Is it ok to have sockpuppets as well as your regular account TL? Because I'm beginning to suspect a certain pro-prosecution poster of having more than one account.

Posted by Sundance June 15, 2006 09:37 PM And why is blakely so angry?

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.

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."

Is there anything preventing Freda Black from getting on the ballot?

State law would also prohibit Black from appearing on the November ballot as an independent candidate. State law contains what is known as the "Sore Loser's Clause," which forbids an unsuccessful candidate from a political party primary from appearing on the November ballot in the same race during the same year. Similarly, the law also says that any write-in votes cast for Black in the General Election would not be tabulated.

"Once you are on the primary ballot and lose, there is no way for you to get votes in November," Ashe said.

[Kim] 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.

Yes, the "Sore Loser's Clause."

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

What doesn't add up, is that if the partyers did let the AV back in, why didn't she get her shoe? And where did her purse get to? (Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.) If they didn't let the AV in, why did they let Kim in? You'd think they would either let them both back in, or none.

Posted by SharonInJax June 11, 2006 10:55 AM The SANE nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that (the AV) had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted va*inally and a*ally

So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV?

Lora and imho: if you are ever chosen to be on a jury, listen to the judge, okay? Your attention to, and imagining of, things that are not admissible, your alternate opinions about non-evidence are good for discussions such as these. But, please promise: if you are ever on a jury, DON'T DO THIS.

if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

imh posted: Sharon, if you are ever on another jury don't make an assumption like you did in having the accuser meaning Kim was in the bathroom with her and the three attackers. We don't have enough information to do that.

SharonInJax posted: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

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.

N&O May 19, 2006: The DNA Security report said Dave Evans, one of three senior co-captains living in the rental house on Buchanan Boulevard, could not be excluded as the source of the DNA found on an artificial fingernail taken from a wastebasket in a bathroom at the house. But the report also noted that 14 of the 3,561 profiles in the company's DNA data bank could not be excluded as sources.

The Durham Herald-Sun reported that scientists who analyzed the tissue concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing. Scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, sources told the newspaper.

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.

Nifong requested the second test by DNA Security because the Burlington lab has more sophisticated capabilities than the State Bureau of Investigation lab in Raleigh, defense attorneys said. The SBI tests showed no DNA links between the accuser and the members of the lacrosse team.

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.

(Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.)

The defense said early on she was in the bathroom doing her nails and the photos reportedly show nail polish on the back porch railing.

I keep going back to that, imho and Lora, and others: if Seligman, or Finnerty, or Evans, were your son/father/brother/husband, would you be so fervent and quick to explain away the problems with the AV's testimony?

IMHO:

(Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.)

Why is this so unlikely

Show nail-polish on the back-porch railing like the photos show her having showed up with abrasions and clearly injured? Then photos documenting the bleeding and obvious and very clear cuts/bruises/whatnot? That the same SANE exam that is claimed to exonerate the players as far as physically doesn't even appear to back-up? That kind of "showing" I'm a bit skeptical about. When would she have done her nails? If while in the bathroom with Kim (which, somehow I doubt), they would have dried by then. Or, if they were wet, they'd have smeared else-ware first. I also highly doubt she had gone into the bathroom that second time she went up to the house to do them....

But, then, I'd tell them that their racist, sexist, and demeaning remarks that now everybody knows about but none of their buddies want to be men about is their own damn fault

Alan, What I don't get, if they weren't letting the AV in, why they would let Kim go in to look for her. They'd just tell her then that the AV was on the back porch. Makes no sense.

Brown said she hasn't told Nifong she'll be working against him. She said she contacted him about 10 days ago, as rumors circulated about an unidentified possible write-in candidate, to ask if he would require her services and hasn't heard back. Nifong was unavailable for comment Thursday.

As I have said before, I am not looking at evidence as if I were sitting on a jury. There is definitely reasonable doubt at this point. Whether the times (including the photo time stamps) are all correct I'm not so sure.

If the date was altered perfectly, yes, impossible to detect. Altering perfectly with no trace, exceedingly difficult.

Memories of particular events are not isolated, independent entities. Rather, they take on meaning in a context of other memories that a person uses to make sense of each new event. Traumatic experiences can interfere with the flexibility with which people normally assimilate new experiences and reconcile them with past experiences. Thus, someone who was severely traumatized in the past may interpret new experiences rigidly in line with the memory of that past trauma. The reverse also occurs; that is, someone who has suffered a recent trauma may reinvent the past in light of that recent experience. When an experience is interpreted as being too threatening to assimilate, it may appear in the form of intrusive thoughts or memories, or else it may be "forgotten" in what we observe as amnesia. A word of caution: An intrusive thought cannot be assumed to correspond to a real event, any more than any other memory can. Its accuracy must be assessed in the light of other available evidence.

Someone that was not at the party is a "WRONG CHOICE" whether or not they can prove it.

Also, I would presume that any discussion between police investigators or Nifong and the AV would have to be memorialized.

Maybe she just made up the story because she is a vile and vicious hooker...

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

IMHO posted

Someone that was not at the party is a "WRONG CHOICE" whether or not they can prove it.

This isn't part of my definition of a wrong choice, and you know it, if you can read. I said somebody who was not even remotely connected with the case and could not be indicted was a wrong choice. By that definition, Coleman is absolutely correct. Your definition is yours, mine is mine, and Coleman's is Coleman's. Stop trying to impose your definitions on the rest of us.

Stop trying to impose your definitions on the rest of us.

1) explaining here why there is no reasonable doubt about the time stamps inside the cameras being correct. Meaning, "or if tampered with, then that will be detectable."

Why didn't the DA search for the AV's DNA in the bathroom?

Description of items to be seized 1. Any DNA evidence to include hair, semen, blook, salvia (sic) related to the suspects and the victim 2. Blue bathroom carpet/rug

17. Large rectangle green bath rug 18. Small bath mat, 19. white floor cleaning wip, hand towel with initials, 21 swabbings 22. 5 fingernails, 23. dish rag

I think the first test was just for sperm DNA from the swabs, maybe?

Brown said she hasn't told Nifong she'll be working against him. She said she contacted him about 10 days ago, as rumors circulated about an unidentified possible write-in candidate, to ask if he would require her services and hasn't heard back. Nifong was unavailable for comment Thursday.

WOW!

Nifong doesn't respond to anybody, not the motions, not the press, not the defense lawyers, and not even his campaign manager!

Perhaps, like the mystic powers of prescience invoked in the medical conclusions, Kim 'assisted' from a distance by the use of telekinesis?

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." gives us enough information to say this?:

SharonInJax posted:

if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

Maybe she just made up the story because she is a vile and vicious hooker...

"I have never got my arse kicked. I am the legendary undefeated fighter/blogger of the world"

Do you think this: 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." gives us enough information to say this?:

SharonInJax posted: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom. I don't.

• Pittman assisted the rape and was therefore present when it happened
• Pittman is vested with myserious and unknown powers which enable her to assist a rape in one room while she is herself in another

If you are referring to anything I may have written, I think you misunderstood me.

We don't know that the accuser used the word assisted. If the accuser told the nurse, "I know she was in on it. She set me up."

Being indicted doesn't change the fact you are a "WRONG CHOICE." Tell this filler who spent almost 20 years in prison, that he was not a "WRONG CHOICE." I find it amusing that you have to tell us what a law professor meant to say. Perhaps he got sucked into the defense spin and didn't realize that among the photos the accuser was shown were photographs of people who were not at the party. It is a misconception about the power point presentation I have read several times.

What about Himan's lies, IMHO? How long can you ignore those? You are the great corrector of all manor of typo's and general piddle-squat, why not show your real skills and address the Himan LIES? Step up.

1. Any DNA evidence to include hair, semen, blook, salvia (sic) related to the suspects and the victim

Could the nurse have recorded this as: "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?" Do you think we know enough from the nurse's statement to put Ms. Pittman in the bathroom during the attack? I don't.

Read my post again, IMHO. I never made any contention about what Coleman meant to say. I only said that his definition of "wrong choice" is probably different from yours, as is mine.

Posted by january June 15, 2006 10:08 PM

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

DNA Security of Burlington analyzed 23 "evidence specimens" at $450 apiece and 50 "reference specimens" that cost $250 each, according to papers filed in Durham County Superior Court.

I really thought my answer was clear,...

My definition of a wrong choice is somebody in the lineup who could not be indicted.

Although criticism of Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse case arose during his primary campaign, Brown said she did not abandon her candidate because she had never lost a campaign. But she fielded many questions about Nifong.

Why does Durga always sound like he's stalking Sharon?

Someone that was not at the party is a "WRONG CHOICE" whether or not they can prove it.

Do we know enough from this:

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."

to place Ms. Pittman in the bathroom? We don't know that the accuser used the word assisted. If the accuser told the nurse, "I know she was in on it. She set me up." Could the nurse have recorded this as: "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?" IF the accuser said, "She shoved me into the bathroom, let the guys go in and then pulled the door shut and took off down the hallway." Could the nurse have recorded this as: "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?" Do you think we know enough from the nurse's statement to put Ms. Pittman in the bathroom during the attack?

imho,

When and if TalkLeft imposes a rule that a poster can ask a question with a complex answer and require that it be answered 'yes' or 'no', I'll be happy to comply. One of your techniques is to ask such questions and then insist you've proved your point if people don't comply with your yes/no rule.

Perhaps, like the mystic powers of prescience invoked in the medical conclusions, Kim 'assisted' from a distance by the use of telekinesis?

It is not complex at all. It is very simple. Do we have enough information from the S.A.N.E. nurse's statement to determine that the accuser told the nurse that Ms. Pittman assisted the players in the alleged sexual assault from inside the bathroom?.

You know, IMHO, all your dissembling does not matter one whit, becuase under each of your alternative suggestions, Pittman is alleged to have done things that she should be charged for, and she (Pittman) has contradicted them!

You don't even have proof that a rape actually occurred there that night and yet you feel free to draw in even more paticipants

Assuming that the defense lawyers have accurately paraphrased what the S.A.N.E nurse in training recorded, yes.

SLOphoto posted: 1) explaining here why there is no reasonable doubt about the time stamps inside the cameras being correct. Meaning, "or if tampered with, then that will be detectable."

We have no idea what the time stamps inside the cameras are. These photos may never be introduced as evidence and never need to be verified. We may never know and look at all the popcorn that has all ready been gobbled up.

1) We most certainly do have an "idea" of what the time stamps inside the camera are. They are either what the defense says they are or they have been altered, in which case it will be detectable as tampering.

2) The photos have already been introduced as "evidence" in the court of public opinion. It is inconceivable that there will not be not be a need to verify them -- with or without a trial -- in order for the public to know whether or not the accused were telling the truth about them.

3) Yes, we will "know" the truth about the dates inside the cameras -- we already do -- 1) correct, or 2) tampered with, and detectable.

And none of this has any bearing on any amount of other "popcorn that has or has not already been gobbled up." The time & date stamps of the photos inside the cameras are the substantive issue here, and they can -- and will -- be verified as either 1) correct, or 2) tampered with

Newport posted: What about Himan's lies, IMHO? How long can you ignore those? You are the great corrector of all manor of typo's and general piddle-squat, why not show your real skills and address the Himan LIES? Step up. Could you be more specific? I don't know what you are talking about.

The point is that even if some of the players in the lineup weren't present and could prove it, it wasn't as effective a veracity check as it should have been, because Hinman coached the AV not to finger anyone whose face she didn't recall having seen at the party, thus eliminating any chance of picking someone who could prove he was never there.

Newport posted: What about Himan's lies, IMHO? How long can you ignore those? You are the great corrector of all manor of typo's and general piddle-squat, why not show your real skills and address the Himan LIES? Step up. IMHO responded to Newport: Could you be more specific? I don't know what you are talking about.

Athletes devote up to half of their time at school representing Duke in competition, and therefore they deserve at least as much support as any other student until we know the truth. I would suggest the school's leaders (not a committee) clearly and publicly articulate support for a remarkable group of student athletes-and yes, one can have a beer before he is 21 or forget to use "inside voices" after 11 p.m., and still be a commendable student-athlete and person-as they continue to tell an unchanged story that implies their innocence.

They just hollered it out, "N*gger, n*gger, n*gger."

IMHO, you have ignored Newport's many requests to address Himan's lies. If you were really "master of the truth" then you would also be challenging the glaring lies/inconsistencies of the FA/DA/DPD/Kim. I challenge you to at least try to address these glaring issues in an objective, open-minded manner. I feel you could actually contribute value to this board even looking at it from the FA/DA's perspective. One thing I have learned in life is that there are different perspectives to most issues and everything isn't always as it appears on the surface...oh, that's 2 things, sorry.

IMHO posted: How about getting drunk and angry enough to let their "way way inside voices" out? They just hollered it out, "N*gger, n*gger, n*gger."

IMHO posted: In response to my request to Newport to be more specific about which lies of Hinman's he wanted me to discuss, whatisit posted: IMHO, you have ignored Newport's many requests to address Himan's lies. If you were really "master of the truth" then you would also be challenging the glaring lies/inconsistencies of the FA/DA/DPD/Kim. I challenge you to at least try to address these glaring issues in an objective, open-minded manner. I feel you could actually contribute value to this board even looking at it from the FA/DA's perspective. One thing I have learned in life is that there are different perspectives to most issues and everything isn't always as it appears on the surface...oh, that's 2 things, sorry. So you don't know what Newport meant either?

This may be one of those situations where two groups of people are talking past each other, not to each other.

Blakely, I didn't request that IMHO stop posting. As I stated, I do believe that she could add value to this board and merely asked her to respond to Newport's question.

IMHO and Lora will not be swayed unless the accuser retracts her accusations, and does so of her own volition.

Duke lacrosse: you can put your obnoxious past behind you and behave like men. They might even make a "Remember the Titans" movie about you that IMHO will own on DVD.

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."

So, this is how you avoid answering a question? Games?

Blakely, I didn't request that IMHO stop posting. As I stated, I do believe that she could add value to this board and merely asked her to respond to Newport's question.

IMHO posted: What is the question? I looked all over the thread trying to find out what he is talking about. I don't know what he is asking me. Do you?

Yes, imho, if the alleged sexual assault actually took place, and that assault occurred in the bathroom, and Pittman assisted in the sexual assault, then Pittman was in the bathroom.

Granted, placing the sexual assault in the bathroom is drawing on information supplied by other sources than the SANE nurse, but you can't possibly be splitting hairs to that extent, could you?

But if your position is that no sexual assault actually took place, then I agree with you, Pittman wasn't in the bathroom.

To all, I don't usually watch the news on TV much, but I did catch a couple last night - Fox and either CNN or MSNBC (I forget which one).

Anyway, it struck me that most of the posters here are more familiar by far with the facts of the case than the talking heads on TV.

Further, what about the inconsistencies in Nifong's early statements versus what we now see he had as evidence?

DURHAM -- The unfolding story of County Commissioner Lewis Cheek's potential write-in challenge to District Attorney Mike Nifong in November took a surreal twist Thursday when Nifong's campaign manager signed up to head up Cheek's bid to take his job.

"Durham has been the center of controversy for a long time and I believe it needs some leadership to take it in the right direction," Brown said. "Lewis is a leader; he's a gentleman." While acknowledging, "We don't know everything Mr. Nifong knows," Brown said the Duke lacrosse rape case was a factor in her decision to help Cheek try to unseat the man she just helped elect. "I don't see any progress made at this point," she said.

Do you think it is possible the nurse could have recorded this version of the accuser's statement as: "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?" It can be answered "yes" or "no."

I answered that question.

You don't even think it is possible that this trainee might record the hypothetical version as "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?

I wasn't holding you to the same "yes" or "no" standard you want to hold others to...

While acknowledging, "We don't know everything Mr. Nifong knows," Brown said the Duke lacrosse rape case was a factor in her decision to help Cheek try to unseat the man she just helped elect.

"I don't see any progress made at this point," she said.

Claiming she was losing faith in Nifong "probably toward the end of the campaign," Brown denied her decision was influenced by a public disagreement the pair had after the election.

Lastly, Alan, as an Australian, it also probably seems odd for you to see the word "winger" thrown around this site with such disdain...

NB Favourable responses may include detailed evidence and reasoning. Unfavourable responses are restricted to 'yes' or 'no'.

Fair dinkum.

I stated my question very clearly yesterday. To repeat it is can you comment on Himan's affidavit where he references the medical report and what it shows. Himan made his affidavit of March 23. The subpoena for the medical report was only issued on March 21, two days before Himan's affidavit which relied on the medical report and stated certain things therein which are in supported by the medical report, e.g., the anal rape charge.

The evidence now is that the medical report was not even printed at DUMC until March 30 and not delivered to Nifong and Himan until April 5. Is that clear enough for you now to comment?

if he did get a copy before the subpoena, whether he participated in a violation of the HIPPA laws...

Blakely, since you seem to know about procedures at hospitals, is it likely that the medical report was even transcribed by March 23? Don't most dr's and nurses record their findings into tape recorders and leave the tape to be transcribed some time later.

And if he had a supoena and used it to obtain an uncertified copy which took more time to prepare and was later delivered to his office in April? This is a real red herring. But, if the defense wants to spin it's wheels on it, so be it.

And if he had a supoena and used it to obtain an uncertified copy which took more time to prepare and was later delivered to his office in April?

Can you clarify? I don't understand what you are saying here. The subpoena for the records was issued on March 21. Are you saying that Himan went down to the hospital between March 21 and March 22 to get this uncertified copy before he made has affidavit on March 23? Why didn't he say in his affidavit that he was reporting on this uncertified copy or some notes. He said "the medical report" which was subpoened.

blakely, I have no idea what you're talking about. The TH's said that if he was reading a medical report that he obtained w/o a subpoena, that may well be in violation of the HIPPA laws.

blakely, you are certainly free not to respond.

I think this is much ado about nothing.

And if he had a supoena and used it to obtain an uncertified copy and a certified copy which took more time to prepare and was later delivered to his office in April? This is a real red herring. But, if the defense wants to spin it's wheels on it, so be it.

What do you think he should have said?

I don't know what you do or don't comprehend or what you think is intellectual or pseudo-intellectual. (...)

I think this is much ado about nothing.

And, Blakely, the records do mention the need for transcription of doctors findings so I don't think you are right about a lack of transcription.

"that due to HIPPA laws she was unable to divulge patient information but stated that there were signs consistent with a sexual assault during her test."

As I explained, I worked in hospitals other than DU a long time ago. I do stand by my belief that these records are not more than a few pages, the majority being handwritten.

As for imho, she has consistently shown she can knock you [i.e., Bob in Pacifica] over the head when it comes to debate so hard that you pull skull fragments out your rear-end.

Maybe IMHO's Coleman discussion, or maybe correction of typo's in a motion?

"On March 29, 2006, Mr. Nifong claimed to have read a medical report that, according to discovery, was not printed until March 30, 2006, or retrieved by law enforcement pursuant to Mr. Nifong's own subpoena until April 5, 2006," read the filing from lawyers Joseph Cheshire and Bradley Bannon.

March 16, 2006: Durham Police Investigator Ben Hinman contacted Nurse Tara Levicy to discuss the "rape kit and examination" of [redacted]. According to investigator's Hinman's notes of his activities that day, Nurse Levicy responded "that due to HIPPA laws she was unable to divulge patient information but stated that there were signs consistent with a sexual assault during her test.

Musta happened in another forum.

And side note, how did the level of discourse on this board degenerate so quickly? It's kind of like being on a road trip with a couple that won't stop squabbling.

The patient told someone at the hospital the attackers did not use condoms. Nifong isn't claiming the evidence shows.....The accuser said...He's saying they could have been used. He's right, they could have.

A couple of bratty kids, maybe. Don't make me pull over

The oddest part of the motion is the carrying-on over Nifong saying:

How can you stand by your "belief" when you have no evidence to support your "belief" and the available evidence contradicts your "belief." Do you have ER experience with rape SANE reports upon which you base your "belief," or is your "belief" based on your experience with the documents generated when someone comes in with a cut and gets stitches?

Or, is your "belief" based on your experience with the documents generated each time you have gone into the ER for your 2.4 million units of penV I.M.?

The oddest part of the motion is the carrying-on over Nifong saying: "The attackers could have used condoms." "I would not be surprised if condoms were used." "For instance if condoms were used..." The patient told someone at the hospital the attackers did not use condoms. Nifong isn't claiming the evidence shows.....The accuser said...He's saying they could have been used. He's right, they could have.

Based on what?

Newport posted:

How can the motion be a "loser" if you admit under the most charitable to Nifong circumstances that documents must have been withheld?

OOOOOOOO! Nifong didn't take note of his receiving a faxed copy of the nurse's report the day before the complete medical report was printed. OUCH! It may come down to something that silly. That's what I call a loser of a motion. Though someone comes out ahead here - I wonder how much Cheshire charged the Evans for that piece of work?

OOOOOOOO! Nifong didn't take note of his receiving a faxed copy of the nurse's report the day before the complete medical report was printed. OUCH! It may come down to something that silly.

Kinda like you carrying on over typo's and whether Coleman lied and whether Kim's assistance was rendered in the bathroom or whether she provided such assistance from another room, or the lawn, or the car, or another planet?

imho, are you are suggesting that (in a made-up scenerio) Nifong might have received a preliminary copy of the very object of one of his subpoenas but he, or one of his assistants, didn't document his receipt? This (made-up) fax was not a grocery list from his wife, after all.

Sure it is possible, but do you think it is likely?

It can be answered "yes" or "no."

And if such a (made-up) faxed document existed, don't you think it would be required to be included in the 1200-odd pages of discovery turned over to the defense?

It also can be answered "yes" or "no."

Yes, I think it is a likely explanation for his having read the nurse's report a week after the subpoena was served and the day before the complete file was printed at the hospital..

IMHO, I think you're funny and an interesting poster, but you are clearly biased.

Calling the campaign manager a "viper" and the candidate a "fibber" while refusing to call Nifong a "liar" or at least "hypocritical media whore"...that's a double standard.

The earlier burst of false, pejorative assertions in the media from the DA ("hooligan", "DNA no doubt", "they used condoms", "they used a date rape drug", "they beat her up") mis-informed the debate far more than the fact-based replies from the defense...

hooligans

Nifong: "What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?"

DNA no doubt?

"they used condoms"

"they used a date rape drug",

"they beat her up"

What is the significance of the word "complete?"

Furthermore, IMHO, the nurse's report doesn't support what Nifong's public comments have been (e.g., re condom use, anal assault, choking, beating, injury etc.) So even if Nifong had been faxed the nurse's report earlier, something that is highly unlikely, how do you explain his public comments that are in conflict with the state of the evidence.

Nifong enablers: were Nifong's statements to the press about possible condom use misleading? Y or N.

The DNA testing would leave no doubt who did this? Is that what he said? I'm sure he believed it at the time.

wumhenry posted: Nifong enablers: were Nifong's statements to the press about possible condom use misleading? Y or N.

N.

If you tell me specifically what he said and when he said it I will try to see if there is an explanation.

If you were a defense attorney wouldn't you want to see a copy of such a report (if it is as you say) and see whether it is consistent with the later produced report. Would it not be malpractice not to file this motion based on the state of the current discovery?

If Nifong picked this report up on March 29th, a day before it was printed, how does this help explain Himan's statements which relied on the medical report on March 23rd? If you think Nifong actually went over to DUMC and spoke to anyone and/or picked up anything, I think you will find your belief to be disproven. If anyone went to DUMC it would be the police. Isn't that what they do, investigate crimes

"The attackers could have used condoms." "I would not be surprised if condoms were used." "For instance if condoms were used..." What is misleading about that?

The subpoena was served on the 21st he could have had it faxed to him then.

IMHO, you don't know how subpoena's work. Do you think a nurse or doctor over at DUMC just received the subpoena and then got the report and faxed it over. Duke's lawyers would have reviewed the subpoena, checked for lawfulness, determined whether objections needed to be filed, etc. After this review by the lawyers and the compilation of the report Duke lawyers would collect the material and supply it to the police. That is what I think.

That was a test of candor, IMHO, and you flunked.

In fact, DUMC has a counsel's office that deals with legal issues. I know, I have dealt with them personally.

IMHO Posted: Newport posted: Furthermore, IMHO, the nurse's report doesn't support what Nifong's public comments have been (e.g., re condom use, anal assault, choking, beating, injury etc.) So even if Nifong had been faxed the nurse's report earlier, something that is highly unlikely, how do you explain his public comments that are in conflict with the state of the evidence. IMHO's response to Newport: If you tell me specifically what he said and when he said it I will try to see if there is an explanation.

No, I think the medical records dept received the subpoeona and if they had any issues with it they notified the hospital legal dept. I doubt they did because this is not the first time medical records have been sdt'd from the hospital. Who is the defense to object to the subpoena? No one needs their permission or for them to review the subpoena for records in a rape case.

Darn, I got sucked in again.

Advice for those who need it: denying the bleedin' obvious is not, repeat not, a shrewd debating tactic.

If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it.

The patient could have consented to release her medical file.

Here is is again, from the March 23 affidavit of Himan sworn under oath in support probably cause in support of the ID Order which started this lynching:

"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 anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience."

Did he have the medical report obtained by a subpoena at this time, i.e., two days after the subpoena was served? Is this true?

Did the medical report reveal signs and symptoms of an anal rape?

I don't think so since Nurse Levicy noted only "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls" and recorded nothing notable in the rectal examination

I hope this helps with some of the posters' questions.

But the SANE nurse told Himan it would be a HIPPA violation if she told him what was in her report, therefore there was no consent from the AV to turn the information over.

"I do not believe that it is even possible for an oral rape to have been committed under these circumstances. I can not believe that Reade Selligman, or any other sane individual for the matter, would stick his member in the mouth of a woman who was fighting off three men. It would just be insanity to do something like this. The only possible oral rape that I could possibly conceive of would have to involve some form of weapon, i.e., knife to throat, gun to head etc. "

IMHO, here is the post that you conveniently did not refer to:

I think what we are seeing here is the fact that no signs, no injury and no symptoms are considered to be consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Her behavior was "consistent with a traumatic experience." She claimed to be experiencing pain in her v@ginal area and the nurse noted "diffuse edema of the v@ginal walls," but neither of these injuries or symptoms need be present. Same with lack of an@l injuries, signs, or symptoms.

Cheshire and Bannon said that, according to the documentation, "It is reasonable to assume that the earliest point in time when anyone involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case could have received any details from Duke Hospital ... about the hospital's treatment of and interaction with [the accuser] was April 5, 2006."

Blakely posted: Gee, Newport, after all your smartass comments to me and having been proven wrong, I would expect you to be somewhat contrite. Or, do you just go on to the next incident of making an ass of yourself?

And, IMHO, I now believe the earlier poster that thought Blakely is your sock puppet

Hey, IMHO, I want some of what you are smokin.

HANNITY: Let me lay this out for you. We've got the accuser herself with six separate -- hang on. Six separate individual versions of what happened. She was raped. She wasn't raped. She was groped. She wasn't groped. She was raped, and then she's not raped. And then she's raped again.

You have now the girl that was with her saying I was with her all but five minutes and by the way she wasn't there. The accuser said the girl was in the bathroom. The other girl says that's a crock. Hang on. She couldn't identify one of the kids in the first lineup then said he had a mustache.

WIEHL: You're getting this from hearsay on hearsay on hearsay.

HANNITY: No.

WIEHL: Yes, you are.

HANNITY: I have multiple sources that saw the evidence.

ChanceArmy posted: I wonder, though, are we all just chasing our tails here. Isn't it the case that in NC ANY conversation between the DA/Police and medical staff would have had to have been memorialized? And if it wasn't (or if it was and the documents weren't provided to the defense) isn't that the legal issue here?

ChanceArmy: Have a great week, everyone. And whatisthat, that Margarita offer will suit me fine on vacation (as long as they're rocks/salt and not frozen!)

One other thing that struck me earlier when the defense started to explain their version of the events...from the beginning they stated that no sex took place, even consensual sex with the FA. There is NO WAY that a defense attorney, especially at their level, would have come out stating that even no consensual sex occurred prior to getting all of the evidence they now have, including the DNA and SANE report. If there was the possibility that something (a rape or sex) had happened, the defense attorneys would have waited to see the evidence so as to not back themselves into a corner and to plan a position/response.

I sense that you occasionally went out on a limb out of frustration ...

When did you two stop diddling your kids?

To Newport and whatisthat: [A personal attack that accuses them of molesting their own children.]

Then I suggest you and your friends raise the level of discourse by stopping the personal attacks on me and imho. But, of course, you won't do that. For some reason you and others think you have a God given right to sh*t flinging.

Re: Posts by SLOphoto: But, of course, you won't do that. For some reason you and others think you have a God given right to [sh*t] flinging.