home

Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Collapsed?

Newsweek has a new detailed analysis of the Duke lacrosse players' alleged rape case, asking whether it has collapsed. The facts revealed to date don't seem to support the charges. But DA Nifong is sticking to his guns:

Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Remember Nifong's prior statements:

After the alleged rape, Nifong estimated to the Raleigh News & Observer, he gave 50 to 70 interviews to local and national media. "I am convinced that there was a rape, yes sir," Nifong said on "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC on March 28. The next day he told a local TV station, WRAL, "My reading of the report of the emergency-room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."

Newsweek recaps the facts from court documents and interviews and concludes:

It is conceivable that Nifong is holding back some kind of smoking gun, but, given the rules and the publicity about the case, that does not seem likely.

As to Dancer #2, Kim Roberts:

Another stripper had accompanied the woman to the lacrosse party that night. The alleged victim told the nurse that the other dancer, Kim Roberts, had stolen her money and "assisted the players in their alleged sexual assault," according to a defense lawyer's affidavit. Interviewed by police, Roberts initially said her partner's account of being raped was "a crock" and that the two women had been separated less than five minutes at the lacrosse players' house. Later, Roberts changed her story and said that a rape might possibly have taken place. But that was after Nifong had helped her get favorable bail treatment for violating probation (she had pleaded guilty to embezzlement charges in another case). Roberts later contacted rap star Lil' Kim's publicist "for any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."

And about that medical report:

It appears that Nifong had not actually seen the medical reports when he talked to reporters on March 29 about "my reading of the report of the emergency-room nurse." The medical report was not turned over to the police for another week, on April 5. Rather, Nifong may have relied on what a police investigator had told him. The detective's notes claim that the sexual-assault nurse told him that "there were signs consistent with a sexual assault during her test."

I would note that in the March 27 search warrant the Affiant officer wrote:

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.

This raises a legitimate question of whether the investigator actually had obtained the subpoenaed records by March 27 as he claimed, or he was misstating information to the Court, which would seem to be the case if the defense is correct the report wasn't received until April 5.

Then there is the accuser herself. Newsweek reports:

It is not certain that the accuser will go forward with the case. Ten years ago she claimed she had been raped three years earlier by three men, but her father told reporters that the rape never happened, and she never followed through with the authorities. The father has been supportive of her this time around, but he told yet another version of what happened--that the Duke players used a broom handle. Recently, he has said that his daughter is struggling with her "nerves" and may not be up to testifying in a trial. According to their lawyer, Mark Simeon, the accuser's parents have not heard from their daughter for weeks and are very concerned.

Finally, there are the repurcussions to the players, whom appear more and more likely to me to have been falsely accused:

Meanwhile, the players and their families are lying low, trying to figure out how they can get their reputations back. Finnerty and Seligmann are underclassmen and may be able to transfer to another college and still play lacrosse if the charges are dropped. Evans has already started to pay a price in the real world. He was supposed to begin a good job after graduation, but the job offer was withdrawn.

< Whither Our Privacy Rights? | Observer: U.S. Hid Truth on Guantanamo Suicides >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    yes, it appears that is much more a case of "all sound & fury, in the end, signifying nothing". that said, can mr. evans sue DA nifong, for lost wages, etc., as it becomes clearer and clearer that he has operated in bad faith from the beginning? it gives off the distinctive odor of politics; mr. nifong was involved in what appeared to be a pretty close primary at the time this started. bear in mind, mr. nifong is not completely immune from civil suit. as well, ethics violations charges may also be a consideration.

    It is curious how Nifong's rhetoric is so similar to some who post here ...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#3)
    by james on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    The March 27th probable cause affidavit is particularly troublesome as it implies that it was based on either a falsehood or information that the police should not have had at that time by their own admission (in terms of dates). I remember an individual nitpicking over the defence lawyers paraphrasing a recent filing due to supposed misrepresentations of those quotes in full context. I would say that this is a blatant misrepresentation to the court that cannot be denied by a reasonable individual assuming that one believes a full and fair discovering process occured (the dates that are important).

    jk, Here you go.
    In the summer of 2004, she landed a position at a rest home. But the job was short-lived, because part of her employee file was missing. When she didn't receive a paycheck after a few weeks of work, she filed a complaint with the Durham County Sheriff's Office. Her employer told her to submit a criminal record in order to get paid, the report said. No further action was taken by either party to resolve the issue, the report said.


    Alan posted:
    imho posted:
    He could be expecting to come into possession of more evidence this week, which he will in turn pass on to the defense.
    Are you suggesting the SANE report is not yet complete and will be given to the defence when it is? Perhaps the undisclosed earlier lineups are still being written up? Were these works-in-progress notified to the defence when Nifong handed over all sic the material?
    No, no comment and no comment.
    One reason that discovery is crucial to procedural fairness is that a document given to the other side cannot be altered later.
    That would go to the art of discovery compliance.

    Doing my weekend check-in after another week on the road. Over 1200 comments to read! Took a page from IMHO's book, referencing Bob's posts, when she posted: "Durga, I stopped reading his posts a long time ago." I have been doing the same with imho - it cut my time in half, and I did not miss anything of substance. I did catch some of the comments when referred to by others. I see from the reply to Newport that the moustache was regurgitated: "We don't know if Evans had a mustache that night or not." Some other notable comments - Somewhatchunky:" Back to check on the IMHO Board (46 posts in this thread so far)." My favorite rhetorical question was from Whatisthat: "Question for the group: Why do you get sucked into responding to IMHO's comments?" But imho already told me from my similar question that it is because this blog finds her more interesting. And blcc, not just the number of imho posts, but the volume of the content is incredible, if you went through 1200 posts, like I just did. Frankly, if you can avoid the nits being picked, this is an interesting site. Feeling the need to reply to some of the ridiculous comments is an exercise in self-IMMOlation. My favorite unanswered question was from Bob: "Is there any record of Nifong or police investigators ever questioning the AV for clarification of inconsistencies in her story?" If no discussion was had in the past 3 months, which I doubt, then it is gross incompetence or negligence. If it was discussed and not recorded, it is willful deceit and unlawful. There is no reason for this to not be in the discovery. Nifong is a lying scrumbag (an homage to Alan, the Aussie, where lacrosse is quite popular), who cares nothing for the institutions, communities, and lives of everyone trampled in this farce.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#7)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    imho posted:
    That would go to the art of discovery compliance.
    By 'the art of discovery compliance' do you mean:
    • a medical practitioner
    • a doctor
    • a nurse
    • the art of preventing Nifong's circumvention of a duty imposed by law


    James posted,
    The March 27th probable cause affidavit is particularly troublesome as it implies that it was based on either a falsehood or information that the police should not have had at that time by their own admission (in terms of dates).
    Same with the March 23 probable cause affidavit which contains the exact same language.

    ding7777 posted:
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Did Nifong take a cheap shot at Precious?
    "I would not be surprised if condoms were used. . . . Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex."
    He wasn't singling out the accuser. Do I think it was an unfair criticism of exotic dancers? I do, but I can't imagine the commenters who have been insisting all exotic dancers are prostitutes would think it was an unfair criticism. Was it a gratuitous remark? No, he was making a good point. If the boys had hoped to procure sex from the strippers they would most likely have been prepared with condoms. If things went bad and they had sex with her without her consent, they could still have had the sense to use condoms.

    I actually thought the first paragraph of the Newsweek article was new (at least to me) and very important because it shows the players had a total lack of any consciousness of guilt from day one. I find this to be most important, as did the Newsweek authors.

    but I can't imagine the commenters who have been insisting all exotic dancers are prostitutes would think it was an unfair criticism
    I am unaware of any commenters saying any such thing. Source?

    Newport, re the newsweek first paragraph: Early on, when Nifong said the DNA would separate the guilty from the innocent, the entire team was ecstatic, as they naively thought their lacrosse season would be salvaged...because they all knew they were innocent.

    Newport posted:
    I find this to be most important, as did the Newsweek authors.
    Here is what one of those very reporters has said: May 1, 2006
    But results from a second round of DNA tests are expected back this week, and defense lawyer Bill Thomas told NEWSWEEK that in the first round some DNA showed up under the woman's fingernails, though tests were inconclusive about identity.
    Campus Crisis
    Susannah Meadows: The only information reporters have about DNA tests is what defense attorneys, who've looked at the results, have shared with us. (The prosecution has not spoken publicly about them.) When the attorneys spoke publicly about them they said there was no DNA found on the woman that matched any of the players' DNA. This was true. But that did not mean that no DNA was found on her. In fact, one of the attorneys told me on the record that DNA was found underneath her fingernails, but tests were unable to show whose it was. Finding a DNA match is a tricky science and often requires further testing, which is what is happening now.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    re the DNA under her figernails Are they talking about her fake fingernails or her real fingernails? And wasn't the AV performing on the livingroom floor (palms down?). Its a wonder they didn't find more of the players DNA on her

    Actually IMHO, I don't think Mr. Meadows, the author of this piece as well as the earlier one, is too pleased with Nifong about the "date rape" drug remark. It was she that Nifong "hinted" about the presence of a date rape drug and Meadows went with it in her piece. Now, it turns out that Nifong was being irresponsible (and unethical) when he did his hinting because he had absolutely no evidence that his hint was true and he had lots of other evidence that suggested that his hint was untrue. Nifong's "hint" gave false hope to all the FA supporters as said "hint" was seized upon to explain the FA's erratic behavior and the lack of any tangible physical evidence against the boys. I believe that Nifong's "hint" was not only irresponsible and stupid but a violation of the ethics codes in NC and elsewhere. Where am I going wrong here?

    defense lawyer Bill Thomas told NEWSWEEK that in the first round some DNA showed up under the woman's fingernails, though tests were inconclusive about identity.
    Well, it turned out they were extremely conclusive, did it not. All but one of the 46 players who tested were conclusively ruled out as the source of the DNA under the fingernail. That it turned out that the 46th player happened to be the one player whom the accuser claimed to have scratched was unfortunate, but after all, the accuser is a known liar and Evans has a perfectly reasonable excuse for his DNA being there. He probably picked up the nail and gave it to the police when they were doing the search warrant, and if not, there are lots of other possibilities. And even if she scratched him, what does that have to do with rape?!!! I mean duh!

    If Nifong was upset about the media falling for the defense "spin" in their duly filed motions, why did he not "set the record straight" be filing an opposition? I think the answer to this question is one or more of the following: 1) he is just plain lazy; 2) he does not have any opposition to write about and just accepts that the motions will be granted; 3) he is just so amazingly stubborn and vain that he can't believe anyone in the media would doubt his view of the case and its evidence; or 4) he has been too busy posting on TL to find the time to file any oppositions.

    Furthermore, PB, an esteemed statistician on this board has mathematically demonstrated that, even in a random picking, the FA had a 1 out of 8 chance of picking Evans in the lineup. The odds were likely enhanced based on other factors, such as police coaching, Evan's was a captain and may have had contact with the FA, and the fact that she knew it was Evan's house.

    Newport, You wrote:
    Now, it turns out that Nifong was being irresponsible (and unethical) when he did his hinting because he had absolutely no evidence that his hint was true and he had lots of other evidence that suggested that his hint was untrue.
    I would think that the statements from Roberts and/or the accuser (among others) that she went from okay to wildly out of it within a very short time of drinking a concoction given to her by the players drink serving agent (who shall remain nameless for risk management reasons at this time) would constitute "evidence" of the sort you like to bank on. Especially if we're allowed to add "common sense" to the mix. No?

    PB posted,
    That it turned out that the 46th player happened to be the one player whom the accuser claimed to have scratched was unfortunate,
    What is your source for this statement? Where is there any statement by Precious that she scratched Evans? The medical report suggests otherwise.

    lightenup posted:
    But imho already told me from my similar question that it is because this blog finds her more interesting.
    I didn't say that. Here is what I did say:
    "It's a shame that you feel the commenters here are more interested in responding to me than to you."
    That was in response to you whinning that no one was answering the questions you were interested in. Why don't you answer them yourself? Or did you mean no one was responding to the interesting the questions you were asking? ;) Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 10, 2006 10:18 PM
    lightenup posted:
    Imho, I an running off, but to sleep, and I trust you do not care, but I will no longer reply to you. In my humble opinion, you dominate this board, and add nothing in the process. Several interesting questions are raised on this site, yet everyone feels the need to respond to your voluminous posts, and discussions that interest me fall by the wayside.
    imho replied:
    It's a shame that you feel the commenters here are more interested in responding to me than to you. That is something you should take up with them. I can't control what they post.


    PB wrote,
    I would think that the statements from Roberts and/or the accuser (among others) that she went from okay to wildly out of it within a very short time of drinking a concoction given to her by the players drink serving agent (who shall remain nameless for risk management reasons at this time) would constitute "evidence" of the sort you like to bank on. Especially if we're allowed to add "common sense" to the mix. No
    ? Would you PB? Is that the sort of "evidence" a responsible DA should hang his hat on? Your type of common sense is quite different from mine. Also, didn't Roberts state just the opposite, that Precious only had a sip of the drink and then knocked it over in the sink? Read the Newsweek article for enlightenment.

    Newport writes:
    Furthermore, PB, an esteemed statistician on this board has mathematically demonstrated that, even in a random picking, the FA had a 1 out of 8 chance of picking Evans in the lineup.
    I think I can get the numbers down to 1/6th, but I'm only able to do that by assuming that the surface volume of Evans head is 8 times bigger than that of the average player, which I'm not sure is legitimate. We'll go with your 1/8. You know, if want him to win the civil trial, we should do better than 1/8th. Let's keep at it.

    Lightenup, Indeed, they were quite naive about Nifong and the thought that the justice system would work in an honest and fair fashion. Makes Sharon's comments re lawyering up even more important for all cases in the future, especially in Durham where the Nifong lurks.

    jk, IMHO cited the story. Of course, the article was early on, generally favorable to the AV. There are a couple of things missing from the article. For example, by law if you work you get paid. There's no wiggle room there. So I wonder how her claim would not be upheld if she honestly hadn't been paid. She apparently had concealed her criminal record when she applied for the job and that was the crux of the disagreement. My guess is that there is more to the story than what was referenced here. One also wonders what the reporter's sources were for the story. Relying on the AV is probably not a great idea if you intend to have an accurate account of events.

    To imho: happy father's day

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    PB posted:
    I would think that the statements from Roberts and/or the accuser (among others) that she went from okay to wildly out of it within a very short time of drinking a concoction given to her by the players drink serving agent (who shall remain nameless for risk management reasons at this time) would constitute "evidence" of the sort you like to bank on. Especially if we're allowed to add "common sense" to the mix. No?
    We have no statement from the AV except one brief interview where being out of it is not mentioned. According to the medical report, as cited by the defence, the AV describes drinking various large amounts of beer and taking a muscle relaxant before arriving at the party. Alcohol takes time to process. She may have become drunk instaneously because of the drink given her at the party. But that would require that the large amount of beer and/or the muscle relaxant she had previously taken had somehow mysteriously evaporated from her system without any effect. The simplest explanation is that she arrived at the party drunk but under tight and conscious control, as inebriated people can sometimes do for a limited time, and that she lost control soon after arriving. Arguing a toxicological explanation without any toxicological evidence may not go very far in a courtroom. No?

    Newport wrote:
    What is your source for this statement? Where is there any statement by Precious that she scratched Evans? The medical report suggests otherwise.
    I haven't seen Evans medical report. I doubt he'd go to the doctor over a little scratch anyway.

    lightenup posted:
    To imho: happy father's day
    My father is dead. Thanks.

    PB posted:
    I would think that the statements from Roberts and/or the accuser (among others) that she went from okay to wildly out of it within a very short time of drinking a concoction given to her by the players drink serving agent (who shall remain nameless for risk management reasons at this time) would constitute "evidence" of the sort you like to bank on. Especially if we're allowed to add "common sense" to the mix. No?
    Newport responded:
    .....Also, didn't Roberts state just the opposite, that Precious only had a sip of the drink and then knocked it over in the sink? Read the Newsweek article for enlightenment.
    NEWSWEEK April 24, 2006 'Sex, Lies & Duke'
    The other woman who was hired to dance at the off-campus party on March 13, the night of the alleged attack, was Kim Roberts. Meadows spoke with her about what she remembers from the party. "She talked about how she remembered the alleged victim showing up sober," Meadows said. "And then Kim remembered that they had been given drinks. They had each been given a mixed drink. Kim did not drink hers. She said the alleged accuser spilled hers, actually after having had a little bit of it, and then she drank Kim's. And it was after that, shortly after that that Kim remembers the alleged accuser becoming out of it, stumbling, having a glassy look in her eye, unresponsive look in her eye."
    Meadows said that information has raised the possibility that some sort of date rape drug was slipped into the dancers' drinks. "It's likely that she got all those tests when she went to the hospital that night," said Meadows of the accuser. "When I spoke to the prosecutor two weeks ago, he hinted at this -- he hinted at the possibility that there might have been something put into her drink.


    James posted these thoughtful comments:
    The March 27th probable cause affidavit is particularly troublesome as it implies that it was based on either a falsehood or information that the police should not have had at that time by their own admission (in terms of dates). I remember an individual nitpicking over the defence lawyers paraphrasing a recent filing due to supposed misrepresentations of those quotes in full context. I would say that this is a blatant misrepresentation to the court that cannot be denied by a reasonable individual assuming that one believes a full and fair discovering process occured (the dates that are important).
    I couldn't agree more and ditto for the March 23 affidavit which started the whole process.

    IMHO misses the clues about condoms when she reflects on Nifong's comments about lack of DNA evidence being the result of the men wearing condoms, when she writes: Was it a gratuitous remark? No, he was making a good point. If the boys had hoped to procure sex from the strippers they would most likely have been prepared with condoms. If things went bad and they had sex with her without her consent, they could still have had the sense to use condoms. Of course, the AV had said that the rapists had not used condoms during the hospital examination. Nifong could not have honestly made that statement knowing what the AV had said. Nifong lied to the public to continue his farce and get his third indictment.

    PB posted:
    I haven't seen Evans medical report. I doubt he'd go to the doctor over a little scratch anyway.
    Maybe Nifong is withholding the Evans' medical report.

    Alan, You wrote:
    Arguing a toxicological explanation without any toxicological evidence may not go very far in a courtroom. No?
    They aren't charged with drugging her. Is the guy who served her the drink ready to testify? Or will he take the fifth, like Mark Fuhrman had to in the OJ trial. Warning. False dialogue ahead! Nifong: And did you slip a roofie in her drink? Student bartender: I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incrimnate me.

    IMHO, try quoting the recent Newsweek article re the Precious having a sip of a drink. Isn't that the context of this discussion? Haven't more facts come to light since the time the original article was written. Why do you continue to be so intellectually dishonent? It is not becoming.

    PB posted:
    They aren't charged with drugging her. Is the guy who served her the drink ready to testify? Or will he take the fifth, like Mark Fuhrman had to in the OJ trial.
    Warning. False dialogue ahead! Nifong: And did you slip a roofie in her drink? Student bartender: I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incrimnate me.
    What's in the drink? No one will fink!

    Imho posted
    That was in response to you whinning that no one was answering the questions you were interested in. Why don't you answer them yourself? Or did you mean no one was responding to the interesting the questions you were asking? ;) My lament (not whining) was not specific to me it was in general that
    Several interesting questions are raised on this site, yet everyone feels the need to respond to your voluminous posts, and discussions that interest me fall by the wayside. I think you assign your high self esteem incorrectly. It was not about me. Now I see how others get sucked in. I'll let you have the last word, I'm done, I swear.

    PB, you said, in part:
    That it turned out that the 46th player happened to be the one player whom the accuser claimed to have scratched was unfortunate,
    But the transcript of the lineup does not reflect that. The AV did not pick out anyone who had "scratched" her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#39)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    Pittman Police statement, 22 March
    We conversed about our plan for the dance. There was a knock on the door and we were handed two drinks of equal amounts. We did sip the drinks, but Precious cup fell into the sink. We finished getting dressed and proceeded to the living room, led by Dan, to do our show. There were about 20-25 young guys there, who were all sitting down. Precious and I began our show which, in my opinion, seemed to be going well. Precious began showing signs of intoxication at this point. We continued with the performance until one of the boys brought out a broomstick and after asking if we had any toys, said he would use the broomstick on us.
    A reasonably contemporaneous statement by Pittman is better evidence than a Newsweek report compiled on 23 April. Indeed it's interesting that on 22 March Kim has them both sipping (actually the AV sips and spills while Kim just sips) but by 24 April the AV's sipping and spilling has become drinking without spilling and Kim's sipping has become taking nary a drop. For that matter, if the players were premeditating rape (as any date rape scenario requires) why would they drug one dancer and not the other?

    Newport posted:
    IMHO,
    try quoting the recent Newsweek article re the Precious having a sip of a drink. Isn't that the context of this discussion? Haven't more facts come to light since the time the original article was written. Why do you continue to be so intellectually dishonent? It is not becoming.
    Is this new enough for you? NEWSWEEK June 29, 2006 issue
    Also interviewed by NEWSWEEK, Roberts seemed to support that suggestion. She said that the other dancer had been sober when she arrived at the lacrosse players' house, but then drank a mixed drink given her by the players and was soon staggering. In her first detailed statement to police, Roberts said the woman spilled her drink after a few sips but didn't mention, as she had to NEWSWEEK, that the accuser imbibed most of Roberts's.
    Newport posted:
    Haven't more facts come to light since the time the original article was written.
    That's funny coming from you. New facts came to light after the Essence article reported the accuser's father said "those boys didn't do nothing to her," you just don't want to hear them. hahaha

    PB, no matter how you slice, there were no matches for the DNA. If the DNA on the nail (I still haven't seen anything conclusive as to whether it was on the top of it or under it) were Evans', and it's a big if, so big it wouldn't mean anything in a court of law because it doesn't match him, it could very well be from Evans' discarded tissues, q-tips or other sources of DNA that turn up in someone's bathroom. It's one thing to find someone's DNA in his own bathroom three days after an alleged rape. It's another thing to have no DNA evidence from the AV in the hours after an alleged gang rape. PB, I hope it gives you faith in your hour of need, but your AV has nothing back up her final version. Heck, forget about the DNA, hope the AV shows up in court.

    But, imho, in Kim's handwritten statement she does not say that,
    They had each been given a mixed drink. Kim did not drink hers. She said the alleged accuser spilled hers, actually after having had a little bit of it, and then she drank Kim's.
    In her statement, Kim says that the AV spilled her drink in the sink, and that they both only had a few sips. Kim also seemed to think that the change in the AV's behavior and demeanor was more related to the show being over and no more money to be made than it was to chemical impairment.

    Thanks, IMHO. Those "facts" re the father and what the mother allegedly later told him when the mother was in the midst of conjuring up a civil case, I reject as not credible.

    Alan posted:
    For that matter, if the players were premeditating rape (as any date rape scenario requires) why would they drug one dancer and not the other?
    How did they know only one dancer would drink their brew? They may have seen the two empty cups and thought they each drank one. This could be a drug assisted rape plan gone wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#45)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    imho misrepresented:
    How did they know only one dancer would drink their brew? They may have seen the two empty cups and thought they each drank one. This could be a drug assisted rape plan gone wrong.
    According to Pittman's own police statement they both sipped and only the AV spilled.

    IMHO wrote,
    This could be a drug assisted rape plan gone wrong.
    WOW! That imhology strikes the final blow to any credibility IMHO may have left at this point.

    Based on the foregoing, I can no longer dismiss what previously was sarcasm re IMHO's identity. She is so filled with hate for the Duke boys, Duke the institution, the Duke boys parents and the truth that she must have some connection to the DA.

    This could be a drug assisted rape plan gone wrong.
    Really, now, imho. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if, IF, a date rape drug were put in the drink(s) it certainly did not work as advertised, if the AV were "fighting for her life, fighting to breathe" as Nifong suggested. And you seem to have someone other than the defendant's being the administer of the drug. "hey, maybe I'll slip something in the strippers' drinks so my friends can rape them?" Do you really see that as a likely scenario?

    IHMO would say no, but it is "possible." But so is the "possibility" that hairless, flesh-eating aliens from Zeta Reticula used their zincon probes to rape the FA without leaving any evidence behind.

    PB the Faithful writes: I would think that the statements from Roberts and/or the accuser (among others) that she went from okay to wildly out of it within a very short time of drinking a concoction given to her by the players drink serving agent (who shall remain nameless for risk management reasons at this time) would constitute "evidence" of the sort you like to bank on. Especially if we're allowed to add "common sense" to the mix. No? Common sense would be that the investigators would have insisted on doing a tox test to find out what was in the AV's system. There either wasn't one done or it's been witheld by the DA. Absent common sense we have the AV admitting to having two 22-ounce beers, a 24-ounce beer, flexeril (and I would not doubt that in the AV's mind, two pills are better than one, three better than two) and one and a half mixed drinks. Sure, it could have been a date rape drug, and wouldn't it have been something if the DA had tested for it? In the absence of a test, Nifong speculating on the possibility is improper. If the AV refused to take the test, or if Nifong is concealing the evidence, then we're getting up near criminal. But if it gives PB hope that the players will be convicted, then let us not that thin thread of hope at which she clutches. PB, on what evidence to you base your characterization of the drink given to the AV as a "concoction"? Would you consider a few tall malt liquors and a handful of muscle relaxers a "concoction" for purposes of fall-downedness?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#51)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    Now, now, Bob. It is an interesting concoction. Pittman and the AV have the same amount. Pittman is immune. The AV becomes inebriated solely because of the concoction, because she is immune only to the many ounces of beer she had already drunk, and not to the few sips of the concoction. Not only can the concoction distingush between the two dancers, the mysterious immunity can distinguish them as well. These palyers must have truly remarkable scores in biochemistry. In all truth, the only concocting is the contention of the date rape allegation.

    As an aside, I don't recall 22-ounces as being a standard size for a beer bottle or can. That's why I was wondering if it were malt liquor. Next time down at Safeway I'll have to check the bottle sizes. Also, I don't recall any mention of the AV being under the care of a physician for an injury prior to her dancing appearance at Buchanan, so the question arises why she'd taken a flexeril and was drinking beer before showing up at the party. My guess, informed by being here on earth for a number of years, was that the AV was taking that concoction specifically to get high. So before we expend too much worry about how these bad men had tried to get poor little Precious flat-faced drunk on the floor, it sure appears that that was what she was trying to do to herself beforehand. And, as I've intimated, if you're getting high, why not take a couple of pills instead of just one? After all, if you're abusing them, the damned things come by the bottle. The only source we seem to have, in the absence of a tox report, is the AV's own report of drug usage, which she would no doubt tend to downplay.

    Bob: I seem to remember an old adage from my misspent college days, that "one's good, two's better, and three's a charm."

    Newport, hate to break it to you but the flesh-eating aliens from Zeta Reticula were in the Delta Quadrant that night.

    Madison, consider the following that imho posited:
    He could be expecting to come into possession of more evidence this week, which he will in turn pass on to the defense.
    I missed this earlier. Where does this come from? Why would imho make this conjecture? What does she know that we don't and how does she know it if she is not somehow connected to the DA. I looked up "sock puppet" when someone used in before and there are two famous cases of sock puppet use. One involves a NY Times reporter who was discovered using a "sock puppet" on a board that was dicussing an article he wrote IIRC. The reporter used the sock puppet to either attack those opposed to the point of view of the article, or to agree with those in favor of the article's point of view. He was discovered and disgraced.

    Alan wrote,
    These palyers must have truly remarkable scores in biochemistry.
    Not to mention remarkable scores in computer science and electrical engineering to be able to doctor those camera phones without leaving any evidence behind and to syncronize their watch faces with the doctored phones. Ain't that right SloPhoto?

    I mean they are Duke students after all, so I guess it is possible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#58)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    Spilling the drink may actually have been the first sign of the AV's intoxication. The mysterious dancer-distinguishing concoction (hereinafter the MDDC) would, in that case, be acting close to instantaneously. Perhaps the flesh-eating aliens from Zeta Reticuli were the actual concocters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    re: the medical records: Is there any reason why Nifong couldn't have gone to the hospital and read what was there before they sent him the reports? (Assuming the AV had allowed it, which, as she was pressing charges, it is not a stretch to think that she had.) And, while I know there is disagreement about the meaning of Ms. Arico's statement, she does mention injuries. This is someone other than Nifong who had access to the medical files, who is essentially corroborating that there were injuries, and that those injuries could match up with the AV's story...you know, the one in which she was raped and assaulted. So...I believe Newport asked last thread if I thought the defense was lying. If there is nothing to contradict what they are saying, why not let us take a look at all those written medical reports. What about the doctor's report? What about the report from the other hospital? I think it is possible the defense is deliberately misinterpreting what they have. They've done it before. The previous alleged rape has been brought up again as an example of the AV's lack of credibility. It is an intensely difficult process to press charges of rape, at any time. re: the perps being in jail and unable to make good on threats: People charged with rape don't necessarily go to jail (I reference this case). Bail isn't necessarily set. If bail is set, it isn't necessarily at the time they are charged. Often you don't have to come up with the full amount to make bail...only a fraction in some cases. The perps could be free for months, and have plenty of opportunity to exact revenge if they so choose. The cops said there was no evidence after all those years, so how could the AV have pursued it anyway? Not filing or pressing charges of rape DOES NOT indicate a rape was never committed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    And, while I know there is disagreement about the meaning of Ms. Arico's statement, she does mention injuries. This is someone other than Nifong who had access to the medical files, who is essentially corroborating that there were injuries, and that those injuries could match up with the AV's story...you know, the one in which she was raped and assaulted.
    Not so. We have no way of knowing which story Arico was speaking about, or of knowing what sexual history the AV had given her. The defence motions say, as a matter of law, that if Nifong had such contact with the hospital he would have had to memorialise it and disclose it in discovery. I agree it is possible the defence is misinterpreting the reports. It is equally possible the prosecutor is interpreting the reports as loosely as he did other issues.

    Alan said: Spilling the drink may actually have been the first sign of the AV's intoxication. But wasn't she, according to JJ's statement, already spilling a drink on a cellphone and behaving oddly (going off down the street and refusing to get back in his car) earlier in the day? Spilling a drink on a cell in the bathroom would be the third "sign and symptom consistent with" being drunk/high we've heard of. Kim's original statement is largely credible. Her later revision (with Precious drinking half of her own drink and all of Kim's and suddenly changing) was made after her arrest and bail deal with Nifong, and nothing she says after that has the slightest credibility.

    Lora wrote,
    The cops said there was no evidence after all those years, so how could the AV have pursued it anyway?
    Could she not have pursued it at the time it was alleged to have happened? Presumably, evidence would be fresher then?

    Lora, you said,
    Is there any reason why Nifong couldn't have gone to the hospital and read what was there before they sent him the reports?
    Of course, he could have, but why would he have done that? The subpoena was being processed, and he would have had no reason to think that he wouldn't get the information in a week or so, just as he did. What would his hurry have been, why rush the process? I would also note that it would be highly unlikely that the District Attorney himself would be going to a hospital to read a report.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    IMHO stated, in part:
    That would go to the art of discovery compliance.
    there's no art involved. the DA is required to turn over all relevant documents to the defense. he/she doesn't get to pick and choose. the intentional failure to do so, if proven, can and should result in sanctions by the court. wherever do you get this nonsense from? Newport asked:
    Where am I going wrong here?
    by paying any attention whatever to the increasingly inane posts of IMHO. reading her posts is akin to reading "alice in wonderland", only more fanciful. where others rely on facts, she relies on speculation. why any reasonable person would take her posts seriously is a mystery to me. next question please.

    And I know I will be accused of being mean-spirited, but I can't help thinking that the AV has problems with holding her liquor.

    Alan posted:
    According to Pittman's own police statement they both sipped and only the AV spilled.
    Ms. Pittman's statement is now a complete and accurate accounting of everything that went on that night? She doesn't say what happened to the other drink in the police report, but she does later: the accuser drank it. SharonInJax posted:
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if, IF, a date rape drug were put in the drink(s) it certainly did not work as advertised, if the AV were "fighting for her life, fighting to breathe" as Nifong suggested.
    IF it was a drug assisted rape gone wrong: It went wrong because Kim did not get dosed, only the accuser did. The plan would have been to end up with two passed out women. Kim wanted to leave. The players couldn't wait for the accuser's drug to kick in. They had to take the accuser by force. If they could have waited a bit she would have been "compliant" AKA "passed out drunk." SharonInJax posted:
    And you seem to have someone other than the defendant's being the administer of the drug. "hey, maybe I'll slip something in the strippers' drinks so my friends can rape them?"
    We don't know who mixed the drinks that were given to the women. We don't know who handed them through the door. It could have been one of the defendants. We don't know. SharonInJax posted:
    Do you really see that as a likely scenario?
    A planned drug facilitated rape? Not likely. Some bozo thinking it would be funny to slip the strippers some roofies and it went bad from there? More likely. Alan posted:
    Spilling the drink may actually have been the first sign of the AV's intoxication. The mysterious dancer-distinguishing concoction (hereinafter the MDDC) would, in that case, be acting close to instantaneously. Perhaps the flesh-eating aliens from Zeta Reticuli were the actual concocters.
    From the police report version we don't know how the drink fell into the sink, but if you are going by the Newsweek version - the accuser spilled her own drink and then drank Kim's. Photios posted:
    But wasn't she, according to JJ's statement, already spilling a drink on a cellphone and behaving oddly (going off down the street and refusing to get back in his car) earlier in the day? Spilling a drink on a cell in the bathroom would be the third "sign and symptom consistent with" being drunk/high we've heard of.
    Both her father and her driver, Brian, saw her after those two incidents and neither seemed to think she was impaired.

    SharonInJax posted:
    And I know I will be accused of being mean-spirited, but I can't help thinking that the AV has problems with holding her liquor.
    I wonder if [fill in the blank] does, as well?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    Alan, If Nifong screwed up with the medical records, I'm betting that perhaps he read (or had a conversation) but didn't document that he did, rather than say he read something he didn't. I disagree with you about Arico's meaning because she was making a public statement about a very public case. She knew what the AV alleged, and the story that was out at that time. She said the injuries could have matched with the AV having been assaulted and raped, as the search warrant described. She didn't mean any other story. Newport, The AV was a mess after the first alleged rape - suicidal, under psychiatric care. Plus she was a girl of 14. She may not have been in any condition to endure a legal battle.

    I'm going to take cpinva's advice on this one. Whew! Nifong has really lost it. When's that motion re Nifong's irrational personality disorder coming out? I heard it was in the process of being prepared last week?

    Posted by Bob In Pacifica June 18, 2006 04:09 PM Newport, hate to break it to you but the flesh-eating aliens from Zeta Reticula were in the Delta Quadrant that night.
    So Bob, are you now the ZR boys alibi? Could it perhaps have been those darn Befeelflips from Prosobadious Nine again?

    cpiva posted:
    there's no art involved. the DA is required to turn over all relevant documents to the defense. he/she doesn't get to pick and choose. the intentional failure to do so, if proven, can and should result in sanctions by the court.
    "DA is required to turn over all relevant documents to the defense." That are in their possesion. There is an art to it. Sharon knows what I am talking about. cpiva posted:
    wherever do you get this nonsense from?
    Real life.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#72)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    ("just kidding" alert) BTW speaking of sock puppets, How do "we" know the lot of you aren't sock puppets for the defense ;-)

    Lora, I have to ask you this because you seem to be taking a class on the subject and your teacher is obviously very influental to you: How can a man ever defend himself from a false charge of rape if all it takes is the accuser's word? What does this hypothetical man have to do to avoid conviction? What would be a good way for this man to show that the story is false? BTW, Sharon, I would not have said "yes" in response to the question you were asked during voir dire in your jury duty. I really don't think that is right as a matter of law either. How could one ever find someone guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on an accusation alone?

    Found this discussion of the Newsweek article:
    Indeed, Nifong's comment should fortify the case for sanctions by the North Carolina State Bar: these remarks are those of a man incapable of fulfilling the requirement that "a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict . . . The prosecutor is not only an advocate, but he or she also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all. In our system of criminal justice, the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt . . . Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused."


    Hey Alan, an Aussie just won the U.S. open. Were you watching?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#76)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 04:13:55 PM EST
    imho concocted:
    From the police report version we don't know how the drink fell into the sink, but if you are going by the Newsweek version - the accuser spilled her own drink and then drank Kim's.
    We do. Both you and I know this because it is has already been posted in this thread.
    We did sip the drinks, but Precious cup fell into the sink.
    The cup fell from somewhere. Where would you suggest? Did it levitate itself or was it in the AV's hand? The 24 April Newsweek version varies significantly from Pittman's 22 March police statement. You would have the 24 April Newsweek carry greater weight than Pittman's contemporaneous statement. For some reason, however, you would not have the latest Newsweek article get any weight at all.
    In an interview with NEWSWEEK in March, Nifong had hinted that the victim had been slipped a date-rape drug. Also interviewed by NEWSWEEK, Roberts seemed to support that suggestion. She said that the other dancer had been sober when she arrived at the lacrosse players' house, but then drank a mixed drink given her by the players and was soon staggering. In her first detailed statement to police, Roberts said the woman spilled her drink after a few sips but didn't mention, as she had to NEWSWEEK, that the accuser imbibed most of Roberts's.
    You would also disregard Pittman's conversation with Investigator sic Himan on 20 March:
    3/20/06 1010HRS - CONTACTED KIM PITMAN REFERENCE THIS CASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE DID DANCE AT 610 NORTH BUCHANAN, I ASKED HER IF SHE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT WHY I WAS CALLING. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WOULD BE GETTING A CALL FORM THE POLICE ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HEARD THAT MS. MANGUM WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, WHICH SHE STATED WAS A "CROCK" AND SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS WITH HER THE WHOLE TIME UNTIL SHE LEFT. AND THE ONLY TIME SHE WAS ALONE WAS WHEN SHE WOULD NOT LEAVE AND THAT TIME PERIOD WAS LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. WE MADE AN APPOINTMENT FOR HER TO MEET ME AT STATION 2 AND HER TO GIVE ME A STATEMENT REGUARDING THE INCIDENT.
    The court have ways to work out evidentiary conflicts. They look at contemporaneity. Where there are prior inconsistent statements they look at the motive of the author. 'I didn't do it' is a lot less persuasive than 'I did it' because the second statement is not self-serving. Between the contemporaneous statement and the later versions Pittman decided there was money to be made and received an excellent bail deal from Nifong. Her later statements are self-serving statements that clash with prior inconsistent statements. they will get about as much weight as the non-existent toxicology report.

    lightenup posted;
    My lament (not whining) was not specific to me it was in general that
    Several interesting questions are raised on this site, yet everyone feels the need to respond to your voluminous posts, and discussions that interest me fall by the wayside.
    I think you assign your high self esteem incorrectly.* It was not about me. Now I see how others get sucked in. I'll let you have the last word, I'm done, I swear.
    Apparently, I wasn't the only one who preceived those "interesting questions" about "discussions that interest [you]" were YOUR OWN QUESTIONS: Posted by blcc June 10, 2006 11:46 PM
    lightenup,
    I think you're misinterpreting why posters are responding to IMHO instead of your questions. My guess is twofold.
    * You haven't read SLOphoto's "Tribute to IMHO?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#78)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    She said the injuries could have matched with the AV having been assaulted and raped, as the search warrant described. She didn't mean any other story.
    Arico did not. She said:
    I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told.
    That does not specify any version of the rape or any version of the assault. It also does not address (because Arico did not know it) the AV's recent sexual activity. I'm not saying Arico is dishonest or anything. I'm just saying that a statement made in ignorance of the AV's recent sexual activity does not go anywhere. I'd be interested to hear her answer to the same questions if they were put to her in the light of what she knows now. When the medical report finally goes into evidence, Arico's opinion will not override it. Until the medical report is tested in court we won't know what happened.

    I agree, Bob, it's a slim reed to hang a conviction on, especially since the jury may, and in many if not most cases, not hear the "he said" part of the story. BUT, I could see an alleged victim testifying, and her testimony being so compelling, so filled with details, so convincing that I could see my way clear to convict. It would have to be an incredibly strong story, though. Likely, too, as it was in the case I heard, there were small details to support her allegations. Not enough, not nearly enough in that case, but we did have more than the AV's testimony alone. Problem was she was NOT convincing at all. The defendant may have raped her, but we acuitted due to an abundance of reasonable doubt.

    Typed, "Bob" but meant Newport, sorry about that.

    Alan posted:
    We do. Both you and I know this because it is has already been posted in this thread.
    We did sip the drinks, but Precious cup fell into the sink.
    The cup fell from somewhere. Where would you suggest? Did it levitate itself or was it in the AV's hand?
    I would suggest her cup could have been placed on the edge of the sink and either one of the women could have knocked it into the sink. We don't know. The drink in the sink has not been determined to be "the first sign of the AV's intoxication."

    The drink in the sink has not been determined to be "the first sign of the AV's intoxication."
    That is true. As Photios pointed out, the drink spilled on Jariel's cell phone was the first, the incident on the side of the road was the second, the spilled drink in the bathroom at Buchanan was the third, and the "uncontrollable" behavior noted by Roberts after the 4 minute dance was the fourth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    imho concoted:
    The drink in the sink has not been determined to be "the first sign of the AV's intoxication."
    At this stage nothing has been determined to be anything, unless you give imhology considerably greater weight than does the legal system. However, as Photios pointed out above, you are dead right, the spillage is not the first sign of intoxication. Johnson has the AV acting strangely before the party. The player's concoction must be retrospective. Or the AV was doing what she could to hold it together for as long as she could after arriving at the party already intoxicated.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: Newsweek Asks, Has it Coll (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    Posted by Newport
    Hey Alan, an Aussie just won the U.S. open. Were you watching?
    Too traumatised by the Socceroos losing to Brazil 2/0.

    Cib, J. Manly was the Duke doctor who performed the medical exam with Levicy. From the medical records as quoted by the defense, Dr. Manly noted three non-bleeding scratches on the victim's right knee and ankle. Powerful testimony for Nifong. Especially since the cuts were visible on the FA in the photo's taken by the boys when the FA was doing her dance.

    Alan posted:
    At this stage nothing has been determined to be anything,
    It's been determined, contrary to what you said earlier, that from the police report, we don't know how the accuser's cup fell into the sink.

    IMHO, please research standard jury instructions re inferences jurors are permitted to make