home

Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology Report Turned Over

There was a hearing in the Duke lacrosse players' alleged rape case today. Reade Seligman's bond was reduced.

DA Mike Nifong confirmed he had not turned over a toxicology report to the defense -- but he refused to say whether toxicology tests had been performed. Update: Fox News is reporting Nifong said no toxicology tests were conducted. So why did Nifong put out the date rape drug theory?

Among the items Nifong has yet to turn over is an analysis of the accuser's computer, which he said was still pending, and records from the mental health facility where authorities took the woman before she told police she had been raped. The only record from the facility, Nifong said, is a single page from a log book he is still working to obtain.

Also, the judge ordered Nifong to turn over reports from the accuser's 1993 gang rape allegation.

< Blogger Condolences | FBI Busts Suspected Domestic Terrorism Ring >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    TL wrote,
    DA Mike Nifong confirmed he had not turned over a toxicology report to the defense -- but he refused to say whether toxicology tests had been performed. Other items not turned over.
    That's not what I heard. I heard him say there was no such report.

    imho: when a judge interrupts you while you are doing an introductory statement, it is a slapdown. You said,
    Did he sound angry or annoyed to you Sharon?
    No, of course he did not. But unless you have a sense of the dynamics of a hearing before a judge, you might not understand the point. Stevens interrupted Nifong to stop him. Point to the defense, followed up by more than one point for the bond reduction. Your thoughts on that?

    Me too, Newport. Nifong, who has so much recent experience with rape cases, said there were no tox reports to turn over. Now, of course, he could mean "I have tox screenings in the works that I am delaying, in violation of discovery laws and rules and intentions." Do you think he meant that, imho?

    Oh me, oh my...I come back from out-of-town to find a gazillion posts and even more exciting, my own personal Lewis Cheek petition in my real mailbox to sign. Localone, any further updates on whether or not Candidate Cheek will arrive at the party? Our house is signing this baby no matter what. Our bottom line is that whether or not a crime occurred (most likely not,) madman Mikey's methods of, ahem, investigation put us more to mind of a Kangaroo court--albeit a slow one--than to one we'd like to think is the norm for 21st century USA. In that vein, I'd respectfuly like to ask inmyhumbleopinion, Durga, PB, and Lora--if you ladies/gentlemen lived in Durham, would you be disappointed in Nifong, City Manager Baker, and especially in the line-up procedure? Would you be disappointed that the police/Nifong diverted resources from a quadruple homicide to pursue DNA evidence in this case? (I know, Lora, rapes are horrible crimes, but I don't think the families of the four murdered young (black) men would think a rape should take precedent over their sons/brothers case.) Just curious. Because I have to tell you it's enough to make me cry to think that you HAVE to have money in this community to pay for good attorneys to protect you from politically-motivated DAs and the judges who coddle them. Seriously, for most of you people, this is just great television. I envy your luxury. Living here is no fun. Sigh. I need another vacation now.

    weezie posted:
    For the love of Mike (NOT Nifong,) reading that ridiculous line, "Sweetheart, you aren't going anywhere..." over and over again is making me feel like kicking somebody in the butt, too.
    hahaha

    TL, you said, in part:
    So why did Nifong put out the date rape drug theory?
    For the same reason Nifong opined that comdoms being used could account for the lack of DNA linking the accusers to the rape. Even though he knew, or should have known, at that time, that his victim, in at least one of her statements, said no condoms were used. For the same reason Nifong acted out a scenario of a woman being choked from behind while brutalized. Even though he knew, or should have known, that his victim, in at least one of her statements, said she was not choked. For the same reason that Nifong said that the Duke players were not cooperating. Even though he knew, or should have known, that the players who lived in the house had gone beyond cooperation. I think Nifong bought in, early, to his victim's statement. When he was still talking, all he was doing was try to find ways to make her story work, hoping that the evidence would bear her, and him, out. Hasn't happened.

    SharonInJax posted:
    Stevens interrupted Nifong to stop him.
    Point to the defense, followed up by more than one point for the bond reduction.
    Your thoughts on that?
    I didn't see the bond reduction discussion. Did Nifong oppose a reduction? Stephens clearly favored Nifong in both hearings. He ridiculed Osborn about the "complicated" military records. I actually felt bad for Osborn about that. Stephens runs a tight ship, but he wasn't the least bit sharp with Nifong's about the snarky rape kit comment. It was a "now, now, we don't need to get into any of that". You can bet Osborn is glad he won't be before Stephens next time. Last hearing:
    OSBORN: And then, your honor, I understand that it is custom at least in this county that we would be permitted to actually go over to the law enforcement officer's agency and actually go through their files, all their files, all their notes and so forth, personally.
    STEPHENS: Well I'm not aware of that custom. I believe perhaps maybe that's your take on the custom. I'm not aware of that custom. I mean you surely have the discovery process and you have what you're allowed by statute and then, frankly, whatever else the D.A. allows is his call.
    OSBORN: Yes, sir.


    And by "you people," I mean all the posters on this board, not just the four individuals to whom I posed my question. It's hard not to look at a car wreck, isn't it?

    SharonInJax posted:
    Now, of course, he could mean "I have tox screenings in the works that I am delaying, in violation of discovery laws and rules and intentions."
    Do you think he meant that, imho?
    No, I don't think he means it is being tested. It doesn't take that long to test. If his intention is to stall, why hurry? If they have the blood it can still be tested.

    There should be no surprise regarding any of the things that Nifong has said to the press. HE IS NOT GOING BY THE MEDICAL REPORTS AND THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN. He is going by the statement that the FA gave to the Durham PD sometime later. Who knows the date of Precious' statement? She probably says that they used condoms in that statement to the police. All the inconsistencies in the prior statements will be chalked up to stress, trauma, etc. He has a statement and an ID and he will get it to a Durham jury. And, he will get a hung jury. He comes out of this as a hero to a certain segment of the population for standing up for the underprivileged. Some jurors in Durham may be like Durga, PB and imho and vote to convict based on the calling of names alone and the broomstick comment. Nifong is both a fox and a fool.

    Stephens clearly favored Nifong in both hearings. He ridiculed Osborn about the "complicated" military records. I actually felt bad for Osborn about that. Stephens runs a tight ship, but he wasn't the least bit sharp with Nifong's about the snarky rape kit comment. It was a "now, now, we don't need to get into any of that". You can bet Osborn is glad he won't be before Stephens next time.
    All of this is true unfortunately. Stephens showed his true colors today.

    Anyone have an answer? How does a 14 year-old go to a hospital after she was gang raped and the facility not notify the authorities?

    Cousin: Students may have drugged dancer
    A cousin of the accuser in the Duke University rape case says she believes the young woman was drugged at the party in Durham, N.C., where she said she was attacked.
    The cousin, who wanted to be identified only as Jackie, suggested in an interview with "Inside Edition" that drugging might account for any inconsistencies in what the alleged victim has said happened.
    "I can't specifically say what my cousin says," Jackie said. "But what I believe is that she was drugged, and if you've been drugged and had alcohol mixed with some kind of cocktail of course you're going to be delusional."
    The alleged victim, a student at a historically black college in Durham, says three members of the Duke lacrosse team raped her in a bathroom during a party where she was working as an exotic dancer.


    Regarding the lack of a tox report, I thought that certain date rape drugs leave the system pretty rapidly. They could have been gone, if she'd had any, by the time the AV got to Duke. Perhaps when the AV talked about the two 22-ouncers and the flexeril, someone decided NOT to run the test because of what it WOULD find. This whole case is such a crock.

    And did Bissey just confuse the lingerie with a short skirt?

    No, no, no, NO. Newport and imho (never did I think I would group you two together). imho: Stevens admitted, in the process, that he either did not have or had not looked at third one of the military records requested by Osborn. He did not interupt Osborn about a point of law, or courtroom demeanor. Yes, I do think that Stevens is a "pro-prosecution" judge, and most of his decisions will relect this. Not to mention (an odd idiomatic experssion because I am about to mention) that just about every and any judge will err on the side of the prosecution. As they should. Test question for everyone here: do you understand why a judge will, by and large, rule in favor of the prosecution? Here's a hint: the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.

    imho: are we to infer that the same level of credibility should be given to the "Duke alum payoff" report as to this latest, the "date rape drug"? Read that latest link: does the cousin ever say that the AV said she thought/believed/suspected she was "slipped" a date rape drug? No. So you have a family member trying to . . . what?

    All the Durham judges are liberal democrats that mostly went to UNC law school. None of them are going to put the slightest amount of smack down on Nifong. This is going to the jury, unless the FA can't be found or made to testify.

    Perhaps when the AV talked about the two 22-ouncers and the flexeril, someone decided NOT to run the test because of what it WOULD find.
    That someone would be the FA because she apparently did not consent to the screening. We will never know until the SANE nurse testifies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#19)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    He [Bissey] heard the b!tch word. He may have heard more.
    If he had heard players yelling the n-word, why would he have omitted that from his account? If he did not hear it, that gives the lie to Kim Pitman's testimony that they were shouting "N*,n*,n*" outdoors while she and the AV were in the car.

    The cousin, who wanted to be identified only as Jackie, suggested in an interview with "Inside Edition" that drugging might account for any inconsistencies in what the alleged victim has said happened. I wonder if cousin Jackie knows about the flexeril and the 44 ounces of beer that her cousin took before showing up at the show. We know that the reporter for the version of this AV puff piece that ran in the local paper didn't include the question in the article. I wonder if "Inside Edition" did. But I'm glad someone is feeding IMHO something that will give her hope for a conviction. This is my last time asking this: What the hell was Bissey talking about when he said that the AV was wearing a short skirt? Bissey supposedly saw the short skirt when he was watching the AV appear sober. If no one has an answer I'll just presume that Bissey just can't tell the difference between a skirt and lingerie.

    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: are we to infer that the same level of credibility should be given to the "Duke alum payoff" report as to this latest, the "date rape drug"?
    Read that latest link: does the cousin ever say that the AV said she thought/believed/suspected she was "slipped" a date rape drug?
    No.
    So you have a family member trying to . . . what?
    Sharon, I posted two articles. I did not endorse either one. I think it is good to know what is out there. Why so sensitive today?

    Moral of the story -- if you value your liberty, stay away from all things Durham. I always heard the best thing about Duke was that it was in North Carolina, and the worst thing about Duke was that it was in Durham. Now I know why.

    Newport:
    Nifong is approaching this case like a civil litigator, just win baby, on whatever set of facts works.
    Nifong is pretty scummy, but connecting him to an Al Davis quote is just low.

    By the way, thanking someone's grandfather for his cotton shirt is perhaps the lamest racial epithet I have ever heard.

    Sorry noname, I'll do better next time.

    Sharon, Is it because the prosecution can't appeal a not guilty verdict?

    By the way, thanking someone's grandfather for his cotton shirt is perhaps the lamest racial epithet I have ever heard.
    Yeah, never heard that one before. Wonder where that came from. I'll bet they were as mad as hornets about the money.

    Does anyone know anything about all the missing pages of the SANE report from the first discovery? Were they turned over today? Were they not turned over?

    Bob, there were no missing pages. Nifong the Great explained all that to the other dunces who should have known that their evidence bag was complete.

    Newport, I worked for over 25 years in a job with working class people of all races, ethnicities, religions, backgrounds. I have heard them all, and while people snipe and others they're generally most openly brutal about their own self-identified groups. I've never heard that one. It sounds to me like someone wanted to hurl a racial epithet but didn't know how.

    wumhenry posted:
    If he had heard players yelling the n-word, why would he have omitted that from his account? If he did not hear it, that gives the lie to Kim Pitman's testimony that they were shouting "N*,n*,n*" outdoors while she and the AV were in the car.
    I don't know if he did or not, but the quote seems to imply he heard more than one unkind remark:
    "There were no kind words of the things I heard that were directed at the girls," said neighbor Jason Bissey.
    Bissey did not come back out until the car was actually driving away. Kim did not report hearing the "cotton shirt" remark shouted at the moving car. The n!gger comments were made as she "went back to her car. I finally began leaving and the boys began yelling n!gger to us," so they were pretty close in time, but neither person reported hearing the other comment.

    In her show of concern for Sharon, IMHO wrote: Why so sensitive today? Sharon, if you're feeling a little sensitive, may I suggest a concoction of 44 ounces of beer and a flexeril or three. Just don't put on your teddy and go out dancing.

    I've never heard that one. It sounds to me like someone wanted to hurl a racial epithet but didn't know how.
    Agreed, that is the only explanation for something so bizarre. I suspect that the insult came from someone who never really was around people who knew how to throw some insults. Like you, I have been around a lot of people who have hurled racial insults (all kinds Italian, Polish, Black, Jewish, Irish, Asian, etc.) back and forth and I have never heard anything as, well, well, can't come up with the right word -- "nerdy" maybe as that one.

    BTW, my experience with Flexeril is that it is useless. I received a prescription once for a back thing but it didn't do a thing. Didn't try it with alcohol though.

    Bob, another thought on this. Maybe the real answer is that some people are so afraid to say the N word that this is what they came up with for a substitution. To me it almost shows a PC mindset on racially insulting someone. Do you think that is crazy?

    imho: any problems with Seligman's mother? No LPGA connection that I know of. She, like me, does not blame the accused. And I typed this, not being careful of how I phrased it, but I really wonder: Do you care about what the accused's families are going through, if their boys are indeed innocent, not simply not guilty? I am, tonight, sitting here still disturbed and dismayed. Part of that is the fact that this case is still going forward. At the risk of questions and dismissive answers, I will say this: I have never been raped. But there was a time when, if not for a roommate coming back to the room, I would have been. My only point in telling all of you about that is that I do "get it." Luckily for me, I do not know what it would be like to be raped. I do, however, know how it feels to think that there is nothing, nothing, NOTHING I could do. And what the AV in this case has said, the way she has changed her story, according to how sympathetic her audience was, the way her story can be corroborated by no one makes me think I came closer to being raped than she did. My son is the math wiz, not I. But has anyone worked out exactly how many stories the AV told that night? Understand, this is not a simple, "were you raped?" calculation. How many men? How much alcohol consumed by you? Who was there? Does it not bother any of the AV supporters that to believe her (final answer) story, you must disbelieve everyone else who was present at 610? Does it not bother you that you have to strain to define what the word "mustache" means? Does it not bother you that you retreat to condemning the alleged racist comments, even when the only independent witness can only confirm a tasteless, childish (but, and I am willing to admit, it was a Cameron Crazy kind of racial comment) taunt aimed at, perhaps, the stripper who just told them that she had called the cops on them? Do you, any of you, have the slightest bit of honest sympathy for the accused and their families? Do you not, after reading just the affadivits and police reports, see and feel reasonable doubt already? Do you really, still, think that Nifong gives a flying fuc* about the AV other than what she could, and did, do for his election? Ranting, in part, because I've got a leak, somewhere, in the plumbing between the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms - and it's dripping; I've got a daughter in NYC who calls with odd medical issues from time to time, expecting me to tell her what to do; I've got a (reminder of those who do not know what I said when I first posted on this board) son who fits the profile of what Mike Nifong sees as a potential rapist. imho, PB, Durga, and Lora, please tell me: other than the AV's identification of the three accused, other than her depiction of what transpired that night in that house (I will even let you pick which one of her stories you want to use), what evidence do you think is there? I am not trying to be confrontational. When I said, early on, that a part of me absolutely did not want the AV to be proved wrong, I meant it. Hell, even now, I have a hard time accusing her, blaming her. I think Mrs. Seligman and I have a lot in common, in mother terms. Notice, Mrs. Seligman was not asked to comment upon Mr. Nifong. Back to my, imagine if it were your son/brother/father/husband charged with what we know thus far. On the basis of this it is the good, right, thing to do, to protect the possible, potential future real rape victims?

    Durga: I know I said I would not respond to you, but then I read what you wrote about why I made that decision. It's a page or more behind this one, but I did answer you about the "if my son" etc.

    BINGO, Bob. The State gets one shot, the defense can go on and on and on. Think anyone is listening, and paying attention to that concept of jurisprudence? Even "pro-defense" judges err on the side of the side who has an appeal if the verdict goes wrong.

    Very eloquent Sharon, but you are wasting your time. Durga, imho and PB hate these men because of at least two things, 1) the racial insensivities they showed and 2) the sexist thing they did with the broom, nothing else really matters. Same with Victoria Peterson and others in Durham, NOI, New Black Panthers, etc., although they are more concerned strictly with the racial aspects. Why do you think they play all the games with the facts as we know them. If these three had their way there would be the racial vilification statute in play that Alan mentioned in New South Wales Australia -- first amendment be damned.

    Then why is the rate of success of appeals so low, like 1 percent?

    If, as Kim has stated, the players thought Kim was the Hispanic one, they would have hollered something else.

    Newport, I know, I know, I know. I know I should give up on changing minds about this case. But it maddens me. Are imho, durga, PB, et al, really that resitant to the possibility that the AV, in this case might have been a victim before she got out of a car in front of 610 N. Buchanan? Do any of you, the ones I described before and any others who agree with them, honestly believe the AV's "last answer"? Don't you, at least sometimes, find yourselves straining to make the AV's words fit, struggling to ignore her other words? Do you not find yourselves trying to redefine the meaning of the word "mustache"? Does it not bother you, the different, varying, and internally unreconcilable statements from the one person upon whom this prosecution rests? Are not any of you worried about Nifong's decisions, and the timing thereof? Can you only relate to the accuser, with no sympathy or empathy for the accused?

    Hell, it's too tough for me, in ways I've said before.

    I am very frustrated over this too Sharon.

    Newport -
    Some jurors in Durham may be like Durga, PB and imho and vote to convict based on the calling of names alone and the broomstick comment.
    When did I say I'd vote to convict based on "the calling of names alone"? In the same instance I said something that proved how I was racist? By the way, have you gathered the posts/comments I made that proved to you that I am racist against whites (or is it just white men?) yet? How about in imho's case? inmyhumbleopinion ("inmyhumbleopinion doesn't care about white people!") said -
    Stephens runs a tight ship, but he wasn't the least bit sharp with Nifong's about the snarky rape kit comment. It was a "now, now, we don't need to get into any of that".
    What was it that was said? BiP -
    Bissey supposedly saw the short skirt when he was watching the AV appear sober. If no one has an answer I'll just presume that Bissey just can't tell the difference between a skirt and lingerie.
    What now? That Bissey may have mistaken a lingerie for a short skirt is going to be used by you to undermine his claim that the AV appeared sober? But certainly not the account of the time-line, right?
    If, as Kim has stated, the players thought Kim was the Hispanic one, they would have hollered something else.
    They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina (at the very least they could have thought she was Filipino); they may just be that thick. Plus, if their aim was to insult, I wouldn't think it would matter much beyond being "not white".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#47)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:49:48 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    Maybe the real answer is that some people are so afraid to say the N word that this is what they came up with for a substitution. To me it almost shows a PC mindset on racially insulting someone. Do you think that is crazy?
    No. That's exactly what I was thinking. My guess is that the guy felt the sort of impotent anger and frustration one feels after being cheated and that he therefore derived some small satisfaction from reminding the welchers that people like him had ripped off their ancestors.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#48)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:56:29 PM EST
    Durga_ wrote:
    They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina ... they may just be that thick.
    There's no real evidence of that. Kim Pitman didn't say that any of them said anything that indicated he thought she was hispanic. It was merely a conjecture on her part.

    Durga, I don't think anyone could tell what the racial background of Kim was, she said as much herself when she opined that they must have thought I was hispanic. She said she was frequently mistaken for Hispanic. Not everyone is as obsessed with race as you are and not everyone is as good as you are in ascertaining racial backgrounds. Robert's is a mix of a black father and a Korean mother, a fairly rare combination, and I doubt most people would be able to figure that out from looking at her. It doesn't make someone "thick" to not be able to figure that out. Call the boys what you want, but one thing they are not is thick. I suspect that they would run circles around you in any sort of objective intelligence measurement. It was interesting listening to Victoria Cunningham's questions to Cheshire at his press conference with Evans. She first started off with a tirade about the white players hiring black strippers, when corrected midstream by Cheshire that the players asked for white strippers, she agilely shifted gears. She then went off in a tirade saying, in essence, why didn't the white players upon seeing black strippers just send them packing and further about how evil it would be to have these black strippers enter the house. Cheshire replied that they didn't send them packing because maybe they had too much respect. Just goes to show that you can't win with people like that.

    There's no real evidence of that. Kim Pitman didn't say that any of them said anything that indicated he thought she was hispanic. It was merely a conjecture on her part.
    Of course I was going of the established stipulation that they were unaware she was black at all (ie. "thought Kim was the Hispanic one") and therefore the N-word wouldn't make sense. So, in that case, it would be safe to include as much.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#51)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:11:13 PM EST
    that just about every and any judge will err on the side of the prosecution. As they should.
    why should they? if the prosecution has done its homework, it doesn't need the judge's "help".
    Test question for everyone here: do you understand why a judge will, by and large, rule in favor of the prosecution? Here's a hint: the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.
    so what? see above. in fact, that actually gives the defense other grounds for appeal, which is pretty stupid if you're a judge. actually, there are instances where the state can appeal, rarely. both the state and the defendent are entitled to a fair trial. in the instance where the outcome is fixed (due to jury tampering), the prosecution can certainly appeal the verdict obtained by a criminal act. to not allow it would be a gross violation of public policy. i watched the hearing, mr. nifong stated that there is no toxicology report. unless he enjoys his days spent behind bars, i submit that there is none. that being the case, any suggestion of a drug, other than alcohol & flexeril, both of which the AV stated she ingested knowingly, having been slipped to her at the party, is out. old blood is, well...............old. no toxicology report worth a damn will be performed on it, too many chemical changes can occur, to make it valid. just another nail in the swiftly closing coffin of this case. mr. nifong has...................nothing. he should consider himself fortunate if he isn't censured by the court. there is no smoking condom, there will be no last minute surprise witness, there will be no heretofore unknown videotapes or pictures of the act, because they just don't exist. if they did, as much media coverage as this thing has gotten, someone (in deference to IMHO) would have leaked it by now. this is the "DA that couldn't shoot straight". perhaps you're right, judge stephens is being deferential to the prosecution. he's scheduled trials so far down the road, if nifong is lucky, the media interest will die, and it can be quietly disappeared. this isn't to say that the AV wasn't raped, i have no idea whether she was or not. the only people that do were at that party. however, there is currently no tangible evidence to support the allegation.

    Not everyone is as obsessed with race as you are
    Erm, have you seen your posts? Would you like me to run them by you again? No need to fly off the handle once again anyway. It was all hypothesis.
    Call the boys what you want, but one thing they are not is thick. I suspect that they would run circles around you in any sort of objective intelligence measurement.
    Since you brought it up, I'm a skeptic and actually doubt there is an "objective intelligence measurement" considering it is biased to its time and the person who decides what qualifies as intelligence. But, hey, start a one-sided p*ssing-contest involving absent subjects if you feel it makes you happy.

    Since you brought it up, I'm a skeptic and actually doubt there is an "objective intelligence measurement" considering it is biased to its time and the person who decides what qualifies as intelligence.
    Of course you are. Objectivity in measuring intelligent wouldn't fit with your view of a proper world order.

    cpinva posted:
    old blood is, well...............old. no toxicology report worth a damn will be performed on it, too many chemical changes can occur, to make it valid.
    I've read studies on the storage of blood that was tested for GHB. They compared frozen, frozen thawed then refrozen, refrigerated, and room temperature storage. Even the tubes of blood stored at room temperature for six months had low enough levels of endogenous GHB to determine which samples contained exogenous GHB. The trick is COLLECTING the sample before the drug is eliminated from the blood and or urine. Once the sample is in the tube, it can be tested many many months later.

    cpinva posted:
    if they did, as much media coverage as this thing has gotten, someone (in deference to IMHO) would have leaked it by now.
    Thank you, I honestly appreciate the consideration. Sharon, Why do you consider me an "AV supporter?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#56)
    by JK on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:46:22 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    I've read studies on the storage of blood that was tested for GHB.
    Do you have a link? In any event, even if a test could be performed, the fact that it has not yet been performed strongly suggests to me that it won't be performed. Why would Nifong wait so long if he thought the blood might have useful evidence? Furthermore, IMHO, for someone who believes Mike Nifong to be an ethical (and reasonably competent) lawyer, can you think of any good reason (consistent with Nifong's responsibilities to find the true facts) why Nifong wouldn't have ordered such a test already?

    Defense Criticizes Duke Case Accuser
    DURHAM, N.C., June 22 -- A lawyer for one of the three Duke University lacrosse players charged with raping a woman said a police report released to the defense on Thursday showed that the woman initially claimed five men had sexually assaulted her. That assertion was immediately challenged by an investigator for the prosecutor.
    The lawyer, Joseph B. Cheshire, spoke to reporters after Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, delivered 536 pages of documents to defense lawyers. Mr. Cheshire said a quick review indicated that the woman had given other versions of events. Mr. Cheshire described the woman as "the false accuser" and said she had claimed rape by 3, 5 and 20 men.
    Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story.
    The case stems from a lacrosse team party on March 13, where the woman and another stripper were hired to perform. In a 50-minute court proceeding on Thursday, Mr. Nifong addressed defense lawyers' requests for more information, saying the requests had been mostly fulfilled in the material delivered, added to 1,278 pages released May 18.
    Judge Ronald L. Stephens of Durham County Superior Court reduced the bail for one of the three defendants to $100,000 from $400,000.


    Durga:
    They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina (at the very least they could have thought she was Filipino); they may just be that thick.
    Statements like this do not help your cause, they merely demonstrate your capacity to interpret facts selectively to suit your argument. Where is your evidence that people who cannot reliably distinguish racial characteristics have below average intelligence? The US is a racial melting pot. I see people of mixed racial origins every day without trying to figure out what those origins are, and if asked to do so, I would probably get it wrong a lot of the time. Your claim is as useful as it would be for me to argue that the people who are still not yet convinced that the AV made up the rape charges must be thick.

    Survey finds Durham's image not eroded by Duke case
    DURHAM -- Heavy media coverage of an alleged rape by three Duke lacrosse players has not eroded Durham's image and actually may have provided a positive bump, according to a Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau survey conducted two months into the case.


    Holy st*t, who is Linwood Wilson, and why would he step out of line like that? It doesn't seem remotely possible to me that an investigator from the DA's office would take on the role of challenging the defense at a press conference. Never mind that what he says is obvious bull sh*t given the medical report evidence. What in the world is going on down in Durham?

    imho, your post refers to a study of Durham's self-image:
    The new study said Durham's self-image remained unchanged during the lacrosse coverage for 76.4 percent of residents ...
    While any Convention & Visitors Bureau wants to show its city in the best possible light, in their business I think it's not really Durham's self-image that matters, but Durham's image elsewhere. This case must be hurting that, imho. We have to assume that they have not done that survey. Or if they have, they are not revealing the results.

    Of course you are. Objectivity in measuring intelligent
    Measuring "intelligent" what ...?
    wouldn't fit with your view of a proper world order.
    ??? The whole point is that ideally we could objectively measure intelligence, but not when we can't even decide what it is. What is my world view? Did I mention it in the same place where I show I hate white people?
    Statements like this do not help your cause,
    What is my "cause"?
    they merely demonstrate your capacity to interpret facts selectively to suit your argument. Where is your evidence that people who cannot reliably distinguish racial characteristics have below average intelligence?
    I said - They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina (at the very least they could have thought she was Filipino); they may just be that thick. Plus, if their aim was to insult, I wouldn't think it would matter much beyond being "not white". I didn't say people who cannot reliably distinguish racial characteristics have below average intelligence. I said, first, based on a hypothesis put forth they weren't even able to tell she was mixed Asian. If you saw that I was actually responding to somebody pointing out that if in fact they thought she was Latina then it doesn't ring true for them to use the N-word, it was to spring-board my point that them calling her the N-word if they didn't know she was black wouldn't be far off. They would indeed be "thick" for 1), calling her the N-word, and 2), using the wrong ignorant slur to boot. I do hold that they seem a bit non-worldly to not note the Asian in her (it is just the way I feel. Sorry. Maybe it is a decade of studying Cambodia) if in fact that is the case, but the "thick" did not refer to that. I was going to explain as much to Newport, but that is like trying to pee in the corner of a round room. But since you brought it up, you know that if they were able to tell she was Korean/black, then people here would be talking about how bright they are.

    Sharon, You wrote:
    imho, PB, Durga, and Lora, please tell me: other than the AV's identification of the three accused, other than her depiction of what transpired that night in that house (I will even let you pick which one of her stories you want to use), what evidence do you think is there?
    I am not privy to the Prosecution's case, and I don't expect to be until the trial. What I know of the case mostly comes from the defense, and what I find surprising is that despite the presence of so many witnesses, the defense is publicly pussyfooting around a very important part of the case... Were the defendants in the bathroom with the accuser? For example, take note of Seligman's alibi witness, Wellington... He signed the following document [excerpted]...
    2. I was at the lacrosse party at 61 0 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham, NC on March 13 running over to March 14, 2006. After the two women danced for a few minutes in the main livingroom, they then left the main living room. 3. Shortly thereafter, I then left the residence through the back door and talked to Reade. As, I went out the back door, I did not see or hear anything unusual. Once outside, I saw Reade, who appeared normal in all respects. We were both tired fiom playing golf that afternoon, and we had practice the next day. In addition the dancers had stopped dancing and were obviously impaired when they left the main living room. Reade said he had just called a cab and asked if I wanted to leave with him.
    Notice, please that between the time the dance ended and the time Seligman told Wellington that he had already called the cab, the following events occurred. 1. Wellington walked out the door. 2. Wellington saw Seligman. According to the defense's timeline, which has yet to face any of the challenges which customarily come with a trial, there were at least ten minutes between the time the dancers quit dancing and Seligman called the cab. That's a long walk out the door, no? Having had my deposition taken in a similar case, I can tell you with confidence that Wellington probably did not write the statement that he signed, and that the statement is carefully worded to avoid the mention of anything at all prejudicial to Seligman. Because the pertinent gaps in Wellington's testimony are where they are, Seligman has not successfully exonerated himself, even if we accept Welligton's statements unchallenged. And there is no reason but our internal prejudices to be doing that. You wrote:
    Does it not bother you that you retreat to condemning the alleged racist comments, even when the only independent witness can only confirm a tasteless, childish (but, and I am willing to admit, it was a Cameron Crazy kind of racial comment) taunt aimed at, perhaps, the stripper who just told them that she had called the cops on them?
    Before Kim Roberts found herself being used by disingenuous defense attorneys to further their agenda and resisted that she would have been considered an independent witness. She is characterized now as a company shill ONLY because of that resistance. It's a Machiavellian game. The only way to see through the machinations is through skepticism and disinterest. If you only apply your skepticism to the accuser and her story, particularly given the certain knowledge that the evidence is being selectively filtered by the defense, you are simply being dishonest with yourself. As for whether the gentleman who shouted the "Cameron Crazy" style taunt can safely come out of hiding, I think the answer is pretty much no. If the paper's ever get ahold of HIS name, he's going to get the Fuhrman treatment, there's no doubt about that. But he may find it isn't that bad. He can always take a page from WumHenry's book and dismiss the criticism as political correctness gone overboard. That's what I do when Newport accuses me of being a racist... It's just sticks and stones. Much ado about nothing. It's a coping strategy. You wrote:
    Do you care about what the accused's families are going through, if their boys are indeed innocent, not simply not guilty?
    Sure. But it would be disingenuous of me to start praising the game of golf simply because this particular family is going through the ordeal of a trial. Golf represents the most resources dedicated to the least people for the least exercise at the greatest expense of any sport I can think of. I would vote to criminalize it if someone else will go through the troublesome effort of getting it on the ballot. I'm afraid I'm not very good at the procedural stuff. I couldn't even get the ERA passed, and that was a serious no-brainer. Right Newport?

    Ah, but it is the greatest game invented by man and it teaches humility, honesty, and perserverance. It is an avenue to enjoy the friendship of others of all ages and provides an opportunity to see all kinds of natural wonders, it purifies the very sole. PB hates golf too. LOL!!!!!!!!! What sport do you prefer PB? Lacrosse?

    What about Reade's phone records PB? Do those count for anything? Or, was he committing the oral rape while talking to his girlfriend on the phone. She might be somewhat displeased to learn this. I guess it's possible like everything else in this case.

    I have learned a great many things on this board and I thank all those who have contributed to my education. By far, however, the most important thing I have learned from my experiences here is that there is no chance of an outright acquital in this case. Anyone reading the posts here will quickly recognize as much and wonder what this means for our system of justice now and in the future. I know I do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#67)
    by january on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:51:46 AM EST
    from PB
    Before Kim Roberts found herself being used by disingenuous defense attorneys to further their agenda and resisted that she would have been considered an independent witness
    For saying the rape charge was "a crock?"
    She is characterized now as a company shill ONLY because of that resistance. It's a Machiavellian game
    Don't think so, PB. She's characterized as a company shill because she got a deal from the prosecution and changed her story.

    Newport, I don't know if you're right on the inability to get a unanimous jury vote. It's all so easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity on a blog. Things are different in person.

    Durga:
    What is my "cause"?
    Having your arguments taken seriously. You now say:
    I said - They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina (at the very least they could have thought she was Filipino); they may just be that thick.
    but also:
    I didn't say people who cannot reliably distinguish racial characteristics have below average intelligence.
    So what is your definition of "thick"? Failing to see the contradiction in your own statements also does not help your cause. Good night, and good luck with getting people to follow your tortuous logic. You'll need it. You've already said enough to convince me that you do not respect logical argument, so I won't bother trying to follow any more of your posts.

    jk said:
    More importantly, as Bob has repeated many times, none of these statistics has any bearing on whether this case involves a false accusation.
    Lots of people say stuff like this but it isn't true. If a woman reports she was abducted and raped by space aliens the fact that abductions and rapes by space aliens are statistically rare does have a bearing on whether the report should be believed. That is an extreme example of course but in less extreme cases the statistics still have a bearing although it may be slight.

    SharonInJax said:
    Yes, I do think that Stevens is a "pro-prosecution" judge, and most of his decisions will relect this. Not to mention (an odd idiomatic experssion because I am about to mention) that just about every and any judge will err on the side of the prosecution. As they should.
    Test question for everyone here: do you understand why a judge will, by and large, rule in favor of the prosecution?
    I don't agree that judges should favor the prosecution. However many judges do favor the prosecution for basically the same reason that cops generally don't give other cops speeding tickets. The fact only the defense can appeal does encourage the defense to make long shot motions. If they are successful than the defense gains an advantage at trial, if they are unsuccessful than the defense has a possible basis for appeal. On the other hand if the prosecutor wins a dubious motion he is just setting self up for getting a guilty verdict overturned and if he loses a dubious motion he has wasted his time. If the defense is being paid by the hour and the prosecutor is on salarly that just increases the incentive for the defense to offer mnay more motions with little chance of success than the prosecution. When this happens even a neutral judge will rule against the defense more than against the prosecution but this does not mean he is biased.

    inmyhumbleopinion asked:
    Why do you consider me an "AV supporter?"
    I consider you a AV supporter for the same reason I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor, you both consistently slant your posts albeit in opposite directions. You are smarter than Bob in Pacifica, it is too bad you can't find a better use for your brains.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:13:41 AM EST
    january posted:
    Don't think so, PB. She's characterized as a company shill because she got a deal from the prosecution and changed her story.
    She's characterised as a shill also because it's a long way from Pittman's original 'krock' to her current position and she's on record wanting to spin this to her advantage. Indeed if you read the various and multiform Pittman statements with the same calculation PB demands in reading Wellington's statement her evidentiary value evaporates.

    SomeWhatChunky (what a great name).
    Newport, I don't know if you're right on the inability to get a unanimous jury vote. It's all so easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity on a blog. Things are different in person.
    I hope you are right and you may be, but I think there is too much race pandering and racial animus in this case for an outright aquital. Jury selection can only do so much. I just don't see 12 Durhamites voting to acquit no matter how powerful the evidence is with respect to innocence. There is also no chance of conviction either, which is good unless you were hoping for an acquital to clear your name. Have you ever heard of a case where it was the prosecution that sought a conviction on the theory of "reverse jury nullification?" Have you ever heard of a rape case being prosecuted where the only semen found in the vaginal cavity of the alleged victim was not that of the accused? I wonder if there has ever been such a case in the history of American jurisprudence? Is Innocent around? Maybe she could look that up.

    Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story. These guys are a joke.

    Morning everyone, Durga: The question about what Bissey saw, a short skirt versus what the AV actually saw, was raised to me by someone else, but I did notice it. One can argue that Bissey knew what time it was by looking at a clock. In fact, that's the only way that a person's testimony about the time can be judged. If Bissey said the women arrived at midnight but had no "clock" to verify it (time-stamped photo, watch, computer, TV program, etc.) the time hangs up there. Therefore, the time he reports is not independently arrived at. On the other hand, any observations are subject to all sorts of human imperfections. Seeing a short skirt when the woman wasn't wearing a skirt is a pretty big error in observation, especially when he was watching her walk a long time. I've gone into detail in the last string about Bissey's limitations regarding whether or not he could see the extent of the AV's intoxication.

    I don't know if you're right on the inability to get a unanimous jury vote. It's all so easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity on a blog. Things are different in person.
    Doesn't that work both ways? A black juror may not relish the prospect of going back to their community and telling them they voted 'against' their icon.

    Well, it's clear that even the prosecution knows the case is a joke if Nifong needs to release an email exchange, his investigator resorts to heckle at a news conference over his shoddy work, and the cousin feels compelled to shift the focus away from the accuser's lies to alleged pay-offs and really turn this into Tawana Brawley 2. I'm frustrated too. So much for the truth. If a ton of money paid into Durham defense attorneys can't stop a disgraceful, oppressive justice system, then no one is safe. Fortunately the national focus on this story has shined a light on the problem. We now just have to be patient.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#79)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 04:58:08 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    Because the pertinent gaps in Wellington's testimony are where they are, Seligman has not successfully exonerated himself, even if we accept Welligton's statements unchallenged.
    But putting Wellington's together with the AV's and Pitman's and Seligman's phone log does exonerate him. According to the AV, the rape did not occur until after she and Pitman left the house, were entreated to return by one of the players, were persuaded, and went back in. According to Pitman, before they left the house she and the AV locked themselves in the bathroom and had a conversation that lasted long enough to exhaust the patience of some members of their erstwhile audience. And according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:06:04 AM EST
    BIP posted:
    On the other hand, any observations are subject to all sorts of human imperfections. Seeing a short skirt when the woman wasn't wearing a skirt is a pretty big error in observation, especially when he was watching her walk a long time.
    One of the fiendish players could easily have put on a short skirt to confuse Bissey, perhaps while wearing a condom on his head. After all these, are the same people who concocted something which effected the Precious and Pittman differentially, and had the effect of de-intoxicating the Precious from the effects of the muscle relaxant and 40+ ounces of beer before re-intoxicating her from the effects of the concoction alone.

    A slightly more detailed interaction between Linwood Wilson and Joe Cheshire is here:
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence. "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said. "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said. Wilson walked away, and Cheshire continued talking with reporters.
    You're right, banco. Wilson and Nifong seem to be cut from the same cloth. All bluster, no corroboration to their statements.

    James B. Shearer posted:
    I consider you a AV supporter for the same reason I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor, you both consistently slant your posts albeit in opposite directions. You are smarter than Bob in Pacifica, it is too bad you can't find a better use for your brains.
    I don't consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because he makes legitimate arguments that point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's case or corrects misstatements than impugn the defense's case. I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because, back when I read his comments, he continually lied about the accuser and her family. I do have a better use for my brains, it just doesn't require much of my time.

    Newport, regarding Flexeril and pain meds generally: Pain meds affect different people in dramatically different ways. When I worked in a hospital emergency room there were people who would come in routinely for sickle cell episodes and the standard opiate painkillers wouldn't touch the pain. Some nurses and doctors presumed substance abuse, and there is always the question of building up a tolerance, but it turns out that there is a significant segment of the population that does not get pain relief from opiates. Flexeril isn't an opiate, but I'm sure there's similar guidelines. A small woman should get a bigger kick from flexeril. If she were going to a dancing job and didn't appear otherwise injured so as to impair her ability to dance, one might surmise that taking the flexeril along with 44 ounces of Ice House was done with the intention of getting high. I've had several prescriptions of it over the years. I've found that the first one brings quite a bit of relief along with a pronounced drowsiness but after the first day or so it's lost its punch.

    Maybe this Linwood Johnson was the source for the City Manager's famous early investigation whereby the City Manager proclaimed to the media that as far as he knew the story has always been the same. It is starting to look like what we have in the Durham PD and DA is a set of people that can look at a set of inconsistent statements and somehow not see those inconsistencies and further can not see how others could not come to the same conclusion as they when viewing the statements. It really is quite remarkable what is going on.

    Good point Bob, I probably needed to take 2 or more. I always wondered why medication for humans is not prescribed by weight whereas it is for dogs and cats. The dose given to a 120 lb woman is not going to work on a 200 pound man.

    Good Morning...While I see that Lora has not been posting since I asked the above question, I note that Durga, imho, and PB have and wonder if you all missed the question or are perhaps ignoring it:
    In that vein, I'd respectfuly like to ask inmyhumbleopinion, Durga, PB, and Lora--if you ladies/gentlemen lived in Durham, would you be disappointed in Nifong, City Manager Baker, and especially in the line-up procedure? Would you be disappointed that the police/Nifong diverted resources from a quadruple homicide to pursue DNA evidence in this case? (I know, Lora, rapes are horrible crimes, but I don't think the families of the four murdered young (black) men would think a rape should take precedent over their sons/brothers case.)
    I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, especially because you seem to be the most inclined to believe the AV. Thanks. Hope the kitty's okay, imho.

    IMHO posted this, from a news story: In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story. Now, I'm not sure where the five rapists story appeared, but we do know about the flipflopping between the rape and no rape stories, and we know about the Duke cop overhearing the twenty rapists story. We have documents where the AV has differing accounts totally at odds with each other. For a DA's investigator to say that the AV "had not changed her story" may be an expected spin for someone out of Nifong's office, but it would be a lie. Did the reporter actually give examples and ask him to explain the AV's inconsistencies? Apparently not.

    Finally PB and I agree on one thing: We both hate golf. I used to joke that "after the revolution" all golf courses would be changed to frisbee and hacky sack parks. However, I don't think that there are any statutes against golfing in NC. Anyway, judging from people working at my old job, it's become more of a sport of the masses, so the elite luster it used to hold is disappearing. Maybe "after the revolution" the golf courses will remain.

    A few years ago there was a Letter to the Editor in Sports Illustrated where the writer opined that golf should be considered a sport only if you were required to run to the ball's new location after clubbing it!

    Newport posted:
    What about Reade's phone records PB? Do those count for anything? Or, was he committing the oral rape while talking to his girlfriend on the phone. She might be somewhat displeased to learn this. I guess it's possible like everything else in this case.
    wumhenry posted:
    And according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab.
    I have not heard the claim that Seligmann had even one conversation with his girlfriend between 12:05 and 12:14. Do either of you have a source for that? I guess it's possible you just made it up.

    Imho, there's this link describing RS' cell phone records. There's no indication that the calls were conversations per se. Perhaps they were text messages or simply dialed calls with no answer.

    James B. Shearer opined: I consider you a AV supporter for the same reason I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor, you both consistently slant your posts albeit in opposite directions. You are smarter than Bob in Pacifica, it is too bad you can't find a better use for your brains. I guess I am an AV detractor. I have found her to be routinely dishonest, and I have a profound dislike for dishonest people. After the second round of DNA tests and the release of discovery information I have found that Nifong has been dishonest too. I think that in a case where the only evidence of a crime is the story of the AV, then her honesty in the case and her character are of paramount importance. Do you think that there's anything more important? Lately I've been asking about the 1993 Creedmore rape case again. Why? The same reason why Seligmann's attorney wants to know. There are statements out there by the AV's family, some presumably by way of the AV, which don't make sense. If the AV as a 14 year-old had claimed that she was gang raped and went to an emergency room, the hospital staff would have been obligated to report a gang rape of a minor to the police. Likewise, if she had gone to a psychiatrist for extended treatment regarding this gang rape, that physician would also be obligated to report it. What does it say about the credibility of the AV, or the family that promotes this story, if the AV had not gone to the emergency room to report a gang rape in 1993? Or that no psychiatrist reported the gang rape to authorities? And what does it mean that the father said on national television that that 1993 gang rape hadn't occurred? What does it say if the 1993 gang rape hadn't occurred and the AV filed charges in 1997? IMHO certainly has more patience to go back and find quotes from past strings to throw in people's faces. Why bother? IMHO wants to keep saying I lied about the AV's family, and yet her inventive, two-week rant about the AV and mother were hiding the 1993 rape from the father for his protection (which I at the time said sounded preposterous) is undercut by the story recently provided by PB which talks about the AV being afraid to report it for her own safety, but the parents knowing about both knowing about the rape. In the last day we have a cousin (or cousins) named Jackie who have advanced a two-million dollar bribe story and revived the date rape drug theory. The latter story ignores the AV's own account of drug-taking and drinking, the former is based on what the AV told the cousin, and has no corroboration. Since both stories ultimately come from the AV, let's say that any lack of factuality goes back to her. Remember the "raped with broomstick" story that the father floated? Did he invent it, or did his daughter invent it? As far as who's smarter, IMHO or me, I'm smart enough to recognize a liar.

    fillintheblanks: The complete cell phone records for 3/13 & 3/14 are attached to Osborn's motion for recusal of the DA. I think you'll find what you're looking for on page 15 of the pdf.

    IMHO - Thanks for posting the New York Times story. Here is the basic breakdown. 1. Defense says new documents show the accusor changed her story again. 2 Prosecution says the documents do not show this. The New York Times headline for this story: "Defense Criticizes Duke Case Accuser". Classic NYT slant.

    Bob in Pacifica, referencing your earlier post shown below...
    Likewise, if she had gone to a psychiatrist for extended treatment regarding this gang rape, that physician would also be obligated to report it.
    What are a psychiatrist's legal responsibilities? If one is in possession of exculpatory evidence such as AV denying a rape, must they inform the police? Or, from a different perspective, if one learns that a crime has been committed (the crime of false accusation), must they report this?

    fillintheblanks, I was referring to the 1993 Creedmore rape, and I was referring specifically to the AV as a minor. Sexual abuse of minors, if seen by a physician, has to be reported to authorities. A 14 year-old is a minor (except in Canada, and that's changing). I don't see how a kid who's been gang raped can be seen in both an ER and through extensive counseling by a psychiatrist and yet everyone failed to report this rape to authorities. That is essentially what the AV and her family/spokespeople are saying. She was gang raped, she was seen by medical professionals. And yet no one reported it to the police. Let's put the story to the test in the world of our own everyday experience. Imagine if your 14 year-old daughter was gang raped and you took her to the emergency room. What do you think would happen? Why didn't it happen in this case? There is something very wrong with the story. I have more confidence in emergency room personnel performing the simple act of informing the authorities (as is their legal obligation) than the AV and family being totally forthcoming surrounding the events a dozen years later, especially if they negatively impact the AV's credibility in her current circumstances. It's possible that the AV appeared at an emergency room and refused to tell the physicians that it was a rape and refused to give names, but there still should have been police involvement. How do you get treatment for a gang rape and conceal it at the same time? She was 14. If the AV was being treated for her condition in the aftermath of the gang rape, it is possible that the AV refused to be honest with the psychiatrist about the source of her anxiety and depression, and maybe the psychiatrist couldn't suss it out. Damned unlikely, though. But at best you have a child who lies consistently to all medical personnel about the rape occurring, and you have all medical personnel ignoring their legal obligation to report criminal sexual predation of a minor. I don't think so. I may be wrong but I predict that there won't be any hospital records of the 1993 Creedmore rape.

    imho posted to Newport and wumhenry:
    I have not heard the claim that Seligmann had even one conversation with his girlfriend between 12:05 and 12:14. Do either of you have a source for that? I guess it's possible you just made it up.
    fillinblanks posted:
    Imho, there's this link describing RS' cell phone records. There's no indication that the calls were conversations per se. Perhaps they were text messages or simply dialed calls with no answer.
    mik posted:
    fillintheblanks:
    The complete cell phone records for 3/13 & 3/14 are attached to Osborn's motion for recusal of the DA.
    I think you'll find what you're looking for on page 15 of the pdf.
    Thank you fillintheblanks and mik. I am aware of the six calls made from Seligmann's phone to his girlfriend's phone. I am not aware that he was, as Newport claims, "talking to his girlfriend on the phone," or he was, as wumhenry claims, "occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14."
    12:05:49 a.m Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 32 seconds. 12:06:24 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 33 seconds. 12:07:03 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 36 seconds. 12:09:00 a.m., Seligmann cell phone connects to another number twice. Calls last 23 seconds and 13 seconds. 12:10:14 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 26 seconds. 12:12:16 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 20 seconds. 12:13:33 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 33 seconds.
    Does a two-way text message conversation require disconnecting and redialing to send and receive messages? Is this just more of imho's "quibbling?" Is there a difference between what Newport and wumhenry are claiming and what we can know from the above phone record? Is one a better alibi than the other? Do you all want me to stop my pointless nattering and leave it to Bob in Pacifica to "Keep it Real?"

    While Seligmann was punching in those text messages, one presumes he held his phone in one hand and tapped in the messages with the other. Who stuck his flaccid thingie in the AV's mouth? Who held it there when she was trying to spit it out? And if she were putting up such a fight, wouldn't it have required some more attention on his part? Just keepin' it real, IMHO.

    ChanceArmy, The cat survived. Thanks. ChanceArmy posted to inmyhumbleopinion, Durga, PB, and Lora:
    I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, especially because you seem to be the most inclined to believe the AV.
    I would say I was inclined to not disbelieve a claim until I heard all of it. I would hold off expressing disappointment in Nifong and City Manager Baker. I would hold off judgment on the line up procedures until I heard about the preceeding line ups and what they may tell us about the purpose of the powerpoint presentation "line up." I don't know much about the quadruple homicide. Do they have samples from the crime scene to compare to samples from people who were thought to have been at the crime scene? Do they have a witness stating they saw three of these people committ the crime? If so, are some of these people likely to leave the state for the summer, if not forever? What do you think the players would have to say about making them wait in line for the results of the DNA tests? Some people seemed to bristle at the idea of case priorities when Judge Stephens said he would not let the Duke lacrosse rape cases jump ahead of others on the court docket that also had "priority."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#100)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:24:09 AM EST
    A black juror may not relish the prospect of going back to their community and telling them they voted 'against' their icon.
    He could vote for acquittal and tell everybody back in the 'hood that he voted for a guilty verdict. 'Course, that wouldn't fly if the jury vote was unanimous for acquittal. Or if the jury included one or more diehard AV supporters from the same community. For the record: I, for one, don't think that IMHO is smarter than BobInPacifica, who is one sharp cookie. And we can stipulate that Durga_ doesn't think so, either, since she told us that everyone is just as smart as anyone else. ;) IMHO wrote:
    I have not heard the claim that Seligmann had even one conversation with his girlfriend between 12:05 and 12:14. Do either of you have a source for that? I guess it's possible you just made it up.
    Well, have you looked at the phone log that mik linked, IMHO? Would you care to retract the insinuation that Newport and I lied? IMHO wrote:
    I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because ... he continually lied about the accuser and her family.
    How?

    cymro posted:
    imho, your post refers to a study of Durham's self-image:
    I know. It was in response to this from ChanceArmy:
    Just curious. Because I have to tell you it's enough to make me cry to think that you HAVE to have money in this community to pay for good attorneys to protect you from politically-motivated DAs and the judges who coddle them. Seriously, for most of you people, this is just great television. I envy your luxury. Living here is no fun.
    Sigh. I need another vacation now.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:40:28 AM EST
    I haven't caught up with reading this thread's posts, but a couple caught my eye. re: reasonably intelligent people being able to identify persons of mixed race: My husband is of mixed race and he has been asked the entire range of possibilities, "Eskimo" being his favorite (he is not). Many many times, you can't tell. re: backing down from a SANE exam, or not following through being the equivalent of a false accusation(I'm going back to comments from the other thread as well): I don't think some posters have any idea how devastating a rape can be, and how devastating enduring the medical/legal procedure following a rape can be. Fortunately I don't have personal experience, but from my class I am getting an inkling. Imagine letting anyone touch your body anywhere, following a rape. Now imagine a thorough, lengthy, sometimes rough or painful (speculums are supposed to used without lubricant) exam in the most tender parts of you which have been recently violated. For hours you are not allowed to eat, drink, defecate, urinate. You are not allowed to remove the stink of the attacker from your body. There are often few or no accomodations made to the emotional state of the victim: there is often no privacy, the doctor may simply touch the victim without getting permission etc. Is it any wonder that sometimes those who have experienced rape just walk out of there? re: (last thread) my comments about the length of time someone who committed a sex crime spends behind bars (jo, I remember you commented): I have posted many times that I do not take a false accusation of rape lightly. I did not mean to suggest that 5 years behind bars was no big deal for a false conviction. Of course it is. And yes there are significant other consequences which add to the burden. I meant to point out that the average amount of time behind bars for any sex crime is probably a lot less than most people think. And with (was it beenaround's?) the post about 5 years being average for rape, that also is far less than the sentences people were suggesting convicted rapists would serve. Not that some don't serve long sentences -- I am sure they do, but the average is 5. Much less than you might expect. re: Bissey's inconsistencies and his times: Point is, we have Bissey's exact words and statement to go by, and there are inconsistencies. You are willing to give him a pass. We have how many of the AV's EXACT words and statements? One interview and a police statement, maybe? But we have A WHOLE LOT of paraphrases and in some cases obvious MIS reportings of what she is supposed to have said, taken from a woman who if (go with me here JUST FOR A MOMENT NOW), she was telling the truth, was at times incoherent and possibly hysterical. It is entirely likely she was misunderstood. You do not always get a linear coherent story out of a rape victim. For example, IF someone heard her say that 20 men raped her, she could have been attempting to say that she was raped with 20 men there [at the party]. That is not a huge stretch. You'll give neighbor Bissey a pass for any inconsistencies in his stories but not a pass to a possibly impaired shocked hysterical woman. NOW, IF she was lying, why on earth would she make up so many crazy stories? If her goal was to get out of spending the night at the other hospital, she would have picked one story and stuck to it. And yes, Bissey's 1:00 time for the women going back outside is wrong, if the other evidence is right. TL I believe posted a couple dozen threads back that 12:42 was the time the women left the party. And Kim called in the first 911 report at, what was it, 12:53? So....yeah. Wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#103)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    I am aware of the six calls made from Seligmann's phone to his girlfriend's phone. I am not aware that he was, as Newport claims, "talking to his girlfriend on the phone," or he was, as wumhenry claims, "occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14."
    12:05:49 a.m Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 32 seconds. 12:06:24 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 33 seconds. 12:07:03 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 36 seconds. 12:09:00 a.m., Seligmann cell phone connects to another number twice. Calls last 23 seconds and 13 seconds. 12:10:14 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 26 seconds. 12:12:16 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 20 seconds. 12:13:33 a.m., Seligmann's cell phone connects to his girlfriend's number. Call lasts 33 seconds.
    [snip] Is this just more of imho's "quibbling?"
    Yep, it's quibbling. The main point is that the phone record shows that Seligman was using the cellphone almost continuously between 12:05 and 12:14. I don't think it makes a whole helluva lot of difference, for purposes of this case, whether he was sending text messages to his girlfriend; talking to her live; leaving voicemail; or merely dialling her number, waiting for her to pick up, getting no answer, hanging up, and trying again. No matter which of those scenarios you pick, he's almost continuously preoccupied during the 12:05-12:14 time-window.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#104)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    NOW, IF she was lying, why on earth would she make up so many crazy stories? If her goal was to get out of spending the night at the other hospital, she would have picked one story and stuck to it.
    The fact that she told inconsistent stories means that she must have been telling the truth?! Then which of the inconsistent stories should we believe: when she said three men raped her, when she said five men raped her, when she said twenty men raped her, or when she denied that she was raped?

    wumhenry posted:
    IMHO wrote:
    I have not heard the claim that Seligmann had even one conversation with his girlfriend between 12:05 and 12:14. Do either of you have a source for that? I guess it's possible you just made it up.
    Well, have you looked at the phone log that mik linked, IMHO? Would you care to retract the insinuation that Newport and I lied.
    wumhenry, Yes, I have looked at the phone log that I posted from fillintheblanks' and mik's links. I was fully aware of what it shows before I read your posts. What can we determine from the phone log? Can we determine that Seligmann was, as Newport claims, "talking to his girlfriend on the phone," or that he was, as you claim, "occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14?" No we can not. We don't know if they spoke to one another. We don't know if they text messaged each other. We don't know if any type of converation took place. We do know the numbers were not connected for longer than 36 seconds in any of the six calls. We know the numbers were connected for a total of under three and a half minutes with five disconnects and two calls to someone else in between. Maybe he left messages for her. We don't know that, yet. We don't even know if Seligmann dialed the calls himself. No, I don't care to retract the insinuation that you lied. I don't consider you a deliberate liar, I think it was just wishful thinking on your part.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#106)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:05:13 AM EST
    to Bob In Pacifica
    I've never heard that one. It sounds to me like someone wanted to hurl a racial epithet but didn't know how.
    or maybe the guy was a fan of the BBC comedy "The Office"; this is sung at the end of every show:
    And what becomes of you my love, When they have finally stripped you of, The handbags and the gladrags, That your Grandad had to sweat so you could buy


    Hi all, Why all the back and forth talk about the time when RS was either calling, texting, etc his girlfriend? I don't remember this being the timeframe when the AV said the rape happened anyway, right? Didn't she say that it happened after they went back inside? And wouldn't that also be the timeframe in which Kim said it "could have happened"?

    wumhenry posted:
    IMHO wrote:
    I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because ... he continually lied about the accuser and her family.
    How?
    I have posted about Bob in Pacific's lies many, many times. I realized he was not going to stop posting lies and the people who wanted to believe them would and the people who thought for themselves did not need my input. I stopped correcting him and then I stopped reading his posts alltogether [though I can't scroll by fast enough to not notice how they are STILL peppered with IMHO IMHO IMHO - hahaha]. wumhenry, if you are interested in my correction of his lies you can go back to the threads where I was still reading his posts. It's all there.

    IMHO - You are correct. The phone records only show connection times, not who was actually using the phone or how. I would note, however, that we can reasonably rule out text messaging as a possibility simply based on the connection times. No text message takes 30+ seconds to send.

    noname posted:
    IMHO - You are correct. The phone records only show connection times, not who was actually using the phone or how. I would note, however, that we can reasonably rule out text messaging as a possibility simply based on the connection times. No text message takes 30+ seconds to send.
    Thanks for the info, noname.

    Sorry, not sure if my post above was clear...My point being, I don't remember anyone (AV, Kim, etc) saying it happened (or could have) during that earlier timeframe while those calls were made from RS' cell phone. Am I missing something here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#112)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    Lora posed:
    NOW, IF she was lying, why on earth would she make up so many crazy stories? If her goal was to get out of spending the night at the other hospital, she would have picked one story and stuck to it.
    So we're back to a story proves rape to the extent it's inconsistent and and the same story also proves rape to the extent it's consistent? One wonders how consistent the stories offered by the AV were in relation to the previous rape allegation and the previous murder allegation.

    Lora posted:
    "Eskimo" being his favorite (he is not).
    hahaha

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#114)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    Bob and Newport, we don't know what drug FA was actually taking. All we know is that she said she was taking Flexeril. Pure conjecture on my part but I have a strong suspicion that she was on something else entirely. Maybe that's why there is no tox report, she did not want anyone to know what substances she was abusing. I think the defense is sniffing around the same tree, too. Sweethearts, please excuse if this appeared in another long ago ancient thread.

    BTW, the FA's cousin "Jakki" is really "Jack," and is actually a man, just thought I'd clear that up for y'all.

    Weezie, I agree. I am highly suspicious of her activities with Taylor immediately prior to arrival. I would think that a few blunts of the philly variety were passed around.

    Lora posted:
    And yes, Bissey's 1:00 time for the women going back outside is wrong, if the other evidence is right. TL I believe posted a couple dozen threads back that 12:42 was the time the women left the party. And Kim called in the first 911 report at, what was it, 12:53? So....yeah. Wrong.
    TL did post that the women left the party at 12:42 p.m., but that I think she must have gotten that time from the "time-stamped" photo of the accuser and a player's arm in Kim's car. Kim claims, after that photo, the accuser was locked in the car and she went back with Dan to look for the accuser's belongings. Mostasfa must have dropped off Seligmann and Wellington just before Seligmann entered his dorm at 12:46. The cab driver then returned to 610 N. Buchanan [a 4-6 minute drive?] to pick up the fare that called him from Tony McDevitt's phone, though we don't know if any of the four "drunk" boys that got in the cab made the call or was McDevitt. Around 12:50? Mostafa saw a woman that must have been Kim get in her car. He left before she drove off. Kim claims she made the 12:53 a.m. 911 call immediately after leaving. Bissey missed the whole cab driver scene, but did see Kim's car driving off. I would place Bissey coming out very close to 12:53. He says a few minutes later the police arrived. They arrived at 12:55 a.m.- he was obviously outside before then.

    And I further agree that IMHO is not smarter than Bob, that was a truly off the wall comment by that poster.

    whatisthat: the phone calls are important because it is the only possible time that the prosecution can place seligman at the scene. he was picked up by a taxi at 12:19 a couple of blocks away. from there on out he is in the clear because there are numerous records of his whereabouts (photo from atm, dorm signin etc). If the prosecution is going to continue to go after seligman they have to massage kim's statement so that she was in the bathroom for only a minute or two and the prosecutor is also going to have to massage the AV's statement from that the rape occured after she went back in to that the rape occured when kim left her to go to the car. My guess is that the way the travesty continues is that the prosecution lets seligman walk because they have to and then try to go after the other two saying that the AV made a mistake with seligman but was 110% sure of the others rather than just 100% sure.

    Newport posted:
    BTW, the FA's cousin "Jakki" is really "Jack," and is actually a man, just thought I'd clear that up for y'all
    Really? Have you seen [her] on TV?

    Yes, indeed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#122)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    I'm thinking it was stronger than the chronic. Oooh look at me with the drug lingo.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#123)
    by JK on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    James: Re false rape accusation statistics: I agree that my statement that none of the false rape statistics have any bearing on whether there is a false accusation in this case is wrong. However, I do strongly believe that (a) the statistics only have a very, very slight bearing on the likelihood of a false accusation of this case, and (b) that any statistics concerning the percentage of rape accusations that are false would be inadmissible evidence in this case. Re VS statistics: In the previous thread, you stated:
    Since it is the prosecution's obligation to investigate the case and to prove guilt as a juror I would expect them to present the evidence required to do the above sort of calculation sensibly. So in the above scenarios I would expect testimony from dates, husband or clients about whether they had [Vsex] with the AV in the prior week. I would also expect medical testimony about other possible causes of VS such as infection. If the prosecution did not offer such evidence I would discount the finding of VS.
    I was not sure if in the first sentence you meant (a) the prosecution should present rigorous statistical studies about the relationship of vaginal swelling with rape, consensual intercourse, and other conditions (i.e., evidence to actually allow you as a juror to make these calculations), or simply (b) testimony from other sexual partners and medical testimony about other causes of VS, so that one could make a sort of crude approximation of how likely these injuries were in the absence of rape. Based on the second two sentences of the paragraph, I assumed you meant (b). However, if you meant (a), I think there would be serious problems with the admissibility of this type of evidence. You would need to show the evidence would be more probative than prejudicial, and any expert testimony on this issue would need to meet the reliability requirements of Daubert and Kumho Tire. I think a judge would be loathe to admit testimony that there is an x% chance that a person was raped based on VS.

    wumhenry posted:
    For the record: I, for one, don't think that IMHO is smarter than BobInPacifica, who is one sharp cookie.
    Newport posted:
    And I further agree that IMHO is not smarter than Bob, that was a truly off the wall comment by that poster.
    Oh, the hurt! hahaha!

    Bob in P, you posted this -
    I was referring to the 1993 Creedmore rape...
    in response to my earlier post, which was this -
    What are a psychiatrist's legal responsibilities? If one is in possession of exculpatory evidence such as AV denying a rape, must they inform the police? Or, from a different perspective, if one learns that a crime has been committed (the crime of false accusation), must they report this?
    I was asking in an academic sense, but with the present-day circumstances. Anyone know?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#126)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    Alan and wumhenry, You are at a psych unit, about to undergo an exam to determine if you will be involuntarily committed. You decide you will accuse some of those mean racist party boys of rape to get out of it. You invent a story. It gets you out of the involuntary committment proceedings and over to Duke Hospital. Why, at that point, would you diss the cop who is interviewing you about the rape, recant to him, then reaffirm the rape to Duke medical personnel, tell all sorts of bizarre variations on a story that no one in their right mind would believe...IF you wanted to make a false accusation of rape that anyone would take seriously? Hello?

    Lora -
    You are at a psych unit, about to undergo an exam to determine if you will be involuntarily committed.
    Isn't the story that they had already decided to involuntarily commit her when she came out with the rape story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#128)
    by JK on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    Correction: Upon a moment of reflection, I think Daubert/Kumho only apply to the FRE. I believe there would be analogous requirements for expert testimony in state court, but I am not certain.

    Lora, here's a possible answer to this -
    Why, at that point, would you diss the cop who is interviewing you about the rape...
    As long as the cops remained at the hospital, the AV felt she had to continue with the rape story. If she did not continue, she figured (probably correctly) that the cops would take her back to Durham Access. If she were able to diss Sgt Shelton et al into disappearing, then she'd be home free.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    noname, I don't know how they do it in NC, but in PA a cop can't involuntarily commit anybody. You have to have a psych evaluation and a psychiatrist has to sign off.

    " You are at a psych unit, about to undergo an exam to determine if you will be involuntarily committed. You decide you will accuse some of those mean racist party boys of rape to get out of it. You invent a story. It gets you out of the involuntary committment proceedings and over to Duke Hospital. Why, at that point, would you diss the cop who is interviewing you about the rape, recant to him, then reaffirm the rape to Duke medical personnel, tell all sorts of bizarre variations on a story that no one in their right mind would believe...IF you wanted to make a false accusation of rape that anyone would take seriously? Hello?" Lora: I don't think that the AV had a premeditated plan to 'get' the lax players. I think she was just trying to save herself from her committal and all that would go with it. Once she started in with the rape story I think she found herself on the slippery slope. She didn't want anything to do with the cops which is probably why she recanted. Unfortunately for her she was probably put to the test by the cop who probably gave her no easy way out. "either you were raped and your staying here or we are going back to the pysch unit". All the conflicting stories are just that, 'stories'. It's hard to make up a convincing clear story when you're head is on straight, its virtually impossible when your near passed out incoherent at 3:00am.

    another bomb
    Friday morning, Cheshire, who represents charged player David Evans, provided proof. He sent Wilson a report written by Durham Police officer, G.D. Sutton, stating that the alleged victim first mentioned "20 guys at a bachelor party" and then says that she was "assaulted by five guys." The report also states that "Nikki" who we now know is Kim Roberts, tried to convince the alleged victim to have sex. The report also states that there were four dancers at the party, not two.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#133)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    fill, Well I still think she'd want the police on her side with the rape story. If you're lying that a rape happened, and if you want to be believed, you're not going to recant. You're going to tell the same story.

    GUNSHY, you are all over these bombs. You da man, keep it up.

    Someone asked if anyone had added up all the FA's various stories, totaling all the possible permutations. Hannity has always thrown around 6-10, while I have always thrown around 26. I now think the answer would be closer to 100 and it would be a useful exercise to actually determine this at some point.

    GUNSHY, I guess that stupid ass investigator and the city manager have real big egg on their lying faces today.

    Thanks, Maybe the two other dancer were her other split personality's ? I don't know what I'm going to do with time once this story finally explodes :)

    This link is interesting reading. Among other things it states that the AV performed with three others: Nikki, Angel, and Tammy. It also states that the AV told doctors at Durham Access that she was raped. So I suppose the report from Durham Acces should contain more than just a "log entry," as claimed yesterday by the DA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#139)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    You are at a psych unit, about to undergo an exam to determine if you will be involuntarily committed. You decide you will accuse some of those mean racist party boys of rape to get out of it. You invent a story. It gets you out of the involuntary committment proceedings and over to Duke Hospital. Why, at that point, would you diss the cop who is interviewing you about the rape, recant to him, then reaffirm the rape to Duke medical personnel, tell all sorts of bizarre variations on a story that no one in their right mind would believe...IF you wanted to make a false accusation of rape that anyone would take seriously? Hello?
    It would depend, among other things, on my level of intoxication and my ability to fabricate stories. You often post on the assumption that those of us who find this prosecution wrong are uninformed and uncommitted on these issues. I cannot speak for others, but my working life had me sitting in a court room 5 days a week listening to, and viewing images and other physical records of, and collating evidence about child abuse including child sexual assault. There is very little you can tell me about the suffering of victims, the reasons why, or the way in which all sexual assault shocks the conscience. A SANE nurse has posted on this subject at CourtTV:
    I understand that the true rape victim changes her/his story. The problem is this, yes they can change thier stories due to emotional trauma, but I must admit I have never heard of any rape victim mis-remembering the number of people who raped them to the degree this alleged victim has. The quality of the "story changes" in rape victims is not of the magnitude of this particular case normally. Rape victims do not within a matter of a few hours report extreme physical abuse to no physical abuse for instance. Let me give you an example, of course this is a hypothetical patient. Me " Do you know if they wore condoms?" Patient, " Yes, I heard the snap when he put it on." THAT is a typical comment during a Sane exam. I use this because someone who has been through that horrific trauma remembers wierd little details and its those wierd little details that often can solve the case. As a point, MOST rape victims have a crystal clear memory of very small details, like the color of the rapists socks. Strange odd memory that come only under severe trauma. I do indeed understand your desire for fairness for all involved (I go out on a limb here and assume this). But I do ask you to step back and review the data that has so far been released. I ask that because for some reason you seem to think that everyone else is lying except the victim. Might I inquire this, Do you think the SANE examiner and other healthcare professionals are lying as well?
    It's true that Rape Trauma Syndrome gives rise to inconsistent stories. I doubt anyone on this board disagrees. It does not follow that all inconsistencies can be explained by RTS or that this defendant in this case has exhibited the kind of inconsistencies that typify RTS. This case is about these defendants and what actually happened. I ask you in all seriousness, would any degree of inconsistency ever cause you to disbelieve a complainant?

    here is a link that also show the lawyers letter to the investigator.

    I'm pretty sure we've reached the tipping point now. Gunshy, why was that police report not produced earlier. Why the delay? Was Fong holding it back? Or, was it from an officer who didn't document his activities as he should have on the night in question and was forced to go back to recreate them after the issue was raised in discovery motions?

    This latest document gives more weight to the idea that the AV was simply delusional at the time of her psych eval. Unfortunately her delusions, in addition to imaginary dancers, included rape allegations. She would have been best served by staying at the pysch unit and getting help. It is astounding that the D.A. with all this stuff in hand chose to go forward. He needs to find a new line of work.

    Some amazing stuff in this report of responding officer Sutton: 1. Three other dancers, Nikki, Angel, Tammy. Who the hell are they? Other Bunny Hole escorts? 2. She says the dance was at 11:00 pm 3. Vagina sore and bleeding. 4. Nikki wanted to turn trick but she wasn't down for it. 5. Raped by 5 guys in the bathroom all of whom penetrated her. 6. Brett penetrated her with hands and penis. The idiocy of this investigator is amazing. He should be fired immediately.

    Gunshy, why was that police report not produced earlier. Why the delay? Was Fong holding it back? Or, was it from an officer who didn't document his activities as he should have on the night in question and was forced to go back to recreate them after the issue was raised in discovery motions?
    I wish I knew. That one one line in that letter was so funny " I can only assume you motivation in questioning my assertion was simply ignorance. A simple reading of your file might solve that problem in the future."

    Every time I think that the law of averages alone should result in news that bolsters the prosecution's case, something like the Cheshire letter and the attached statement comes out. And it was brought about by the DA's OWN INVESTIGATOR, no less. If this weren't such a serious matter, it would be out and out laughable.

    Alan, excellent post, in many ways.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#147)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    The original discovery where Nifong handed over 'all' material was 1298 pages. The Sutton document is page 1304. The document is dated 3/14/2006. Discovery pages are numbered, as confirmed on the Arams Report. If it's page 1304 it was handed over today, even though it was available on the previous discovery date when Nifong said he had handed over 'all' the discoverable material.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#148)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    Alan, you posted,
    You often post on the assumption that those of us who find this prosecution wrong are uninformed and uncommitted on these issues.
    No, I don't make that assumption. I am uninformed (but not uncommitted) on a lot of these issues. I have learned a lot from many commenters here. When I learn something relevant to the case, I share it here. My latest was in response to those posters who seemed to imply that when a person refuses or walks out of a SANE exam, it means that his/her accusation of rape is false.
    I cannot speak for others, but my working life had me sitting in a court room 5 days a week listening to, and viewing images and other physical records of, and collating evidence about child abuse including child sexual assault. There is very little you can tell me about the suffering of victims, the reasons why, or the way in which all sexual assault shocks the conscience.
    I appreciate knowing that, Alan. I would not attempt to lecture you on matters that you know far more about than I do.
    A SANE nurse has posted on this subject at CourtTV:
    I understand that the true rape victim changes her/his story. The problem is this, yes they can change thier stories due to emotional trauma, but I must admit I have never heard of any rape victim mis-remembering the number of people who raped them to the degree this alleged victim has.
    We don't know that the AV did. We do not have her exact words to go by. We haven't even seen the reports where she is described as having done so. I DO know, as do other posters here who honestly read the motions and news reports, that her alleged words have on occasion been misrepresented. We don't have enough information to conclude that she kept changing her story, despite what the defense keeps telling us. The rest of the SANE examiner's post about memory and trauma was highly illuminating and corresponds to what I've been learning.

    I wish I knew. That one one line in that letter was so funny " I can only assume you motivation in questioning my assertion was simply ignorance. A simple reading of your file might solve that problem in the future."
    It doesn't appear to me that anyone in the DA's office has read the files either, Fong included.

    She told "Doctors" at Durham Access that she was raped? Not according to Nifong. The Wilson incident makes it clear why the defense keeps trying to get the judge to order Nifong to certify that he has read all of his file. Maybe they need to include his investigators in that order.

    We don't know that the AV did. We do not have her exact words to go by. We haven't even seen the reports where she is described as having done so. I DO know, as do other posters here who honestly read the motions and news reports, that her alleged words have on occasion been misrepresented. We don't have enough information to conclude that she kept changing her story, despite what the defense keeps telling us.
    Lora, with all due respect, this is not a useful comment at this point. Read the latest Police Report linked above. You can read the actual document for yourself to see if there is defense spin. Or, are you now arguing that the police officer is "spinning" the words of the FA as well?

    Newport: I like the "Fong" choice. Of course, that is a small step away from "Dong" which has all sorts of possibilities, too. Lora: read the police report attached to Cheshire's letter, linked above. You said, talking about the AV changing her story as to the number of attackers,
    We don't know that the AV did. We do not have her exact words to go by. We haven't even seen the reports where she is described as having done so.
    Do you think the police officers who wrote the various reports, as produced by the defense as exhibits to their motions, are mistaken as to what the AV told them?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#153)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    re Sutton's report: Sutton says that on 3/14/2006 at approximately 0122 hours he responded to a reported rape at Duke ER. I thought the timeline had Precious arriving at Duke ER at 02:31. 01:22 is the time or the 9-11 call from Kroger's

    GMTA Newport, you just typed faster.

    Lora, you wrote -
    My latest [posts were] in response to those posters who seemed to imply that when a person refuses or walks out of a SANE exam, it means that his/her accusation of rape is false.
    That's not what these latest posts were about. They were about why she did submit to the rape exam.

    Alan, the only charitable to Fong explaination for this is that Himan apparently didn't receive the document until 6/14, that is, last week. It doesn't say much for the thoroughness of the DA's information gathering and investigation though if this charitable explanation is to be accepted.

    The Wilson incident makes it clear why the defense keeps trying to get the judge to order Nifong to certify that he has read all of his file. Maybe they need to include his investigators in that order.
    I think that the defense attorneys are starting to take this personally and are out for blood. The D.A. is probably starting to come near the line for malicious prosecution. Up until now he could go with the oh I missed that document after all there are 1500 pages and I have a busy job. If he keeps on going from here he is probably starting to take on personal risk.

    Newport: I like the "Fong" choice. Of course, that is a small step away from "Dong" which has all sorts of possibilities, too
    How about Liethong? Lie because he's a liar and thong because he's got hisself stuck up his you know what.

    I am going to start using LieFongGu, my perrogative.

    Good one, GUNSHY.

    The cousin of the alleged victim in the Duke University lacrosse rape case says "alums of Duke" quietly offered the accuser lots of money - a staggering $2 million - early on to drop the charges, and go on with her life. "She told me they wanted her to make the case go away," Jakki (she will not reveal her last name in order to protect her family), the designated family spokesperson, told The Carolinian and Wilmington Journal newspapers in an exclusive interview June 19.


    Alan, We still don't know when the report was actually written down. It says the incident date is 3/14 but the police often don't head to a desk to write their incident reports down immediately, or even close to immediately. Original responding officer Shelton, for example, did not write his 3/14 incident report down until several weeks after the 3/14 incident. We don't know when this Sutton report was written because there is no dated signature page provided. BTW, Lora we have seen that original Shelton report and other official documents in their original unaltered state as well so your above comment would not be correct even in the absence of today's bombshell.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    Newport
    Original responding officer Shelton, for example, did not write his 3/14 incident report down until several weeks after the 3/14 incident.
    Wow. I'm dumbfounded. Police witnesses before an Australian court without contemporaneous (48 hours unless there's an exceptionally good reason) notes would not get to give their 'evidence'. They would have a chance to give evidence before a police integrity board explaining why they were negligent in recording the incident.

    Failing to see the contradiction in your own statements also does not help your cause.
    Well ... They couldn't tell a mixed Asian woman from a Latina (at the very least they could have thought she was Filipino); they may just be that thick. Plus, if their aim was to insult, I wouldn't think it would matter much beyond being "not white". I didn't say people who cannot reliably distinguish racial characteristics have below average intelligence. I said, first, based on a hypothesis put forth they weren't even able to tell she was mixed Asian. If you saw that I was actually responding to somebody pointing out that if in fact they thought she was Latina then it doesn't ring true for them to use the N-word, it was to spring-board my point that them calling her the N-word if they didn't know she was black wouldn't be far off. They would indeed be "thick" for 1), calling her the N-word, and 2), using the wrong ignorant slur to boot. I do hold that they seem a bit non-worldly to not note the Asian in her (it is just the way I feel. Sorry. Maybe it is a decade of studying Cambodia) if in fact that is the case, but the "thick" did not refer to that. You certainly got me for lack of clarity. But at least you realized (maybe) that I was actually responding to a hypothesis that somebody else put forth. Once again, I do hold it does seem odd that they, supposing they weren't, were not able to identify her as at least part Asian, but that wasn't what I was referring to when I used the word "thick". ChanceArmy-
    I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, especially because you seem to be the most inclined to believe the AV.
    I apologize I didn't see your question. Real life has been a bit of an issue as my cousin has to deal with being diagnosed with cancer and we're all trying to help her out with money and the kids and all; I'm trying to deal with job and money troubles. I honestly wasn't bothered enough to do a search run for my name. However, I'd like to just echo what imho has said more or less. I'm really not in a position to draw conclusions about how I'd feel as for one not being able to imagine living there and for two not being aware of the circumstances in which things some people find ethically/otherwise "troubling" regarding the DA had happened. I have to hold off. As for the AV, like I said, she may be lying about being raped but she may not. No matter what, though, I think considering every possibility for anything on both sides is still merited. That doesn't mean I have to swallow everything the defense says hook, line, and sinker, nor do I have to regard the "boys" as if the sun shines out their rear-ends.
    NOW, IF she was lying, why on earth would she make up so many crazy stories? If her goal was to get out of spending the night at the other hospital, she would have picked one story and stuck to it.
    So we're back to a story proves rape to the extent it's inconsistent and and the same story also proves rape to the extent it's consistent? One wonders how consistent the stories offered by the AV were in relation to the previous rape allegation and the previous murder allegation.
    I think this just shows the pitfalls of arguing consistency / inconsistency in a be-all, end-all way. It can be argued either way that it proves she made it up, or that it wouldn't make sense to have so many if she wanted to be believed and the whole "it is harder to believe a perfectly consistent and detailed story". It should be, I think, examined on its own terms. But it has been hard for me to come to a conclusion with hearing only one case. Wurmhenry said -
    And we can stipulate that Durga_ doesn't think so, either, since she told us that everyone is just as smart as anyone else. ;)
    Now when did I say that? I'm not aware of BiP V imho's knowledge on any amount of subjects. But it is clear that imho can verbalize circles around BiP with a biting wit, to boot. Alan relayed -
    Rape victims do not within a matter of a few hours report extreme physical abuse to no physical abuse for instance.
    In all due respect to that nurse and her experience, I'd like to get a bit more context for that comment. Because it is to unusual to omit certain details of the assault regarding physical abuse and then later on say "yes, it did happen."
    Toni was asleep at home when she was awakened by someone's presence next to her bed. A masked man was standing there holding a knife. He threatened her with the knife and forced her to have vaginal sex with him. He also forced her to perform fellatio. After he left, she immediately called the police. In her statement, she denied engaging in oral sex because she felt shame and guilt. Patricia was a drug addict. She would do almost anything to support her habit. She made arrangements to buy some crack from her dealer. She met him at the appointed time and place. In the course of the transaction there was a disagreement over the terms of the sale. The dealer physically assaulted Patricia, dragged her behind a vacant house, and forced her to have sex. Patricia reported the incident to the police, completely omitting the details of the drug deal. Kathryn lived alone and was sexually assaulted by her neighbor. He forced her to have vaginal and oral sex with him. Kathryn had always feared this man. He threatened to kill her if she reported the assault. She also was afraid of venereal disease. To secure free medical services, she reported the incident to police. She described her assailant as a masked stranger and denied the oral act.
    (Aiken, 1993, pg. 19) More in Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault: A National Training Manual for Law Enforcement

    Alan, there is no doubt that the system you describe would be better than what is done here. I'm sure that it may be the "policy" of various law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to have officers record their mental recollections promptly. The extent to which such policies are followed I have no way of knowing as a general matter. I do know that Durham PD does things a little differently, if you catch my drift.

    Alan, there is no such rule of exclusion here. The late documenting officer would be challenged on cross examination as to the accuracy of his late recordings if he relied on them in giving his testimony.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#167)
    by barry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    First to "imho", it doesn't matter if those calls connected or not, all that matters is that he made them, during an alleged rape. Unless you're going to posit that someone else used HIS phone to try and contact HIS girlfriend. REACHING desparation. At trial, Reade will testify that he made those calls, and that will be enough. Lora wrote;
    Well I still think she'd want the police on her side with the rape story. If you're lying that a rape happened, and if you want to be believed, you're not going to recant. You're going to tell the same story.
    Still desparate I see. Liars don't tell the same story. They're inconsistent because they often can't REMEMBER all the details of the lie they told hours before. But I'll let the 5 men, 20 men rape issues slide. These may have been mistakes by the police officers. The real issue here is that key parts of her story to police, her own statements, have zero corroberation from either Kim (who TRIED to corroberate her which is very telling) and the players. Kim did not carry "precious" to the house with the help of another Lax player (SANE account), nor were they both coerced to go back and continue with the performance (official account). Kim did not witness the "dramatic separation" at the master bedroom. Things she should have witnessed if they had actually happened. If these parts are lies, then so is the rape itself. All you can do in your pathetic desparation is accuse Kim of lying about everything even though she TRIED to help the accuser out, even though much of her story is corroberated by the players themselves (she went back in by herself to retrieve her belongings). The accuser is all by herself in her official story. It's a fortunate thing that Kim was not privy to the accuser's statements to police. This made her attempts at corroberation a failure, and it's enough for me to conclude that the AV is a false rape accuser. Nevermind that she picked someone with a powerful alibi for the first hour of March 14. Nevermind that she has no anal injuries to corroberate an anal assault, injuries that SHOULD exist. Nevermind that there is no DNA linking any of the suspects to a sexual assualt in every orifice without condoms. Just a minute trace of DNA on ONE fingernail that was found in a trashcan belonging to one of the accused. But keep on with the silly "if she wasn't raped, why this? why that? why would she recant?".

    Get off it Durga. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. I have a Filipino friend and she saw Robert's on TV and had no idea what racial cocktail she was made from. The only person that is non-worldly around here is you and your Cambodian experience obviously did not help out in this regard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#169)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    Durga None of the cases you describe is one where the complainant reports a physical assault and then denies a physical assault. Toni denies oral sex. Patricia omits the drug deal. Kathryn omits the oral act. None of them report numbers of assailants varying from 3 to 5 to 20. In any case, you are free to follow the link I posted and take the issue up with the SANE nurse who wrote it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#170)
    by barry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    We don't have enough ichanging her story, despite what the defense keeps telling us.
    So Susan Filan and Dan Abrams are part of the defense team now? nformation to conclude that she kept

    It's real funny to me how every time a bombshell hits in this case that demonstrates the lunacy of the charges, that the rats scurry for cover. After the dust settles, they always reappear, and return to their recurrent themes regarding the name calling and the like by the wrongly accused. I expect it will happen again.

    Get off it Durga. (...)
    Having fun not replying to me anymore? Even when I'm on my way out?
    None of the cases you describe is one where the complainant reports a physical assault and then denies a physical assault.
    I said In all due respect to that nurse and her experience, I'd like to get a bit more context for that comment. As far as what I posted, my point was more to show a victim may not feel at one point comfortable with relaying everything s/he remembers.
    In any case, you are free to follow the link I posted and take the issue up with the SANE nurse who wrote it.
    I wasn't able to find the quote in the link at first, likely because I was in the middle of taking/making phone calls as I have to set something up. The only "issues" I had with it was, again, if the implication was that they may not report certain embarrassing/"shameful" details at one point. Rereading it though it does not come across that way to me. Thank you for the link anyway.

    Hey imho. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. To respond:
    I would say I was inclined to not disbelieve a claim until I heard all of it.
    Fair enough...but that's easy to say from thousands of miles away. When you're living in the middle of it I believe that suspending belief should be done in concert with holding a plan B...such as Lewis Cheek.
    I would hold off expressing disappointment in Nifong and City Manager Baker.
    Durham was spoiled by Jim Hardin, our previous DA. He was much more careful in his language in his press statements: "The jury will find," or "We will be able to prove." A bit more nuanced and less likely to call a case race-motivated without proof. Plus he left his theatrics and re-enactments for when he actually had a defendant and jury in front of him, not just a television camera. And Baker is disappointing because from what I have read, there is enough information to see that the AV did have different multipliers for her alleged assailants. It is unusual (to say the least) for the City Manager to take such a high-profile position. Wonder if that's politically motivated, too.
    I would hold off judgment on the line up procedures until I heard about the preceeding line ups and what they may tell us about the purpose of the powerpoint presentation "line up."
    Now here I have to give you credit for great faith. I firmly believe that no matter what, known innocents (not just other guys on the lacrosse team) must be included in any line-up, period. I am inclined to think just the opposite, and that is if multiple line-ups were held and direction was given that "these are the guys who we think (wink, wink) were at the party" was done to make it easier to choose a pigeon, any pigeon.
    I don't know much about the quadruple homicide. Do they have samples from the crime scene to compare to samples from people who were thought to have been at the crime scene? Do they have a witness stating they saw three of these people committ the crime? If so, are some of these people likely to leave the state for the summer, if not forever? What do you think the players would have to say about making them wait in line for the results of the DNA tests? Some people seemed to bristle at the idea of case priorities when Judge Stephens said he would not let the Duke lacrosse rape cases jump ahead of others on the court docket that also had "priority."
    When I heard Stephens say that I had to laugh...I immediately thought of this case. Before the DNA from this crime scene had been tested even once the Duke LAX DNA had been tested twice. And for more good "it's not a priority" comparisons, check out this. I guess felony assault is not important if the perpetrator is the police chief's daughter. As far as the Chamber of Commerce's navel-gazing survey goes, people here are still angry that we were portrayed as a ghetto surrounding the glorious ivory towers of Duke for the soundbites--one particularly juicy memory is of Geraldo telling O'Reilly (the sound bite was played locally a few times) that the area surrounding the campus was predominantly poor and decayed. I actually have friends who live around the corner from 610 Buchanan who just put in $35K worth of landscaping, so I don't think that description is accurate, and I get the impression (and believe me, I talk to everyone about this--from the kid who bags my groceries to professors (not the gang of 88) at Duke) that the bump the CoC is seeing is related to people circling the wagons after we were painted as a decayed, poverty-stricken city. If the question had been asked more specifically about the DA and police's performance, I think they'd find a different result. Again, thanks for your reply. And as someone said, you shouldn't waste your time (although we would miss your company) on this case and should use that brain of yours for something good...like unseating W, preventing Liebermanization of the Democratic party, and stopping global warming, for starters. Cheers.

    Man, Nifong has got to respond here! He has to say something now in his own defense, if not the AV's, right? Four dancers? Five guys? His own investigator ignorant of police reports? How can he not respond at this point?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#175)
    by barry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    Does this sound like man who's guilty? Does this sound like a man who's going to to deny making those alibi phone calls on the stand?
    "After his arrest, Seligmann told more than one teammate, 'I'm glad they picked me.' He has produced ATM records, photographs, an affidavit from a taxi driver and the record of a key-card swipe at his dorm that according to his lawyer provide an alibi for the time the rape allegedly occurred."


    fillintheblanks, He's the Great LieFongu, answerable to no one, master of his own universe. He won't respond. It's for a jury to decide and if you want to see his evidence you'll need to attend the trial. It's like the "they don't know my timeline" comment he made at the first setting. I was like, "what?" How could the defense not know his timeline? Is the timeline not based on facts that are of record in the investigation. What is "his timeline?" And, how does it differ from the true timeline, which is what he should be seeking. Another example of the LieFongu's civil litigator whatever works mentality. He is not seeking the truth here and that has been apparent from the beginning. He was seeking indictments to filfill his promises to a black community in an election that he went on to win by less than 900 votes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#177)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    to fillintheblanks I found it odd that the DA's investigator would contradict the lawyer during a press conference; who knows, maybe Nifong will use this 'revelation' to drop this case

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#178)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    In the three cases that Durga_ reported, the victims acknowledged that they had deliberately omitted certain facts from their initial accounts and explained why: in the first case, the woman was didn't report the coerced fellatio because she was particularly embarrassed about that; in the second case, the woman initially withheld the fact that she was trying to score drugs from the perp; in the third case, she concealed the perp's identity because she was afraid of retaliation. Note that: 1) in each case, there was a readily-understandable incentive for concealing the omitted or misrepresented fact and 2) in none of these cases was the inconsistency due to post-traumatic-stress confusion.

    ding, that handbags and gladrags song was an old British hit around the time of the 60s' British invasion, but didn't make it across the Atlantic. Someone like Cliff Richards or the like sang it. Rod Stewart, before he joined the Small Faces and then became famous, did a version of it. If that's the case, then it was a marginally better choice of song than "Do ya think I'm sexy? Do ya want my money? Come on, Sugar, let me know."

    Defense gets load of new evidence
    Defense motions have pointed out that the woman has given different accounts of how many men she said raped her after an escort service sent her to dance at a March 13 team party.
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    Defense lawyers have declined News & Observer requests for copies of the evidence, and Cheshire did not make them available Thursday. An investigator in Nifong's office called into question Cheshire's claims Thursday.
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.
    "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said.
    Wilson walked away, and Cheshire continued talking with reporters.
    Is the above quote by Cheshire the quote Wilson challenged? What did Wilson say? 1.) Did he say, "The report doesn't say she claimed she was raped by five guys?" 2.)Did he say, "The report doesn't say she claimed she was raped by twenty guys?" 3.) Did he say, "That's not true?""She did not say that." If Wilson was responding to the above Cheshire quote, # 2 and #3 are correct. The report does not say she claimed twenty guys raped her. The above quote by Cheshire, if he is stating how many men that report says the accuser claims to have raped her, is incorrect. If Wilson said, that's a lie, he is right. We need more information about this exchange to know who is right here.

    Durga...no offense taken. Thank you for responding to my question, especially in light of your family's current crisis. Best wishes for good health for your cousin.

    IMHO, fortunately the NY Times clarified what was meant in an interview with Wiison after this exchange:
    Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#183)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    What did Wilson say? 1.) Did he say, "The report doesn't say she claimed she was raped by five guys?" 2.)Did he say, "The report doesn't say she claimed she was raped by twenty guys?" 3.) Did he say, "That's not true?""She did not say that." [snip] The report does not say she claimed twenty guys raped her. The above quote by Cheshire, if he is stating how many men that report says the accuser claims to have raped her, is incorrect. If Wilson said, that's a lie, he is right. We need more information about this exchange to know who is right here.
    No, we don't. The answer to your question is in the news report in your own quotation:
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    The answer is 1) -- so Wilson was wrong.

    Lora:
    noname, I don't know how they do it in NC, but in PA a cop can't involuntarily commit anybody. You have to have a psych evaluation and a psychiatrist has to sign off.
    That makes sense. I'm not sure where I heard the commital had already been decided, but you must be right.

    imho:
    The above quote by Cheshire, if he is stating how many men that report says the accuser claims to have raped her, is incorrect. If Wilson said, that's a lie, he is right.
    What makes you think that Cheshire was speaking only of that specific report when he made those comments at the press conference? I see no indication of that. Further, the press has claimed: "In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story." If Wilson actually said that the accuser had not changed her story, then that is quite demonstrably a lie.

    When I first read the Sutton report released today I missed this nugget: "Nikki wanted her to come into the bathroom with her and the guys. She ended up in the bathroom with five guys who forced her to have intercourse and perform sexual acts." So the FA actually does put Roberts in the bathroom assisting in the rape. I recall there was some discussion about this and some quibbling over extreme parsing of language. I wonder if this will happen again?

    Thank you, Lora, for bringing up this opportunity to perhaps better understand the accuser. I agree with (and almost wrote virtually the same response before I caught it) david_in_ct:
    I don't think that the AV had a premeditated plan to 'get' the lax players. I think she was just trying to save herself from her committal and all that would go with it. Once she started in with the rape story I think she found herself on the slippery slope. She didn't want anything to do with the cops which is probably why she recanted. Unfortunately for her she was probably put to the test by the cop who probably gave her no easy way out. "either you were raped and your staying here or we are going back to the pysch unit". All the conflicting stories are just that, 'stories'. It's hard to make up a convincing clear story when you're head is on straight, its virtually impossible when your near passed out incoherent at 3:00am.
    Perhaps she felt tremendous pressure to go through with the exam to "prove" herself to the police whose experience convinced them that she was intoxicated. This seems reasonable to me, and accounts for her willingness to endure the prolonged procedure--but remember for the sake of this argument I assume she was not raped, hence the exam would not really have been so uncomfortable or traumatic. As to the conflicting accounts, and honestly I don't know how many there are now, I figure the "20 men" story arose from something like hearing "How many men were there?" vs. "How many men were there?" where bold indicates word stress. I don't personally find it likely she actually was trying to say that she was raped by 20 men. Her state of intoxication (from whatever) undoubtedly played a role here. (I do not dismiss a police officer's "in the field" observation of drunkenness.) Yes, she told a lot of other stories to various entities. You asked why she would keep changing them if she wanted to be believed. The intoxication could have made it difficult to keep her details straight, as I have suggested before. Perhaps the prior allegation served as a model for the new story, with details changed. That seems possible. But you wrote...if she wanted to be believed. This makes me wonder, Lora: how much did she really want to be believed, after she no longer needed the pretext to avoid a bad outcome for herself? If she wasn't raped, and she no longer faced trouble, why would she need to tell a consistent story? Is this woman evil? Were her intentions to carry this thing past the next day? There are indications that she cared more about getting her shoe back than getting even. Did she in some way try to "make right" what she had done? She didn't admit taking intoxicants at the time she was threatened with being hauled off to the drunk tank. But then why would she admit to drinking all that beer and taking Flexiril in a later statement? If she were trying to keep her account (that we have assumed is a lie for this argument) straight, I have to ask what her motivation could be for damaging her own credibility as to her statements by later admitting intoxication. This admission itself conflicts with her earlier accounts, and she wasn't even intoxicated when she made it. There were no consequences to anyone arising from her earlier allegations, whether these were grounded in reality or not; they evaporated because she allowed them to. Suppose that in this case she went farther than she anticipated she would need to and felt some panic/regret when the SANE nurse said, "I have a semen sample." I do not believe the accuser to be evil, particularly hateful towards whites or men, or even opportunistic. (These describe Mr. Nifong.) What little we have seen of her actions doesn't support this, in my opinion. I believe she is weak for not standing up for truth at this point, when the stakes are so high. I want to believe that she will find the courage to do so. I will now don my asbestos suit, because I feel I may possibly have offended just about everyone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#188)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Defense gets more rape case papers
    The latest paperwork comes on top of 1,298 pages of documentation surrendered by Nifong last month, bringing the total to more than 1,800. Cheshire said Thursday that the previous batch of paperwork contained only about 70 pages that were meaningful to the case. He said he expected about the same ratio from the new batch.
    Attorneys Dispute Report in Duke Rape Case
    Attorneys for all three players were in court Thursday as the prosecution turned over 536 additional pages of discovery documents in the investigation.
    After the exchange, Wilson told Eyewitness News that he personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the alleged victim changed her version of the story.
    1814-536=? We do not know why the Duke police seized the AV's computer. Evidently it was not to do arithmetic.

    noname, In California the police can put a 24 hour involuntary hold on someone who is acting crazy. Probably the same in NC. I know this for a fact re CA procedures because once when I was in school a crazy person was outside my apartment and I called police. They came and picked him up on a 24 hour hold.

    wumhenry posted:
    No, we don't. The answer to your question is in the news report in your own quotation:
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    The answer is 1) -- so Wilson was wrong
    wum, I read the article before I quoted it. We don't know what Wilson said. There is no quote from Wilson. That is why I set out examples of what he may have said. Did Wilson interrupted Cheshire just after he said five, but just before he said twenty? We don't know. If he waited until Cheshire finshed his sentence which included the twenty men, Wilson is right. The report does not say the accuser claimed she was raped by twenty men. It is probably on video. We need more information to know who is right here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#191)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    So will you now say that Wilson was lying, IMHO -- or do you use the L-word promiscuously only when the speaker is someone you disagree with?

    IMHO:
    We need more information about this exchange to know who is right here.
    You posted more information!! Here!!
    In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story.
    We KNOW from the evidence Cheshire released earlier today in response to this exchange that the accuser DID change her story. In this later interview, then, Linwood Wilson is either illiterate or a liar.

    Alan posted:
    We do not know why the Duke police seized the AV's computer. Evidently it was not to do arithmetic.
    The 1298 should read 1278. wral.com
    An expected discussion about discovery was made moot before the hearing when Nifong provided the defense with a copy of his entire case file. Nifong said the file included 1,278 pages of evidence, two VHS tapes and a compact disc containing photos.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#194)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    We don't know what Wilson said. There is no quote from Wilson. That is why I set out examples of what he may have said. Did Wilson interrupted Cheshire just after he said five, but just before he said twenty? We don't know.
    Of course it's possible that the news report is inaccurate, but what it says plainly supports 1), not 2) or 3).

    Alan, it is not the Duke Police that may be challenged, it is the Durham Police. The Duke Police force is wholly independent from the Durham Police. The Duke Police force is a very large force to serve and protect the Duke students. I heard once that it was one of the largest police forces in North Carolina.

    So, it really does turn out that the maligned Yale Galanter was correct putting Robert's in the bathroom when she "assisted in the rape." My question is now that all this has come about regarding the accusations the FA has thrown at Roberts whether she now wishes she just cooperated with lawyer Butch Williams when he first talked to her to get the true story of events on the night in question. Will Robert's now come out with a "final answer" on her narrative and maybe admit how she was pressured by the DA to change from "the case is a crock" to "I don't know for sure now, it could have happened." Because if it "could have happened" she would have been the one doing it according to the FA.

    In Cheshire's letter:
    Yesterday in front of the press you questioned my statement that the false accuser in the Duke case had stated she had been sexually assaulted by five people, as shown in newly released discovery.
    If this is the statement Wilson questioned, the quote from the article describing the exchange:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    That statement is incorrect. Depending on how Wilson challenged it, we don't know if he is wrong or not. I'd like to see a quote of Wilson's challenge to what Cheshire said in front of the press.

    I just got back from my walk in the hills and skimmed over the last few hours' comments. fillintheblanks: I personally don't know what obligations a psychiatrist or physician has if she or he knows a crime has been committed or knows a patient is perjuring himself, etc. I would guess that doctor-patient privilege would require silence in most cases, but that may have changed. I'd be curious if anyone knows. wumhenry: Welcome to IMHO's Liars' Club. Being a charter member I can assure you that you'll find yourself closer to the truth than those who play out there on the margins. weezie: You are right about us not knowing what drugs the AV actually did take. That's why I suggested that she may have taken more than one flexeril. Clearly, 44 ounces of beer and flexeril shows an intent to get loaded, but she may have thrown in some codeine or oxycontin and smoked something rich. Who knows? Beer and flexeril is a bottom line, the least she probably took before the party. If any blood was drawn, then the beer and flexeril would have been an admission to cover her butt when the tests came back. Newport: Since I saw the names spelled differently I thought maybe that there could be at least two cousins named Jakki/Jackie/Jack. Also, now that we know that there were four strippers at the party, I guess the stripper wearing the skirt as described by Bissey was one of other two exotic dancers.

    Bob, the cousin does go by the name Jakki. I was merely pointing out that Jakki is really a man and may have called himself "Jack" (just a guess) before he became "Jakki" the woman.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#200)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are." That statement is incorrect.
    How do you know that?

    Sometimes this feels like it all belongs in some weird Stephen Wright monologue: Four years ago... No, it was yesterday. Today I... No, that wasn't me. Sometimes I... No, I don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#202)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion here's the quote
    "If he has information that the victim changed her story several times, I think I have the right to see it," Wilson said. He said that, as an investigator, he has seen all documents in the case.


    Newport, I know that one of the Jackie cousins was on "Inside Edition" trying to reanimate the date rape drug angle. Is this that same Jackie that floated the two-million dollar bribe story in a local paper earlier in the day? It's hard enough for me to keep track of the number of strippers at the party, much less keep track of the number of Cousin Jackies spreading stories. One would be enough.

    Bob,
    Newport, I know that one of the Jackie cousins was on "Inside Edition" trying to reanimate the date rape drug angle. Is this that same Jackie that floated the two-million dollar bribe story in a local paper earlier in the day?
    Not sure. The "Jakki" I saw was on Fox being interviewed by Megyn Kendal regarding essentially the same thing as what you saw on "Inside Edition."

    Newport:
    "Nikki wanted her to come into the bathroom with her and the guys. She ended up in the bathroom with five guys who forced her to have intercourse and perform sexual acts." So the FA actually does put Roberts in the bathroom assisting in the rape.
    Not necessarily: 1. This could be read another way. Nikki tries to convince Precious to come to come into the bathroom with her. During this conversation, they are not necessarily in the bathroom. (ex. Before I leave work today I might ask someone to come to my apartment for a beer. This does not mean I am actually in my apartment at that point.) Once Precious is in the bathroom, Nikki could have changed her mind and decided not to follow her. 2. This story could be a fabrication. With each new variation we find of the AV's story, each individual fact seems less likely to be true. Arguing the facts of this case by what the AV says, then, seems almost impossible at this point (unless you are arguing that you can't believe a word she says).

    noname, I don't believe a single word the FA has uttered in this case. I was merely pointing this out because of someone else's insistent carping about how assistence with the rape could have been rendered from outside the bathroom. Also I do think that statement that I referenced does put Robert's in the bathroom with Precious. Robert's was in the bathroom because she wanted to turn a trick, that is where the trick was going on. Your analogy is not the same.

    I also do not believe a single word cousin Jack/Jakki, the father, the mother, aunt whoever, or anyone else in that family has uttered. As Barry put it, this is the Adams family. Of course, none of this really matters anyway about any pre-final version statements. Nifong is only working from the "scrubbed" version so all this night of the attack stuff is irrelevant as caused by hysteria, trauma, rape syndrome, memory recreation theory, hypnosis, temporary insanity, involuntary impairment, voluntary impairment, stress, excitedness, fear of retribution, temporary memory loss, flashbacks, or the like.

    wum, The report Cheshire attached does not state the accuser claimed to have been raped by 20 men. If that document is the basis for this quote from Cheshire,
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    He is incorrect. All the fuss that the accuser claimed to have been raped by twenty men and the defense has not shown us a statement claiming she ever said it? If this is it, Cheshire is incorrect.

    noname posted:
    Newport:
    "Nikki wanted her to come into the bathroom with her and the guys. She ended up in the bathroom with five guys who forced her to have intercourse and perform sexual acts."
    So the FA actually does put Roberts in the bathroom assisting in the rape.
    noname posted: Not necessarily:
    1. This could be read another way. Nikki tries to convince Precious to come to come into the bathroom with her. During this conversation, they are not necessarily in the bathroom. (ex. Before I leave work today I might ask someone to come to my apartment for a beer. This does not mean I am actually in my apartment at that point.) Once Precious is in the bathroom, Nikki could have changed her mind and decided not to follow her.
    THANK YOU, noname!

    noname, You should be really proud of yourself.

    Wilson's quote posted by ding7777:
    "If he has information that the victim changed her story several times, I think I have the right to see it," Wilson said. He said that, as an investigator, he has seen all documents in the case.
    From the article on the press conference/live interview:
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.
    "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said.
    Wilson walked away, and Cheshire continued talking with reporters.
    In the quote you provided Wilson is not addressing Cheshire. It sounds like the quote you provided may have come from this interview:
    Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story.
    If Cheshire made his "none, 2, 5, 20" quote and Wilson asked to see that page in evidence and the page Cheshire held up is the one he attached to his letter, CHESHIRE IS WRONG. They may have other documents that say she claimed 20 guys raped her, but that one does not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#212)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    imho concocted:
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    I would have thought that Chesire spoke about five people and produced a page about five people. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion that the words 'five people' means a number of people other than five.

    There are numerous press reports that the AV says she was raped by 20 men (google 20 men Duke Rape). The one I found were made by a Duke officer who says he overheard a Durham cop etc etc... They appear that they may be base on inaccurate or second hand information, i.e. they may be wrong. Nonetheless, they are out there, and there were reported by a cop. Cheshire did not make this up. I am sure IMHO knows this. How am I sure? Because IMHO researches things in great detail, follows this case closely, and obviously knows all. IMHO definitely knows how to use google. IMHO, I used to carefully read your posts because I thought you brought up some good points. The kind that make you go hmmmmm. In my opinion, your constant nitpicking of everything and anything along with your overwhelming volume of posts has destroyed your credibility entirely. It has been my experience in life that people with something of substance to say can state it simply and clearly and let it stand on its own. They certainly don't feel the need to constantly attack every post that people with different opinions write. Especially when they already know the answer. By doing so, you have succeeded in really dragging down the overall level of commentary on this board. Most of us can evaluate things of substance on our own. Perhaps if you toned down the quantity and posted more things of quality we might have the opportunity to do so with your thoughts.

    Newport:
    You should be really proud of yourself.
    Ha! If I caught it just scimming the post, IMHO was bound to catch it soon enough. The fact that the AV has no credibility by now pretty much renders my point useless anyway. If you can't believe a word she says, why should we argue if her statement puts the Kim in the bathroom or not?

    That should read "Kim", not "the Kim". I wouldn't want to steal The Nifong's title.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#216)
    by wumhenry on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    The report Cheshire attached does not state the accuser claimed to have been raped by 20 men. If that document is the basis for this quote from Cheshire, "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are." He is incorrect.
    You're putting words in his mouth and then calling him a liar because those words aren't true. Cheshire didn't say that his "we've got 20" remark was supported by that report.
    All the fuss that the accuser claimed to have been raped by twenty men and the defense has not shown us a statement claiming she ever said it?
    Yes, there was such a statement. It was made by a campus cop who reported that he'd heard it from a Durham cop, and it was mentioned in the report of Duke's investigative committee.

    noname posted:
    Ha! If I caught it just scimming the post, IMHO was bound to catch it soon enough.
    The imho effect.

    wumhenry posted:
    You're putting words in his mouth and then calling him a liar because those words aren't true. Cheshire didn't say that his "we've got 20" remark was supported by that report.
    Yes, wum. I know. That's why I said:
    If that document is the basis for this quote from Cheshire,....
    wunhenry posted:
    Yes, there was such a statement. It was made by a campus cop who reported that he'd heard it from a Durham cop, and it was mentioned in the report of Duke's investigative committee.
    We don't know that anyone on the Durham PD ever acknowledged hearing that from the accuser or repeating in front of a Duke officer. The Duke officer admitted he overheard a conversation by a Durham police officer, but that no one verified what he claims he heard. The defense may have a document by the Durham police stating the accuser did say she was raped by 20 men, but the document Cheshire attached to his letter does not.

    imho: forget about the number in and of itself, do you not agree that the report Cheshire sent to Wilson does show the AV has changed her story? Not just about the number of men, but about the number of dancers.

    SomewhatChunky posted:
    There are numerous press reports that the AV says she was raped by 20 men (google 20 men Duke Rape). The one I found were made by a Duke officer who says he overheard a Durham cop etc etc... They appear that they may be base on inaccurate or second hand information, i.e. they may be wrong. Nonetheless, they are out there, and there were reported by a cop. Cheshire did not make this up.
    From the article:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    I didn't say he made it up, I said he is representing that it is part of the discovery. Maybe it is. Cheshire is saying these are stories she has told, not these are things reporters have claimed she said or these are things a Duke police officer has admitted he overheard on the loading dock, but never verified. Cheshire wasn't up there to spread rumors, he was is relating what is in the discovery. Maybe it is. We don't know. The haven't shown it to us yet. Look what I just found on google: Claim That Duke Rape Victim Said She Was Raped By 20 Men Appears To Be Nonsense
    But Doe could have thought the cop was asking how many men were at the party. (InMyHumbleOpinion made a similar point in TalkLeft comments). Experts agree:


    Interest "fact check" of Nifong's statements in his e-mail to Meadows at this site.

    More food for thought about this case:
    Let us consider for a moment the number of black men lynched following false allegations of rape. Similar to the justice Nifong seeks to render in Durham, in those instances the accuser received the benefit of the doubt. In fact, so weighted was the benefit that often doubt was withheld even as the evidence clearly pointed in the direction of innocence. The mere existence of the charge was enough to give it veracity and not even the testimony of God himself was enough to stay the hand of execution.
    Joseph C. Phillips

    Noname, noname posted:
    Ha! If I caught it just scimming the post, IMHO was bound to catch it soon enough. The imho effect.
    Read my reply. Your analogy is not right. There is no imho effect. Imho is a quibbler. Quibbler's are not generally well liked or successful, nor are they necessarily intelligent, although they may be in some cases. Everyone has known a quibbler that most feed his or her own ego with constantly correcting and questioning things that most reasonable persons see no need to quibble with. It is not particularly hard to quibble. It takes no special ken or intelligence. The English language is not a precision tool or mathematical formula -- it lends itself to quibblers quibbling over endless nuances and possibilities from sentence structure and the words therein. So, quibbling is not something to be looked up to as in "my what a good quibbler" you are, but rather it should be frowned upon as the work of a quibbler seeking to bring attention to herself and feed her own ego.

    SomewhatChunky posted:
    It has been my experience in life that people with something of substance to say can state it simply and clearly and let it stand on its own. They certainly don't feel the need to constantly attack every post that people with different opinions write.
    Do you feel I am attacking/correcting the commenters' opinions or inaccuracies in their posts? Do you feel I only attack/correct the inaccuracies of posts written by commenters with opinions that differ from my own? SomewhatChunky posted:
    By doing so, you have succeeded in really dragging down the overall level of commentary on this board.
    All by myself? Newport beseeched our fellow commenters to not reply to my posts. Why were his pleas ignored?

    IMHO said:
    Look what I just found on google: Claim That Duke Rape Victim Said She Was Raped By 20 Men Appears To Be Nonsense
    But Doe could have thought the cop was asking how many men were at the party. (InMyHumbleOpinion made a similar point in TalkLeft comments). Experts agree:
    However, that was from May 10 when we had far fewer verified pieces of information (from statements taken by DPD etc). Given what we have seen so far, I think the likelyhood that the AV made the "raped by 20 guys" statement is high.

    We have five. We have three. We have none. We have Kim in the room. We have her outside the room. We have the two strippers being pulled apart. We have one stripper hidden while the other stripper looks for her. We have four strippers. We don't need no stinking 20 rapists! Granted, the number twenty was overheard by a cop, so it would be interesting for the cop to write a statement about it. In fact, he may already have done it for the defense. He may have identified who he heard say it, and maybe the defense has a statement from that cop too. But you notice the game that IMHO plays. She alleges when Cheshire mentions the various different numbers attributed to the AV, IMHO insists that Cheshire had definitively misrepresented the report in his hand. Now, it sure would be an interesting exercise for IMHO to explain away the five rapists and no rapists versions so that we can get back to how Seligmann raped the AV while punching in text messages, how stress affected the AV's ability to place Kim both inside and outside the bathroom, where the other two strippers came from, why the AV wanted to go back into Hell House to make more money after she was brutally raped, what the other two strippers were doing while the rape was going on, and a couple other minor conflicts in her narrative. So let's wait until the trial for the twenty, IMHO. Let's work on the number five now. Then we can work on the number four (the number of strippers).

    By the way, anyone here in doubt that the AV is mentally ill now?

    Newport replied to imho (in callous disregard for his own desperate plea):
    So, quibbling is not something to be looked up to as in "my what a good quibbler" you are, but rather it should be frowned upon as the work of a quibbler seeking to bring attention to herself and feed her own ego.
    It looks like your intervention failed, but why are you enabling me?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#229)
    by JK on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    I didn't say he made it up, I said he is representing that it is part of the discovery. Maybe it is. Cheshire is saying these are stories she has told, not these are things reporters have claimed she said or these are things a Duke police officer has admitted he overheard on the loading dock, but never verified. Cheshire wasn't up there to spread rumors, he was is relating what is in the discovery.
    You continue to make assumptions about what the defense is "representing." You did the same thing about the supplemental motion, where you assumed the motion said, "JJ said the AV had sex with four men." The motion did not say that. Cheshire did not say "documents produced by the DA in discovery show that the AV said 20 men." He said she has changed her story, 20 men, 5 men, 3 men. As a defense lawyer, as an advocate, why is Cheshire not entitled to credit the story by the Duke PD officer that she said 20 men? Maybe that Duke officer made a mistake or maybe the Durham officer relaying the story made a mistake. Maybe not. It is certainly in the realm of what is "in play" as far as the evidence out there. Cheshire is entitled to say what he thinks to be the case, and I don't see why his comments have to be limited to what documents Nifong has given him. BTW, you never answered my question about the blood test. You kept repeating the blood can still be tested. My question was (slightly paraphrased here): can you think of any good reason (consistent with Nifong being an ethical and competent attorney) why the blood has not already been tested?

    In the official SANE report narrative of the Levincy there are 2! Don't forget that. The range of possibilities from the stories from the first time rape was cried at the Durham Access Center goes something like this (we don't know how many men the FA claimed raped her at the Durham access center and we may never know): Duke Hospital to Sutton : 5 Duke Hospital to Shelton: 0 Duke Hospital to doctors and SANE nurse: 3 Duke Hospital to SANE nurse: 2 And, that is just the men, not including Roberts. Take your pick.

    beenaround posted:
    However, that was from May 10 when we had far fewer verified pieces of information (from statements taken by DPD etc).
    Given what we have seen so far, I think the likelyhood that the AV made the "raped by 20 guys" statement is high.
    The highest number I have seen is five. If it is in the discovery file it will be leaked soon enough. We do have the report written by a Durham police officer who was at the hospital at around the same time the Duke officer overheard the "20 guys" remark. That officer's report does state soemthing about, well lookie here: "20 guys."
    She said that her v@gina was sore and she was bleeding. [redacted] said that there were about 20 guys there.
    Coincidence?

    Maybe Nifong should have indicted the vibrator. By the way, what do you think the likelihood is that if and when the "small vibrator" that the AV used on herself for the entertainment of her couple clients it will turn out that a better descriptioon would be to call it large d*ldo?

    jk, bingo, bongo.

    Newport, I forgot the two!

    IMHO says, in reference to a posting of mine:
    The highest number I have seen is five. If it is in the discovery file it will be leaked soon enough. We do have the report written by a Durham police officer who was at the hospital at around the same time the Duke officer overheard the "20 guys" remark. That officer's report does state soemthing about, well lookie here: "20 guys." She said that her v@gina was sore and she was bleeding. [redacted] said that there were about 20 guys there.
    Coincidence? OK, but what's your point? Is it that you think that if any defense statement is inaccurate in any way, the defendants are guilty? That is, do you think that we should explore every possible interpretation of the AV's claims to find some way that the defendants are guilty of rape?

    IMHO, Yes, I do think you are primarly responsible for dragging down the quality of the discouse on the board. I think that's too bad - there aren't many places where you can have a good discussion about this case. I think this was the best. The sheer volume of your posts make them hard to ignore. You seem to take great pride in being the center of attention here. If that makes you feel important, well, good for you. It's your life. There was a day a week or so ago when you were absent most of the day. Conversation on the board was at a higher and more serious level. No "quibbling." It's like a small kid at a dinner who starts screaming. He screams louder if you ask him to be quiet. It doesn't mean people don't keep trying. Talk to him or not - either way he ruins the dinner. He ends up being the center of attention. What can you do? Newport called you a quibbler. I would call it nagging. To answer your question - yes, I feel by constantly correcting what you feel are inaccuracies in people's posts you are attacking them and their opinions. As others have pointed out, english is an ambiguous language. You are not the arbitrator of what is correct or incorrect. The information in this case is confusing and contradictory in many ways. Many here think you are frequently incorrect or inaccurate in your interpretations of what others have posted or has been in the press. Don't ask me to point them out - since you consider yourself the arbitrator of all that is accurate and correct, I'm sure you'll disagree. They are numerous. Others reply to you because they are used to normal discourse with reasonable people in these type of forums (I do think TL rises above the usual junk in many chat rooms). You seem to be intelligent. Why not use your ability to make a valid case instead of the endless countless "corrections." You might be able to be convincing! In case you haven't figured it out, people don't like nags. Or quibblers. They are rarely convinced by them.

    By the way, anyone here in doubt that the AV is mentally ill now?
    I think there's a chance that this case won't see trial because she will off herself. Which would be the worst possible conclusion for all involved.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#238)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    ChanceArmy, Sorry, still catching up reading all the posts...I was kind of answering out of order. I don't know the answer to your questions. Many people have clued me in to the many mistakes Nifong has made in this case. Some I expect are valid and some I expect are expressed as part of the enormous hate-Nifong campaign that has built up. As for the line-ups, well, there were 6, right? or 7? So before I pass judgment on one with nearly nonexistent legal knowledge I'd like to know more about the others. As for resources...I have said in these threads that murder is worse than rape. I don't know why he hasn't got the DNA results done for the murders. Maybe he is wrong there, I don't know. I don't like to pass judgment without hearing both sides. IF he has enough evidence to honestly make him believe a rape occurred, he should pursue it, and he'd have to expend more than normal amounts of resources, given the extreme publicity of the case. I realize that many posters here think its absurd that he could possibly have a case, but he could.

    With respect to the newly released page 1304 of discovery....I thought the most interesting aspect of the report was not the number of alleged assailants, but the additional two dancers....each of whom had names (Angel and Tammy). While one can argue that a traumatic event can cause you to make mistakes and leave out details, how does it lead you to create fictitious people with names?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#240)
    by weezie on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    Image of Seligmann as Santa Claus
    Seligmann dressed as Santa Claus was included with the Durham court filing.
    OMG! I found the moustache!

    weezie posted:
    OMG! I found the moustache!
    Thanks, weezie. And they all laughed at me!

    Pat posted:
    With respect to the newly released page 1304 of discovery....I thought the most interesting aspect of the report was not the number of alleged assailants, but the additional two dancers....each of whom had names (Angel and Tammy). While one can argue that a traumatic event can cause you to make mistakes and leave out details, how does it lead you to create fictitious people with names?
    The accuser told Sgt. Shelton she worked for Angels Escort Service. Mr. Jarriel Johnson said he got a call around 1:00 a.m. to find out if he had been the accuser's driver that night. The call came from someone at the agency. Her name is Tammy.

    SomewhatChunky posted:
    As others have pointed out, english is an ambiguous language. You are not the arbitrator of what is correct or incorrect. The information in this case is confusing and contradictory in many ways.
    SomewhatChunky, Do you think this is correct?
    And according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab.
    If not, do you have a problem with me correcting it? If this statement goes unchallenged, someone trying to learn the facts of the case could read it and think, "Cool, Reade's girlfriend can take the stand and testify that he was "occupied in phone conversations with [her] almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab." Do you have a problem with that? I do. SomewhatChunky posted:
    Others reply to you because they are used to normal discourse with reasonable people in these type of forums (I do think TL rises above the usual junk in many chat rooms).
    If they have been reading here they should know there is nothing normal about my discourse and that I am not reasonable. There must be another reason. SomewhatChunky posted:
    You seem to be intelligent.
    Don't be misled by that "smarter than Bob in Pacifica" endorsement. SomewhatChunky posted:
    Why not use your ability to make a valid case instead of the endless countless "corrections."
    I can think of a way to stop my endless countless corrections. SomewhatChunky posted:
    You might be able to be convincing!
    I'm not out to convince anyone of anything other than the importance of keeping the facts straight. SomewhatChunky posted:
    In case you haven't figured it out, people don't like nags. Or quibblers.
    In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not here to make friends. Do you doubt I could have gotten Bob in Pacifica to worship me? If you all don't want me posting here just e-mail Talk Left to let her know how I am bringing down the conversation. She might wonder how I am doing that all on my own, but it's worth a try. She has the ability to ban me and delete all of my pointless posts. Maybe she will. If that doesn't work, (I know this has been tried before, but what the heck..) just don't respond to me. It is not mandatory. I am not preventing anyone from having conversations here. I have no control over what you all want to talk about. I don't see how I could be blamed for no one caring to respond to the questions lightenup thought were interesting. If in the course of your conversations, I a correct a fact, just carry on. What is so hard about that?

    jk posted:
    You continue to make assumptions about what the defense is "representing." You did the same thing about the supplemental motion, where you assumed the motion said, "JJ said the AV had sex with four men." The motion did not say that.
    I did not say that. Would it be quibbling to correct a misstatement about what I said? I so want to be liked. jk posted:
    As a defense lawyer, as an advocate, why is Cheshire not entitled to credit the story by the Duke PD officer that she said 20 men?
    As a defense lawyer and advocate he can say, "wumhenry has declared according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab." It wouldn't be a lie, wumhenry did say that, but it wouldn't make him an honest defense lawyer and advocate. jk posted:
    BTW, you never answered my question about the blood test. You kept repeating the blood can still be tested. My question was (slightly paraphrased here): can you think of any good reason (consistent with Nifong being an ethical and competent attorney) why the blood has not already been tested?
    From yesterday's hearing:
    OSBORNE: I take it from Mr. Nifong's representations here, there are no toxicology reports.
    JUDGE STEPHENS: At this point in time I assume their are none.
    NIFONG: That's correct.
    I can think of a few.

    The Sports Illustrated article is interesting. Quote from the AV's father:
    Nifong doesn't cre anything about my daughter, Travis says. All he cares about is winning the case.


    cre = care Damned typos.

    His (Nifong's) voice grew louder. "I am not going to allow Durham in the mind of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham!" How terribly un pc of Mikey, referring to a 27 year old black woman as a "girl." Tsk, tsk.

    imho obsesses on this: And according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab. So insted of "phone conversations" we could substitute "attempts at telephonic communication" or some other more inclusive phrase. What is the relevance? The relevance is that between 12:05 and 12:14 he was occupied with his cellphone. If he were knocking out text messages he was using both hands. If he was redialing, he was still occupied. Only IMHO could imagine Seligmann making multiple conversations with his girlfriend while orally raping the AV. It doesn't matter. He wasn't raping the AV, even with Roberts' help. But this is just another diversion on the margin for IMHO. Evidence that the AV at various times said no rape, two rapists, three rapists, or five rapists is pulled out of the stack of discovery papers. IMHO must link to an old blog with nothing new which adds nothing about the Duke officer's report of twenty rapists.

    Pat posted: With respect to the newly released page 1304 of discovery....I thought the most interesting aspect of the report was not the number of alleged assailants, but the additional two dancers....each of whom had names (Angel and Tammy). While one can argue that a traumatic event can cause you to make mistakes and leave out details, how does it lead you to create fictitious people with names? IMHO replied: The accuser told Sgt. Shelton she worked for Angels Escort Service. Mr. Jarriel Johnson said he got a call around 1:00 a.m. to find out if he had been the accuser's driver that night. The call came from someone at the agency. Her name is Tammy. You see, IMHO played gotcha again. There really is someone named Tammy in North Carolina! Tammy exists! And Tammy works for Angels Escort. Angel exists! albeit as a business name. So what level of proof does IMHO need to prove that the AV wasn't delusional or wasn't making up sh*t on the spot when she said that there were two other strippers named Tammy and Angel there at the party? Nothing! She says that JJ got a call from Tammy at Angels Escort! There, that proves everything. We don't know if JJ was in contact with the AV over the phone that night, and if it was after 1:00a.m. Jarriel would have been wasting his time talking to the AV. But the AV may very well have heard the names Tammy and Angel. Perhaps Roberts called Angel to contact the folks at Bunny Hole to try to get Jarriel to take the drunken AV off her hands before she asked the Kroger security guard to dispose of the body in her car. Limp in the passenger seat, pretending to be asleep, the AV may very well have heard those names. So what do we have? We have a drunken stripper making up stories, and we may be a little closer to where the AV got the names of the two imaginary strippers. But we haven't gotten any closer to the imaginary strippers at the party, because they are imaginary. Just like the rape.

    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 23, 2006 08:46 PM
    In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not here to make friends.
    No, IMHO. No one here would accuse you of being a consensus builder. You have your own persona. As I have said previously, you were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower.

    These boys need to get into Federal Court. Can anyone think of a way?

    Between cousin Jakki and the mother her whole family come across like idiots. But I guess they were never going to be the cosby family.:
    It has been almost two months, says the accuser's mother, since they have seen or talked to their daughter or her two young children. She and Travis have grown accustomed to the media descending on their home to ask about the case. "Duke did something to those DNA results so they would favor those boys," she said on the April afternoon after the results were released.


    I mean they are wrongly accused, they are essentially political prisoners, and they have no meaningful way to redress the wrongful accusations short of a trial which is a year out. I know they are out on bail and that probably answers my question but I was just wondering if anyone had any possible thoughts on this.

    The whole family is a bunch of dispicable liars. Broomstick comments, beating comments, pay-off lies, all bull sh*t to try and stir up a civil case.

    Defense Criticizes Duke Case Accuser
    The lawyer, Joseph B. Cheshire, spoke to reporters after Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, delivered 536 pages of documents to defense lawyers. Mr. Cheshire said a quick review indicated that the woman had given other versions of events. Mr. Cheshire described the woman as "the false accuser" and said she had claimed rape by 3, 5 and 20 men.
    Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story.
    Defense gets load of new evidence
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    Defense lawyers have declined News & Observer requests for copies of the evidence, and Cheshire did not make them available Thursday. An investigator in Nifong's office called into question Cheshire's claims Thursday.
    When Cheshire told reporters that the woman claimed five people attacked her, investigator Linwood Wilson asked Cheshire to show him that page in the evidence.
    "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.
    "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said.
    Wilson walked away, and Cheshire continued talking with reporters.
    abcnews.go.com
    Cheshire told reporters yesterday that at one point, the accuser said five, not three, men had assaulted her in the bathroom of 610 North Buchanan Blvd. He released the document after Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the prosecution, publicly criticized the idea that she had changed her story.
    "Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.
    So what if Cheshire said this:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    And this was how Wilson interrupted him:
    "Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.


    SLOphoto posted:
    No, IMHO. No one here would accuse you of being a consensus builder. You have your own persona. As I have said previously, you were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower.
    I knew you'd miss me.

    Well not surprisingly the mother of the FA has already being to see some big time florida lawyer about a civil case. Given their behaviour I'd be tempted if I was the accused to go after the FA in civil court after this is all finished. Obviously they wouldn't get any money but they've already spent thousands on legal fees they might as well spend a few thousand more to bankrupt the FA.

    SomewhatChunky posted:
    IMHO,
    Yes, I do think you are primarly responsible for dragging down the quality of the discouse on the board. I think that's too bad - there aren't many places where you can have a good discussion about this case. I think this was the best.
    Newport posted:
    The whole family is a bunch of dispicable liars. Broomstick comments, beating comments, pay-off lies, all bull sh*t to try and stir up a civil case.


    Newport posted:
    These boys need to get into Federal Court. Can anyone think of a way?
    Yeah.

    Lawyer cites more rape story variations
    In releasing one page of the latest documentation, Cheshire was responding Friday to questions raised a day earlier by Linwood Wilson, Nifong's investigator.
    The questions came up as Cheshire gave a news conference in the county courthouse, noting the various numbers of alleged rapists mentioned by the accuser: 20, 3 and most recently five
    .
    "Pick a number," saidCheshire.
    Wilson interrupted to ask the defense lawyer where he got his information.
    ....
    Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was "trying to twist what I asked him." He said he was questioning the lawyer's reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five.
    "I was upset about the 20," Wilson acknowledged. "There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman.
    "We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20."
    However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14. It said that "a female was brought into the Emergency Department by Durham Police in reference to possible rape. The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males.
    "

    Interesting point made by a NC lawyer about the makeup of a possible jury and jury nullification: Susannah Meadows: Woody, I have a question for you. We know that the county is 40% black. Do you know what the racial breakdown of juries tends to be? Woody Webb: No, but the juries tend to be predominantly African-American. What is dangerous - and I've talked to other attorneys - is what will happen in the community if the trial takes place here, and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. I can't impress upon you too strongly how rife with tension, mostly racial, this community is, because of this case. http://www.courttv.com/chat/transcripts/2006/0518duke.html

    Wilson explains his outburst at the press conference: "Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was "trying to twist what I asked him." He said he was questioning the lawyer's reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five. "I was upset about the 20," Wilson acknowledged. "There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman. "We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20." However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14. It said that "a female was brought into the Emergency Department by Durham Police in reference to possible rape." So, according to the DA investigator, if the AV has not in fact changed her story from being raped by 20, to 5, to 0, to 3 men, but in fact only changed it from 5 rapists, to no rapists, to 3 rapists, then this somehow enhances or salvages her credibility? Investigator Wilson says "I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20." And there, dear friends, is the crux of the massive failure of justice with the DA's office summed up in one neat little quote - THEY AREN'T QUESTIONING THE PATENTLY QUESTIONABLE nature of the AV's many widely varied stories. You know, every night I tell my preschool aged daughters a made-up fairy tale. Because its made-up, and sometimes to make it more interesting, I change some parts of the story around from one telling to the next, and add or take away other facts. Just such a fairy tale recitation is precisely what the AV has tendered, except that her ever-changing stories aren't helping anyone sleep better at night ...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#263)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Re: Jakki/Jackie/Jack and the missing $2 million: I'm wondering if this whopper isn't some kind of pre-emptive, face-saving move. Considering how much devastating information is coming out about the AV, some of the family members are probably starting to get confronted by their friends & acquaintances with questions about her. Probably they're getting a lot of "Hey, they say on the news she's a prostitute! She's crazy! She's a lying drunk and she made it all up!" Etc. etc. That must be painful to deal with, and she's not exactly out there defending herself, and the DA won't do it. Meanwhile the bad news about the case keeps poring in and the family may well be doubting her too. So Jakki senses that the AV can't take the scrutiny of testifying, but then won't the insults get worse? People will have such a sense of being right about her. Throwing the pay-off confabulation to the media now could provide some face-saving cover down the line.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#264)
    by JK on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:58:02 PM EST
    IMHO, You posted:
    I did not say that.
    I did not say you said it. I said you assumed it. You posted:
    It wouldn't be a lie, wumhenry did say that, but it wouldn't make him an honest defense lawyer and advocate.
    You have not given a reasonable explanation why Cheshire's 20/5/3 comment was dishonest or misleading. It is only (possibly) dishonest if you make the assumption that the source of the 20/5/3 comment is exclusively the documents given to the defense by Nifong. I did not see the full interview, but the portions quoted did not provide any support for that assumption. You posted:
    I can think of a few [good reasons (consistent with Nifong being a competent and ethical attorney) why the blood has not been tested yet.]
    I would be very interested in you sharing those reasons, if you would be willing to share.

    Does anyone here know if Coyotes habitat includes parts of North Carolina? Do they range throughout the state? Nowhere? Any NC residents? ChanceArmy? just curious.

    part of banco55's quote of NC Woody Webb:
    What is dangerous - and I've talked to other attorneys - is what will happen in the community if the trial takes place here, and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. I can't impress upon you too strongly how rife with tension, mostly racial, this community is, because of this case.
    I was in Long Beach during the riots following the Rodney King verdict and watched (and heard) the L.A. basin hack at and burn itself. I remember I spent that first afternoon watching TV coverage with a Thomas-guide map to help me follow where the images flowed in from. I also remember the (increased) gunfire and absolutely constant sound of helicopters and sirens that night. Even two days later, freeway traffic across Central was a virtual standstill. To get to Pasadena was a four-hour "drive," the view along the way punctuated by still-burning fires and crisscrossing helicopters. God, this case makes me feel sick.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#267)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    "Meanwhile the bad news about the case keeps pouring in" Sorry - it's late. I only just caught up.

    What's in those extra 536 pages of discovery produced yesterday by Nifong to the defense? "Cheshire said half or three-quarters of the pages are copies of information already provided. But the new pages refer to a previously unknown police lineup -- the second in which the accuser could not identify a team captain charged in the case as one of her attackers, Cheshire said." http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/453751.html This part of the article, detailing the events of Thursday's hearing,was also particularly enjoyable: "The rancor that has simmered between Nifong and defense lawyers, particularly Cheshire, seeped out in court again. When responding to a request from Evans' lawyers, Nifong said that the legal team had asked for something that didn't exist. "People who don't do a lot of rape cases probably don't know that," Nifong said. "It made me feel really good that he would help me along in that way and try to give me some pointers," Cheshire said after the hearing." hmmmm...let's see, which is more troubling: (a) Nifong's experience as a DA hardly permits him to pontificate on what is customary in rape cases & he's once again speaking of whence he knows not; or (b) those who have reported to us that Nifong's previous prosecutorial experience has predominantly encompassed lower level infractions like traffic matters are in error, and in fact Nifong prosecutes a lot of rape cases, and this one is just like all the others he handles...

    Hey Madison, I was in Long Beach during the LA riots too. Naples to be exact. I knew you were a "homes."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#270)
    by blcc on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:14:16 PM EST
    Newport, apparently yes. On page two it mentions they were introduced in NC by fox hunters. Now they compete with Fish & Wildlife efforts to reintroduce red wolves into the Smoky Mtns. See also the wikipedia entry.

    Thank you so much blcc, I could not find anything on NC habitat. Let me look into this . . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#272)
    by JK on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:23:37 PM EST
    IMHO, You quoted Wilson as saying the following:
    "I was upset about the 20," Wilson acknowledged. "There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman. "We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20."
    A few thoughts come to mind: 1. Cheshire is not the only one who thought Wilson was referring to the 5. So did most media accounts. Maybe they assumed he meant the 5, because the 20 was already out there and most followers of the case knew the source for the 20. The 5 was new - yet another variation in the AV's story that no one had heard before. Of course, maybe the "journalists" just reported that Wilson was challenging the 5 because they are part of a conspiracy to exonerate the defendants and to defame Nifong. Or maybe Cheshire used a Jedi mind trick to cause them all to report Wilson's outburst had to do with the 5. 2. If Wilson had made this statement on Thursday instead of Friday, the confusion would not have occurred. Wilson could have said, "There is no basis for your statement that the AV said there were 20 attackers." Instead, Wilson implied with his outburst that Cheshire's entire statement was faulty. He later said in an interview that the AV did not change her story (apparently 5 to 3 is not an inconsistency). 3. The notion that Cheshire was somehow dishonest in responding to Wilson's outburst as if Wilson was challenging the 5 is just total BS. Especially since the 5 versus 3 discrepancy had never been reported. Nifong just sat on that little nugget and waited until the second round of discovery to produce it. You also seem to be confusing the ethical duties of a defense attorney and a district attorney. A defense attorney's primary ethical duty is to defend the interests of his client. He is not allowed to lie, but if he tells a version of the truth that is shaded towards his client's interests, well that is exactly what he is supposed to do. A district attorney, on the other hand, is supposed to serve the public. His client is not the AV. He is not only supposed to not lie, but he is supposed to diligently seek out the truth.

    Next question. Are there any coyotes in the greater Durham area? ChanceArmy?

    I just can't believe this "case" is still alive. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Why doesn't the judge consider the motions? How can this go on based upon (how many now? and why do I have to ask) faulty lineup identification of three men, none of whom can be linked by physical evidence in any way to the accuser, who by the way was "completely passed-out drunk" the night she told a different story to everyone, and who has a history of creating accusations she does not pursue. Can something be done about justice in this case before someone dies? And I mean that literally.

    "We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged..."
    With powerful reasoning like this, Wilson is obviously the perfect candidate for the D.A. position after Mendax Nifongus is appointed to the bench.

    Why could Nifong and the County of Durham not be sued for malicious prosecution under the civil rights acts in Federal Court in North Carolina? Not to seek damages, but to institute a federal investigation of the case to free the suspects from the prosecution? Why would Durham and Nifong be immune from that type of suit?

    Newport, here ya go Durham Coyotes

    Wow, you are impressive SomeWhatChunky. You know my interest, correct?

    Newport wrote:
    Hey Madison, I was in Long Beach during the LA riots too. Naples to be exact. I knew you were a "homes."
    I'm a native Californian, but now I call the Heartland home, far away from either coast. Naples is nice for a Christmastime stroll with family.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#280)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:53:32 PM EST
    AV - accused victim FA - false accuser VRA - variable rapist accuser

    Next question, to TL regulars: When did inmyhumbleopinion show up posting on this case? Has the inmyhumbleopinion been on TL posts prior to the Duke case?

    Naples is nice for a Christmastime stroll with family.
    Very much so. I just rented there during school. A lovely place.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#283)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:05:50 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    Why could Nifong and the County of Durham not be sued for malicious prosecution under the civil rights acts in Federal Court in North Carolina? Not to seek damages, but to institute a federal investigation of the case to free the suspects from the prosecution? Why would Durham and Nifong be immune from that type of suit?
    I know next to nothing about prosecutorial immunity. But, at least under California law, an action for malicious prosecution requires a favorable termination of the underlying action in the plaintiff's favor. Under the federal Anti-Injunction Act, federal courts may not enjoin state court proceedings except under three narrow exceptions:
    A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
    I am also no expert in federal civil rights law, but I don't know offhand of any provisions that would allow a federal court to intervene in a state criminal proceeding that is still ongoing.

    Newport, The member inmyhumbleopinion has been posting in this forum since its inception. The name is a link though in the early pages.

    Newport, Yes. I live in the mountains. Let the pet out alone, you soon don't have a pet. I would point out others of us (me included) had never been on TL before either. It's this case that has caught my interest.

    Madison, I wonder if inmyhumbleopinion has been on TL before this case? Did she just show up for this case like the rest (most) of us? I really do believe that it is possible that she has some connection to Durham activists and/or the DA's office. I will post the reasons why I believe she is a TROLL soon.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Court Hearing, No Toxicology R (none / 0) (#287)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:29:03 AM EST
    to Newport According to this post , TL says IMHO was on the Skakel threads.

    Jk, didn't the Supreme Court enjoin the Florida Supreme Court from ordering further recounts in the 2000 election litigation? I can't remember.

    Thanks, everyone. I got waylaid by the homegrown terror wannabees and the classified banking info scheme and ignored this thread. Sorry. I've just began a new duke weekend open thread --with the new report and a few more things. I'll keep this going as long as youa ll are here to talk about it. Comments closing here.