home

Duke Lacrosse Open Thread

The last Duke thread is full. Here's a place to keep the conversation going.

< Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources | No Fitzmas? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:30:11 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    TL, funny I never read about it. The link you gave is dead on my computer, am I doing something wrong.
    Talk Left dropped the last letter of the link. Here it is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:36:11 AM EST
    IMHO:
    InnocentByStander did.
    I don't want to keep talking about this, because it is off topic and nit-picky, but niether InnocentByStander nor you ever pointed out an oral rape carried out without a weapon. I tried to argue what mattered (that the McDonald's case was not analogous because she was not fighting back when oral sex was initiated) and InnocentByStander said,
    StrawMan........I was not referring to that statement. You switched the argument. Newport said to name one case of oral rape that did not involve a weapon such as a gun or a knife and I did it. People say, "Name one. Just name one." and even if you do they won't admit it.
    If you and InnocentByStander want to play that game, fine. Sodomy is not rape. Sexual abuse is not rape. Once again, no one was charged, plead guilty, or was convicted of rape in the McDonald's case. I am dropping this subject at this point as it has nothing to do with the Duke case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:59 AM EST
    Sorry, TL, I posted a couple things about Duke in the wrong place. Regarding SLOphoto's comment of 12:18A.M.: One of IMHO's repeated themes, when she's not playing "the defense lied" or "there is no proof that the AV had sex before the rape", is that the lacrosse players would have been better off cooperating with the authorities. I refer her to Junior Murvin's "Police And Thieves" which was covered by The Clash.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:57:19 AM EST
    It's also a hoot for anyone (that is, IMHO) to be telling the lacrosse players that they all would have been better off cooperating with the authorities in this case. The AV, who apparently was completely believed by the police and the DA, seems to provide three different answers for every question asked her. Considering how clearly unreliable AV was out of the gate, and how the police and DA repeatedly discarded anything exculpatory on their way to indicting the three men, I don't see how anything that they may have done would have altered the course of events. So I'll ask: What could the players have done differently to be better off than their current situation?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:12:52 AM EST
    On the last thread IMHO wrote: I've always stated that I do not know if the accuser is lying or the if the players [almost all through their attorneys] are lying. Most of my posts deal with correcting what I see to be misstatement of facts by the media, attorneys and other commenters. We all require a level of proof in order to believe anything. None of us were present at the party and so are on the outside looking in to determine what the facts of this case were. IMHO: Since you are just an impartial corrector of misstatements, could you maybe mention whatever the AV said or that she reportedly said in official documents that you have questioned? Also, do you believe the AV was gang raped at that party?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:19:27 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Obviously, IMHO, you have never been the victim of a police setup.
    I'm sure I have plenty of company. SLOphoto posted:
    Obviously you have never actually worked on the inside directly with police officers over a long period of years.
    Actually, I am well aware of the workings of law enforcement - from the inside. If the people with whom you have experience are the norm, we'd be seeing a lot more suspected wrongful convictions than we do. The truth is most people plead to lesser crimes than not only they are charged with, but than what they actually, often by their own admission, committed. Look at the accuser's "night on the town." She fully cooperated [once the police chase was over ;)] and was treated more than fairly. She made a wise decision. SLOphoto posted:
    The fact that you "don't believe ANY of the players would be in a worse position" for having coöperated just shows that you have never personally seen what actually can happen -- sometimes -- to naïve people who think just like you do.
    I've seen what has happened to savvy people like the once-proud Duke lacrosse team. SLOphoto posted:
    You can pontificate about this all you want, IMHO, but it is obvious that you've never seen it from the inside. You don't know what everybody who has ever worked on the inside knows from long personal experience -- that there are just about as many cops and robbers among cops as anybody else. And that goes for DA's too.
    Read my post on the subject, then read your own. I think you've out-pontificated me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:33:44 AM EST
    Actually Newport said something more like "show me some cases" and he said that oral rape without a weapon (like a gun or a knife preferably held to the victims throat)would be extremely rare. Newport wins . I would just like to try and make my point because it is a good one. He couldn't "concieve" of an oral rape without a weapon because a sane man would be afraid of being bitten. TV gives us the false impression that we can "concieve" what any given crime would look like. Any hollywood director would give the "rapist" a scary looking prop to hold to the "victims" throat. I pointed out a few "real" dramas, (code in ER, box recorder of airplane crashing) that I thought he might have actually seen or heard, and noted that it is not as it appears on TV drama. I am sorry that I was not clear. The case I found although not a conviction of "oral rape" actually showed pictures of what most people would view as an oral rape. I wanted to contrast TV with "real" and I can't imagine a better "case" for that. Truth is stranger than fiction. There is no weapon and people don't behave at all in the ways we might imagine. I don't see how defining rape is off topic. Calling people names should not be okay here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:48:21 AM EST
    ok, much as i hesitate to ask this, has there been any recent evidence come to light on this case? frankly, i'm beginning to get the sneaking suspicion that this is going to end up being among the biggest cases that never was, solely based on what i've seen so far. of course, i could be wrong. frankly, i hope i'm not, but not for the reason you might think. i hope i'm not wrong, because i hope the AV wasn't raped, because rape is such an abominable crime.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:56:03 AM EST
    I am not going to waste my time combing cases for anyone, but victims are beaten and/or choked, threatened, and then ordered to orally copulate a man. It is not rare.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:59:48 AM EST
    Imho-
    It's not about hiring strippers, it's about how they reacted when the stripper party went bad. The whole team's reputation is sullied from the broomstick joke/threat and the racial slurs because the players who made those remarks are cowardly hiding behind the Blue Wall. The code of silence they adopted in protection of one another is what led many people to conclude the players are morally deficient.
    Thank you. Sharon -
    But how, then, can you defend Nifong's behavior, conduct, speaking, and the lack thereof since the election? If he has half the faith in her that all of you have shown on this board, he should do something, say something, NOW.
    Actually, at the other board I post on, I had been critical of Nifong. However that board is a feminist board so it doesn't focus exclusively on this case and was really more covering some of the disappointing reactions to it from the beginning (which really reminds us why its so hard for rape victims). Coming over here, the commentary was critical if not hostile to Nifong for everything from his possible motives, to perceived lies, to actions. The defense, on the other hand, haven't been held to as high a standard, at least on this board, so it kind of re-wired my willingness to go after Nifong's every which move.
    But do you have a son? If so, have you asked yourself how you would feel if he had been wrongly accused of rape, and particularly the rape charged in this case? If you don't have a son, how about a brother, or father, or husband? Would you want any male in your life to have to go through what the accused are going through, based on the AV's accusations, and damnall little more?
    I'm not imho and I don't have a daughter, but I know six women who have been raped, 1 of them twice (yes ... it can happen. Yes, they can go through life without reporting either). One was gang-raped, the rapist of another one had raped at least 1 other woman. One - with the rapist who is known to have raped another woman (and even apologized to my friend) - has a severe depression and possibly bi-polar disorder which had nothing to do with her being raped though I'm certain Bob In Pacifica will decide he should be the judge of that. None of them have ever pressed charges. I know just from reading here what kind of things would be slung at them if they did: "why did she run away from home? And there were a bunch of boys where she stayed, she probably wanted it!", "she was friends with him and they went on a bus together like they always did; she probably planned it! What was she wearing? Was it provocative?", "she is obviously depressed so it certainly is something she made up in her head", "what was she doing wandering around like that? If she really had to use the bathroom, why would she be stupid enough to ask a stranger? Just go in the bushes! She was probably whoring so who cares!". I know of one man who was falsely accused of rape. Not arrested for it, not charged for it, and it was actually by a man he beat up badly after he stole his kid's Easter candy and electronic toys one Sunday morning. He said he had raped his girlfriend to try and up the charges that would be against him. You know what the perpetrator did when he heard that would be in the report? TALKED. Was open about it, was honest about what went down, admitted everything he did, said why he did it, told the police the woman wasn't even in the city (she wasn't, she was at a University), made sure nobody else in the house took the blame for anything that could have went down between them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:02:47 AM EST
    TL, how many times does one have to sign in, daily? is there a server problem still?
    Actually, I am well aware of the workings of law enforcement - from the inside. If the people with whom you have experience are the norm, we'd be seeing a lot more suspected wrongful convictions than we do. The truth is most people plead to lesser crimes than not only they are charged with, but than what they actually, often by their own admission, committed. Look at the accuser's "night on the town." She fully cooperated [once the police chase was over ;)] and was treated more than fairly. She made a wise decision.
    IMHO, were this truly the case, than you would know better than to make such an uniformed comment, about the team members having been better off, had they fully cooperated with the authorities, right up front. i'm going to repeat this again, for those of you either on drugs, or just blissfully unaware: should you be the focus of interest, by the authorities, with respect to a criminal event, do not, i repeat, do not cooperate in any way, shape or form with said authorities, without your attorney present. the police are not your friend. they are not looking out for your best interests. they are looking to make an arrest and get a conviction, period.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    InnocentBystander - I agree with with what you are saying about TV vs. real life, and how TV alters our expectations. It is a very good point, in fact, and important to remember. I just don't agree with your example (McDonald's case) because I don't think it was rape (and the courts seemed to agree).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Look at the accuser's "night on the town." She fully cooperated [once the police chase was over ;)] and was treated more than fairly. She made a wise decision.
    Fortunately for her, Nifong had no reason to fear he'd lose an election if he let her off easy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:29:41 AM EST
    BTW, what does "cooperate fully" entail when the police already have enough evidence to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, having caught you red-handed?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:32:04 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    For the NPR story, try this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:53:00 AM EST
    Wow. This is definitely inconsistant with her written statement. So now she claims she went back to the house looking for the AV and didn't find her? That's strange, because in her written statement she says she went back looking for the AV's purse (leaving the AV in the car). I wonder what she will "remember" on the stand.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    It is also interesting that while in the written statement, the players ask her for help getting the AV to the car, but that in this new version it is Kim who is trying to organize the effort.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:56:01 AM EST
    You also have to like how 5 minutes of seperation has now turned into "chain-smoking" in the car for an unknown time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    What a crock.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:07:24 AM EST
    What do you think of the job Juan Willimas did in story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:11:11 AM EST
    noname posted:
    I don't want to keep talking about this, because it is off topic and nit-picky, but niether InnocentByStander nor you ever pointed out an oral rape carried out without a weapon.
    InnocentByStander did just that. Here is the video of that oral rape being carried out without a weapon. The man in the video who threatened to hit the 18 year old woman again if she did not perform oral sex on him was charged with sodomy. Neither oral nor an@l consensual sodomy is a crime in Kentucky if both participants are over 16 years of age. To be charged with sodomy in Kentucky is to be charged with forcibly compelling oral or anal sex. noname posted:
    If you and InnocentByStander want to play that game, fine. Sodomy is not rape. Sexual abuse is not rape. Once again, no one was charged, plead guilty, or was convicted of rape in the McDonald's case.
    In Kentucky, the legal term for oral rape is sodomy. Mr. Nix was charged with sodomy for forcibly compelling the young woman to perform oral sex on him. He plead to a lesser charge which requires Nix to serve time in prison, to register as a sex offender and to testify against the alleged perpetrator of the hoax. The point of your "just name one" challenge was to show someone could carry out an oral rape out without a weapon. noname posted:
    I am dropping this subject at this point as it has nothing to do with the Duke case.
    InnocentByStander posted:
    Newport said to name one case of oral rape that did not involve a weapon such as a gun or a knife and I did it.
    People say, "Name one. Just name one." and even if you do they won't admit it.
    Newport said if they exist they are rare, it was noname that said "Just name one." You did, InnocentByStander. Here's a case that resulted in a conviction on two counts of oral rape that were carried out without a weapon:
    The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Jones, Appellee.
    [Cite as State v. Jones (1997), ______ Ohio St.3d ______.]
    Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 14649.
    In the early morning hours of February 3, 1994, Teressa Robinson found herself abandoned by friends in an unfamiliar neighborhood of Dayton. While searching for a telephone, she encountered Andre Jones, defendant-appellee, who offered to help. Instead, he led her to a nearby park, struck her in the face, and commanded her to perform oral sex. Robinson complied out of fear.
    ..... again forced Robinson to perform oral sex.
    ..... Jones contended at trial that all the sexual contact was consensual.
    The jury found Jones guilty of two counts of oral rape, ...
    The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    From the Juan Williams interview: Roberts says that after the racial slurs (and broomstick comment?), she "runs outside" by herself and locks her car doors. She declines to elaborate more on the details. Williams commentary follows: "Roberts says the other dancer soon joined her in the car. Some men came out to demand a refund because the women had danced for fewer than five minutes. She says the men also made racist comments. Roberts says the other dancer got out of the car and went back inside to get a purse. Roberts nervously waited in the car chain smoking. She's unsure how much time passed. Roberts went back into the house to look for the other woman, but didn't see her. It's during this time that the rape allegedly occurred. When she (Roberts) returned to the car, someone yelled that the other dancer was passed out on the porch. Roberts asked the men to help woman get to the car." Roberts: "She's taking steps on her own, but her head is down and she gets into the car slumped over that same way. 'Slumped' is a good word to use." Then, the players continued to use racial insults, Roberts eventually called 911 from the car, then drove the other woman to a grocery store parking lot. From Kim Roberts' written statement: "-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. The(y) carried her by throwing her arms over their shoulder and assisting her walking to the car - I can't remember if only one boy helped or 2." So, from this, I get that Kim and "Precious" were separated twice, once when Kim left the party and left "Precious" behind and once when "Precious" returned to get her things. "Precious" only returned to the house one time, to get her shoe (according to Bissey) or purse (according to Kim) or to make more money (according to Kim's written statement). According to the Herald Sun article, "DA may seek indictments for 2 lacrosse players today" from April 16, 2006:
    Bissey said he saw the "skimpily dressed" accuser leave the house between 12:20 and 12:30 a.m., but then heard her say she was going back inside to retrieve a missing shoe.
    At 12:30, "Precious" was photographed on the back porch. So the window of opportunity is LESS THAN the ten minute window ceded by the defense team. She spent some time in the car with Kim before she returned to retrieve her property. If a rape occurred, someone spent some time fixing her up, cleaning up the evidence that may be on "Precious" and putting her clothing back in order.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    The incident in the McDonald's is irrelevant because the guy didn't put his dick at risk. (So I gather from comments here; I haven't viewed the video.) The Ohio case *is* relevant, but note that the victim submitted under duress without a struggle. The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Alan on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    It strikes me that it's interesting that both Pittman and Johnson add final paragraphs to their statement that reverse the direction of what their saying. Pittman recalls the Av left the car, although she's earlier not said that and Johnson suddenly remembers he's got the dates out by a week. I've listened to hundreds of recorded police interviews. Do interviews get recorded as matter of course in NC? In my jurisdiction the defence would be fairly enthusiastic to hear the tapes as opposed to reading the statements. The defence would also be reasonably interested in the contents of Johnson's phone, but I guess that's no longer available.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 14, 2006 10:51 AM
    The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.
    The crime of oral copulation doesn't require the victim deep throat the guy. It depends on the laws of the state. In California, penis pass the lips is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    The incident in the McDonald's is irrelevant because the guy didn't put his dick at risk. (So I gather from comments here; I haven't viewed the video.)
    He did. wumhenry posted:
    The Ohio case *is* relevant, but note that the victim submitted under duress without a struggle. The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.
    from The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Jones, Appellee:
    Instead, he led her to a nearby park, struck her in the face, and commanded her to perform oral sex. Robinson complied out of fear.
    AP Thursday, March 30, 2006:
    "The victim's four red polished fingernails were recovered inside the residence consistent to her version of the attack. She claimed she was clawing at one of the suspect's arms in an attempt to breath (sic) while being strangled. During that time the nails broke off," the police statement said.
    The Abrams Report' for April 4:
    COSBY: What did she say that the men said to her in that house?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE [accuser's father]: She said they were making racial slurs. They was calling her (BLANK) you know and all of that. She says she remember that while they were beating her.
    COSBY: What else did she describe about what it was like in the house?
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She did tell me she thought she was going to die. She said she thought they were going to kill her.
    Do we know how long she fought? Did she ever succumb out of fear?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    blakely wrote:
    The crime of oral copulation doesn't require the victim deep throat the guy. It depends on the laws of the state. In California, penis pass the lips is sufficient evidence for a conviction.
    If I were a wouldbe rapist confronting a resistant victim who is being held down by two accessories because she is unwilling to submit, I wouldn't want to put my naked penis anywhere within snapping distance of her mouth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    Juan Williams, in his NPR interview with Roberts, said that the trial may begin as early as this fall. This would seem to contradict Nifong's (much) earlier statement that he doesn't expect the case to go to trial before next year. Has anyone heard of this fall trial start date from any other source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    Even if the guy in the McDonald's put his thing in her mouth, it's not analogous. The distinguishing circumstances are: 1)she was compliant; the culprit did not need to have her forcibly restrained; 2)she was duped into believing that the guy in the room with her was acting under color of authority, following orders from a police officer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 14, 2006 11:52 AM blakely wrote:
    If I were a wouldbe rapist confronting a resistant victim who is being held down by two accessories because she is unwilling to submit, I wouldn't want to put my naked penis anywhere within snapping distance of her mouth.
    Yet, rapists do it all the time. Under your scenario, there is no such crime as forced oral cop.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    Yet, rapists do it all the time.
    It's commonplace for a rapist to stick his penis in the mouth of a resistant victim while others are forcibly restraining her?! What makes you think so?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 14, 2006 12:18 PM
    Yet, rapists do it all the time. It's commonplace for a rapist to stick his penis in the mouth of a resistant victim while others are forcibly restraining her?! What makes you think so?
    I didn't say it was commonplace, you did. And I'm not in the mood for word games. You implied that a rapist would not forceably orally cop a victim because the victim might bite them. I suggest you read more case facts. And as I stated earlier, forcing the penis past the lips without more, is enough for a charge and a conviction of forciable oral cop.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Even if the guy in the McDonald's put his thing in her mouth, it's not analogous.
    InnocentByStander brought up the McDonalds case because nonmame challenged anyone to "just name one" case of oral rape committed without a weapon. When InnocentByStander did, noname tried to say it was not oral rape because the perp was charged with sodomy. I brought up the case to inform him that in Kentucky oral rape is charged as sodomy. The perp does not deny he threatened to hit the victim again if she did not perform oral sex on him. It is all on video . I did not say the McDonalds case is analogous to the charges against Seligmann. I brought it up to show that InnocentByStander was correct.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    wumhenry, If a woman is being forced, by only one man, to orally copulate him, she could chance biting him and running for her life. If she is trapped in a bathroom with two more attackers, I doubt many women would consider the "bite and run" tactic a viable option.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    IMHO is fond of hypotheticals and splitting hairs ... and says:
    If a woman is being forced, by only one man, to orally copulate him, she could chance biting him and running for her life. If she is trapped in a bathroom with two more attackers, I doubt many women would consider the "bite and run" tactic a viable option.
    Contrary to the belief of some, and in my somewhat limited experience, women do not have teeth in their vaginas or anuses ... Never having been in the situation that wumhenry describes, and proclaiming that I never will, I do, however, think that IMHO clearly does not have a penis, because the risk of losing it clearly cannot cross IMHO's mind. In my opinion, no male would put his penis in the mouth of a struggling female.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    As seems to be the case here, Wumhenry's comments are right on point. The focus is not on whether the woman would bite during a violent struggle, (most women probably wouldn't out of fear, although I wish they would just take the raper's member right off), the focus is on the man that would put his member at risk of being bitten off. I submitted that such a man would have to be insane to insert his member into the mouth of a woman who was violently fighting off his advances. I stand by my comments. The case cited does not involve anyone fighting back as Precious said she did during this alleged assault. The assault Precious alleged was vicious and filled with violence, she was hit, kicked, beaten and choked according to her statement and she WAS FIGHTING BACK, scratching and clawing for her very life against these crazed men. (Never mind that there is no evidence of that other than Rita Cosby and the father.) Wumhenry stated:
    The incident in the McDonald's is irrelevant because the guy didn't put his dick at risk. (So I gather from comments here; I haven't viewed the video.) The Ohio case *is* relevant, but note that the victim submitted under duress without a struggle. The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.
    Wumhenry is correct. He didn't put his dick at risk with this compliant victim. Precious was not complaint, she was fighting back like mad. Wumhenry further stated:
    Even if the guy in the McDonald's put his thing in her mouth, it's not analogous. The distinguishing circumstances are: 1)she was compliant; the culprit did not need to have her forcibly restrained; 2)she was duped into believing that the guy in the room with her was acting under color of authority, following orders from a police officer.
    I agree.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    blakely wrote:
    I didn't say it was commonplace, you did.
    That's right, I said "commonplace." What you said is that rapists "do it all the time." Same-same.
    And I'm not in the mood for word games.
    ?! ;)
    You implied that a rapist would not forceably orally cop a victim because the victim might bite them.
    More precisely, I'm saying that it's not likely that anyone in his right mind would try to put his dick in the mouth of a resisting victim who's being forcibly restrained by accomplices.
    I suggest you read more case facts.
    If you know of cases where a rapist put his dick in a victim's mouth while she was being forcibly restrained by others, tell us about 'em.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    Bob asked:
    So I'll ask: What could the players have done differently to be better off than their current situation?
    Here are my thoughts on this: 1) they should have not invited strippers of any race into their house. They should have gone to a strip club if they so desired. So what if the underclassmen didn't have ID's to get in, they should have figured out a way to get in or just given up on the idea of seeing strippers; 2) they should have sent Precious home the moment they saw her coming around the corner in her dancing outfit with no undergarments. I don't care about the underaged drinking crap. 100 percent of all college students are guilty of it since they changed the drinking age from 18 to 21. All this did was move underaged drinking from on campus to off campus where the university has less ability to control the problem. I also don't care about the peeing off the porch, etc. It's disgusting and I would never do it, but most men seem to think it's OK to do this especially on golf courses here in Orange Country.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    If she is trapped in a bathroom with two more attackers, I doubt many women would consider the "bite and run" tactic a viable option.
    As Newport said, you have to look at it from the guy's point of view, because it's his decision. I wouldn't want to risk *my* penis on an assumption that a struggling victim who wasn't afraid to stratch her assailants would draw the line at biting. Moving right along: I don't find it hard to believe that a struggling victim might be afraid to bite a wouldbe rapist's dick. But would she be afraid to keep her mouth closed? A blowjob requires *active cooperation.* To allege that one was struggling yet gave someone a blowjob doesn't jibe.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    From the defense motion: Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;... Defense motion with [typos] corrected: Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman [does not] inform the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she [did not] stay there;... hahahha! Yeah, typos. Osborn needs a new legal secretary. Weird how a few well placed [typos] can change the whole impact of the defense arguement.
    Try this on for size IMHO: Defense motion with [typos] corrected: Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in his typed summary of this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;... How's that? You happy now that the typos are corrected?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by weezie on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    Jua Williams' NPR snow job was actually laughable. Kim managed to make up a whole new fairy tale. The image of Kim locked into her car and chain smoking while she fretted about the FA's whereabout was pure fantasyland. Williams should be ashamed of pushing such garbage.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    Yesterday I posted:
    TL and others, I wonder why the defense has not yet filed a motion to suppress the photo id's. That seems to me to be the strongest dispositive motion to be filed. It will obviously take some work, not a quickie like the recent motion, but they are no doubt going to file it soon. I suspect they are waiting for discovery to understand the full scope of ALL the attempts at obtaining an ID and description of these alleged to be involved. In the article re Professor Coleman requesting a special prosecutor, he states that it was the photographic ID that caused him the most concern in this case. I really don't understand the motivation of the Durham PD not to include fillers in the photo lineup to challenge the accuser's credibility. I understand Nifong's motivations, but I do not understand what the Durham PD and especially this Himan has to not perform proper police work. Wasn't Himan the investigator they sent after the poor cabbie. The police department doesn't answer to the DA as far as I know, but it sure seems like they do in this case.
    And, TL responded:
    The defense filed a motion to suppress the photo lineup weeks ago. You can read it here.
    TL: That motion is to suppress the identification order and all the fruits of the ID order and is what I have been discussing for the last two days. That motion was filed last Thursday I believe. What my post was asking your opinion on was a yet to be filed motion to suppress the photgraphic identification was unduly suggestive under the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I understand that as a defense attorney you have strong experience with the standards for running a proper photographic ID. Why has that motion not been filed? Too early? According to Woodie Van, a Durham attorney, Nifong doesn't have to respond to any of these motions. What happens then? Is the defense attorney just throwing motions over the transom knowing that they will be decided when some judge gets around to it? And the judge that decides said motions will just grant them because Nifong doesn't have to respond? I guess what I don't understand is how this works in a criminal case. How can the DA not have to file a written response to a dispositive motion without the fear that it will be granted? If it was me, I would file an opposition immediately out of fear that my opponents motion might be granted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    Penis biting. Is a rape victim supposed to think that a bite will not result in a more serious injury? I would argue that a rape victim would not be far off in assuming that if one is willing to rape them, one might be willing to inflict more serious harm up to and including murder and would be hard pressed to bite in that situation. I do not buy the argument that a rapist would be afraid of a bite because they are raping by force and have the victim concerned about how much farther they would be willing to take it. That said, I do not believe she was assaulted....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    Jlvngstn: are you a man? Any man I know would be afraid of a bite. Ask around.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    jlvngstn says:
    I do not buy the argument that a rapist would be afraid of a bite because they are raping by force and have the victim concerned about how much farther they would be willing to take it.
    Clearly, like IMHO, you don't have a penis either. Why stick it in an orifice that has lots of teeth that can be accidentally used when a vagina or an anus has no teeth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    beenaround posted:
    In my opinion, no male would put his penis in the mouth of a struggling female.
    Do we know how long she struggled? Did she ever succumb out of fear? Not even when she was being strangled and attempting to breathe? Did she say she thought they were going to kill her?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    Yes, it is interesting that each time Kim talks about the alleged rape (and events before and after) she changes her story. The girl is a nut job and a fantastical liar. She is totally unbelievable and, I would imagine, would cause all sorts of problems for the prosecution (should they call her to testify). The Williams interview was just another (AP, Vanity Fair, initial interview with DPD) example of the "Kim Spin". (Eventually, she will get it right.) It was pure comedy. Yikes. What was up with the FAKE tears? Does anybody (really) buy this garbage? P.S. I do not have a p*nis, but if I did, I would most certainly not stick it in that dirty girl's mouth regardless of the circumstances.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    beenaround posted:
    Why stick it in an orifice that has lots of teeth that can be accidentally used when a vagina or an anus has no teeth.
    Except that in this case the FA says both were already in use!!!!!!! So I guess Seligman was so insane or drugged out of his mind that this was his only choice. The insanity of this case is without parallel. How could the police not weed this out as a hoax? For all you feminists out there like Durga, Lora, IMHO etc., this case will set back protection of the rights of real rape victims for years to come. The damage this one vicious, mentally ill woman has caused and will continue to cause on our collective judgment is unfathonable. This case has also set back the notion of justice in this country and faith in the justice system. If these rich white boys with fancy pants lawyers could be railroaded right under the shining media spotlight of this case, what chance do the rest of us have. What change do the poor and helpless have. WHY ARE ALL LIBERALS NOT CHALLENGING THIS FA? You know why. Because the race is not right. Pathetic and all liberals who have not stood up against this railroading should be ashamed. This is why I have great respect for TL who is a liberal, but a rare fair minded one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    Yep, I be a man. And being that rape is about power and control and a great deal of victims are in shock or beaten into submission, I can clearly see how a woman would be afraid to bite. If a man can commit rape, what is to stop him from killing? Ridiculous argument.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    By the way, you two sound as if you have never had your arse kicked. If you have ever been in a fight and been on the losing end, you cannot wait for the beating to end. I have been on both sides of that equation and getting pummelled is a pain I would rather not ever experience again. So I can relate with a woman who is scared of getting hurt worse or just scared of the consequences. Why do you think so many violent crimes that happen in broad daylight where no one helps turn out that way? Because people are afraid that the crazy kids beating up on one person might have a knife or a gun.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:36:08 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure Jlvngstn is a man.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    jlvngstn says:
    Yep, I be a man. And being that rape is about power and control and a great deal of victims are in shock or beaten into submission, I can clearly see how a woman would be afraid to bite. If a man can commit rape, what is to stop him from killing? Ridiculous argument.
    Ahhh, you have fallen for those silly feminist myths about rape being about power and control.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    By the way, you two sound as if you have never had your arse kicked.
    Yeah livingston I was in a lot of fights growing up and all were necessary to protect myself. And I never once had my ass kicked because my dad taught me how to stand up for myself when I was real young. Somehow, I'll bet you got your ass kicked a lot.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    beenaround, let's say for sake of argument that it is not about power and control. Tell me what happens during a rape. If there is no force than the woman should retaliate and kick his arse. If there is force and she does bite and he beats her into a coma, does that sound like a pleasant outcome? If I were in prison and was being raped I would fight, but would I fight until death? Hell no. I would get me a shiv and cut the pokers eyes out next time in the mess hall or in the weight room. I am pretty sure that most victims of rape want it to be over and do not want to get the holy hell beat out of them so it seems reasonable that the fear of retribution for a bite, might outweigh the desire to do so. But then again, I have never raped anyone, do you have some special insight we should know about?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    hey Newport, I am game I am in Chicago, and I am really terrified by words. I workout at Crunch and would love to lace em up with you. Say when.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    They have a facility at Halsted and North avenue and you name the day and we can go 3 rounds of course, my guess is that you will not last more than one but if you are a gamer well then I am your huckleberry.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    Keep working out Crunch. Maybe it will stop you from getting your ass kicked so much.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    Come on now Newport all I want is 3 rounds. I am much more refined these days, don't need to square off in the street like pond scum, I prefer laces and leather. I am game.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    NPR Kim:
    I run outside and lock my car doors
    . 1st Draft Kim:
    I went to the bathroom with Precious and told her I wanted to leave. Precious felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet. She was uncontrollable at this point and was yelling at the boys who were knocking on the door to leave us alone. I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom and exited the house w/ my dancing gear on. I went to the car wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone.
    Maybe Kim is trying to impeach herself so neither side calls her to testify

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Racially motivated insults are never appropriate, but how do they equate with what is alleged in this case? Are the accused boys the ones that hurled insults? Seligman wasn't even there.
    You don't know who called who what and what was said by the dancers.
    How does urinating off the porch equate with what is alleged in this case? Where was Seligmann when the women were dancing and insults were being hurled? Do you know who was urinating off the porch? It seems you mentioned the underage drinking, hiring strippers and public urinating, but avoided the reprehensible behavior of some of the players. Maybe because at least some of their behavior didn't fit your "boys will be boys" excuse.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    IMHO, what about my typo correction? You didn't like it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    Jlvngstn posted to Newport:
    They have a facility at Halsted and North avenue and you name the day and we can go 3 rounds of course,
    I never thought I'd be in your corner, Jlvngstn, but my money's on you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Crunch wrote,
    Come on now Newport all I want is 3 rounds. I am much more refined these days, don't need to square off in the street like pond scum, I prefer laces and leather. I am game.
    I am more of a bare knuckles brawler so I guess I would prefer the street like pond scum.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    I see only bare knuckles is the excuse. We can wear 6 ouncers and abide by UFC rules. I am game for that, just would prefer not to get arrested for "bare knuckles". I can come to you to. I am sure that California has a few gyms that will allow two grown men to scrap it out with 6 ouncers......

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap. If I had a nickel for every time I heard some jamoke say how tough he was and never lost a fight....Reminds me of the guys who go to Vegas 3x a year and never loses money. Marciano was the last man I know of who never lost a fight and have yet to meet someone who retired after a trip to Vegas...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    IMHO,
    what about my typo correction? You didn't like it?
    I got side-tracked, but I'm on it. While you're waiting, maybe you could comment on that Ohio oral rape case. Convicted on two counts of oral rape. No weapon. It wasn't hard to find, though maybe I just got lucky. It was the first result on my first google search.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    You know what Livingston, I don't know you and you don't know me. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to play your juvenille little game anymore and I am not going to respond to you further.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    May I suggest a duel? Just think of the hits TalkLeft would get.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    I got side-tracked, but I'm on it. While you're waiting, maybe you could comment on that Ohio oral rape case. Convicted on two counts of oral rape. No weapon. It wasn't hard to find, though maybe I just got lucky. It was the first result on my first google search.
    I already responded to that one. There was not a noncompliant victim in that case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    jlvngstn says:
    But then again, I have never raped anyone, do you have some special insight we should know about?
    Can't resist ascribing the worst to someone who disagrees with you, eh?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    lol, a duel. I like that. Newport, I know you, you are the guy who never lost a fight. I am the guy who won some lost some. For me, it sounds like a great honor to meet someone who has never lost. I mean, that is the stuff legends are made of. I challenge you to a legal match with 6 ouncers and UFC rules which is fairly open. I bet we could do a pay per view, "the man who never lost" against the panty waist. It would appear that I would be the underdog in this match so I am hard pressed to understand why you would duck and cover. The anonymity (sp) of blogging provides a great forum for those who are legendary, unfortunately for you I don't buy it. If I ever meet a Marciano relative I will make sure to inform them that I have made the acquaintance of his blogging equal...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    Ahhh, you have fallen for those silly feminist myths about rape being about power and control.
    Back at ya. Did you have a problem with a feminist or is it that hard to believe that a frightened woman being forcibly raped by a man might not do a damned thing to exacerbate the situation any further?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    Does it make sense that the AV be beaten so severely and be dominated so absolutely such that she, in fear of her life, did not bite the Johnson that her attackers force into her mouth, and that she then, a few minutes later, would willingly and of her own volition walk back into the company of these very same violent, perhaps murderous, even, rapists to collect her belongings? Just doesn't sound remotely plausible to me. Newport, fyi, Jl, like you, thinks the AV is full of sh!t. In the main, he's in your corner in this debate. He's also been around TL for a long time. We don't often agree on much, but we do in general on this case (ie., it's a crock)- which means we agree with you in general. And he's a stand-up guy. I think he'd be a much more interesting dude to throw back a couple belts with, than a few punches at. fwiw.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 14, 2006 02:12 PM Painstakingly transcribed by imho:
    If you work, I hope you are self-employed and painstakingly transcribing on your own dime.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    In a comment posted at 1:39PM, I conceded that a woman who's being assaulted by a wouldbe rapist might well be afraid to bite his dick, but went on to make two points:
    As Newport said, you have to look at it from the guy's point of view, because it's his decision. I wouldn't want to risk *my* penis on an assumption that a struggling victim who wasn't afraid to stratch her assailants would draw the line at biting. Moving right along: I don't find it hard to believe that a struggling victim might be afraid to bite a wouldbe rapist's dick. But would she be afraid to keep her mouth closed? A blowjob requires *active cooperation.* To allege that one was struggling yet gave someone a blowjob doesn't jibe.
    Instead of continuing to rehash the conceded assertion, jlvngstn, why don't you respond to this?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    WUM- Fear. Really I don't understand why anyone would question what a terrified woman would or wouldn't do. it is hard because I do not think an assault happened here, however, when considering the alternative i.e. ending up in a coma or dead, I would have to side with having a penis in my mouth. I will live to fight another day or do anything to get it over with. Again, being afraid of serious bodily harm can do wonders for what you are willing and unwilling to do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    I think it is pretty easy for a man to say, I would refuse and kick some arse, because men are not generally raped outside of prison. But if I were in a situation with 3 guys beating the piss out of me and one forcing me to fellate him, I would. I would probably dream every night of finding each one of them alone, but let's not kid ourselves here, for those of you like Newport, who could fight off 3 powerful men I commend you on your ability not to have to fellate. For those of us who actually do not think we can beat the tar out 3 men or a man with twice the strength and or a weapon, we will live to see another day. Broken and disgusted but alive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 14, 2006 03:34 PM
    Moving right along: I don't find it hard to believe that a struggling victim might be afraid to bite a wouldbe rapist's dick. But would she be afraid to keep her mouth closed? A blowjob requires *active cooperation.* To allege that one was struggling yet gave someone a blowjob doesn't jibe.
    The charge is forced oral cop, not forced blow job. I do not know the laws of NC. I do not know the specific facts of this case. But allow me to repeat myself: pushing the penis pass a victims's lips, teeth clinched, mouth closed, meets the elements of forced oral copulation in California.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    In the interest of full disclosure, SUO is Carville and I am Matalin.... Thanks for the support SUO, we have found a subject we can agree upon completely for a change, truth be told I would rather disagree with ya because I like your take even if I disagree with the extrapolations.....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#86)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Try this on for size IMHO:
    Defense motion with [typos] corrected:
    Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in his typed summary of this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    How's that? You happy now that the typos are corrected?
    So the [typo] led the judge to believe the defense attorneys were referring to the primary source, Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement [that does not support their argument], and your [correction] steers the judge to the secondary source, Hinman's inacurrate summary of Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement? hahaha! Judges love being "played" like that!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    Both statements are there for all to see. No one's getting played. In a perfect world we would correct the reference to the primary source as well. Your AH HA moment is a nonstarter. I wonder if you have ever written anything for submission to a court of law and had absolutely nothing in it that someone culling over it with a find toothed comb could find somehow wrong. I wonder if there has ever been a legal document submitted in America since the time of the Revolution that you could not find some error in. People who engage in the sort of triviality you are engaging in here typically do not survive long in the real world. They make way too many people made with incessant nitpicking and they tend to lose all credibility. I suggest to you that is what is happening here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    extrapolations
    What?! Why you...! How dare you! /kidding All good Jl. All this "forced oral" talk is starting to sound a little too close to "The Shawshank Redemption" to me...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    Newport, you missed my point. It was in the area of cooperating with the police where I asked what they could have done differently in order to not end up indicted by the DA. One of IMHO's recurrent themes here is that the lacrosse brought it upon themselves by not cooperating with the police and Nifong and lawyering up. The problem with that is that they all pretty much cooperated. Their attorneys offered exculpatory evidence which Nifong has refused to examine. While Nifong talked about that blue wall of silence, I can't recall anything specific that he expected or wanted from the forty men, except perhaps some confessions. In fact, if you look at what evidence, however faulty, that the DA has relied on to indict these men, it is all based on the testimony of the AV. There is nothing during the course of the investigation that the players witheld that in any way brought about the charges. So maybe, except for in that rarified region in Immie's head, we can finally dispel that myth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    As I have told you before, you don't know that Himan's written summary as you call it is of Pittman's written statement. You don't know that it is inaccurate at all. Himan may very well have interviewed Pittman, got her story orally, left Pitman to start writing her story down and then set off to document, in his words for the record, what her story was. He may very well have not been working off of her written statement but an earlier oral statement that he heard and which did not include anything about Precious going back into the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    Newport, you missed my point
    Thanks Bob, I know I did. I just used your opening to say a few things I felt were important.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    Bob, I do agree with your post 100 percent, as you can imagine. Don't see how anyone could really disagree. From what I can tell, you have been a strong voice of reason on this board.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:18:48 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    If you work, I hope you are self-employed and painstakingly transcribing on your own dime.
    No work. Just play.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by Alan on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    I think it is pretty easy for a man to say, I would refuse and kick some arse, because men are not generally raped outside of prison.
    That's actually a myth. Antigay violence has been known to include rape. Go figure. Men do get raped outside of prison, although not in anything like the numbers for women, and I'm not talking statutory rape either. The stats are much smaller and the under-reporting is probably much more severe.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    Just a question or two: In Kim's latest version, was she in the bathroom helping the three men rape the AV, or was she locked in her car? Or was that later? +++ By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal? +++ Can we expect Joe Cheshire to get equal time on NPR to try to help clarify the mess? +++ Newport, don't try to boil this down to right v. left as to who is on what side. If you've read my posts you'll know how I think that the case is bogus. Go visit my blog to see how liberal I am. Way liberal. In a criminal case you look at the facts. To presume the sincerity of someone's victimhood because she is poor and black and because the men accused are rich and white is as bigoted as some of the stuff coming in the other direction. The AV is a prostitute with a history of mental illness, substance abuse, criminal activity and filing charges of rape which she doesn't pursue. Every piece of evidence that was supposed to prove the prosecution's case has done the opposite.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    Newport, watch out of Jlvngstn's right hook!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    I do not think an assault happened here, however, when considering the alternative i.e. ending up in a coma or dead, I would have to side with having a penis in my mouth. I will live to fight another day or do anything to get it over with. Again, being afraid of serious bodily harm can do wonders for what you are willing and unwilling to do.
    Yeah, but according to the AV's story, she *wasn't* intimidated into submitting. Rather, she struggled mightily, despite blows and strangulation, so the bad guys had to take turns restraining her in order to get the nasty deeds done. But she gave Seligman a blowjob!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    As I have told you before, you don't know that Himan's written summary as you call it is of Pittman's written statement. You don't know that it is inaccurate at all. Himan may very well have interviewed Pittman, got her story orally, left Pitman to start writing her story down and then set off to document, in his words for the record, what her story was. He may very well have not been working off of her written statement but an earlier oral statement that he heard and which did not include anything about Precious going back into the house.
    You referred to Hinman's statement as "his typed summary of this written statement" Posted by Newport
    Defense motion with [typos] corrected:
    Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in his typed summary of this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    Newport says:
    As I have told you before, you don't know that Himan's written summary as you call it is of Pittman's written statement. You don't know that it is inaccurate at all. Himan may very well have interviewed Pittman, got her story orally, left Pitman to start writing her story down and then set off to document, in his words for the record, what her story was. He may very well have not been working off of her written statement but an earlier oral statement that he heard and which did not include anything about Precious going back into the house.
    Indeed. The time on Kim's addendum is 4PM, while the time on her statement is 2:15PM. Himan's first entry is 12:40PM that same day, and his second entry, after recording his version of Kim's statement is 15:33 where he records that the players did not turn up for a meeting. I am inclined to believe that Kim's addition was a genuine attempt to make sure that her account was accurate, while I think that Johnson's addition is simply designed to put the AV in a better light, and is contradicted by the detail he used earlier in the account.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    I wonder how much of this thread will be deleted when Jeralyn gets online in DC?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#101)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?
    Apparently Nifong didn't think that publicizing it would help his election chances.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    Bob, I knew you were a liberal, just a fair minded one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:47:16 PM EST
    Has anyone tried to match up all of Roberts' reconstructed story with whatever the official version of events in the indictment is in order to see if her newest version in any way helps Nifong's case? It seems like she's expanding the time when the AV was alone in the house from her previous iterations of fact and fancy. From what I see printed here, it doesn't look like she ever looked at her watch, though. General question: If you were the DA in this case, would you want to put Roberts on the stand now that she has apparently impeached her own earlier version(s) of events?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    Hey Bob in Pacifica, I have officiated at swim meets in Pacifica. Nice little town. I do think that your speculation of yesterday was wrong. You speculated that the AV made a false claim against the lacrosse players because they felt that her sexual charms were lacking. Frankly, I think that there is a simpler explanation than that. Kim overreacted to the alcohol-fueled remark about the broomstick (or whatever it was) and called an end to things. The AV, on the other hand, being much more familiar with males and their desires, felt that she could make lots of money there and probably hide a fair bit of it from her pimp as well. However, the AV really was not up to it. Then Kim left and eventually the AV left, and in her drug and alcohol-fueled state, she blamed Kim for her loss of money that night. Of course, when the cops found her, and decided to take her to the drunk tank, she had to come up with some way out for a number of reasons. The rest is history, including accusing Kim of helping to rape her. Simple human behavior, really. I wonder if the judge will be pissed enough with Nifong to grant the part of the motion about the medical details. I sure hope so. Only a day or so to go.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    As far as whether someone can be intimidated enough to be orally copulated with use of weapon? I'd say yes. Was the AV intimidated? Not according to her. The AV claims she was fighting. It's hard to imagine fighting back with your hands and legs and not resisting someone orally copulating you. I'm sure one can argue that she fought for awhile and then stopped resisting. But then after she's brutally gangraped she goes out to the car and tells Roberts that there's more money to be made? (Or has that part of Roberts' story officially disappeared?) Could it have happened this way? I guess it's possible. Did a gang rape happen this way? Let's just say it's another element of the AV's story which is internally inconsistent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    Bob, there was no weapon unless you want to classify Seligman's member as a weapon and I doubt he would risk revocation of his license to carry by sticking it in the FA's mouth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    Does anyone know what Kim's racial manhood insult was?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    The rumor I heard was something about "limp d!ck white boys" but that may be complete hogwash. And, of course, she may have made many comments, not just one. Or she may have made none at all. We'll never know for sure what was said, who started what, yadda yadda, and, in the end, what difference does it make?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by january on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    From Imho
    Do we know how long she fought? Did she ever succumb out of fear?
    Are you kidding? Do we know that she fought at all? That she was ever attacked in the first place?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    ROBERTS: .... I can never say that a rape did or did not occur that is for the courts to decide.
    How many posters on this board have ever used that phrasing -- "the courts" in the plural -- in reference to this specific case? Not generalizing, I know that has been done. I mean specific to this case? Few if any. "The courts" is a fairly educated political science concept, and generalizes to the entire judiciary far beyond anything that Kim's own limited involvement in this particular case should merit when and if this case is decided by "the court." I submit that Kim is not sophisticated enough to have made that distinction on her own. She was coached. That is now Kim's "spin" for making the most out of this case, in preparation for her political future on the speaking engagement circuit. "I can never say....." That leaves it open ended enough for a lifetime's worth of speeches.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    In case this hasn't been discussed already, here is Professor Coleman's excellent letter requesting that Mike Nifong abandon his involvement in this case and turn it over to a special prosecutor. Professor Coleman's biography can be found here. He is, of course, an African American. We all know that African-Americans and Latinos comprise the vast majority of men and women victimized by the tactics employed by Mike Nifong and the Durham police. I have been hoping that more African-Americans such as Professor Coleman would come forward and use Mike Nifong's grotesque carnival as evidence that criminal justice procedures need to be altered for the benefit of suspects and defendants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#112)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?
    I can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#113)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    IMHO:
    Does anyone have the source of that story?
    It's in the June 8 motion, page 9, item 8.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?
    The source for that story is the last paragraph, last sentence of the sworn affidavit of counsel that you like to pick apart. The citation for the statement is the medical records. Apparently, Precious told the SANE nurse that Robert's assisted the players in the gang rape and stole her "money and everything." I guess that is where the white shoe went. Robert's stole it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:25:13 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?
    I can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?
    Let me remind you. It is on page 9 of the most recent defense motion, where it says:
    Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything."
    Now, those last set of words, you know, the ones between quote marks, look like a verbatim quote to me. I do hope that the judge grants the part of the motion about unsealing the medical reports.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#116)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?
    I can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?
    Let me remind you. It is on page 9 of the most recent defense motion, where it says: Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything." Now, those last set of words, you know, the ones between quote marks, look like a verbatim quote to me. I do hope that the judge grants the part of the motion about unsealing the medical reports. (Reposted to fix up the screwups.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#117)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:29:22 PM EST
    Thanks, beenaround. Here's another one, but Galanter doesn't give his source: 'The Abrams Report' for June 12
    GALANTER: Yes. He's got to say why did the complaining witness say to Kim Roberts, we should go back in after they were both presumably safely in the car, and let's make some more money. He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances...


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#118)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    'The Abrams Report' for June 9
    ABRAMS: What about this? What about this? The accuser also said, she--quote--"she told the sexual assault nurse examiner in training that Kim Roberts Pittman, the second dancer, assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault...
    GALANTER: Was in the bathroom...
    ABRAMS: ... and that Kim Roberts Pittman...
    (CROSSTALK)
    ABRAMS: ... stole all her money and everything.
    Abrams is reading from the motion, but we don't know where Galanter got his "was in the bathroom." Does anyone know?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    That is now Kim's "spin" for making the most out of this case, in preparation for her political future on the speaking engagement circuit. "I can never say....." That leaves it open ended enough for a lifetime's worth of speeches.
    Some time ago on this board, it was suggested that Kim wouldn't sell her story unless the case was ready to crumble. But she's peddling it now. She may know something we don't. I agree with SLOphoto. Kim sees the case crumbling and wants to tilt it back in the direction of opinion and/or belief, rather than SANE results and other testimony. Today, she stated the alleged perpetrators had "opportunity." But Kim's financial future is brightest if there is no trial -or- if she's not called as a witness.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:06:56 PM EST
    Thanks also to mik and Newport. Galanter's version:
    "He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..."
    I wonder why it was not included in the motion? It is a lot more compelling than the version that was included. The included version could mean the accuser thought Kim conspired with the players to get her in the bathroom alone. Galanter takes the accusation to a whole different level - one without the ambiguity of the other.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#121)
    by weezie on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:14:36 PM EST
    SLOphoto, you remember, of course, that Kim was a straight A student at UNC before she left school to pursue a multi-faceted career of embezzling and strip tease dancing. Perhaps she learned to use the plural "courts" after many hours of watching "Ally McBeal" reruns while composing herself for her dance performances? She's quite the intellect, you know and she'll be glad to tell all in her new collection of short stories.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:34:39 PM EST
    What a shame she didn't finish at UNC. That's a fine school and she must have had a lot on the ball to get in. Now she gets to live in infamy forever. IMHO, there is no ambiguity in the statement in the affidavit. Galanter probably just did what anyone else did and added "the bathroom." What is so interesting about this? How would this take it to another level. I am not aware of anyone claiming a rape occurred in the car or on the lawn. The rape was supposed to have happened in the bathroom according to the stories being told by Nifong and the FA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:44:19 PM EST
    Newport: I posted something similar about Kim before: Air Force "brat," smart enough to get into Chapel Hill (which is very difficult for females, or at least it used to be), so what happened to her that she is where she is today?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    Can't wait to read the motion they talked about on Hannity & Colmes: I wonder what Nifong said? But imagine this scenario: when they do their show on that motion, have imho via satellite to support Colmes, and let's put Bob in Pacifica on Hannity's side of the table. Forget the seasoned prosecutors and defense attorneys, let's hear it from the TalkLeft board. What do you think?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:43:55 PM EST
    Marcus wrote,
    I have been hoping that more African-Americans such as Professor Coleman would come forward and use Mike Nifong's grotesque carnival as evidence that criminal justice procedures need to be altered for the benefit of suspects and defendants.
    Some will and some already have. See LaShawn Barber's blog and Thomas Sowell's columns. I understand that Sowell is highly respected. He objected to this carnival a long time ago.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    Re: Kim's interview with NPR. The thing I found the most interesting about this interview is Kim's stated reason for changing her mind about the AV's story. Thanks to IMHO's transcription (appreciate it!), we find that a compelling reason for Ms. Pittman's change of heart was the AV's age. Apparently, at 27, one should know how to drink. I think one can infer from that, that she means not the act of imbibing, but drinking and keeping herself together/functional. Flexeril discussions aside, it's kind of a weak nail on which to hang such a profound change of heart/story/etc. Because last I was aware, 27 is not the magical age at which one ceases to make an a** of oneself after drinking too much. Wonder why Kim would have chosen this reason. Especially in light of her first televised interview, in which she attributed her change of heart/story/interpretation/what have you to "all these lies" that the defense is/was spreading. Whither the lies, Kim? This interview would have been a good opportunity for her to follow up on her earlier interview and create a more consistent story, esp. w/regards to lies or misstatements she believes the defense are promoting. So, how does this fit into the fabric of Kim? I still think she's looking out for #1, and is, from interview to interview, saying what sounds best or makes her look best at the moment. So what does this do to her earliest "crock" statements? It kind of undermines them, in a way, since I don't think one should cherrypick the "best" of her changing stories any more than one should cherrypick the "best" of the AV's changing stories. Thoughts?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    /Posted by wumhenry June 14, 2006 04:39 PM By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?/ I have wondered if the orgin of the story "Kim helped them rape me," might be that Kim helped them rape her. Crazy idea I know, but it wasn't this her first story? Maybe it the Av dropped it because she felt like she couldn't fight all of them in court. No one will like this theory because the Av's side needs Kim, and the defense side won't entertain the idea that a crime might have been committed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#128)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:31:59 PM EST
    beenaround, Every day I try to take a hike through the hills down here around Montara Mountain. Highway 1 to the south is shut down because sinkholes in the road have shut down Devil's Slide again. Regarding your comment on the AV's motivation, it's all speculation. I think we can both agree that the outstanding thing in her mind when she invented the rape charge was being put in involuntary lockup. She may not have had much animus against anyone considering her level of intoxication. Yeah, and I bet the variation on the theme that included Kim in on the rape was probably something to do with Kim not wanting to go back and make more money. Interesting that first reports on this case made the AV out to be the newbie, with Roberts the kick*ss hardcore stripper. Now it appears that the AV's career in the sex industry is a lot longer than she or her family cared to admit, while Roberts keeps becoming more and more delicate and victimlike in front of our eyes (defiant finger gesture excluded). I suspected Roberts' transformation when she started talking about "little girls" a week ago.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#129)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:34:46 PM EST
    Maybe I missed her answer to this questionearlier: IMHO: Since you are just an impartial corrector of misstatements, could you maybe mention whatever the AV said or that she reportedly has said in official documents that you have questioned? Just curious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    To Green from the beginning of the previous thread, Thanks for your encouragement for me to stay in. Let me encourage you to share your views here as well. I did take TL's comments to heart that my views are welcome here. I've been busy with class and with catching up on the 300+ posts since late Mon night. After reading them, all I can say, to borrow imho's word, is: wow. Kim now confirms - by adding a missing piece to her story, not necessarily completely changing it - (and I suspect that there are even more missing pieces from her), that the AV went back inside, and that she did, too. Kim, the AV, and Bissey now all have both women going back inside the house. The opportunity is there. The main threat to that is that Bissey's time is on the late side (12:20-12:30). Anyone know how he arrived at it? I believe that if the rape occurred, and if it was how the AV described it, that she struggled until she was punched, kicked, or otherwise hurt and intimidated. This could have occurred in the first few moments. She said she was afraid she would be killed. At that point, she would not have been fighting. Now please...I said "IF." The defense motions contain errors of fact in what they state are to be found in written documents. Any statements by the defense about what is in the medical records should not be entirely believed until they can be verified. BTW, anyone want to take bets that in ONE of the many ID sessions, there is a photo of Dave Evans with a mustache?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#131)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    Lora wrote:
    Kim, the AV, and Bissey now all have both women going back inside the house. The opportunity is there.
    When both women were in the house? Even though Kim Pitman has consistently said that she unaware of any rape, and even though Pitman hasn't recanted her testimony that they were never separated for more than five minutes?
    The main threat to that is that Bissey's time is on the late side (12:20-12:30).
    Not to mention the AV's conflicting statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:20:20 PM EST
    Lora wrote,
    BTW, anyone want to take bets that in ONE of the many ID sessions, there is a photo of Dave Evans with a mustache?
    Yeah, I'll take that bet especially since his lawyer said he never has had a mustache in his entire life. And where would the police get such a photo of Evans with the mustache? Did they just draw a mustache on there with a sharpie? And if they had such a picture why didn't Precious just pick him when presented with said photo; why wait until the photo sans mustache was presented to say this would be the guy except he had a mustache. And why wouldn't Nifong have leaked that he had a picture of Evans with a mustache. He leaked about his only other palpable evidence, the fingernail. How much do you want to bet? BTW, I thought mik's analysis of the new Robert's statement to NPR was excellent, along with noname's follow on. Robert's now says she went back into the house twice, once to look for Precious and once to look for her stuff after Precious was assisted into the car.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by january on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:24:25 PM EST
    BTW, anyone want to take bets that in ONE of the many ID sessions, there is a photo of Dave Evans with a mustache?
    Lora, any odds you name. No photo of Evans with a mustache.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by JK on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    Before you start naming odds, you might want to define "mustache." I think for some here "mustache" means the slightest hint of shadow, whether or not it is equally distributed on one's face or located only on one's upper lip.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:27:43 AM EST
    A mustache must present only on the upper lip, otherwise it's a beard or some variation thereof like a goat tee, no?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#136)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:16:13 AM EST
    beenaround posted:
    Indeed. The time on Kim's addendum is 4PM, while the time on her statement is 2:15PM.
    Himan's first entry is 12:40PM that same day, and his second entry, after recording his version of Kim's statement is 15:33 where he records that the players did not turn up for a meeting.
    I am inclined to believe that Kim's addition was a genuine attempt to make sure that her account was accurate, while I think that Johnson's addition is simply designed to put the AV in a better light, and is contradicted by the detail he used earlier in the account.
    Kim's addendum is at 4:00 p.m., but her addendum does not concern the accuser's trip back into the house. That part of her statement, while out of sequence, is not an amendment to her statement - it is dated the same as the rest of the original statement: 2:15 p.m. The 4:00 p.m. addendum covers Kim's route when she returned to the house alone to look for Kim's belongings.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#137)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:25:56 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    IMHO, there is no ambiguity in the statement in the affidavit. Galanter probably just did what anyone else did and added "the bathroom."
    What is so interesting about this?
    How would this take it to another level.
    Newport, IF Galanter, without any other information, took this sentence from the motion:
    Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything."
    and turned it into this: Galanter's version:
    "He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..."
    you wouldn't see the problem with that?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#138)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:14:14 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    A mustache must present only on the upper lip, otherwise it's a beard or some variation thereof like a goat tee, no?
    I don't know what the definition is for the purposes of the bet, but for purposes of a trial, what you or I, or even a juror considers is a mustache is not important. If a juror sees a photo of Evans taken at the party and say he looks like this, what matters is if a juror could think it is reasonable that the accuser considers that a mustache, whether other facial hair is present or not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:14:51 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    IMHO wrote,
    I got side-tracked, but I'm on it. While you're waiting, maybe you could comment on that Ohio oral rape case. Convicted on two counts of oral rape. No weapon. It wasn't hard to find, though maybe I just got lucky. It was the first result on my first google search.
    I already responded to that one. There was not a noncompliant victim in that case.
    Yes, she complied after he struck her in the face. Moving the goal posts? You weren't talking specifically about this case:
    Posted by Newport June 13, 2006 12:07 AM What are you talking about? Are you sane? Find me some cases involving an oral rape without a weapon. If they exist at all, I'll bet they are extraordinarily rare.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#140)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:23:04 AM EST
    Lora, Please give me a timeline for Roberts including all the different statements she's given. Pardon me if I'm having trouble following what her "additions" mean. Did she not include the various trips back and forth from the house? Are there any details that are important to this case that she didn't mention earlier in her statements?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#141)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:28:40 AM EST
    MarcusCA posted:
    In case this hasn't been discussed already, here is Professor Coleman's excellent letter requesting that Mike Nifong abandon his involvement in this case and turn it over to a special prosecutor.
    From Coleman's letter:
    According to the police account of the identification, however, the police officer who presided over the proceedings told the alleged victim at the outset that he wanted her to look at people the police had reason to believe attended the party. Thus, the police not only failed to include people they knew were not suspects among the photographs shown the woman, they told the witness in effect that there would be no such "fillers" among the photographs she would see.
    The police knew some of the people photographed were not at the party. They warned her there may be photos of people that were not there. From the PDF:
    I explained to her it was very important not to say anyone was present at the party if they were not, or say they were if she could not recall they were present.
    From Coleman's letter:
    This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.
    He is wrong. According to what the captains, reportedly, told the police, there were at least five wrong choices. This is an embarassment. A Duke University Law Professor calls for a special prosecutor based on erroneous information - unless all 46 photographed players were at the party. The defense attorneys claim some of the players were at out of state job interviews - pretty easy to alibi. From Coleman's letter:
    Whatever the truth is, Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case. Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution. That would serve the best interest of the alleged victim, the three defendants and public.
    I think the public would best be served if Coleman learned the facts of the case before calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:30:38 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: I've always stated that I do not know if the accuser is lying or the if the players [almost all through their attorneys] are lying. Most of my posts deal with correcting what I see to be misstatement of facts by the media, attorneys and other commenters. It's interesting that you have set the boundaries of your acute intellectual debate so that you never have to critically analyze the AV's story. Stories. That's why you often appear arguing on the margins when the case itself remains relavitely untouched. You're safe. You don't have to even offer an opinion the core issue: Was there a gang rape that night? Instead you can argue about mustaches, whether or not DNA lives for weeks in the vagina, or if there is absolute proof that the AV ever had sex prior to the alleged rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:38:41 AM EST
    IMHO:
    According to what the captains, reportedly, told the police, there were at least five wrong choices.
    Seligmann was one of the 5 "fillers." From Seligmann's motion to supress from May 1:
    Additionally, Investigator Himan swore that "[a]ll of these parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party." The Defendant's name was 42nd on the list of the 46 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team and therefore was included in this set of "the last five."
    The filing is here. WARNING: the accuser's name is NOT redacted in this document. I guess being a "filler" doesn't prevent you from being indicted for a crime.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:11:46 AM EST
    The defense attorneys claim some of the players were at out of state job interviews - pretty easy to alibi.
    That didn't prevent Nifong from obtaining their DNA or photographing them. It also hasn't stopped him from trying to obtain key card information from all 46. Obviously the captains were mistaken when they listed Seligmann in the last five as not being present since he was photographed at the party. What's to say they weren't mistaken with the other four? I have heard the job interview story before, but I don't remember where I heard it, whether it was a news source quoting a defense attorney or somthing someone else just repeated. If they were out of town, why would Nifong NOW be seeking their key card information? Why was he able to obtain their DNA? Truly, I don't believe there were any "fillers." If "Precious" identified someone as her attacker, that person was indicted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:18:44 AM EST
    P.S. I just looked back at the filing. The final team members listed by the captains as being not present at the party were all underclassmen, three sophomores and one freshman. They weren't seniors going on job interviews.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#146)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:43:37 AM EST
    If the latest confabulated timeline puts the AV alone in the house between 12:20 and 12:30, and that is the only time that the 30-minute gang rape could have occurred, then that at the very least puts Seligmann out of the picture. It would make Seligmann's rash of phones calls and exit from the house the same time that the strippers were outside, no? That would mean that the struggle with the three men where she was beaten up but fought mightily(presuming that Kim Roberts wasn't involved in the rape) and the rape would have been compressed into that time. The AV would have had to have been "straightened up", she would have had to have taken on a cheery disposition, and then would have had to have gone out to the car and told Roberts that there was more money to be made there. Or had Roberts retracted her statement that the AV wanted to return to the party to make more money? And doesn't that contradict the "no more than five minutes alone" window? Sounds plausible to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#147)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:46:04 AM EST
    I wonder if this case has had an impact on the sex industry generally. I mean, would you hire a stripper, much less an escort, if you heard about this case knowing that you too may be falsely accused of rape?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:52:57 AM EST
    This, part of NPR's Juan Williams' narrative (diligently transcribed by imho), I find laughable: "Roberts went back into the house to look for the other woman, but didn't see her." I mean, how hard is it? This is not like looking for your lost keys. If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:09:29 AM EST
    fillintheblanks
    If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.:
    Unless she was already on the back porch. IF there is a blue wall of silence, they SOME of the other lacrosse players would have known what was going on. The accuser said they were separated when they reentered the house. Why wouldn't they post a lookout? Why was Kim allowed back in the house?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#150)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:10:38 AM EST
    Sorry. "they" should be "then."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:20:48 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: I think the public would best be served if Coleman learned the facts of the case before calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. She bases this on the fact that there were five students that the team captains indicated were not at the party, and that this at least impeached Coleman's opinion that the police photo ID did not meet the criteria for filler pictures. To honestly state that, IMHO would have to believe that the police did fully investigate and believe what the team captains had said, which does not appear to be the case. The police did not say, "Well, the team captains say these guys weren't there, and therefore they couldn't have been there, so we'll include their pictures as fillers." I think a more likely presumption is that the police did not believe what the captains said and included those photographs because they wanted all team members in the lineup. If Seligmann were a filler and the AV identified him and he was indicted, then he wasn't a filler. Therefore, the police did not use fillers because THEY (and not the team captains) had not eliminated those men as possible suspects. If it is proven in court that Seligmann wasn't there when a rape could have possibly occurred does he return from the indicted class to filler class? If Finnerty is found to have not been in the house at all when the strippers were there is he now also a filler? If the case is dismissed are all the players now fillers? Myself, I think that the public would be better served if Nifong were not prosecuting the case, for the many things pointed out all these many times, to include: failure to fully investigate the AV's differing accounts of the alleged gang rape; failure to fully weigh the AV's history of mental illness and substance abuse, her past charges of rape and failure to pursue those cases (to indicate she may have a history of filing false charges), her criminal history; failure to reasonably examine the evidence at hand (DNA results, statements at odds with the AV's various versions of events, etc.); failure to examine evidence offered by the defense which they claim is exculpatory; inconsistencies in the AV's own varying accounts of her intoxication or lack thereof; failure to test for intoxication of the AV (or, alternatively, hiding results of such a test); heavy-handed use of the court system to coerce false testimony from Roberts, the cab driver and students present at the party; his public statements in violation of NC codes for DAs. For starters. But, of course, criticizing the AV, Roberts or the DA doesn't fall under the purview of IMHO's micromaniacal scanner.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:40:21 AM EST
    I wonder if, as part of a plea agreement in court, Roberts had to appear in Vanity Fair and on NPR. Speaking as a rabid liberal, I've found Juan Williams' past sucking up to Administration officials about the war in Iraq to be embarrassing. NPR tends to trot his ass out whenever a person of color needs to be interviewed. Colin Powell? Someone get Juan Williams. Williams has functioned as a mewling little footrest for anyone who is putting out a ludicrous version of truth because he never asks the hard questions. That kind of emasculated interview is one of the reasons I've stopped listening to NPR's news shows. With Roberts, if Williams was in any way familiar with the case, he could have, and should have, asked about her original version of events, her legal problems with the DA and whether or not Nifong put pressure on her to change her story. He could have asked if the AV had wanted to go back into the house to make more money, how could she imagine she had been raped? He could have asked her why, after lying to law enforcement several times on the night of the party, and having embezzled $25,000 from her employer, she herself should now be believed? Instead, it was, Hope you're comfy. Here, I'll get on all fours and you can rest your feet on me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#153)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:49:15 AM EST
    mik posted:
    I guess being a "filler" doesn't prevent you from being indicted for a crime.
    The purpose of fillers is to give the accuser the chance to be wrong. If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler. It turns out Seligmann was there afterall. I guess this shows the police probably weren't steering the accuser to pick Seligmann, as someone here suggested they may have done with Evans. mik posted:
    Obviously the captains were mistaken when they listed Seligmann in the last five as not being present since he was photographed at the party. What's to say they weren't mistaken with the other four? I have heard the job interview story before, but I don't remember where I heard it, whether it was a news source quoting a defense attorney or somthing someone else just repeated. If they were out of town, why would Nifong NOW be seeking their key card information? Why was he able to obtain their DNA? Truly, I don't believe there were any "fillers." If "Precious" identified someone as her attacker, that person was indicted.
    I doubt the police were not including the players they had reason to believe were not there as fillers. It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect. The investigators were trying to find out who was at the party and who was not, who may have witnesses what, otherwise they would have asked the accuser to only identify her three attackers. That was not her instruction. mik posted:
    If they were out of town, why would Nifong NOW be seeking their key card information? Why was he able to obtain their DNA?
    Nifong still does not know who all was at the party, who was out of town and who was not. They certainly can't take the captains' list as being accurate. I tried to chase down the job interview story. I thought I heard it from one of the defense talking heads, but I haven't found that source. I also recall one of the defense attorneys saying something like "What if one of the players she identified was in a plane flying over the state at th time?" I'm still looking for that quote. I only found one article that mentioned it: The Stanford Daily Guilt by association By Jeremy Jacobs
    To gain a better perspective on the situation at Duke, I contacted a good friend of mine from high school whose brother is on the Duke lacrosse team. My friend chose to remain anonymous to protect her brother. Needless to say, her description of the situation at Duke does not match the media's portrayal.
    "A few of the seniors were in New York that weekend for job interviews," she noted, "They were still DNA tested and are being attacked just by affiliation.
    "Life is living hell for the guys down there," my friend added, "People spit on them on the way to class, the campus food courts won't serve them."
    It's mentioned on several blogs, but only only one blog sourced it. That was Duke New Sense Blog. They referenced the above Stanford Daily article. Pat mentioned it here:
    Posted by Pat May 27, 2006 09:05 AM A second, and more ominous explanation, may be that Nifong discovered that one or more of the originally identified players was not in town during the party (several were on job interviews)
    A letter to the editor of IDSNEWS.com:
    ...Third, you keep mentioning the 46 players as all being "guilty" in some way, shape or form. Do you know that six of the players who gave DNA weren't even in Durham at the time of the alleged rape? They were in New York for job interviews, yet they are lumped in with everyone else. Do you know that some of the players who were there that night had only popped in and popped out of the house for brief periods of time, unaware of the goings on? But hey, let's just lump them all together!
    Tom Brodsky Duke alumnus


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:14:10 AM EST
    In her unending pursuit of the sidelines, IMHO opinion offers this: If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler. Attention, Earth to IMHO: The police were not going by what the captains told them. The captains told the police that no sex occurred and yet the police were investigating a charge of gang rape. They continued investigating the gang rape accusation after the captains left the police station. This indicates that the police did not believe what the team captains were telling them. If they thought that the captains were not truthful about the rape, they certainly weren't going to believe them regarding who was or wasn't at the party at the time that strippers were there. That's why there were so many photos of students and so many DNA tests. The police did not use fillers no matter how you want to imagine they did in order to justify slamming Coleman's reasoned request for a special prosecutor. A filler would have been someone who was not on the lacrosse team who couldn't have possibly been at the party in the estimation of the investigating officers. Nice try, though. You should be good for another thirty posts on this, by which time we will be so far away from Coleman's statement that you can again claim victory. Alas.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:19:34 AM EST
    IMHO:
    It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.
    Wrong. The job interview story is still hearsay from the anonymous sister of a player. Duke played Loyola in The First Four tournament in San Diego on March 11, a Saturday. I don't know how many seniors would be allowed to miss a tournament for job interviews. I have no reason to trust this statement. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, we must assume that all 46 were in town and available as suspects. None of the lawyers for the other players has come out and said, "Here's his airplane ticket! He was out of town! Release him from suspicion!" I think the lack of that statement is more probative than the quote of an anonymous sister. I don't understand how Nifong can petition for key card data for all 46 players AFTER he said no further indictments were coming. True, he can't take the captains' statements as accurate. Why would he want to investigate who was present at the party now? Doesn't he have his suspects? Doesn't he have enough evidence to support a conviction? If that is not the case, why, then, did he indict three men before he had the whole story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#156)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:45 AM EST
    I've asked this before. Does anyone here actually think that this case would proceed to trial if Nifong were replaced by a special prosecutor?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:22:58 AM EST
    Bob:
    But, of course, criticizing the AV, Roberts or the DA doesn't fall under the purview of IMHO's micromaniacal scanner.
    At least the N&O has done so in today's edition insofar as Nifong is concerned. Check out: The DA and the Documents They also have another story that says Lewis Cheek is beginning a petition drive to get his name on the ballot in November. He needs 6,400 signatures and he will be a candidate printed on the ballot, not simply a write-in. Go Lewis!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#158)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:32:29 AM EST
    Also, I would presume that any discussion between police investigators or Nifong and the AV would have to be memorialized. Is there any record of Nifong or police investigators ever questioning the AV for clarification of inconsistencies in her story? Or any explanation as to why certain aspects of her story conflict with Roberts' several versions? Or an explanation of her work for Bunny Hole Productions in the days immediately preceding the alleged rape? Or her confusion regarding what intoxicants she had or had not consumed? It seems to me that any competent DA would want to know about what will become points of contention about his central witness's account of the alleged rape. It would be his obligation to tie up loose ends before putting her on the stand. This information would be what an honest DA would seek in the pursuit of justice. This should not be privileged information. If the AV cannot explain key inconsistencies, and these inconsistencies go to the heart of whether or not a crime was committed, the DA has an obligation to go to a judge and have the charges dismissed. I would also presume that such an inquiry by the DA to the AV would have to be given to the defense. These are my presumptions. I have no idea how this would fall under discovery rules in North Carolina. Any help from legal scholars? And would lack of news about any of this indicate that Nifong hasn't talked to the AV since early in the case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#159)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:34:58 AM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    "Roberts went back into the house to look for the other woman, but didn't see her."
    I mean, how hard is it? This is not like looking for your lost keys. If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.
    I wonder if she checked the bathrooms? mik posted:
    Unless she was already on the back porch.
    I wonder what door Ms. Pittman used to enter the house? mik posted:
    IF there is a blue wall of silence, then SOME of the other lacrosse players would have known what was going on. The accuser said they were separated when they reentered the house. Why wouldn't they post a lookout? Why was Kim allowed back in the house?
    The Blue Wall of Silence could consist of all of the players knowing/hearing nothing about a sexual assault, it could consist of everyone (even players not there) knowing/hearing about a sexual assault, or it could consist of some players knowing/hearing about an assault and some knowing/hearing nothing. It's possible if an assault went down as described by the accuser, the only people that know are the three attackers (who may not be the three she identified) and they haven't told anyone else.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:43:51 AM EST
    mik, interesting story. So the AV didn't even mention being raped *n*lly during her examination? Funny that she'd overlook that, eh? Now could it be that the AV would have been so ashamed of having been violated in three places that she only mentioned two? I have great faith in humanity that at some point the few remaining defenders of the AV at this site might actually stop trying to rationalize the irrational and agree that there's something very fishy with the AV rape claim. Or will the defenders of the AV's version of reality just stop talking about the *a*l rape because it's becoming inconvenient?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#161)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:55:59 AM EST
    Lewis Cheek has not said he would run, according to the N&O. It just said he authorized the petition. Lewis has been in private practice for a long time. I would be surprised if he'd really take the significant cut in pay it would take to quit private practice and be a DA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#162)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:21:29 AM EST
    IMHO's curious defense of Roberts going back into the house and not finding the AV is as laughable as Roberts' fabulistic adventure on NPR. First, what evidence is there that the story about Roberts going into the house looking for her is not another lie? Why do these details appear now and not when she was first making a statement for the police? Wouldn't all of this been of interest to law enforcement investigating a possible sexual assault? Doesn't anyone think that the police made an effort to find out where everyone was that night, and when was the AV by herself? Wouldn't knowledge of a search by Roberts that could not locate the AV in the common areas of the house been an important fact to investigators? Second, why was Roberts even looking for her? The answer, I would guess, would have been because she had already promised to give her a ride. Otherwise, since they were from different agencies, and weren't friends or apparently even acquaintances she had no reason to wait for the AV. She had her money. She could split. If she went into the house and couldn't find the AV, why wouldn't she check the bathrooms? Didn't she just spend time in the bathroom with the AV? Wouldn't that be a logical place to check, especially if the AV weren't performing for the men? Wouldn't Roberts ask someone where the other stripper was? And if there was something suspicious about the response, wouldn't that have triggered Roberts' suspicions about a rape? Wouldn't Roberts, when she couldn't find the AV after a reasonable effort of searching for her, just leave? She was certainly ready to dump the AV in Kroger's parking lot, and she was willing to lie to authorities to get someone to take the AV off her hands. It's hard to believe that Roberts' loyalty to an out-of-control stripper whom she'd never met before and who was incapable of dancing because of her intoxication extended to waiting around outside hell house in the vain hope that the AV should appear again when she hadn't even seen her in the house. How did she know the AV hadn't left? How did she know the AV wasn't doing one-on-ones in another room? What sliver of fuel fired Roberts' hope that the AV would once again grace "Little Girl" Kim with her presence? Roberts would have to be reasonably certain that the AV was still in the house in order to wait for the AV. She had to have formulated some rationale to wait for the AV after she couldn't find her. If she thought at any point that the AV was in danger, she would have made that 911 call then. If when the AV came out of the house and said that there was still money to be made, one would think that would have some effect on later reoonsiderations of the events regarding whether the AV had been raped. In other words, if you believe this latest adventure story, have you ever considered buying a bridge?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Nifong still does not know who all was at the party, who was out of town and who was not.
    Then it's not true that they put "fillers" in the lineup. They didn't put anybody in the lineup who they knew was not present. Furthermore, the sergeant's instructions to the AV were coaching. If (as many of us strongly suspect) the rape accusation was a lie, the AV might have picked three alleged culprits without bothering to try to remember whether she saw them that night. The sergeant helped her to minimize the risk of picking someone with an ironclad alibi by instructing her to concentrate, in the first place, on filtering the suspect pool for those she remembered having seen at the party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:49:24 AM EST
    imho posted:
    If a juror sees a photo of Evans taken at the party and say he looks like this, what matters is if a juror could think it is reasonable that the accuser considers that a mustache, whether other facial hair is present or not.
    This is at least the third time that imho has posted this photograph. Let's leave aside the point that most people don't consider "unshaven" and "mustache" to be interchangeable words, or that while we know the lacrosse team had a rule against players having mustaches or beards, we know of no rule that required them to shave every day. The important thing is: this photograph isn't of Dave Evans. Yet the identity of this player is easily found. Is imho now suggesting that this player actually had something to do with the rape--that he was might have been the player identified by the accuser as having a "mustache"? If not, the consistent linking to this photo is outrageous.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler.
    TalkLeft explained to you why neither Seligmann not the other alibied teammates were "fillers"
    IMHO, players not at the party would not be "known innocents." "Known innocents" also called fillers or foils, are persons who resemble the description of the perpetrator given by the accuser but who are known to have no involvement in the incident. For example, if she described her assailant as blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old, a "known innocent" would be someone not connected to the incident who is blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old. The DA should have shown her at least eight photos, one by one, for each of the three suspects she described. For each of the suspects she described, only one would be of a duke player matching that description, while seven would be of known innocents who resembled her description of the perpetrator, not the Duke student. The DA waited three weeks to show her a photo lineup. By that time, he had to have a pretty good idea which of the players were suspects according to her description.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#166)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    Correction to above typo: why neither Seligmann nor the other alibied teammates were "fillers"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:05:52 AM EST
    Bissey says Kim and the AV went back in the house together The AV says Kim and the AV went back in the house together It's probably not a big deal, but even with all of Kim's changing story lines, Kim never says that Kim and the AV went back in the house together.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    khartoum posted:
    The important thing is: this photograph isn't of Dave Evans. Yet the identity of this player is easily found. Is imho now suggesting that this player actually had something to do with the rape--that he was might have been the player identified by the accuser as having a "mustache"? If not, the consistent linking to this photo is outrageous.
    Commenter are debating what is and is not a mustache. A team member, reportedly, has signed an affidavit stating there is a rule against Duke lacrosse team members having a mustache. A former Duke lacrosse team member that posts here has stated Pressler had a "no facial hair" policy. This photo of Matt Zash shows what some might consider "facial hair." It was taken last year at a game Pressler coached. I am using this photo to illustrate how much hair is, apparently, allowed on a player. Like I said:
    ...for purposes of a trial, what you or I, or even a juror considers is a mustache is not important. If a juror sees a photo of Evans taken at the party and say he looks like this, what matters is if a juror could think it is reasonable that the accuser could consider that a mustache, whether other facial hair is present or not.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#169)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    Roberto de Pacifica! Your take on Juan Williams was dead on. I kept waiting for him to nail Kim on the changed story but no, he was too preoccupied with her towering intellect. Well said, my good man!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    Roberto de Pacifica must be the Hispanic one!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    Just a well deserved tribute to a brave explorer-liberal who has held steady since this dance began.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    Bob, you said:
    Why do these details appear now and not when she was first making a statement for the police?
    Would not the statement made closest in time to the actual event be the most reliable? I ask any of the posters: which is your best recollection - one made a week after something happened, or one made three months later? And, Lora, you said:
    Kim now confirms - by adding a missing piece to her story, not necessarily completely changing it - (and I suspect that there are even more missing pieces from her), that the AV went back inside, and that she did, too.
    That may not be "completely changing" her story, but it is certainly not simply adding a missing piece. Kim has "confirmed" many things, few of which are reconcilable. And, is Kim still the "gutsy" character in this drama? Does anyone still think, in terms of this case she is somehow something other than an opportunistic liar? If this case goes to trial, the jury will be given ample opportunity to see Kim for what she is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#173)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    khartoum, IMHO is consistent with this stuff (linking pictures of other people when referring to Evans) because she wants to correct the misstatements of the lawyers and the media.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#174)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    Sharon, Roberts may be gutsy if "gutsy" means lying in public. My guess here is that she does it naturally. There was an interesting science article at the BBC website months ago about how pathological liars' brains are actually wired differently to better facilitate untruths. For most of us, lying is exhausting. You actually have to remember all your untruths to maintain some sort of consistency, and it's mentally exhausting when your your tall tales keep bumping up against reality. For pathological liars it's no problem. They just spew and leave it to the rest of us to sort out. You know, First she said this, and then she said that. How could that possibly be? Well maybe if this was that then that was this. It's humorous to watch IMHO or Lora jump through hoops to try to make a coherent narrative out of Roberts' ramblings. Forget it. It's just another lie. One can only hope that she gets the opportunity to perjure herself on the stand, but I doubt that this case will get that far.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica stated:
    IMHO is consistent with this stuff (linking pictures of other people when referring to Evans) because she wants to correct the misstatements of the lawyers and the media.
    I realize that imho is consistent in this behavior: that makes it no less wrong. There is, to my knowledge, no photograph of Evans with a mustache. To suggest that the accuser could have been referring to this player with her comments about one of her attackers having a mustache--who imho now identifies--is absurd. There is absolutely no connection between whether or not one player on the team did or did not shave for a couple of days before a photo was taken in April 2005 and whether or not Dave Evans had a mustache on the night of March 13-4, 2006.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    Newport: re the last photo id process It was Nifong who had the police do it the way they did, based on the transcript of the lineup. And the investigator never said to her that there could be pictures of guys who were not at the party, rather he said the opposite, that the pictures she would be viewing were guys who the police believed were there. That lineup, not to mention all of the earlier failed attempts, bothers me more and more. And I include, by way of illustration not limitation, her comment about one (unindicted)player that "he looked like ******* but I'm not sure" and her "looks like the guy sort of" about Evans (with or without the mustache, which is "the hair growing on the human upper lip; especially such hair grown and often trimmed in a particular style"), with a likelihood of 90%.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#177)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    mik posted:
    IMHO:
    It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.
    Wrong. The job interview story is still hearsay from the anonymous sister of a player. Duke played Loyola in The First Four tournament in San Diego on March 11, a Saturday. I don't know how many seniors would be allowed to miss a tournament for job interviews. I have no reason to trust this statement. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, we must assume that all 46 were in town and available as suspects. None of the lawyers for the other players has come out and said, "Here's his airplane ticket! He was out of town! Release him from suspicion!" I think the lack of that statement is more probative than the quote of an anonymous sister.
    I didn't cite the Stanford Daily article as proof that players were on job interviews, like I said I was trying to track down the source for the oft repeated tale. btw, a player does not have to be a senior to have a job interview, some of the players land summer internships and a player would not have to miss a Saturday game in San Diego, CA to be at a job interview in NYC Monday morning. The party was on Monday night. I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there. From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS:
    Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.
    Maybe he's lying, maybe the captains are lying or mistaken. We don't know. According to Hinman's sworn statement the police were led to believe five of the photographed players were not at the party. According to Chuck Sherwood, ex-Duke lacrosse goalie and father of the sole black player currently on the team, said not all players photographed for purposes of identification were at the party. If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    Chuck Sherwood said his son went to the party not knowing that a stripper had been hired and departed soon after arriving. "I think he left because he didn't have much interest in what they were doing," he said. What transpired after that, Sherwood said, his son couldn't say.
    He expressed frustration that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party and could have more clearly stated not all were there.
    "That incriminates all of them to some extent and gives the impression they knew what was going on," Chuck Sherwood said.
    mik posted:
    I don't understand how Nifong can petition for key card data for all 46 players AFTER he said no further indictments were coming. True, he can't take the captains' statements as accurate. Why would he want to investigate who was present at the party now? Doesn't he have his suspects? Doesn't he have enough evidence to support a conviction? If that is not the case, why, then, did he indict three men before he had the whole story?
    The prosecution can investigate the case all the way through the trial, if it ever comes to that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    khartoum posted:
    There is, to my knowledge, no photograph of Evans with a mustache. To suggest that the accuser could have been referring to this player with her comments about one of her attackers having a mustache--who imho now identifies--is absurd. There is absolutely no connection between whether or not one player on the team did or did not shave for a couple of days before a photo was taken in April 2005 and whether or not Dave Evans had a mustache on the night of March 13-4, 2006.
    I did not suggest the accuser could have been referring to Matt Zash. Here's what I did say:
    Commenters are debating what is and is not a mustache. A team member, reportedly, has signed an affidavit stating there is a rule against Duke lacrosse team members having a mustache. A former Duke lacrosse team member that posts here has stated Pressler had a "no facial hair" policy. This photo of Matt Zash shows what some might consider "facial hair." It was taken last year at a game Pressler coached. I am using this photo to illustrate how much hair is, apparently, allowed on a player.
    Newport posted:
    Posted by Newport June 13, 2006 10:04 PM
    If Cheshire produces a photo of Evans with any more growth than in that photo you just posted he's screwed as far as I'm concerned. That photo better be clean shaven or no more than a couple days growth or he will lose all credibility. I just was trying to be funny with my reference to a "real mustache" like the one you can wax and twirl.
    I wonder what Cheshire considers "no mustache?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    imho, you said:
    The prosecution can investigate the case all the way through the trial, if it ever comes to that.
    Yes, they can, and it looks like that is what they are doing, but it is a p*ss poor way to conduct a prosecution, when it is done that way because the State failed to do its job before indictments were sought and obtained. To all the AV supporters: can you give me a reason why indictments were obtained before basic questions had been answered, why the normal process of a criminal investigation was not allowed to go forward first? Nifong evidently STILL does not even know who was and who was not there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    Not sure if this has been posted before, but here's a description of Seligman's phone records.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#181)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    imho stated:
    I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there . . . If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    Yet again, we have the claim that someone disagreeing with imho's opinion is lying, or fibbing, or factually incorrect. As we now know, the captains gave a statement listing the people they thought were at the party. There's no evidence that Nifong's office believed that statement (it didn't believe anything else the captains told the police); and there's no evidence that Nifong's office had knowledge, at the time of the photo ID, as to whether or not all 46 players were in Durham at the time of the party. Indeed, since Nifong refused to meet with defense counsel, and since he's just now asking for the cardkey records of the players' movements, there's every reason to believe he still has no idea of who was and wasn't in Durham that night. Coleman, of course, is referring to the guidelines of the NC Actual Innocence Project--of which he was a member--which hold that for every suspect, there are supposed to be seven "filler" photos, and that a LE officer who doesn't know the accuser should conduct the ID. At the time of the photo ID, there were no fewer than 41 suspects, and, given Nifong's request for DNA from 46, it seems safe to say there were 46 suspects. Given this, Coleman's statement seems perfectly reasonable.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    Agreed, khartoum

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    imho posted:
    A former Duke lacrosse team member that posts here has stated Pressler had a "no facial hair" policy. This photo of Matt Zash shows what some might consider "facial hair."
    I can only assume imho is not a sports fan, since the only other alternative is that she is simply being disingenous. Many sports teams have a policy of no facial hair--at the pro level, the New York Yankees do. That policy, with every team I've ever seen, prohibits players from having mustaches, beards, goatees, long sideburns, or soul patches--what most people call "facial hair." I've never heard of a sports-team policy that requires players to shave every day. Anyone in NY can turn on the YES network for any Yankees game, and almost always see two or three players that haven't shaved. Yet they're not in violation of the team's policy of no facial hair. Perhaps imho has unconvered a defense or media statement asserting that the lacrosse players were required to shave every day. Or perhaps imho has evidence that "mustache" and "unshaven" are understood as interchangeable terms in the courtrooms of Durham, North Carolina. If not, consistently posting a photo of a player who hadn't shaved and who's been cleared even by Nifong and suggesting that this has any relevance to impeaching comments that the team had a no-facial-hair policy is disingenous.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#184)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    And Hinman COACHED the AV at the lineup. See my comment posted at 9:37AM.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#185)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    IMHO, if you're going to keep linking to a photo of a player who has not been accused in this incident, then I'm going to start dropping hints regarding a certain substance-addicted, mentally-unstable prostitute with veracity issues who's a daily threat to the well-being of her children - as well as other innocent parties in city of Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#186)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    Sorry! That should have read "in THE city of Durham." My bad.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#187)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    Bob wrote,
    IMHO wrote: I think the public would best be served if Coleman learned the facts of the case before calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. She bases this on the fact that there were five students that the team captains indicated were not at the party, and that this at least impeached Coleman's opinion that the police photo ID did not meet the criteria for filler pictures. To honestly state that, IMHO would have to believe that the police did fully investigate and believe what the team captains had said, which does not appear to be the case. The police did not say, "Well, the team captains say these guys weren't there, and therefore they couldn't have been there, so we'll include their pictures as fillers." I think a more likely presumption is that the police did not believe what the captains said and included those photographs because they wanted all team members in the lineup. If Seligmann were a filler and the AV identified him and he was indicted, then he wasn't a filler. Therefore, the police did not use fillers because THEY (and not the team captains) had not eliminated those men as possible suspects. If it is proven in court that Seligmann wasn't there when a rape could have possibly occurred does he return from the indicted class to filler class? If Finnerty is found to have not been in the house at all when the strippers were there is he now also a filler? If the case is dismissed are all the players now fillers? Myself, I think that the public would be better served if Nifong were not prosecuting the case, for the many things pointed out all these many times, to include: failure to fully investigate the AV's differing accounts of the alleged gang rape; failure to fully weigh the AV's history of mental illness and substance abuse, her past charges of rape and failure to pursue those cases (to indicate she may have a history of filing false charges), her criminal history; failure to reasonably examine the evidence at hand (DNA results, statements at odds with the AV's various versions of events, etc.); failure to examine evidence offered by the defense which they claim is exculpatory; inconsistencies in the AV's own varying accounts of her intoxication or lack thereof; failure to test for intoxication of the AV (or, alternatively, hiding results of such a test); heavy-handed use of the court system to coerce false testimony from Roberts, the cab driver and students present at the party; his public statements in violation of NC codes for DAs. For starters. But, of course, criticizing the AV, Roberts or the DA doesn't fall under the purview of IMHO's micromaniacal scanner.
    WOW! This is the most thoughtful post I have read on any board about this case. I would love to see it sent to the NY times or WRAL or the Herald Sun as a letter to the editor. I bet they would publish it. Just needs a little modification to get rid of the IMHO stuff.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#188)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    Newport, IF Galanter, without any other information, took this sentence from the motion: Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything." and turned it into this: Galanter's version: "He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..." you wouldn't see the problem with that?
    No.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#190)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    blcc posted:
    IMHO, if you're going to keep linking to a photo of a player who has not been accused in this incident, then I'm going to start dropping hints regarding a certain substance-addicted, mentally-unstable prostitute with veracity issues who's a daily threat to the well-being of her children - as well as other innocent parties in city of Durham.
    Are you talking about a Durham defense attorney? I don't think any of those things have been alleged, much less proven about her. I think she's the most decent of the bunch. THIS IS NOT DAVID EVANS.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#191)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    mik wrote,
    fillintheblanks If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.: Unless she was already on the back porch.
    Agreed. Roberts would have found Precious if, and that's a big if, she reentered the house to look for Precious unless she was passed out on the back porch. I have always suspected that the boys locked the door and did not let precious back in the house when she came back to either 1) see if there was money to be made, 2) look for her shoe, or 3) look for some other property, depending on who's version of the story is to be believed. For me, the strongest exhonerating physical evidence in this case from the beginning has always been the photo of the FA on the back porch smiling and trying to get back in the house at 12:35 or so. Her clothes are supposedly in good order in this photo, she is smiling and looking through a bag. I do not believe that any reasonable juror could believe that the victim who just minutes prior had been raped, anally sodomized, beaten, kicked, choked and threatened with death, would attempt to reenter the place where all this had just happened to retrieve her money or whatever else she may have left behind. The photographs have now been confirmed to be accurate in time by reference to watch faces captured in the photos. This was "breaking" news last night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#192)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    I have always suspected that the boys locked the door and did not let precious back in the house when she came back to either 1) see if there was money to be made, 2) look for her shoe, or 3) look for some other property, depending on who's version of the story is to be believed.
    From the Newsweek article on the defense time line:
    The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    I find it laughable that IMHO could consider Duke LAX players who allegedly weren't at the party, "fillers." Obviously, all players were under suspicion by the police at this time as stated by Himan in the application for the ID order. The police viewed every LAX player, except the lone black one, as a potential suspect. They certainly were not going to take the "captain's list" as gospel. Furthermore, even if the police believed the captain's, it is preposterous to call nonattending Duke LAX players "fillers." "Fillers" or "foils" are supposed to be persons of similar size, shape and appearance to the described suspects, who are unaffiliated with the case and not under suspicion. The purpose of these foils is to unsure fairness in the lineup procedure and to test the credibility of the complaining witness. Sadly, this was not done in this case and it is a disgrace upon Nifong and the Durham PD that it was not done. You should be ashamed of yourself, IHMO, for making such a foolish argument, and then further casting aspersions at Mr. Coleman, a distinguished professor of law.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#194)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    Maybe Elkstrand was wrong about the facts at this early point in the investigation or maybe he was misquoted. Aren't all the defense lawyers lying anyway.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#195)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    Kim's story, Bissey's story, the AV's story, and timelines. Kim, the AV, and Bissey all have the two women going back inside after coming back out to the car. I don't give too much weight as to anyone's description as to why they went back in. People are going to try to look good. But it does seem, if Kim, Bissey, and the AV are correct (BTW, I have as much problem with following Kim's versions as anyone, but did she ever say she never went back inside? I think she just danced around that topic) that the partyers had no problem with letting them back in at first, for whatever reason. And apparently they were all right with talking to Kim and letting her back in later. Things got nasty at the end it seems (why? didn't think they had their money's worth, I guess). I give almost no weight to anyone's estimation of time or time passing unless there is solid verification. That includes Bissey, Kim, and the AV. That's extremely hard to get right and/or remember without looking at an accurate timepiece and writing it down, which I seriously doubt that either Kim, the AV, or Bissey did. I have some interest in knowing if they went back in at the same time (AV implies it, Bissey implies it less directly) or separately (Kim now says (?) she waited and then went back in.) The times that are most likely to be accurate would be Seligman's cell phone records. They just show that the same number was dialed every minute for several minutes, with two others in between, then a cab was called. Speculation: he was extremely anxious to contact his girlfriend, and she wasn't there. He tried 2 other places to see if she was there. Why? No idea. Could he have committed a crime before making those calls? If the time stamp photos are accurate, very unlikely. Could he have been committing a crime while dialing these numbers? Sure. Is it likely? I wouldn't think so, but then again people do some pretty wild stuff when they've been drinking. Was he drinking? I don't know. Likely? Yeah. Are the time stamp photos accurate, or close? Likely, I think. A few minutes either way. Bissey's, the AV's, and Kim's times? Unless there is confirmation, I'd say not necessarily accurate at all. Do I think Kim was a good samaritan? Maybe after her own welfare was assured. I still think she's not telling us what happened after the AV and she went back in the house. (Bissey seems to think at least one woman was persuaded to go back inside and that the AV went back for her shoe.) I think Kim may have wanted to see if she could make a little more money too. I think she may have been a draw in terms of attention and therefore helped to minimize attention on the AV and where she was and what was happening to her. Possibly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#196)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#197)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    BTW, you may think she's "decent", but it's clear that your bar for "decent" is perilously low. Would that be the soft bigotry of low expectations? "Sleazy" and "skanky" are among the nicest words I can come up with for a drug-addled hooker who endangers her children on a regular basis and falsely alleges felonies which could put innocent people away for ten or more years. I don't even want to calculate what a gigantic waste of money she's been. Frankly, Bob's hypothetical mental diagnoses of bi-polar or schizophrenia are among the kindest adjectives anyone could apply - at least those provide some kind of excuse by virtue of mental disability.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Lora:
    I think Kim may have wanted to see if she could make a little more money too.
    She just made $400 for five minutes work (okay, an hour of her time). No, she went back inside and made a quick tour to assuage her conscience before she burned rubber to get out of there, with "Precious" or not. Apparently, once Kim left the house the second time (when the rape was supposedly occurring), she was told by the young men AT THAT TIME that the accuser was ALREADY passed out on the back porch. Photos at 12:30 had already been taken. "Precious" was on the back porch. That's why Kim couldn't find her in the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#199)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    IMHO Without calling the AV names or piling on, what possible basis is there for saying she's decent?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#200)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    blcc posted:
    IMHO,
    Back atcha.
    THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO GET INFO ON THE DURHAM PROSTITUTE PSEUDO-RAPE CASE.
    I don't object to you posting links to accuser's name, but Talk Left has made it clear that she does. blcc posted:
    BTW, you may think she's "decent", but it's clear that your bar for "decent" is perilously low. Would that be the soft bigotry of low expectations?
    "Sleazy" and "skanky" are among the nicest words I can come up with for a drug-addled hooker who endangers her children on a regular basis and falsely alleges felonies which could put innocent people away for ten or more years. I don't even want to calculate what a gigantic waste of money she's been....
    I don't recall ever calling the accuser decent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#201)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    Lora wrote:
    Could [Seligman] have been committing a crime while dialing these numbers? Sure. Is it likely? I wouldn't think so, but then again people do some pretty wild stuff when they've been drinking.
    Sure, Seligman could have been calling his girlfriend repeatedly on his cellphone while beating up, strangling, forcibly restraining, and raping the AV. Happens alla time. (I DO believe in fairies! I do, I do, I do!)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    /Posted by mik June 15, 2006 08:19 AM IMHO: It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect. Wrong. The job interview story is still hearsay from the anonymous sister of a player. Duke played Loyola in The First Four tournament in San Diego on March 11, a Saturday. I don't know how many seniors would be allowed to miss a tournament for job interviews. I have no reason to trust this statement. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, we must assume that all 46 were in town and available as suspects. None of the lawyers for the other players has come out and said, "Here's his airplane ticket! He was out of town! Release him from suspicion!" I think the lack of that statement is more probative than the quote of an anonymous sister. / I think IMHOs example of an interview with an anonymous sister is more probative than the lack of a statement from the defense. You seem to be arguing that the lack of evidence of one thing disproves actual evidence of another. So......If the defense attorney has not shown us the plane tickets then they don't exist, therefore all players were in town? But the interview with the sister must be proven? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Is it? You put more burden on IMHO's evidence than you do on your own.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#203)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    The accuser's medical records from DUMC hadn't even been printed when Nifong was quoting from them. He was out making statements about what the medical records showed on March 29th when they weren't created until March 30th and not turned over to him until the beginning of April!!! Is this guy unbelievable or not. Is this guy not the stupidist ass ever to put on a DA's uniform or what? What a vicious, vile man.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#204)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:35:59 PM EST
    I knew Himan didn't have the medical records when he made his affidavit on March 23 in which he proceeded to characterize the medical evidence. When I saw the subpoena for the records was issued by the DA on March 22, I didn't think it likely that the records were produced that fast. Now it turns out that they didn't even exist on March 23 when Himan was telling the court what they said!! What the heck was Himan doing? Where was this medical information coming from, the FA? Himan is in serious trouble based on what now appears to be the facts surrounding the medical evidence. I would think he could be civilly liable for this. Immunity is not absolute. Why did Himan involve himself in Nifong's disaster I will never understand. He had to know that this whole thing was a hoax.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#205)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    Innocent:
    But the interview with the sister must be proven?
    I wasn't asserting it to be a truth that none of the players were out of town. However, IMHO was asserting that Coleman's statement, "any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," was incorrect due to the fact that some of the players were out of town. She based this on the statement of the anonymous sister, an unsubstantiated quote from Pat, and a quote from a Duke alum with no further proof how he obtained the information. Seligmann was on the list of "fillers," yet he was indicted. It may be that some of the players were out of town. However, without ANY EVIDENCE to the contrary, I think we must believe that Nifong and the investigating officers were treating ALL of the players, with the exception of Devon Sherwood, as possible suspects. All were photographed for mug shots and torso photos, all had their cheeks swabbed for DNA samples. Now Nifong wants to obtain key card data about the comings and goings for an unspecified period of time for ALL 46 players, including whichever ones were possibly out of town.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#206)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    imho stated:
    I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there . . . If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    Yet again, we have the claim that someone disagreeing with imho's opinion is lying, or fibbing, or factually incorrect.
    Here is a fuller version of what I posted:
    I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there.
    From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS:
    Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.
    Maybe he's lying, maybe the captains are lying or mistaken. We don't know. According to Hinman's sworn statement the police were led to believe five of the photographed players were not at the party.
    According to Chuck Sherwood, ex-Duke lacrosse goalie and father of the sole black player currently on the team, not all players photographed for purposes of identification were at the party.
    He [Chuck Sherwood] expressed frustration that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party and could have more clearly stated not all were there.
    If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    1. Chuck Sherwood said, "...that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party ." That means the power point presentation Coleman is discussing contained photos "from players not at the party." 2. Coleman claimed "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice." 3. If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#207)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    Himan states the following under oath on March 23, 2006, in his probably cause affidavit in support of the Identification order: "Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and annally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#208)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    IHMO, please comment on Himan's statement under oath. Has Himan lied?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    IMHO:
    Chuck Sherwood said, "...that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party ." That means the power point presentation Coleman is discussing contained photos "from players not at the party."
    How does Chuck Sherwood KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that players were out of town? Who told him? Is he relying on heresay evidence from his son? Would this be admissible in a court of law?
    If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    Until we KNOW that what Sherwood says is true, we would be wrong to assume it as fact, wouldn't we? Ergo, it would be wrong to call Coleman incorrect without know all the facts, wouldn't it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#210)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    For the sake of accuracy the date of the medical record subpoena was March 21, I had previously said it was March 22. The DUMC records were delivered to Nifong on April 5.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#211)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    How could there be a wrong choice IMHO when they indicted your filler? DPD obviously didn't think Seligman was a wrong choice. Well, maybe they did, but Nifong and that famous, independent grand jury did not. I mean jeez the grand jury indicted him, that's something isn't it? Must be guilty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#212)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:06:03 PM EST
    Can anyone here imagine the pain that Seligman has had to endure during this fiasco. Will he ever feel safe again? I doubt it based on what I saw in the Durham courtroom when the Black Panther yelled out "dead man walking." He's just a young kid that was at the wrong place at the wrong time and his whole life is ruined.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#213)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    I'm beginning to believe that imho is a Nifong staffer, with this new, bizarre crusade to prove Coleman "incorrect." Nifong demanded DNA from all 46 players. He refused contact from Seligmann's attorneys before indicting Seligmann. He's now demanding keycard info. from Duke to establish where all 46 players were on the night of the incident. imho is saying, as far as I can understand it, that Coleman is "incorrect"--at least he's not "lying"--because one or two of the players might have been out of town on the night of the party. (This doesn't get to the requirement that there be seven fillers for every one suspect, but, as we all know, in imho's world, we can't criticize Nifong.) Yet had the accuser chosen one of those players, is there any reason to believe Nifong wouldn't have indicted the player? He refused to meet with Seligmann's attorneys. He refused to meet with Evans' attorneys. He surely would have refused to meet with the attorneys of this hypothetical player as well, to receive evidence that the player was out of town. Coleman, it's worth recalling, was not only Duke Law School's only rep. on the Actual Innocence Project, but he's also the former Democratic chief counsel to the House Ethics Committee. Just a hunch--but my guess is he doesn't need lectures from imho on how and the manner in which he should comment publicly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#214)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    Let me amend the foregoing, he wasn't even at the wrong place at the wrong time and his life is basically ruined.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#215)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    Wait, I'm trying to keep up...so is it any lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich or you have to be a ham sandwich to sit on a grand jury?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#216)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion
    If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.
    there were no wrong choices because Nifong would have charged them anyway!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#217)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    I just looked back at the transcript of the photo ID session. Coleman's assertion is that the ID session is wrong because the police didn't intentionally include fillers. From the transcript:
    I sat down with the victim in the briefing room at the conference table and explained to her we were going to sit in the far side of the room at the desk and look at people we had reason to believe attended the party.
    Coleman's quote:
    "The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say, in effect, 'Pick three,' " Coleman said. "It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification." (emphasis mine)


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#218)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    I just looked back at the transcript of the photo ID session. Coleman's assertion is that the ID session is wrong because the police didn't intentionally include fillers. From the transcript:
    I sat down with the victim in the briefing room at the conference table and explained to her we were going to sit in the far side of the room at the desk and look at people we had reason to believe attended the party.
    Coleman's quote:
    "The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say, in effect, 'Pick three,' " Coleman said. "It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification." (emphasis mine)


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#219)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    Sorry for the double post. Don't know how I did that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#220)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    Both, at least in Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#221)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    Yes, Newport, I meant the Ham Sandwich grand jury in Durham with the meathead prosecutor. This is so seriously not a laughing matter though. I remember watching Seligman at that intitial hearing and shuddering when that idiot NBP fool was allowed to shout his threat with no restraints. What a pitiful spectacle.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#222)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    While IMHO is researching how Himan didn't really lie let me add this: Coleman is the first professor at Duke to show any backbone in this matter and the fact that he is black is even more impressive in my book. The rest of the Duke faculty either found the boys guilty, quit in protest that the whole team was not immediately suspended, or stayed quiet while watching a lynching occur right before their eyes. None had the courage to speak out lest they offend someone. Pathetic. Further, the team should have never been suspended and that's not hindsight. When has a team ever been suspended for the alleged actions of a couple of players. If Duke had the slightest amount of courage it would announce that in view of the facts of this case as we now know them, the two boys can come back to school in the fall. If I were them I wouldn't go back, I'd transfer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#223)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    I have been following this story since the early days and have been following your blog for the past couple of weeks. I want to first thank all of you for your time in this discussion. It has been very informative and yes, I FINALLY got pulled into posting here. I just couldn't take it anymore! Question for the group: Why do you get sucked into responding to IMHO's comments? Most of IMHO's comments are ridiculous and focused on details that have nothing to do with this case really. She seems to be someone who just gets a kick out of arguing and stirring up the pot. She says she isn't in favor of the FA, that she is "just pointing out" the inaccuracies and lies of the defense, yet I haven't seen her point out anything regarding the inaccuracies/inconsistencies/lies from the FA/DA/Kim, etc. If she were interested in "the truth" as she says she is, then she wouldn't be so unbelievably biased to the FA's side. I just don't get it. Now, I have a question for the legal experts and attorneys (not to say attorneys aren't legal experts, but you know what I mean...). I mentioned that I've been following this case from early on. I think what really struck me as odd in the beginning was Nifong holding that "town meeting" at NCCU early on, prior to the election. That was where my suspicions arose that this was a hoax or a setup. I can never remember seeing a DA hold an event like that, especially that early in a case, yet I haven't heard much talk about that being improper. I agree that Nifong making all of the statements to the press was unethical, especially now that we see he was making statements "wildly" without anything to back them up, but that "town meeting" is in a different, very disturbed league to me. Not only is he making the same "false" statements but just the nature of it would drive community division and unrest. I felt it was amazingly irresponsible at the very least. Okay, sorry...now to my question. Does Nifong attending that "town meeting" and making the statements he did expose him to the possibility of civil action, especially considering all of the evidence that is now coming out that he knew about? Thanks in advance for your comments. Now I have to go write my resignation letter and put my house up for sale since I will be spending all of my time on this blog and not working. IMHO, how do you do it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#224)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    Yeah Weezie, why was that man not arrested on the spot for making terroristic threats? Why was he just talked to? Who ever heard of such a thing. This fine judge needs to get control of his courtroom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#225)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    Weezie & Newport: Let us not forget that early on in the investigation, the media thought it newsworthy to publish Seligmann's and Finnerty's home addresses and tax appraisal info. Geez, I'd move if I were them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#226)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    Yeah, that Town Hall Meeting was one of the most eggregiously wrong and unethical acts of this hateful, vicious man in the furtherance of his personal vendetta against Duke and justice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#227)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    Nifong is an enemy of GOD!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#228)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    Seriously IMHO, the issue regarding the photo lineup is NOT whether or not there were a few Lacrosse players that may have been out of town and were "fillers" by your definition. The issue is that it wasn't done properly. I suggest you go back and read TL's excellent post which outlines this issue of the photo lineup, how this one was done and what proper procedure should be. Your argument about the few "fillers" that are LAX players doesn't hold water. If the FA had identified one of the possibly "out of town" players as her attacker, Nifong would have filed charges against that person anyway. Considering that he filed charges against RS, refusing to look at any exculpatory evidence from RS's attorney (and ignoring what exculpatory evidence he was already aware of), what makes you think Nifong wouldn't have files against a player that the captains (or anyone) said was out of town? Nifong just wanted an indictment and he would make the player prove his innocence in court. Geez, 2 posts and I'm drained already! Thank you for allowing my comments on your blog.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#229)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    Please whatisthat, don't get IMHO sidetracked while she is busy researching how HIMAN really didn't lie. Just kidding, welcome.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#230)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    hi whatisthat
    Why do you get sucked into responding to IMHO's comments? Most of IMHO's comments are ridiculous and focused on details that have nothing to do with this case really.
    without IMHO, the thread would have died long ago!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#231)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    Been reading your comments for a number of weeks. I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I cannot recall that it had been. Going way back to BIP's comments as to the animus that AV might have had to file the charges, is it possible or likely that, with the motivation solely of self-preservation, she cried "Rape" simply to avoid a tox screen? Is she smart enough or experienced enough to know that she could refuse a tox screen if rape is alleged?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#232)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:15:51 PM EST
    Sundance:
    Is she smart enough or experienced enough to know that she could refuse a tox screen if rape is alleged?
    She was a second year student studying police psychology. Would that be enough to know procedure?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#233)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    Mik - probably not. The 1st two years of college are typically just basics courses (calculus, english, psych 101, foreign languages, etc.). I think the second two years would likely be where the major fields are focused is where she might get procedural knowledge. But she might have learned from "off the street", given her line of work and contacts, or maybe from her prior charge (although I recall that charge being made well after the alleged crime).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#234)
    by Alan on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    Posted by Sundance
    Going way back to BIP's comments as to the animus that AV might have had to file the charges, is it possible or likely that, with the motivation solely of self-preservation, she cried "Rape" simply to avoid a tox screen?
    I think BIP's idea, based on her behaviour for the previous criminal incident, is that this is a person who acts very impulsively in certain situations, and acts with complete disregard for anyone else. I hope I am not misinterpreting Bob but I think he sees this whole thing as an allegation put together on impulse without a lot of planning or thought.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#235)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    Personally, I doubt she knew of and was trying to avoid a tox screen. I think she was pissed at the guys for their crude comments, pissed that her money disappeared, maybe concerned that her driver/pimp would take his pound of flesh, worried about her father's response to his learning she's a stripper/hooker, maybe concerned that her kids might be taken away, and, as a bonus, smelled a fat, rich civil suit. Fear, anger, greed - the whole 9. Complete supposition of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#236)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    Thanks, Alan. I think most people can guess what Nifong's motivation is either: 1) political pandering, or 2) he is just a stubborn & arrogant ass. AV's motivation, as much as I can imagine (not being female) is: 1) it happened (not looking likely) 2) revenge (possible) 3) self preservation I believe #1 has been covered in excrutiating detail and is not likely. BIP touched on #2, which is possible with the racial elements and the woman scorned addage. #3 was hit with the thought that she did it to avoid the drunk tank, but I'm just wondering if her motivation ran, uh, a little deeper. Like avoiding the tox screen that goes along with a trip to the drunk tank. If she had some potent sh*t in her system, that might also explain her "uncontrollable" behavior as well as why she would do almost anything to avoid a tox screen. Thoughts?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    SUO - you're right, I forgot about greed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#238)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:39:23 PM EST
    whatisthat wrote:
    I agree that Nifong making all of the statements to the press was unethical, especially now that we see he was making statements "wildly" without anything to back them up...
    This news story details how some of Mike Nifong's statements seem to contradict information in his own files. And, in this story, a former federal prosecutor claims that these apparent discrepancies could open the door for the players' attorneys to call Mike Nifong as a witness at any trial. How do you think Mr. Nifong would do on the stand under questioning from Joseph Chesire?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#239)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    whatisthat said:
    Does Nifong attending that "town meeting" and making the statements he did expose him to the possibility of civil action, especially considering all of the evidence that is now coming out that he knew about?
    Interesting question. It's also worth remembering that at this "town meeting," held at a predominantly African-American institution and featuring a candidate who needed black votes to win the primary, Nifong made his first statement that, despite his earlier affirmation to the court that those with negative DNA matches would be exonerated, he would proceed anyway. So this was the first clear procedural violation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#240)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    Nifong would smile, laugh like a braying ass, shake his head. You know, like he did at the 1st court appearance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#241)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    I am naively giving Nifong a pass on the UNCC (?) town hall meeting. I think it calmed the masses down by telling them that he was going to pursue the case (come h*ll or highwater). Aside from putting himself further out on the ledge, I think the overall impact to the general population was positive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#242)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler.
    TalkLeft explained to you why neither Seligmann not the other alibied teammates were "fillers."
    TL posted:
    IMHO, players not at the party would not be "known innocents......
    My use of the word "fillers" wasn't a good choice in that I didn't mean fillers in the sense of the line up guidelines. I wasn't arguing the line up followed anyone's guidelines.I meant fillers as in players the captains said were not at the party. I was arguing that unless the captains are lying, there were WRONG CHOICES. I tried to explain that here, but could have done better ( I stuck an extra "not" in the sentence by mistake): imho wrote:
    I doubt the police were [not] including the players they had reason to believe were not there, as fillers. It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.
    wumhenry posted:
    IMHO wrote:
    Nifong still does not know who all was at the party, who was out of town and who was not.
    Then it's not true that they put "fillers" in the lineup. They didn't put anybody in the lineup who they knew was not present.
    They were led to believe five players were not present, though I didn't mean they were included as fillers in the sense you mean.
    Furthermore, the sergeant's instructions to the AV were coaching. If (as many of us strongly suspect) the rape accusation was a lie, the AV might have picked three alleged culprits without bothering to try to remember whether she saw them that night. The sergeant helped her to minimize the risk of picking someone with an ironclad alibi by instructing her to concentrate, in the first place, on filtering the suspect pool for those she remembered having seen at the party.
    Minimize the risk of making a WRONG CHOICE? whatisthat posted:
    Seriously IMHO, the issue regarding the photo lineup is NOT whether or not there were a few Lacrosse players that may have been out of town and were "fillers" by your definition. The issue is that it wasn't done properly.
    Welcome whatisthat, I wasn't arguing that it was done properly. I was showing that Coleman's "there could be no wrong choice" quote is incorrect unless all three captains and Chuck Sherwood are lying or mistaken.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#243)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    whatisthat posted:
    Thanks in advance for your comments. Now I have to go write my resignation letter and put my house up for sale since I will be spending all of my time on this blog and not working. IMHO, how do you do it?
    By "not working."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    Hello - Reply to Newport - Not only has Seligman been maliciously attacked by the the New Black Panthers Party and others but worse, the right wing blogs are attacking him for being 'jewish' (his father is jewish, his mother is catholic and he attended catholic schools). It is really ugly. I am beyond repulsed by this situation. I was in Nifong's law school class and I remember the anti Duke sentiment at UNC. Many students blasted Duke b/c "Yankee Jews" went to Duke. As a left wing feminist and lawyer, I am beyond tired of IMHO. Shut up. You really don't know what you are blabbering about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#245)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    Hi PatsyMac, What you report is terrible. I'm very sorry to hear that. I don't know why "right wing blogs" would say such things. I feel horrible for Seligman, he didn't do anything to bring all this on. He didn't arrange the party, he didn't hurl any insults and he wasn't even drunk from what the cabbie says. Hell, he left before things turned ugly. Do you know if Nifong was such a stupid ass in law school as he is now? Did he think he was smarter than everyone else back then?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    PatsyMac - that is so sad. I can hardly believe that sort of stuff still goes on in this century. But then, I did live in NC for a couple of years, so maybe I can.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#247)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion How do you define "wrong choice"? From what we have seen of Nifong, he is charging the choices that the AV made even if those choices are wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    PatsyMac, Please let IMHO answer my question about whether Himan LIED. She can shut up after that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#249)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    Hello Newport Nifong was definitely in the bottom half of the class. No law review, nothing. He was just an good old boy from eastern North Carolina. Being from eastern North Carolina was lower class. He sat near me (we sat in alphebetical order) but made no impression. He went to work for no pay, bad sign, and then got paid on a per diem basis. Anybody who stays for 25 years at the DA's office is a loser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#250)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    Newport, you are tenacious!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    I read somewhere that someone who knew Nifong said he had 1600 SAT's. Nifong must have been the source of that information.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    PatsyMac, I figured as much. In my experience, it is the dumbest asses that think they are the smartest. The real smart people don't even think they are that smart.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#253)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    Posted by PatsyMac June 15, 2006 05:59 PM
    As a left wing feminist and lawyer, I am beyond tired of IMHO. Shut up. You really don't know what you are blabbering about.
    And after one post, I'm beyond tired of you. Imho absolutely does know what s/he is talking about. What have you contributed but another personal attack on imho in lieu of any intelligent argument?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    I really think PatsyMac has contributed a lot already. She was in Nifong's class and has unique insight based on that. Please stay PatsyMac.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#255)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    to PatsyMac
    As a left wing feminist and lawyer, I am beyond tired of IMHO. Shut up. You really don't know what you are blabbering about.
    Why not enlighten the board by pointing out how IMHO is wrong?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#256)
    by Alan on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:21:40 PM EST
    Posted by Sundance
    SUO - you're right, I forgot about greed.
    Greed is interesting. The dance show had ended in harsh exchanges with the players, so it seems unlikely the Av thought it would resume. She'd already been paid $400 for her performance so there's no reasonable way to make more money merely by resuming the show. Pittman is emphatic that the AV thought there was 'more money' to be made and has the AV returning to the house even (presumably, I accept there are other readings) after the rape. She has the AV use that phrase twice in her police statement. Question. If resuming the dance was not a way to make 'more money', what was? Direct sexual services? Or a rape allegation?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#257)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    imho, The AV did, apparently, make the wrong choice with Seligmann. My guess is that she couldn't make a right choice, considering that she wasn't gang raped at that party. Running out of room out there on the margins?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#258)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    Greetings from the peanut gallery. Newport, the NBP fellow got away with his remarks because the judge had not yet entered the courtroom. Nutfong was there but, apparently, pre-occupied with shuffling papers and practising his head shaking and simpering performance. In any event, being an officer of the court and all, I guess Nutfong felt the kid deserved the threat and who cares about a well represented defendant anyway.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#259)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    I really don't think the FA's motivation is or was that complicated; she didn't want to get committed so she cried rape. It was probably, to her, the most expedient way to deal with the situation. I really don't think she put a lot of thought into it. Little did she know that Nifong was on the scene and needed a boost with the black voters in his campaign. The rest is history.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#260)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    Alan - very interesting direction. I can only think that the two you mentioned would have to be correct. However, I find BIP very pursuasive in his estimation that she made up the allegation on a spur of the moment when caught in a pinch. Which can only mean that she was, in fact, a prostitute (not that a reasonable person didn't already know that).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#261)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:36:08 PM EST
    Back around 10a.m. ding7777 wrote: It's probably not a big deal, but even with all of Kim's changing story lines, Kim never says that Kim and the AV went back in the house together. Exactly. That's why I said for the reasonable here to not even bother to try to figure out a timeline or the movements of the people in this mess by the varying stories of Roberts and the AV.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    I am not going to respond to IMHO in detail. Lots of other other people, including TL, have responded. All I am saying is that IMHO posts voluminous messages, full of sound and fury. The more important issue is how this matter will negatively impact on race relations, civil rights and real rape complaints for a long time. This is a toxic case that will hurt everyone. My hope is that people will be reminded of the importance of bill of rights.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#263)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    Bob - assuming this ever gets to trial, do you think they will be able to put together one timeline out of all of the various versions that might fit the AV's story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#264)
    by january on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:41:50 PM EST
    Let me get this straight: Coleman says there were no wrong choices. IMHO says there were because the last five players named were supposedly not at the party. (Or, some of the players may have been out of town on interviews.) AV chooses Seligman, one of the last five players. Nifong indicts Seligman, a "wrong choice?" And this makes Coleman incorrect how?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#265)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:42:16 PM EST
    IMHO, You - of all people - do NOT want to lecture me about posting etiquette. I made my objections clear to you on this board, and to TL personally in a private email. You ignored me, and she didn't object. For the record, someone made a count, was it on the last Lacrosse thread? that you had posted 46 messages on that thread alone? And yet, that didn't seem surprising, as you've been - by far - the most loquaitious commenter on this topic. Let's say you've only made a nasty swipe at the players or their family members every fourth post. I think I'm being generous, but you can count them all and dispute my math if you like, this is just a rough, "back of the envelope" calculation. And let's say, furthermore, that you average 40 posts per thread. Again, I'm attempting to err in your favor, and I'm sure you'll feel free to correct the details (and totally miss the entire point, but that's another subject...). There have been, by my count, 63 Duke Lacrosse threads to date (including this one), so I'll guesstimate you've made 2,520 posts so far, and of those at least 630 of those have been mean-spirited, back-handed, uncalled-for swipes against people who increasingly appear to be innocent victims of a mentally-unstable prostitute trying to avoid either the drunk-tank or a beat-down from her pimp. If you want me to lay off? Maybe it's time for you to lead by example and STFU.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#266)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    Newport, from the section of the NEWSWEEK article immie posted, it says when the women left. It doesn't say when the AV, or they, returned. Maybe immie will print the time NEWSWEEK says that Eckland says the AV returned to the house, whether or not she was let in, and a few other facts that might be of use when trying to determine what time the AV returned. Or which time she returned. Or whatever.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#267)
    by Alan on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    Posted by Sundance
    Alan - very interesting direction. I can only think that the two you mentioned would have to be correct. However, I find BIP very pursuasive in his estimation that she made up the allegation on a spur of the moment when caught in a pinch.
    I agree with BIP that the allegation was made on impulse. I am beginning to consider the possibility she decided on the rape allegation before leaving the house. We need to think about the player's reactions to (1) a proposal to resume dancing for extra money or (2) a proposal to engage in sex for extra money. In thinking about this, we'll need to recall that Pittman describes the AV as out of control before Pittman and the AV (by any reading) first leave the house and the AV is talking about 'more money' before Pittman and the Av first leave the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#269)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#270)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    Dang. I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to include her name. I just cut and pasted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#272)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    Regarding motive: I think it's pretty reasonable to think that since the rape charge came up right about when she was going to be involuntarily locked up for her intoxication and erratic behavior, I think that that must have been the core issue: self-preservation. I think all the other things probably gave her more motivation to fill out the story. Nothing like a case of the ass to color a story. Don't forget that the woman was hospitalized a year ago for an as-yet undisclosed mental illness. The general guideline for hospitalization is "danger to self or others." We're not talking about her checking herself into the Betty Ford Clinic. Along with beer, mixed drinks and an undetermined amount of muscle relaxers, any bi-polar or schizophrenic condition would have been amplified. In short, maybe on top of it all she was hallucinating. Expect her to play up that angle if she's ever charged with filing false charges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#273)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    Patsy Mac You were a couple of years ahead of me at UNC . My experience there wasn't the same---the typical UNC Duke stuff was about New Jersey come South and Duke's response was about stupid Southern rednecks, but I didn't ever hear anything antisemitic like you describe. I'm not from NC but you know Eastern North Carolina is NOT necessarily lower class...I didn't know Nifong in law school but practice in this area still. Nifong IS out ahead of his lights, whether because of inexperience, political ambition or blind stubbornness. And although I have never practiced criminal law,there are DA's and there are DA's, and some of them, the one in Raleigh for example, is anything but a loser. Sometimes, people just start down a path and keep on it. As to IMHO, after a while, as much as I disagree with her, there's one in every thread...and it keeps people talking, I guess. Glad to have you posting.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#274)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    Patsy Mac, Please stay. Your insights are valuable.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#275)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    Posted by PatsyMac June 15, 2006 06:58 PM
    TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you?
    That you are nutty enough to go through his trash and report that he doesn't separate his recyclables?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#276)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    Bob, I agree with you. I gave up trying to reconcile the conflicting statements of the two dancers with themselves and with the neighbor and any other available evidence. It's a Sisyphaen [sp?] task as far as I can tell. Wumhenry will tell me if I used Sisyphaen correctly. I think the only way we will ever know the real story is from the boys.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#277)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    mik posted:
    I also wonder about the bruising her father claims she had later that day. Could it have been that she finally came clean with Matt after he picked her up at the hospital and he beat the living cr@p out of her?
    Just thinking. I'm not asserting any of this as remotely true.
    I've thought about that. If we knew what time she checked out of the hospital and what time her father first saw her we could get an idea if the swelling or bruising or whatever he claims to have seen would have had time to show up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#278)
    by weezie on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    Oooh, ouch blakely. I'm heading for the corner with my dunce cap on.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#279)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:20:31 PM EST
    Mic wrote,
    Would it be fair to assume that the boyfriend did NOT know her line of work?
    Not unless he shares genes with Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#280)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:21:24 PM EST
    But at least we now know when the DNA from the boyfriend was deposited.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#281)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    Newport: Good one! I can't believe I didn't think of THAT being why Jarriel couldn't pick up the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#282)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:28:37 PM EST
    On AV's motive...she's claimed rape at least twice in her life. I wonder if she really was raped, not by the lacrosse players or the three guys in Creedmoor. Maybe this is an old real experience, that shows back up when she's in a bad place. It's certainly a claim that gets the spotlight off of whatever trouble she may have gotten herself into. I suspect she was clear enough to know that she was in a car with a strange woman with see-through clothes on, without a shoe, and drunk/drugged enough to be sent to detox. Where her parents/boyfriend would find out a lot of things. Plus no doubt the boys were rude and not such easy touches for the extra money she wanted to make---a rape charge, especially a gang rape charge takes the power back. Would be very interested in how the first rape claim first arose...was a boyfriend mad?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#283)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    blcc posted:
    If you want me to lay off? Maybe it's time for you to lead by example and STFU.
    I've never asked you to lay off. I don't care what you say about the accuser, I just warned you that Talk Left does not want her real name posted here. I've never complained about your posts to you, Talk Left or anyone else. I enjoy your mini-meltdowns. You remind me of the dearly departed Orinoco.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#284)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:35:05 PM EST
    Newport wrote: I read somewhere that someone who knew Nifong said he had 1600 SAT's. Yeah, but that was before the results of the test came back.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#285)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    Would be very interested in how the first rape claim first arose...was a boyfriend mad?
    You really don't know? Just another triple gang rape accusation, this time against a old boyfriend and his two buddies. Reported to authorities something like 10 years after the alleged incident, if I remember right...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#286)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    Thank you Bob...that was absolutely the funniest thing I've read about this case! I posted earlier regarding a civil suit. Do any of the lawyers/legal experts on here think that the accused have grounds for a civil case against Nifong and/or the DPD based upon what has come out the past few days regarding evidence that they had and ignored or that they lied in affidavits without even having reports yet?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#287)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    Sarcastic unnamed one I know about the charge...what I'd like to find out about is what made it emerge when it did. Was she in trouble with her then boyfriend, in need of some sort of dramatic exit from a bad place? What I'm suggesting is that it might have been triggered by something that got triggered again in March...was there something about to come out then that could get drowned out by claiming gang rape?.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#288)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    Coleman, it's worth recalling, was not only Duke Law School's only rep. on the Actual Innocence Project, but he's also the former Democratic chief counsel to the House Ethics Committee. Just a hunch--but my guess is he doesn't need lectures from imho on how and the manner in which he should comment publicly.
    Hard to believe he would not have read the MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE NON-TESTIMONIAL ORDER before writing his "excellent letter," concerning the power point presentation, but he must not have because he made a glaring error: unless the three captains and Chuck Sherwood are liars, THERE WERE WRONG CHOICES. From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS:
    Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#289)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    / Posted by PatsyMac June 15, 2006 06:58 PM TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you? / It tells us that you couldn't find any dirt on him and you are really reaching.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#291)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    Welcome to the board PattyMac, you've now been hit by all the likely sources. You can relax now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#292)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    PatsyMac posted:
    TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you?
    It tells me a lot - about you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#293)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    I don't claim to know the answer whatisthat. I suspect, though ,that given a DA's wide latitude that it might be tough case to bring. He did have AV's statements to the police, which we haven't seen, which could have been the colorable basis of at least some of these statements, even though we now know how widely conflicting they were. I don't know of a lot of situations in which a DA has been held liable---they are allowed a lot of discretion, and although Nifong arguably abused his, I don't see a civil case as a big threat. He will claim he was told this or that, had a report of some vaginal swelling, bruises etc, and that would probably shield him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#294)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    to localone The AV told her (then future) husband and he encouraged her to report it. Maybe she was told him the gang-rape story to get some sympathy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#295)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    what posted,
    I posted earlier regarding a civil suit. Do any of the lawyers/legal experts on here think that the accused have grounds for a civil case against Nifong and/or the DPD based upon what has come out the past few days regarding evidence that they had and ignored or that they lied in affidavits without even having reports yet?
    This is an interesting question and I doubt anyone really knows what the answer is. It would require a lot of legal research into immunity law, how far it extends, to whom it extends, and whether it can be pierced.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#296)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    You know I wonder if the AV's current "boyfriend" will turn on her, or at least refuse to help her when he's called to testify about his DNA. Maybe he knew about the hotel trips and dances for money, but clearly she didn't think he knew about Jarriel and didn't want him to. He's might have to be a witness for the defense ---and she must have told him one of her several stories. Wonder which one?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#297)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    Thanks for the thoughts localone. What is bizarre to me is that it seems that a DA can do this without the fear of recourse. This is the USA we live in, right? Has anyone heard anything else the past couple of days about the NC Attorney General getting involved? I thought I heard or read something about that a few days ago. When I think beyond this case, it really makes me think about all of the cases that we don't know about...those cases that haven't received this exposure. I have to believe this isn't the first time Nifong or that office has done these type of "irregularities" in handling a case. When you have this many "irregularities" going on, they have probably happened before as if this is just their "normal" course of doing business.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#298)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion What is your definition of a "wrong choice"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#271)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:12:20 PM EST
    Posted by weezie June 15, 2006 06:25 PM
    Greetings from the peanut gallery. Newport, the NBP fellow got away with his remarks because the judge had not yet entered the courtroom. Nutfong was there but, apparently, pre-occupied with shuffling papers and practising his head shaking and simpering performance. In any event, being an officer of the court and all, I guess Nutfong felt the kid deserved the threat and who cares about a well represented defendant anyway.
    It's the baliff's job to eject people from the courtroom, not the DA's.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#299)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    IMHO posted,
    It tells me a lot - about you.
    Damn Patsy, I forgot about that one. IMHO is still on the Coleman issue which she is determined to press. I am still waiting on IMHO's analysis of whether HIMAN LIED in his probably cause affidavit on March 23 and the medical records that were not generated until March 30 and not delivered to Nifong until April 5. Himan's lies don't seem too important to IMHO, she's more concerned with her game.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#300)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    Thanks Newport. That brings up a point. Has anyone heard of a situation like this happening before. (DA, abuse of power, not following proper procedures, etc...some of you have outlined his "irregularities" better than I can here.) If you have heard of anything like this, was a civil suit filed or was the DA just removed? Being from Chicago, I hear about civil suits against the police departments all of the time, but I can't recall anything against a prosecutor. Hmmmmm, being in Chicago, I'm sure all of our prosecutors are on the up and up...we have no corruption here at all as far as I'm aware. ;-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#268)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    While we're still talking about motive, I wonder about her boyfriend. I seem to recall that he was the one that picked her up from the hospital on March 14. In Jarriel Johnson's statement, he writes about one time she was supposed to pick up the accuser, but couldn't because her boyfriend was there.
    Around 2 p.m. that afternoon **** calls me asking if I could drive her that night. I agree and ask what time, she says around 4 p.m. As I get close to her parents house she calls me and says that Matt [Mathew Murchison, her boyfriend] is coming over to bring her something. I told her that I would wait until she called me at the the car wash on Fayetteville St. Around 5-5:30 p.m. she calls me and tells me that he's gone. About 5-10 minutes later I arrive at her parent's house.
    Would it be fair to assume that the boyfriend did NOT know her line of work? Why else would Jarriel avoid coming over while Matt was there? Maybe he only thought she danced in clubs, but wasn't making anything "on the side." I also wonder about the bruising her father claims she had later that day. Could it have been that she finally came clean with Matt after he picked her up at the hospital and he beat the living cr@p out of her? Just thinking. I'm not asserting any of this as remotely true.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#301)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    Whatisthat You're right. It's mind boggling to think that if these boys DIDN'T have competent counsel and the media weren't all over it, as happens basically 99.99 percent of the time. much of the prosecutorial abuse wouldn't have been uncovered. Our Attorney General is a real political animal...when the winds turn right, he might be all over it. But I'm honestly not sure who at the State level would have the authority to take over from a locally elected DA. I've been involved with cases in which Special Deputy Attorney Generals were brought in to try cases, but that is usually when the resources aren't there locally. This is a lot stickier because it would ruin Nifong's political career to be removed. Lewis Cheek might be an answer---but still wonder about Lewis on a DA's salary. This is so scary for well to do white folks who have very good lawyers,and notwithstanding IMHO's mistaken view, had the good sense to follow their advice. Imagine how scary it would be if you're not those things.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#302)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    The solution really isn't a civil suit. The solution is the U.S. attorney for the district that includes NC.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#303)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    This is an interesting question and I doubt anyone really knows what the answer is. It would require a lot of legal research into immunity law, how far it extends, to whom it extends, and whether it can be pierced.
    I was just thinking Newport...too bad I don't have IMHO on this side of the discussion. She would be perfect for all of that legal research into immunity law.... That would keep her busy for a while!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#304)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:22:26 PM EST
    The Abrams Report' for June 14
    FILAN: Norm, I think that you can appoint a special prosecutor if there is not just a conflict of interest, but the appearance of impropriety, and one could argue that there is the appearance of impropriety in this case, because perhaps it was brought with political motivations and now that the evidence doesn't sound like it's panning out, he's not going to drop it. Do you think that could be a basis for a special prosecutor?
    NORMAN EARLY, FORMER DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, a prosecutor should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If people perceive one that does not mean that a special prosecutor should be appointed. Let's remember that even though Mr. Coleman was on this commission appointed by the university, he knows no more about this case than you know, Yale know, or that I know about this case.
    In his report, they said that they were not able to interview all the witnesses and they also said they didn't have time to do the job thoroughly, so this gives him no more reason to call for a special prosecutor than anyone in Durham County. It seems to me that what's happening here is the same old thing, with defense giving snippets of information. Why doesn't one of the defense attorneys, as you requested last week, Susan, give up the entire file and let the public make up their mind about what's in the file, rather than distorting the information that's in the file, and giving us only those pieces of information that seem to favor the defense. Give it all up, and let people make up their own mind about whether this case has any merit or not.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#305)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    Just heard on some talking head show that Nifong can not be sued in a civil court. Now, what is the liklihood of the AV trying to extort $$ out of the lax players in civil court. Do they have any prayer? Would the lax families make an economical decision and just settle?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#306)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:25:30 PM EST
    Newport Not sure the US Attorney would have any jurisdiction here...nothing federal about it so far.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#307)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    Elizabeth Dole is a Duke grad, a U.S. senator from NC, and a member of the republican party which currently controls the justice department. She needs to get involved and pressure the U.S. attorney to act. Unfortunately, she probably won't for political reasons.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#308)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    imho posted:
    but he must not have because he made a glaring error: unless the three captains and Chuck Sherwood are liars, THERE WERE WRONG CHOICES. From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS: Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.
    As we now know, Seligmann was one of the "last five" listed by the residents. So, by imho's ever-changing definition (a little like the accuser's multiple stories!), the accuser apparently made a "wrong choice," but the "wrong choice" was indicted anyway. Perhaps Prof. Coleman had read that motion after all. Or perhaps, like everyone else who seems to disagree with imho, he's just "lying," or "fibbing," or "factually incorrect." And, working under the assumption that imho has some sort of connection with Nifong's office, imho apparently has inside information that if the accuser had picked any of the other four so-called "wrong choices," her boss wouldn't have made the indictment. All those who believe that would also believe that when the accuser claimed Dave Evans had a mustache, she really was referring to the other player, who 11 months before was unshaven.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#309)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    There is absolutely something federal here, it's called prosecutorial misconduct and violation of civil rights. The feds are the check on run away state prosecutions. Witness the civil rights era and the resulting civil rights acts. Those laws apply to white boys with fancy pants lawyers too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#310)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    In civil suits, even though the burden is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, you still have to have evidence. And the LAX families, if I'm betting, will NEVER settle with this woman. Since I'm betting anyway, this AV won't make it onto any witness stand, criminal or civil, and she will crumble just as the case has. A third year law student could have an unbelievable field day with her stories, her profession, her past, her drunkenness....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#311)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:34:25 PM EST
    All those who believe that would also believe that when the accuser claimed Dave Evans had a mustache, she really was referring to the other player, who 11 months before was unshaven.
    LOL

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#312)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    Sorry, but I don't think the US attorney would touch this with a 10 foot pole...Nifong's white, they're white...and the US Attorney's not likely to go looking for not so obvious federal civil rights violations in this situation. He's got his hands full with drug cases.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#313)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    I think the U.S. attorney is already looking at it. Gonzalez was interviewed on a radio program and asked about this very issue. He said that justice looks at cases such as this as a matter of course, but he would not comment on the Duke case specifically. The civil rights violations are really not that murky if it can be shown that a DA ignored all the evidence in a case and proceeded with a case for political reasons then you have the makings of a case. The Defendants have been destroyed in reputation, lose of money, loss of livelihood, etc. Oh, I know, you'll never prove Nifong did this for political gain. Well, if all the evidence points in one direction and "the alternative explaination doesn't fit the situation," as Nifong likes to say, then you can prove political motivation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#314)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Why doesn't one of the defense attorneys, as you requested last week, Susan, give up the entire file and let the public make up their mind about what's in the file
    if its ok to make the file public, what's stopping Nifong from giving the media the entire file?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#315)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    And the Bush administration just throws away what black votes it got?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#316)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    Some TH's, including Abrams, who I trust, have looked at the entire file. There is nothing in it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#317)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    LocalOne, I know it doesn't seem politically expedient and you are right it probably won't get done. But I think black people when given the facts will realize that this case is a hoax.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#318)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    Thanks TL for maintaining this site. I've been following for several days and am now ready to take the plunge and comment. Since I used to teach introductory probability, I'd like to try to clear up the question that was being discussed earlier about the fingernail DNA. I seem to recall that when the results of the second round of testing were announced it was said that there was material from several persons adhering to the fingernail, and that there were TWO players who could not be eliminated as sources. My analysis will be based on that assumption. The question is, if Precious were just picking three at random, how likely is it that she would pick one of these two? Would that be like winning the lottery? The first rule of probability is: Don't guess, calculate. In fact if there are two special players in a pool of N and three members of the pool are picked at random, the probability that at least one of the special two will be picked is 1 - (N-2/N)(N-3/N-1)(N-4/N-2). (I can explain the derivation of the formula if anyone wants me to.) For N=46 this works out to .127+ or a little more than 1 in 8, the probability of getting heads three times in a row flipping a coin. As people noted in the earlier discussion, if she is picking from a smaller pool (say, people she thinks she remembers seeing at the party), the numbers go up. For N = 23 the result would be .23+ or a little less than 1 in 4, the probability of getting heads two times in a row flipping a coin. So Precious was a bit lucky, but not extraordinarily lucky. In another direction, however, she seems to have been unlucky, if Seligmann's alibi is as good as it seems to be, and Finnerty's as good as it is said to be. How likely would it be in three random tries that she would twice hit players with good alibis? We can't calculate this number, because we don't know how many players had good alibis. Obviously those who stayed to the end of the party did not, and almost certainly some who left earlier weren't seen by witnesses (except perhaps teammates) and didn't engage in electronic transactions during the crucial interval (whenever that is supposed to be according to Nifong's secret timeline). If only one third, say, had good alibis, her chance of picking (at least) two such out of three would be 4/27 or less than 1 in 6, the probability of a 1 coming up on a roll of a die. If she was picking on the basis of assumptions about family income, the calculations would be the same as in the case of a random choice, since coming from a rich family and getting something that MAY be one's DNA on a fake fingernail are independent "events". There is, of course, another possibility. If Evans was not ruled out by the sophisticated second test, he a fortiori wouldn't have been ruled out by the first test. We know Nifong was leaking results from the second test some days before the official report was released, and it seems a safe assumption that he also had a pretty good idea what the results of the first test were going to be before those were officially reported. (When did he first start making remarks about condoms?) If he knew as early as April 4, he might well have had Himan steer Precious in Evans's direction. Ten days ago such misconduct on the part of a DA would have seemed to me unlikely, but now I think Nifong is capable of ANYTHING.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#319)
    by blcc on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    IMHO:
    You remind me of the dearly departed Orinoco.
    Heh - good one! Or was that meant to be insulting? Personally, I thought Orinoco was kind of funny. I'm not going to swear though, nor am I planning to deliberately break the rules. The thing is, you spend so much time and energy posting here, that you've started to get sloppy about your manners. Maybe every 2,500 posts someone needs to remind you to play nice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#320)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:58:00 PM EST
    Newport, I'm white and I can't imagine ever voting for Bush. But if I were African American, of course, I would be even less likely to I think. But think about it, how would it look to a segment of the electorate that is already highly suspicious of him for the administration to jump in in a case where the AV is black and the accused are well to do white boys, like, btw, the president himself. And let's face it, unlike us crazies, most people are not this, let us say, obsessed with the facts of all this. Some of my friends are still upset about the infamous email and haven't changed their minds since.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#321)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    Hey Localone...how well do you know Lewis Cheek? He does not seem to be motivated solely by money. From my perspective he has a long history of doing good work as a Durham politician and cares deeply about his community (as do the many Durhamites who are embarrassed by this whole situation.) Also, I suspect he's not viewing this as a long-term job as he considers whether to run. Just curious if you have some inside access (like PatsyMac's interesting perspectives on our current DA.) Ironically, Cheek has been consistently endorsed in his previous races by The Independent and the People's Alliance of Durham, pretty left-leaning outfits that endorsed Liefong against Freda Black (his closest competitor.) I suspect even they'll have to overturn their earlier endorsement for DA after his intolerable handling of this case. And congrats, TL, on four glorious years...I'm privileged to make my first post on your anniversary.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#322)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:00:26 PM EST
    Posted by Photios June 15, 2006 08:49 PM
    Ten days ago such misconduct on the part of a DA would have seemed to me unlikely, but now I think Nifong is capable of ANYTHING.
    Yes, he job shares with imho as the ANTICHRIST. lol!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#323)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    Newport, I was thinking the same about civil rights. Those posters distributed around town, the town hall meeting, Nifong's statements about this being a race hate crime, the NBPP marching around and being allowed intimidating defendants in court, etc. Don't know how much of it can be put directly in Nifong's lap, but his statements certainly can. localone, I really doubt that the families would ever settle with the AV. She'd be a fool to try to sue them. EVERYTHING about her, her criminal and personal history, will be fair game. Her work history. Her drug abuse, her mental illness. Her past history of filing rape charges. And while she has nothing, they can sue to put a lien against future earnings, no? It would be galling for her to know that every time she turns a trick that after the pimp's cut the Seligmanns, Finnertys and Evanses each get another slice. Still all those lawyers who were volunteering to represent her may not be so interested in representing her if she's doing time for filing false charges. +++ I'm still betting that this whole thing will end with the AV suddenly getting hospitalized for mental illness again. It would get her out of going through with this case, which she would want to do unless she was really, really out of touch with reality (like a couple of posters here). It gives Nifong a reason to throw in the towel (which I'm sure he'd like to do right about now) and it gives her some insulation from future criminal prosecution. Ya know? She was crazy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#324)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    Photios wrote,
    There is, of course, another possibility. If Evans was not ruled out by the sophisticated second test, he a fortiori wouldn't have been ruled out by the first test. We know Nifong was leaking results from the second test some days before the official report was released, and it seems a safe assumption that he also had a pretty good idea what the results of the first test were going to be before those were officially reported. (When did he first start making remarks about condoms?) If he knew as early as April 4, he might well have had Himan steer Precious in Evans's direction. Ten days ago such misconduct on the part of a DA would have seemed to me unlikely, but now I think Nifong is capable of ANYTHING.
    This has always what I thought happened. So the answer is 1 out of 8 on Evans for a random draw. Sounds right to me. Thank you very much and you really do seem like you know what you are talking about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#325)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:04:34 PM EST
    Posted by blcc June 15, 2006 08:57 PM
    The thing is, you spend so much time and energy posting here, that you've started to get sloppy about your manners. Maybe every 2,500 posts someone needs to remind you to play nice.
    Not at all. Your attack on imho was uncalled for, made no sense, and was completely out of left field.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#326)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    ChanceArmy, I know Lewis very well and used to practice law in the same firm. He does care about Durham very much, but his public service so far has been a sideline to his practice, City Council and County Commissioner. He's a good, some say very good trial lawyer. But he has a big house, a bad old divorce, and maybe even some kids to send to college (but I've lost track.)He may do it, he may not. But it would surprise me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#327)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    localone wrote, regarding the Justice Dept looking into the case: And the Bush administration just throws away what black votes it got? I thought those two people lived in Texas. Sorry.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#328)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:07:04 PM EST
    You are probably right LocalOne.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#329)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:10:08 PM EST
    Since people are intent on ignoring it, I'm going to repeat what you posted:
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 15, 2006 08:22 PM The Abrams Report' for June 14 NORMAN EARLY, FORMER DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, a prosecutor should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If people perceive one that does not mean that a special prosecutor should be appointed. Let's remember that even though Mr. Coleman was on this commission appointed by the university, he knows no more about this case than you know, Yale know, or that I know about this case. In his report, they said that they were not able to interview all the witnesses and they also said they didn't have time to do the job thoroughly, so this gives him no more reason to call for a special prosecutor than anyone in Durham County.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#330)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    YIKES. Leave the board for a little while, and there is this volume? Understand, I love the first amendment. But did I miss a court filing? News? Not really but we are playing jurors, without the responsibility. Lora and imho: have either one of you noticed that, to continue to susatin the AV's story, you have to distort the plain meaning of words, and commone sense understanding? "Assisted in a rape" means more than verbal inducements, imho. And if Kim "assisted" in a rape, and the AV said the rape happened in a bathroom, give the words their normal meaning: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom. Lora, for you I ask about your idea that when the AV kept saying, "NO, NO" to the Durham cops, she was still saying no to rape: fine screemplay, fine novel, but not a shred of reality.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#331)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:12:23 PM EST
    ding7777
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    What is your definition of a "wrong choice"?
    Someone who was not at the party. Being a "wrong choice" doesn't guarantee that you won't get picked out of a line up, indicted and convicted. A while back, I read a case where a guy volunteered to be a "filler" in a line up and ended up convicted of rape. He served almost 20 years before DNA test results excluded him as being the perpetrator.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#332)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:16:07 PM EST
    Newport, you said:
    Coleman is the first professor at Duke to show any backbone in this matter and the fact that he is black is even more impressive in my book.
    As a Duke grad, I have had all sorts of mixed feelings about Duke's response to all "this." Easier now, in light of the weakness of the DA's case, to say Duke overreacted. Silly them to have taken Nifong's word on the validity, and reality, of the charges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#333)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    Thanks, Photios. In other games: Coleman 1, IMHO nil.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#334)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    IMHO, was that case in Durham? When are you going to tell us about whether Himan LIED in his affidavit?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#335)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:21:26 PM EST
    Thanks for the insight localone...though I must say it depresses me to think we might be stuck with yet another dangerous politician after all. Hey, if Lewis won't run maybe you will??? LOCALONE FOR DURHAM DA!!! Or maybe I'll run...not to get the probability-gifted going, but I think it's likely that SOMEONE in Durham would do a better job as DA than Mikey.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#336)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    There's a new thread here, on the latest defense motion seeking records and notes as to when Nifong read the report of the medical exam. Comments are closing on this one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#337)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    SharoninJax, you gotta admit a whole lot of political correctness in Duke's response. Not particularly courageous, in terms of upholding everyone's rights, including the accused, but certainly expedient. What a nightmare for any administration to have to deal with. This could have happened ANYWHERE of course. Having watched the Duke Medical center struggle with the whole botched transplant case, I sometimes wonder about the PR instincts over there. Of course, in candor, I'm a tarheel.