'm thinking embellishment here. It is inconsistent for the AV to have yelled at the partyers to leave her alone, and at the same time have wanted to see if more money could be made. I'm guessing that one woman was calling to be left alone and the other woman wanted to make more money and stay. Then, Kim's addendum, "forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car, she left because she felt there was more money to be made," would have to be inserted here to make any sense. She omits that they both must have gone out to the car, if she could then report that the AV then left it. Bissey's account says he heard the AV say she had to get her shoe. Now if there was more money to be made, doesn't that sound like Kim? I'm having a hard time thinking she just sat there cooling her heels while the AV went back to make more money. Bissey says they both went back inside after one was persuaded to return. And Butch Williams apparently has pictures that could bury Kim. So, consistent with the AV's story, they both could have gone back in at that time. Kim doesn't say that they didn't. The rest of the story matches up, with the new information of Kim having a dialogue with the men about the AV and then going back to look for the AV's purse. This is consistent with Kim having gotten friendly again with the men. Otherwise, you'd think she would have been locked out too. Apparently it was only the AV they didn't want back in. That Kim didn't find the purse inside tends to confirm the AV's account to Shelton of her money being taken when she was pulled out of the car and groped. If the AV answered "It's here" to Kim's question about her money, it's possible that she was confused (most everyone here thinks she was confused!) and remembered coming out the first time with it. Another possible confirmation of the AV's story is Kim's comment about the AV at Kroger's: "They tried to talk to her and ask questions but the only thing she would mutter was no." "No?" Why "no?" If she'd been raped, "no" would have been an appropriate thing to say. Kim mentions no time frames with the exception of her and the AV's arrival. She does say that the first time the AV went to her car, she then went back inside, confirming Bissey's account and the AV's account. There is nothing here that discounts the essentials of the AV's story. The defense did spin. And nearly everybody bought it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#147)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    The ACLU and civil rights groups would be all over this case if the 3 accused were black and the alleged victim white.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:45:19 AM EST
    SharonInJax
    It's as I tried to convey when I told of my experience as a juror in a rape case: every potential juror was asked, "if there is no evidence other than the victim's statement that she was raped by the defendant, and you find her credible, can you convict on her word alone?"
    This seems like an improper question to me (particularly if answering no is going to get you automatically excluded). The definition of reasonable doubt is left up to individual jurors, so if a juror feels he is not a good enough judge of character to convict solely on somebody's word he is within his rights to refuse to so convict and it is wrong to exclude him for this reason. A proper question would be something like "the rape law in this state includes cases in which a man has sex with his wife without her consent, are you willing to convict in such cases even though you may disagree with this provision" since it is not the proper role of a juror to rewrite the law.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jo on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:54:20 AM EST
    Lora said:
    possible confirmation of the AV's story is Kim's comment about the AV at Kroger's: "They tried to talk to her and ask questions but the only thing she would mutter was no. ... If she'd been raped, "no" would have been an appropriate thing to say.
    If the AV has had Flexeril, beer, and some strong mixed drinks, I would not put any weight on just her mumbling, "no". I would be interested to know, did she scream or pull away when touched while sitting in the car at Kroger's, or did she only try to prevent herself from being removed from the car?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#150)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:18:06 AM EST
    good morning everyone. I read the washingtonpost.com story about the LAX families and the legal bills. (Sorry, don't know how to link and don't want to start that argument up again. Just Google today on Duke Lacrosse and you will see it). My question is if the police really botched this case and intentionally omitted crucial info from the Judge, can the LAX Team bring a class action suit against the city of Durham. I am not sure what constitutes a class action but it always seems to get a lot of money for the lawyers and this could be a way these lawyers might get paid for their hefty bills.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#151)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:47:42 AM EST
    Lora, I understand that these leaks are form the defense camp but they are the actual statements of individuals who I presume had far less intoxicating drugs in their system the night of the alleged rape than the accuser. I would tend to believe their recollection more than an impaired accuser's statement. Besides, even the police reports tend to embellish Kim's statements with new info not in her written statement( Sports team and grad students versus track, baseball and grad students)And we have not seen the av's actual statement/s. Maybe the police omitted/changed her written version as well to make a better case before the Judge. And to bring up a sore topic, after seeing the sloppy police work and investigative reports I don't blame any of the players for not coming forward to answer questions without a lawyer present.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#152)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:01:06 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#153)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:03:52 AM EST
    I hope I made my thoughts clear. We have all been trying to make sense of a time line based on the Accuser's statement but we have actually been using the version reported and compiled by the investigating officer.( At least I have never seen her actual written statement). So if an officer is piecing together his version of events based on several statements by the accuser, the events may not mesh as well as Kim's written version. So for now, yes, I buy into Kim's version.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:05:52 AM EST
    beenaround,
    As far as I can remember, no one claims that Nifong wants to take down the defendants because they are privileged white males. The claims are that Nifong is ambitious and wanted to win the election, and the case was a convenient way to ensure he did that by pandering to obvious community interest in Durham. I invite you to find a more appropriate reverse situation.
    By "obvious community" do you mean the "black" community or the "underprivileged" community. And why leave out the feminists? Just because the woman who go to Duke don't consider themselves feminists doesn't mean that Nifong wasn't pandering to the women's vote. I left out "people who hate Duke because they're jealous" and "people who hate the sport of lacrosse" among voter blocks that have been mentioned here because I don't want to be accused of raising the "Duke lacrosse" card again. I think these studies that correlate helmeted sports with gang rape don't show that helmeted sports lead to rape. More likely it is that gang rapists prefer helmeted sports. Blaming lacrosse for a gang rape is as repugnant to me as blaming a false rape allegation on mental illness.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#155)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:18:41 AM EST
    PB, I know what some people think about the DA and his political motivations for this case. I personally believe he just got caught up in the intense media attention. Go back and revisit his earlier interviews and he appears to be enjoying making comments and statements to the press. I just believe he enjoyed the limelight early on, but later realized the damage it was doing to his case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:20:34 AM EST
    Spartan, You wrote:
    And to bring up a sore topic, after seeing the sloppy police work and investigative reports I don't blame any of the players for not coming forward to answer questions without a lawyer present.
    I'm curious, did you blame them before? Because I wouldn't expect a person who had blamed them before to change his or her mind based on the discovery that sloppy police work was involved. You know the one about the drunk looking for his keys under a streetlamp?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#157)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:58:06 AM EST
    PB, I have always believed they did the right thing by listening to the advice of their lawyers. It should be obvious to all on this site that I khow little about the law and how it actually works. So, if my lawyer says to keep my mouth shut, I would hope that he was giving me good advice . Otherwise, I am sure I would get myself into more trouble.(you know that saying about a person representing himself having a fool....) Besides, the advice to the players was not just from one defense attorney but the collective wisdom of several of NC most highly regarded defense lawyers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:19:07 AM EST
    Lora said:
    There is nothing here that discounts the essentials of the AV's story.
    Except for the fact that given an updated timeline the alleged rape couldn't have been close to 30 minutes and there is no way Seligman could have been present. Also curious, what are the "essentials" of her story. Is a statement that Kim participated in the rape "essential"? Trying to nail down which story your using and what is and is not "essential" to it? Keep in mind, one of her stories was that no rape occured.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#159)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:21:58 AM EST
    should've read "which story you're using" i hate it when i do that!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:40:14 AM EST
    PB,
    Just because the woman who go to Duke don't consider themselves feminists
    Do wha. .? How did you come to that conclusion? I'd be interested, as IMHO likes to say, in your source for that statement. 'Cause if being a feminist precludes one from attending Duke, I sure wish someone had told me that during the admissions process. And how is it, again, that being a feminist means that one is obliged to support one particular viewpoint in this case? Blind solidarity doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with feminism in my book.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#161)
    by wumhenry on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:12:35 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    That Kim didn't find the purse inside tends to confirm the AV's account to Shelton of her money being taken when she was pulled out of the car and groped.
    No more than it confirms the AV's statement to the detective that Kim stole her money.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#162)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:17:08 AM EST
    Thinkandtype:
    Do wha. .? How did you come to that conclusion? I'd be interested, as IMHO likes to say, in your source for that statement. 'Cause if being a feminist precludes one from attending Duke, I sure wish someone had told me that during the admissions process.
    Oh, I don't claim that there is no feminist contigency at Duke. Obviously one could find someone at Duke who actually refers to themselves as a feminist. But if we use the Duke woman and men at this website as a sample base, I'd say the number of Duke students represented here who would call themselves feminists is paltry compared to the group who would give themselves maj creds for being "leftists." You wrote:
    And how is it, again, that being a feminist means that one is obliged to support one particular viewpoint in this case? Blind solidarity doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with feminism in my book.
    Well, I certainly don't characterize myself as a feminist because I have a solidarity with the prosecution's case, if that's what you're getting at. And I have no problem with those feminists who believe a rape did not occur, obviously, since at present I probably count myself among them. So I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding what your point is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#163)
    by wumhenry on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:21:55 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    When did I say he had a good case? I just said he considered it prosecutable. Do you doubt that?
    "Prosecutable" is an imprecise word. A prosecutor can try to get an indictment against anybody based on anything or nothing. I don't doubt that Nifong thought he could persuade a grand jury to indict the ham sandwiches in this case, but I do doubt that he was ever convinced that the AV was telling the truth. So sue me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:53:15 AM EST
    Wumhenry, You wrote:
    I don't doubt that Nifong thought he could persuade a grand jury to indict the ham sandwiches in this case, but I do doubt that he was ever convinced that the AV was telling the truth. So sue me.
    Could be. I don't even know that Nifong was driving the engine. In my imagination the investigators probably found the accuser credible before Nifong even got involved. Until we know what the accuser actually claims happened to her, and what the players told the police in response, we're just whistling in the dark with our speculation. It's all very nice to decide the case on such questions as whether the accuser has ever lied before, or had sex before, or been mentally ill before, or whether the Duke players have ever excelled scholastically before, or been polite before, received the recommendations of Senators and Congressmen before, or peed on the neighbors house before, but what remains utterly unclear is what everyone was actually up to between the time of the dancing and the time of the exodus from the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#165)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:31:07 AM EST
    Do we even know if the DA actually reviews all the evidence himself or does he depend on those below him to do that for him? I could then make a case for an over eager investigator ultimately sinking the DA's ship.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#166)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    I posted that there may be players participating in the Blue Wall of Silence that were at the party and don't know, but don't think, anything happened in the bathroom. Others here replied that in a house that size everyone would know if an attack took place. Here's one party-goer that had to ask his captains if anything happened.
    Clute said his son told him that he had not witnessed anything at the party, and was so concerned about the allegations that he had gone to the captains to ask whether anything had happened. "The captain looked him the eye and said nothing happened," said Clute, a government contractor.
    Wow. We have the players parents, former headmasters and coaches saying they know these boys couldn't have done what was alleged, but here is a teammate that was at the party who had to ASK his captains if anything happened. Wow.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#167)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:55:02 AM EST
    from the Washington Post article:
    Over the months, tensions erupted over legal strategies and fears of which son might be handcuffed next. The less-affluent parents have worried about how to pay legal bills. The wealthy ones swore they would spend every last penny clearing the names of the indicted.
    I wonder if the parents of the players that were not at the party at all said, "Why should our sons risk indictment and we risk the financial burden of an indictment to provide cover for your sons who planned this party, chose to attend, pitched in to hire strippers and behaved in a manner that led to this mess?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:56:36 AM EST
    Do we even know if the DA actually reviews all the evidence himself or does he depend on those below him to do that for him? I could then make a case for an over eager investigator ultimately sinking the DA's ship.
    If he didn't review the evidence for a case as high profile as this one he's a moron.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#169)
    by wumhenry on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:02:40 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    There is nothing here that discounts the essentials of the AV's story.
    You think the medical finding of no evidence of injury to the AV's throat or neck doesn't belie her story that she was strangled? If she was lying when she said she was strangled, how likely is it that she was telling the truth when she said that she was raped? Not very, IMO.
    The defense did spin. And nearly everybody bought it.
    No defense spin that I've heard of in this case can hold a candle to the prosecution's mischaracterization of the medical findings.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    Lora:
    That Kim didn't find the purse inside tends to confirm the AV's account to Shelton of her money being taken when she was pulled out of the car and groped.
    How does one confirm the other, exactly? When, according to Kim's statement was Precious pulled out of the car and groped, anyway? Lora:
    The defense did spin. And nearly everybody bought it.
    How did the defense spin Kim's statement? Did they forge it? What is your theory here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:07:02 AM EST
    PB,
    Just because the woman who go to Duke don't consider themselves feminists
    Clarity is everything, especially when making poorly supported generalities. You didn't say "Just because some women at Duke don't consider themselves feminists," you used the term "THE woman (sic)," which is patently ridiculous. Perhaps you'll disagree, but I'm of the opinion that good feminism requires the view of women as individuals, with individual capabilities and belief systems. Blanket statements like "the women who go to Duke" don't seem to reflect a very high opinion of the women who attend that university, especially as it pertains to ther ability to, in the feminist tradition, think for themselves. But perhaps you really only did mean "some women," in which case, I rather wish you'd said so to begin with, as it would have made your argument much stronger. After all, I'd hate to have someone read that and remark that feminists use unsubstantiated hyperbole in all of their arguments.. . hmm. . ?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:08:54 AM EST
    One of the problems, to my mind, about this case is that Nifong was too involved, too soon, in the investigation. My "take" is that initially the police did NOT believe the AV, hence the delays in searching the house, interviewing witnesses, seizing potential evidence. I think once Nifong (who was, as I recall filling in somehow and in some way for the Police Chief who was taking care of his seriously ill spouse) became aware of the AV's rape allegaions, he began running the investigation. If that is so, then my objection to that is something along the lines of checks and balances being thrown out of whack. The police should do a thorough preliminary investigation, and THEN if they believe a crime occurred, turn over their findings to the DA. Having the DA involved, and "pretty sure" a rape occurred before HIS police officers/investigators make that finding is bass-ackwards.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:11:57 AM EST
    noname: But "Precious" WAS pulled out of the car at the Kroger. Maybe the cops groped her. {Warning: humor attempt}

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:14:19 AM EST
    Lora: Another possible confirmation of the
    AV's story is Kim's comment about the AV at Kroger's: "They tried to talk to her and ask questions but the only thing she would mutter was no." "No?" Why "no?" If she'd been raped, "no" would have been an appropriate thing to say.
    Or, if the cops kept asking/telling her to let go of the hand brake/gearshift whatever she was clinging to and get out of the car, "no" would be a consistent answer to them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#175)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    beenaround
    IMHO says:
    from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man.
    Please tell us truthfully what you think she was doing?
    Maybe the same thing she was hired to do at 610 N. Buchanan. Perhaps that is what the defense motion is calling "involved in some sexual manner" with men? An account of one of these hotel drop-offs, supposedly, coming from the accuser, herself, has her "involved in some sexual manner" with a "small [redacted] (sex toy)." If you jump back severalthreads, more than a few posters here said the accuser had sex with at least four different men that weekend. They know no such thing, but they don't let that stop them. beenaround posted:
    Please tell us truthfully what you think she was doing?
    Giving people tuition in how to respect a hardworking mother of two?
    Does Mrs. Evans have two children? I've heard those LPGA ladies can be brutal to each other, but I'm sure, if David stops hiring strippers, that reportedly, performed sex acts on each other while buck-naked, the hardworking Rae will regain the respect of the LPGA ladies' someday.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#176)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    SharonIn Jax posted:
    One of the problems, to my mind, about this case is that Nifong was too involved, too soon, in the investigation.
    At what point did Nifong become involved?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#177)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    You think the medical finding of no evidence of injury to the AV's throat or neck doesn't belie her story that she was strangled?
    You think the medical finding of no evidence of fresh injury to the legs and buttocks discredits this description of the defense photos?
    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.
    What about all the bruising to her legs that the defense attorneys claim she had on arrival?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    imho: you said
    Maybe the same thing she was hired to do at 610 N. Buchanan. Perhaps that is what the defense motion is calling "involved in some sexual manner" with men?
    Does that mean you think the AV was lying when she told the N&O reporter that the Duke party was her first outcall as a "dancer"? Or when she said her escort duties were "one on one dates"? As to Nifong's involvement in the investigation: I clearly said it was "my take" on the flow of what happened. As to the exact timing of his involvement, I of course do not know. I do know that Nifong was making his public comments about the case by March 23, before an initial investigation had been completed, before DNA results came in. I do know that Nifong directed that the photo lineup be done the way it was. I do know that Nifong was making comments about this being a racially motivated case before he had any proof of that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#179)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    Jo posted:
    If the AV has had Flexeril, beer, and some strong mixed drinks, I would not put any weight on just her mumbling, "no". I would be interested to know, did she scream or pull away when touched while sitting in the car at Kroger's, or did she only try to prevent herself from being removed from the car?
    I guess one could also say they wouldn't put any much weight on her seemingly contradictory or confused reporting of the sexual assault.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    And, imho: what's this all about?
    Does Mrs. Evans have two children? I've heard those LPGA ladies can be brutal to each other, but I'm sure, if David stops hiring strippers, that reportedly, performed sex acts on each other while buck-naked, the hardworking Rae will regain the respect of the LPGA ladies' someday.
    Intentionally misreading beenaround's post? beenaround said nothing about any of the accuseds' mothers, why did you twist it that way? Personal animus toward women golfers in general, or just the ones who have sons who are accused of rape? Sometimes your cheap shots toward the players and their families confound me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#181)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    SharonInJax: But "Precious" WAS pulled out of the car at the Kroger. Maybe the cops groped her. {Warning: humor attempt} That actually could be a valid point. Whether she was raped or not, if she was truly in as bad a state as some have said (traumatized or inebriated) she could have simply remembered a man pulling her out of the car and later assumed it was a player when it was really the police officer. Any struggle on her part could easily have resulted in inadvertent, but inappropriate contact. Is this too far fetched a scenario to bother with, or is it a legitimate explanation of how Precious could say she was pulled from the car and groped by players despite Kim never witnessing the event?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    Just to clarify, I am not suggesting the police officer actually groped her. I am saying that during the struggle to get her out of the car he might have had to grab her in a way that would seem that way to someone too traumatized/inebriated to think straight.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Filing (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    I've put up a new weekend open thread on the Duke case here. Check out the WaPo article on how the families of the players are coping, but feel free to discuss all aspects of the case. Comments are closing here.