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

According to this post , TL says IMHO was on the Skakel threads.

You are talking about something different - starting a collateral action in federal court and asking that court to enjoin proceedings in a state court criminal proceeding that is still ongoing.

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.

I just can't believe this "case" is still alive. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Why doesn't the judge consider the motions?

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.

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.

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.

You don't have to lie to demonstrate a bias for or against the AV.

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.

I did not say you said it. I said you assumed it.

where you assumed the motion said, "JJ said the AV had sex with four men."

About this new info, from the motion:

Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.

Didn't Mr. Johnson stay in the car when he took the accuser to the hotels?

Talk Left posted:

I certainly think it's a fair statement to say that she was "involved in some sexual manner" with four other men.

What four men? There is the male/female couple and the "older gentleman." The other appointments could be performances for lesbians. The supporting document, Jarriel's statement, does not mention any men other than the"older gentleman." The "involved in some sexual manner with four other men" claim is not supported by any of the attached documents.

mik posted:

The motion the defense filed does not say that ___ had sex with men. It states that she "was involved in some sexual manner" with her clients. Removing one's clothing in a sexually provocative manner is "some sexual manner." Only ___ and her "clients" or "dates" will know what occurred behind closed doors.

Actually it says:

Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.

Jarriel's statement mentions one man. The "older gentleman" the accuser said "wants to see her perform." Investigator Hinman could not possibly discover the accuser did anything with "at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006" from Jarriel's statement. The defense lied about the content of Jarriel's statement.

I think Wilson called him on the 20 attacker story being in the new discovery and Cheshire tried to weasle out of it.

That's one way of putting it, there are others.

Looks to me like the local press supports Cheshire's version, not Wilson's.

"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,"

You don't have to lie to demonstrate a bias for or against the AV.

re the $2 million offer

If this is true, can't the person(s) who offered the money be charged with obstruction of justice?

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: 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.

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?

OSBORNE: I take it from Mr. Nifong's representations here, there are no toxicology reports.

JUDGE STEPHENS: At this point in time I assume there are none.

NIFONG: That's correct.

I can think of a few.

I would be very interested in you sharing those reasons, if you would be willing to share.

"Here I come to save the daaaaaay."

That theme song from the old Mighty Mouse cartoon series could be the campaign theme songs for Lewis Cheek and now Steve Monks, two men contemplating a run for Durham County District Attorney.

Are these two gentlemen donning crime-fighting capes and sallying forth to become the county's top cop because they want to make the streets safe for little old ladies?

Nope. As far as I can tell, their main motivation is to make the streets safe for the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer.

ABRAMS: All right. Look, I should also -- I mean I think that there may have been a blood sample taken. Yale, you were saying there was no blood, I think they may have taken a blood sample. BONDI: OK, Dan, then they can still analyze it... ABRAMS: ... but there is no result. GALANTER: No, no, no. ABRAMS: Go ahead, Yale. GALANTER: They took an initial screen to determine whether or not there were any illicit drugs in her or alcohol. They did not do a toxicology report for the date rape drug. ABRAMS: But Pam is saying... GALANTER: That's what occurred. ABRAMS: ... that if they've got a blood sample, they could still take it. They could still do a test at a later time. BONDI: Dan, it happens all the time... ABRAMS: Yes.

If he said 5 attackers in a sentence without the 20 attackers, none of the reports I have seen quoted him. If the above is the quote to which Wilson objected, Wilson was correct in wanting to "see that page."

The best thing that they have going for them against this is having Seligmann as one of the accused. The combination of the phone records, his well documented leaving time and the very clear exposition of Roberts leaves virtually no time for him to be involved.

While driving Seligmann home, Mostafa received a call at 12:29 a.m. from the cell phone of lacrosse player Tony McDevitt, requesting another ride from the party, the records show.

Mostafa told MSNBC that he returned to the house later to pick up another customer. He told FOX News that when he arrived at the house the second time, some players were on the front lawn and a light-skinned black woman was walking away from the house. She was arguing with the players, then Mostafa said the woman said, "I am going to call the police."

Four of the lacrosse players then got into the cab; Mostafa described them as agitated. He then heard one player say to another, "don't worry, she's just a stripper." He also said, "it look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm ... I have no idea."

"I heard her talking back to the guys" in what was apparently not a friendly conversation, he said.

The woman began to drive away in her car, but suddenly stopped and backed up, almost hitting his taxi, Mostafa said.

Four men got into his cab, and they appeared to be drunk, Mostafa said.

One of them said, "She's just a stripper," Mostafa said

After dropping off Seligmann, Mostafa said, he returned to the house to pick up four more passengers. When he arrived, it looked like a party was breaking up, with people crowded on both sides of the street.

While waiting for the men whom he would later drive to a nearby gas station, the Sudan-born driver saw a woman walking through a crowd of men toward a car, and heard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."

Mostafa said the woman, wearing jeans and a sweater, appeared to exchange words with some people in the crowd before getting into the driver's side of a car.

"She looked, like, mad," he said. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."

When asked by a reporter with CBS News if he had a feeling that something had gone wrong or someone had been hurt at the party that night, Mostafa said, "Yeah, I got the feeling something had gone wrong."

Thanks for that. My provoking the AV detractors to overstate their case makes me an AV supporter? I would say I have a bias against AV detractors, not because I believe the accuser to be telling the truth, but because I believe many of them do not.

Now the Defense has Wilson (the LE?) declaring he was aware of the AV changing her story from 0, 3, and 5.

Looks to me like the local press supports Cheshire's version, not Wilson's.

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.

He claims to have read that page of discovery

"We only do toxicology if the victim's story is highly suspicious," said Emilia Frederick, a sexual assault nurse examiner at UNC Hospitals. Frederick said toxicology tests are typically done when a rape victim cannot remember certain events.

IMHO:

I agree that McDevitt and Seligmann look similar, but twins?

Me? Not so much.

Carter from Court TV: Reade Seligmann bears a striking resemblance to more than one other Duke lacrosse team member. Here is a comparison with #44.

bertrand wrote @ Mon, 24 Apr 2006, 11:42 am EDT: Tony McDevitt who was present at the party after Seligman left looks eerily like Seligman.

Chris Lawrence What's weird is that Tony McDevitt, a junior Duke lacrosse player who has a striking resemblance to the indicted Reade Seligmann, lives smack dab in that area code according to this site. McDevitt, along with four teammates, was on the season watchlist for the nation's top collegiate player before the incident.

V a n c e H o l m e s . c o m They All Look Alike We've seen number 45 -- Reade Seligmann. Now meet number 44 -- Tony McDevitt. He was at the infamous March 13 party, and he's a dead ringer for 45.

I patent on court tv She said #4 "looked like" ____, but she wasn't sure. That is not an ID. Futhermore we know at last two players on the team look very similar to Seligmann, including Tony McDevitt. If #4 was one of those two kids, her hesitation can easily be explained away.

Junior goalie Dan Loftus and his brother, Chris, a sophomore attackman, grew up in Syosset, Long Island, sons of Barbara and Brian, a retired New York City fireman who worked 36 straight hours at the World Trade Center immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11. "I thought that was the worst day of my life," Brian says. "You want to know something? This is the worst thing." Like most of the parents, the Loftuses had grilled their sons. "How many times did I say to him on the phone? 'Danny, did anything happen?'" Brian Loftus says to Barbara one weekend in May. "I asked him 10 times. He goes, 'No, no, no, no.'" "This is not a time to lie and cover up for your friends!" Barbara remembers chiming in. "Did anything happen?" .... Ken Sauer, another retired New York City fireman, whose son, K.J., was a senior midfielder, spent Sunday at home in East Rockaway, N.Y., trying to figure out how to scrape up the money if his son needed to make bond. He looked into flights to Durham. In a suitcase he packed clothes, toiletries, the deed to his house. He watched the news and waited for the phone to ring. Players' parents, usually dependent on each other for news and support, didn't call each other much that weekend, but word had been passed that the wealthier families would ensure that no player would stay locked up .... "Without a scholarship I couldn't blink an eye at this place," says Carroll, another retired fireman's son from Long Island, who's the first in his family to go to college. .... "They are ruined for life," says Nina Zash of the three defendants, and that's the reason her son feels no relief. "It was a lottery drawing," Matt Zash says. "We know it could be any one of us."

And as to the toxicology tests, I think I know why they weren't done.

Her story IS highly suspicious. She certainly couldn't remember certain events with any clarity. They didn't do a tox screen because someone at DUMC examined the accuser, listened to her story, reviewed the evidence thus far, and decided it wasn't worth the money because there wasn't any rape.

It's hard to get a true representation of what someone looks like from pictures versus "in real life."

what about mcdevitt?

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 is pretty clear that you have spent much time reading about this case and seem to have a good memory of the 'surrounding chatter'. For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann in play, even if it meant throwing out certain parts of the record?

12:00:12 a.m. The first picture of the dancers. The accuser, wearing pink and white lace lingerie, is lying face down on the floor.

As for rank speculation on what a video might show of the entire evenings events, I really don't know. If pressed I would say that the worst thing that probably occured would have been something more suited to a civil tort involving breach of contract.

What if they took the money back? The first search warrant lists robbery as one of the offenses.

As to whether someone went through her purse and took back some or all of the $400, could be, but we will never know. Actually, if that occured it would jive more with what the lax players said occured and could be the root of the argument which ended in name calling outside the house. Four hundred bucks for a dancer that passes out on your floor after four minutes is a bit irksome.

Like most of the parents, the Loftuses had grilled their sons. "How many times did I say to him on the phone? 'Danny, did anything happen?'" Brian Loftus says to Barbara one weekend in May. "I asked him 10 times. He goes, 'No, no, no, no.'"

"This is not a time to lie and cover up for your friends!" Barbara remembers chiming in. "Did anything happen?"

If you want to push the stealing angle, I'd disagree about who truly stole from who here. Not that this is really germane to the case, but if a contractor takes my money for a service, then fails to provide the service, in most cases they have to give it back.

As I posted earlier, the N&O reporter ( who was there -- IMHO was NOT!)

Nobody disputes the women did not complete what they were hired to do.

Patsy Ramsey, whose 6-year-old daughter JonBenet's 1996 slaying has never been solved, died Saturday of cancer, her lawyer said. She was 49.

Is it technically a crime? I'm not certain one way or the other. Let's say I'm a ticket scalper outside a stadium and I offer you two tickets for $400. You give me the money and then I give you two fake tickets. You then reach into my pocket and liberate the $400. Are you guilty of robbery?

But can you take it out of his wallet when he isn't looking?

There are legal avenues for recourse.

No, but could you collect it from the floor if it had been scattered about and no longer inside the purse?

That's funny, IMHO. Legal recourse for getting your money back from a couple of escorts/prostitutes!

As to why he would lie.... Though I have opinions, in general, why the DA's office is behaving in the manner that it has is a mystery to me. Why his outburst in the first place?

I agree. That may be the problem with photo line ups.

You don't think the accuser could have mistaken Seligmann for McDevitt?

I think his outburst was a result of the frustration over the fact that the defense can have a spin-o-rama with the discovery and the prosecution can not.

If you want to push the stealing angle, I'd disagree about who truly stole from who here. Not that this is really germane to the case, but if a contractor takes my money for a service, then fails to provide the service, in most cases they have to give it back. Nobody disputes the women did not complete what they were hired to do. Walking of the job because you don't like what someone said doesn't absolve you of this responsibility.

Naturally this additional evidence would not be of the form "VS means x% chance of rape" since you cannot compute such a probability based on VS alone.

1. As a concrete example of the reasoning involved suppose you estimate prior to examining the AV that there is a 50% chance a rape occurred. Suppose further you estimate that there was a 50% chance VS was already present before the alleged rape occurred (independent of whether or not the rape occurred) and a 80% chance that a rape will produce VS if not already present. Then VS will be found 70% of time (90%,50% for the rape, no-rape cases which we are assuming are equally likely). If VS is found then you should raise your estimate that rape occurred to 64% (9/14). Conversely if VS is not found you should lower your estimate that a rape occurred to 17% (1/6).

The women did not show them fake ....oh, maybe they did, nevermind.... There are legal avenues for recourse.

Wilson's outburst is that of an errant sycophant. I suspect if you're working in the Durham DA's office these days, you're either espousing the party line or you're keeping your mouth shut.

the players were not taking back their own property

Both crimes or, in the civil arena the tort of conversion, require on the part of the taker, the wrongful intent to deprive someone of his or her property. In this case, the players were not taking back their own property because the dancers, in essence, stole from them by failing to perform when paid to do so.

Taking money from someone's purse in the commission of a rape?

Sounds like robbery to me.

Those are exactly the sorts of character flaws that IMHO is careful to point out whenever they occur. I'm not sure why she has not done so thus far?

I'm not certain what your point is here. I will go under the assumption that you are trying to point out that the cabbie got the sense that something was wrong and that he overheard the 'don't worry she's just a stripper' remark. The easy defense spin on the she's just a stripper remark is her documented fall down the stairs. The person who remarked as such isn't someone I'd want to be associated with but hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt of kidnapping, rape etc.

It was her way of getting even. It also shows that there was no rape because she would not be calling the police to report name calling if she was so hot at the boys and she thought a rape could have occured.

Then why was it not charged?

The evidence will show that the "don't worry, she's just a stripper" remark was made in response to Robert's telling the boys that she just called the cops on them. Roberts called the police out of vindictiveness resulting from the dispute over the dancers ripping the boys off.

Roberts announced to the boys as she was leaving the scene, "I just called the cops on you dumbasses."

SLOphoto posted: Those are exactly the sorts of character flaws that IMHO is careful to point out whenever they occur. I'm not sure why she has not done so thus far?

You think Kim has character flaws?

Perhaps, as PB once pondered, this trial will be used as discovery for future charges.

In terms of the blood tests, you can think of good reasons why the test was not ordered yet (consistent with Nifong being a competent and ethical attorney), but you are not willing to share them at this time. I can only think of two reasons for you to take this position: (a) you really are a Nifong sock puppet (which I think is presumptively unlikely but the evidence continues to mount), or (b) you don't really have any good reasons. Maybe there is a third explanation, but my imagination is limited.

Well, do you think Kim has character flaws?

Apparently, the media thought that Wilson was talking about the 5 attacker version.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong told the court on Thursday he did not have a toxicology report to turn over, although he later refused to say if such a test was performed. UNC Hospitals sexual-assault nurse examiner Emilia Frederick told WRAL that toxicology tests are typically done when a rape victim cannot remember certain events. "We only do toxicology if the victim's story is highly suspicious," Frederick said.

What is the "prosecution's theory of the case." Many of us would like to know? Is it just vaginal and oral rape that is now in play?

NIFONG: The only people I have to persuade will be the twelve sitting on the jury, and if you want to know how I am going to do that, you will need to attend the trial.

In a police report, the officer said the alleged victim could not walk or talk. Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services. Once there, police said the woman told workers she had been raped.

I'll fluff up the pillows in the guestroom. You can listen to the coyotes howl all night.

If Newport can't make it, may I come? A week or two at Quibbler's B&B sounds like heaven. I'll bring the popcorn.

Affectionately, Fill

If you scroll back you will see I was saying we need more information while others were crowing about Wilson having egg on his face. Hold the eggs, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH about what was said at that interview to decide if Wilson was wrong, or if Cheshire was disingenuous, if Cheshire missread the 20 guys part and is not admitting it, WE DON'T KNOW.

And it just doesn't make any sense to me that you work for Nifong - you wouldn't have the time to post on this board as often as you do.

The reason I suggested federal election laws, rather than due process and equal protection, is that violation of federal constitutional rights, by itself, does not give federal courts a right to intervene in state court proceedings. We presume that state courts will follow the federal constitution. If they do not, the aggrieved party after exhausting state-level appeals can petition for cert to the Supreme Court.

How can Fong refuse to answer whether he had a toxicology test performed? Is this the action of an "honest and ethical prosecutor" or a crafty, win-at-all-cost, personally involved prosecutor?

Why not? The Nifong and the employees in that office don't even read their own files and they file no motions or responses thereto. What else do they have to do?

We do know what the press thinks. You may not like it, but they reported it.

Fill, Newport has the right of first refusal, but you are second. I'm not half as obnoxious in person.

Are you serious? He is not supposed to discuss the evidence with reporters.

Let me give you the possibilities,

1. Durham 2. Santa Monica 3 Laguna Beach 4. West LA 5. West Hollywood 6. San Francisco 7. Marin County 8. San Jose 9. Napa 10. Cuba 11. Venezual 12. Iran

Take your pick

BTW, Sutton's report contains a discrepancy with Shelton's: "When the responding officers arrive Ms._______ was passed out and had to be awakened with smelling salts."

And, if it goes to trial they will not be acquitted because of racial bias of the jurors.

No, MrPrescident, but when the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case?

I did find disturbing Bob's report about the mom's story re Duke tampering with the DNA results. I wonder how prevalent such conspiracy theories are in Durham. Does anyone have a link on that story?

I did find disturbing Bob's report about the mom's story re Duke tampering with the DNA results. I wonder how prevalent such conspiracy theories are in Durham. Does anyone have a link on that story?

I guess Duke doctored the DNA by putting the "boyfiend's" semen on the swab they took of the FA's vaginal cavity. I suspect that would be hard to do but I'm sure imho will tell us how it could have.

I don't want to misrepresent what you meant by the above, so please tell me if and how I am wrong (I have no doubt, by the way that you will do so, at length) in logical answers to the following questions:

Please. Enlighten me. And try to do so in a condensed fashion, because if "brevity is the soul of wit" then you are (sounds like "witness).

According to the quoted statements from you, I would think that the answers to the above questions are: 1. Yes 2. No 3. There has to be doubt that she got even one out of three correct.

I tend to agree with you here, but I wish there were a Durham resident (preferably black) posting on this board who could give us a sense of the prevailing local black community's sentiment vis-a-vis this case. THIS IS A GENERAL CALL FOR SUCH A PERSON to post his or her knowledge of this sentiment.

I wish there were a Durham resident (preferably black) posting on this board who could give us a sense of the prevailing local black community's sentiment vis-a-vis this case. THIS IS A GENERAL CALL FOR SUCH A PERSON to post his or her knowledge of this sentiment.

Being outside the courthouse right now, what's impressed me is the degree of community interest in this case. Black community leaders have submitted a ten point list of demands - one of which is that the case not be removed from Durham County. The community is rife with tension - racial, class and otherwise. It's a very dangerous situation.

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.

No, MrPrescident, but when the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case? Do you follow what I am saying here?

Have you ever seen cases where it is the PROSECUTION that tries to prove their own police reports are inaccurate? Should open up some peoples minds.

Damage everywhere in this rape case (Edie Magnus, Dateline correspondent) I find the Duke Lacrosse team story upsetting no matter how it turns out. To hear Dan Abrams tell it - and he has now seen more than any other reporter on the story - there may not be enough evidence that the young black woman was raped by three white players on the team to warrant going to trial...

It's a small error, but as a jury member, I'd be less likely to be persuaded by the Defense's insistance that SHE changed her story if the reporting officer (who presumably was not chemically incapacitated or in distress) couldn't even get the story straight. Is that the best the DEFENSE can do?

It was [Kim's] way of getting even. It also shows that there was no rape because she would not be calling the police to report name calling if she was so hot at the boys and she thought a rape could have occured.

Newport, clearly Roberts left the scene without any inkling that there had been anything like a rape at Buchanan. Good point.

The new police report is not entirely accurate. Officer Sutton reported, "This is when NIKKI [the second dancer] called the police because [the Accuser] would not get out of the car." We know, from the 911 recordings, that "Nikki" is not the one who called - Kroger's security guard did. Can we trust that he used as much care to gather and report the other 'facts'?

Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone

Posted by Newport June 24, 2006 06:07 PM MrPrecedent, blah blah blah...

I can't help out, but CourtTV has a chat transcript with Newsweek reporter Susannah Meadows and North Carolina criminal defense attorney Woody Webb. Mr. Webb reports that racial tensions are running high: Being outside the courthouse right now, what's impressed me is the degree of community interest in this case. Black community leaders have submitted a ten point list of demands - one of which is that the case not be removed from Durham County. The community is rife with tension - racial, class and otherwise. It's a very dangerous situation. Then, Mr. Webb says: 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.

First, if there is a problem with the lineup, do you concede that the the DA might have indicted the wrong guys?

Second, if the AV mistook Seligman, whom she of her own volition gave a "100% certainty" of being one of her rapists, for one of the other players, is her identification of anyone worth anything?

Third, if the AV is 100% wrong about Seligman, how can there not be doubt about her identifications of either of the other two?

The new police report is not entirely accurate. Officer Sutton reported, "This is when NIKKI [the second dancer] called the police because [the Accuser] would not get out of the car." We know, from the 911 recordings, that "Nikki" is not the one who called - Kroger's security guard did. Can we trust that he used as much care to gather and report the other 'facts'?

PB wrote:Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone

Was that after she said the case was a crock and after Nifong reduced her bail? You're right PB, you are the real mental giant here.

Which part of the story couldn't the reporting officer get straight,

or are you suggesting that the different stories the AV has seemingly told are because the reporting officers couldn't get things straight?

From reading the report, it's not clear if the officer is quoting the AV or describing information given to her/him by someone else. The way I read this portion of the report, s/he is trying to quote the AV.

THIS IS WHEN NIKKI CALLED THE POLICE BECAUSE MS.[REDACTED] WOULD NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN THE RESPONDING OFFICERS ARRIVED MS.[REDACTED] WAS PASSED OUT AND HAD TO BE AWAKENED WITH SMELLING SALTS. BECAUSE OF HER MENTAL STATE SHE HAD TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE DURHAM ACCESS CENTER....

Around here sometimes you have to state the obvious.

you're still in denial.

Kim also called the rape claim a crock that the AV was raped.

And even Kim's revised story, after Nifong "helped" her on her embezzlement problem, doesn't match the AV's various versions.

So I defer to your superior intellect when you explain why the AV wanted to go back into the house to make more money after the rape.

By the way, I understand your bitterness. The last few days must have been particularly hard, your shattered illusions. But it's nice you can drop by to insult people.

Newport, You wrote: PB wrote:Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone

What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?

As to the other work, it's not so impressive. It's just the old run-of-the-mill prejudicial speculation. Because it doesn't make any difference what Kim believes, the fact that she changed her mind is irrelevant.

Well, since you asked - unless there is video & audio of all accounts, we don't really know whether ANY officer accurately recorded what anybody actually SAID, or if they just paraphrased (perhaps not accurately).

The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things

I certainly did not write this piece of garbage attacking myself. You wrote this all by yourself.

I haven't acertained that she did. The reason I'm looking forward to a trial is that it provides an opportunity to take all these differing versions and see whether they can be explained.

PB conjectured: The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things. Source?

I think jurors will take their roles seriously. I don't think we can read too much into one defense attorney's comments about the pulse in the community.

And many people who might think the defendants are guilty now probably don't know a lot about the facts of the case - I think it will be hard to say no reasonable doubt after a trial.

Shouldn't this be done before anyone is charged as part of an investigation to see if a crime occurred?

It doesn't really matter what Kim believes, but I do think it more likely that the proximate reason for her reconsideration of the legitimacy of the AVs claim was her treatment by Butch Williams and the defense team's ensuing prejudicial characterizations of her statements. If you've had the experience of being used by defense attorneys, it is incredibly irksome.

Oh, I think it certainly was. But obviously the defense didn't agree with what the DA came up with reconciling the stories. When there's a disagreement of that type, where the accused person finds the result of the investigation unacceptable, you get either a plea bargain or a trial. And twelve angry men get to settle it.

What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?

It doesn't really matter what Kim believes, but I do think it more likely that the proximate reason for her reconsideration of the legitimacy of the AVs claim was her treatment by Butch Williams and the defense team's ensuing prejudicial characterizations of her statements. If you've had the experience of being used by defense attorneys, it is incredibly irksome.

Newport wrote: PB conjectured: The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things. Source?

You may not like it, but they reported it

The security guard left the scene as police were questioning the alleged victim. According to police affidavits, the woman told police while she was in the Kroger parking lot that she had been sexually assaulted at a party.

You may not like it, but they reported it

"I listened to that first call, and I thought, 'You called 911 because someone said something offensive to you?' That's just weird," said Kerry Sutton, who represents lacrosse team member Matt Evans.

Evans is one of three captains of the team and lives at the Buchanan Boulevard house where the party was held. Sutton said Evans cleared out the house and locked it up when the party got too raucous.

"I believe my client. He says he didn't do anything, and he believes nobody else did anything," Sutton said. "No matter how this turns out, it's a terrible thing for somebody."

What about a probable cause hearing and consideration of motions to supress evidence and/or to dismiss? Should there be no check on this system you describe?

3/20/06 0856HRS - [...] She (Tammy) stated she did not know how it could have happened and that when she (Tammy) talked to MS. Pittman she (Ms. Pitman) did not know how or when it could have happened

NIKKI WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ONE OF THE GUYS AND TRIED TO TALK HER INTO IT. SHE DID NOT WANT TO. 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.

I don't have anything against "checks."

re: the police being able to involuntarily commit someone: I don't doubt that the police took the AV to the first facility for involuntary commitment procedings. I do doubt that she could have been committed on the police officer's word alone. Unless NC is way different than PA, at her arrival at the facility she would have had to be evaluated and I would presume a psychiatrist would have had to give the order. Anyone with more specific info, I'd welcome your post

SHE ENDED UP IN THE BATHROOM WITH FIVE GUYS WHO FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE

AND PERFORM SEXUAL ACTS.

I'm surprised to learn that irksome attorneys are a legitimate reason for Kim to put forward a completely new story that absolutely contradicted her previous story. I must have missed spite as a complete defence to falsifying 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."

"Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.

"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 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.

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.

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

The idiocy of this investigator is amazing. He should be fired immediately.

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.

It doesn't appear to me that anyone in the DA's office has read the files either, Fong included.

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.

Lora, this is why people get frustrated with you. You keep at it after it is explained to you that you are not right.

Here's the North Carolina statute Lora, § 122C-263 Duties of law enforcement officer; first examination by physician or eligible psychologist. (a) Without unnecessary delay after assuming custody, the law enforcement officer or the individual designated by the clerk or magistrate under G.S. 122C-251(g) to provide transportation shall take the respondent to an area facility for examination by a physician or eligible psychologist; if a physician or eligible psychologist is not available in the area facility, the person designated to provide transportation shall take the respondent to any physician or eligible psychologist locally available. If a physician or eligible psychologist is not immediately available, the respondent may be temporarily detained in an area facility, if one is available; if an area facility is not available, the respondent may be detained under appropriate supervision in the respondent's home, in a private hospital or a clinic, in a general hospital, or in a State facility for the mentally ill, but not in a jail or other penal facility. (b) The examination set forth in subsection (a) of this section is not required if: (1) The affiant who obtained the custody order is a physician or eligible psychologist who recommends inpatient commitment; (2) The custody order states that the respondent was charged with a violent crime, including a crime involving assault with a deadly weapon, and he was found incapable of proceeding; or (3) Repealed by Session Laws 1987, c. 596, s. 3. In any of these cases, the law-enforcement officer shall take the respondent directly to a 24-hour facility described in G.S. 122C-252. (c) The physician or eligible psychologist described in subsection (a) of this section shall examine the respondent as soon as possible, and in any event within 24 hours, after the respondent is presented for examination. The examination shall include but is not limited to an assessment of the respondent's:

On the tape, which was recorded April 3, three weeks after the lacrosse party, the guard can be heard saying, "There ain't no way she was raped -- ain't no way, no way that happened." The security guard says she smelled alcohol on the driver, but not on the alleged victim. She says that the alleged victim "couldn't talk at all. ... She was out of it." The security guard also suggests the alleged victim may have been high on drugs. She had a series of conversations with the woman who was driving the car, but did not speak with the alleged victim. The guard says the woman behind the wheel entered the grocery store at approximately 1 a.m. and told her that she needed help, saying there was a girl in her car who refused to get out. A voice on the tape asks the guard whether there was anything mentioned about stolen items or sexual assault. The guard says that there was no mention of theft nor assault from either woman, adding that the alleged victim didn't act the way she'd expect someone to act after being assaulted or raped.

Hope you are well on this rainy night. Imho and I are just sitting here with her cats having a few laughs; she's enjoying a glass of CA wine and I'm gorging on popcorn. Yum! Did I just hear a coyote?

Law enforcement in Calif. does not have the right to detain someone for 24 hours for a psych emergency. They have the right to detain dangerous or severely ill people in order to transport them to a treatment facility or to be examined by a psychiatric emergency team/aka mobile crisis team who can place a 72 hour hold on the person if necessary.

What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?

We know for sure that she dodged the drug screen that she would have gotten in the "drunk tank", and as a former psych inpatient and current criminal psych major I suspect that she knew the same.

§ 5150. "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."

The point is SomewhatChunky is under the impression if a reporter wrote something we must accept it to be true

Again, I don't really know the law in this area, but I don't see how a federal court could get involved in this case before a conviction. Habeas is a form of collateral review, but I think that only applies to convicted prisoners. Maybe one of the criminal defense attorneys can chime in?

Thanks for that. My provoking the AV detractors to overstate their case makes me an AV supporter? I would say I have a bias against AV detractors, not because I believe the accuser to be telling the truth, but because I believe many of them do not.

While I understand you are presenting an oversimplified example and are not suggesting that VS alone determines the likelihood of rape, this is exactly the kind of statement I think would be misleading for a jury. While I think anyone with a basic understanding of statistics will be able to reasonably understand what you are talking about, I would hazard a guess that a majority of jurors have not even taken a high-school level course in statistics.

This is a problem of probabilistic inference. These can be tricky especially for a lay person. I suspect many jurors have difficulty evaluating such evidence sensibly.

I think that most of the categories of evidence that you discussed would be allowed, in some form. But judges act as "gatekeepers" with statistical evidence, and rightfully so. They often restrict statistical evidence because of its potential to mislead and confuse the average juror.

But since no one here, or in the media, or in the prosecution bar, or in the defense bar, can tell us what evidence Nifong can possibly have to support a conviction, what does that tell you.

It's easy to keep saying that you haven't seen the evidence that Nifong must have and that he must have something if he is pursuing this case.

But what does he have other than the scrubbed up version of events from a drunken woman with serious mental health issues and a flawed ID.

There is no physical evidence of a rape. Indeed, all the physical evidence points to the fact that no rape occurred.

The only DNA found in the victim belonged to someone other than the accused.

The witnesses stories are not consistent and there is no corroboration for critical parts of her story from the second dancer, from the boys or from the physical evidence.

There is incontrovertable alibi information for Seligman.

If she got Seligman wrong how can she be trusted to pick out anyone.

She says Evans had a mustache, Evans has no mustache.

She said Adam, Bret and Matt raped her but picked Dave, Colin and Reade.

It took her at least three lineups to pick anyone and she was shown the players photographs each time.

The second dancer said the case was a crock.

She has no injuries consistent with the assault she alleges. No anal injuries were found. No DNA was found. The list goes on and on.

What do you think Nifong could have, especially since the law does not permit him to hold anything back?

Wiretaps?

Players turning on each other when they have said from day one that there was no assault>

What could he have? I suggest to you that what he has is nothing.

The Younger doctrine requires federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction to enjoin pending state court proceedings despite the presence of alleged constitutional claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). While originally the doctrine applied to injunction of state criminal proceedings, it has been expanded to require abstention from injunction of civil enforcement proceedings, child custody and welfare determinations, quasi-criminal judicial proceedings like nuisance actions, and state administrative proceedings in which important state interests are at stake. (citations omitted) The Younger doctrine stems from the important principles of comity and federalism and from a recognition that state courts are as capable as federal courts of deciding federal and constitutional issues. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994). We have developed a three part test for determining when Younger abstention is appropriate. There must be (1) an ongoing state proceeding; (2) the proceeding must implicate important state interests; and (3) the proceeding must offer an adequate opportunity for presentation of the federal and constitutional claims. The principles of Younger were recently applied in a case similar to the instant one in which parents sued to enjoin ongoing state proceedings investigating their abuse and neglect of their daughter. Renn v. Garrison, 845 F. Supp. 1127 (E.D.N.C. 1994). The court applied our three part test and found that abstention was appropriate with respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The Renn court found that child custody actions do implicate vital state interests. The Renn court further found that the state courts provided an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs and that no exception to Younger applied which required the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction. Younger abstention is limited by certain narrowly tailored exceptions. When a state action is continued in bad faith, when it constitutes harassment, or when it could result in irreparable injury without federal intervention, abstention is inappropriate. See Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1979); Renn v. Garrison, 845 F. Supp. 1127, 1130 (E.D.N.C. 1994).

MrPrecedent, as a Durham resident, and a Duke hater, demonstrates unequivocally why there will be no acquital.

SloPhoto and Sam: Here is the Cal law

§ 5150. "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."

Are you saying that the person the police bring in must be evaluated on the spot by a doctor before they can even be admitted?

I ask this because responding LAPD officers told me that they were taking a dangerous crazy person I reported lurking outside an apartment building in for a 24 hour hold. This was in 1991, I believe.

MrPrecedent, as you may have noticed, there are a few commenters here that will have no kind words for you if you don't let them sip their Defense Spin Kool-Aid in peace.

Why should it be tried at all.

From reading the report, it's not clear if the officer is quoting the AV or describing information given to her/him by someone else. The way I read this portion of the report, s/he is trying to quote the AV.

In fact Nikki did talk to the police through the Kroger security guard. Nikki was right next to the guard as the guard relayed Nikki's information to the police. Nikki can clearly be heard in the background on the recorded 911 call. This is a total nonissue.

So you are not so much for the AV as against the Duke boys and their supporters. I can believe that

Newport, leaping towards unfounded and amusingly erroneous conclusions, guesses:

Why should it be tried at all.

Because the Grand Jury said it should. It's not unusual.

I assume Mr. Precedent that you would apply the same rule of evidence you espouse in your post to the FA's tale?

Normally, the defense tries to impeach the reports of police officers; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that police reports are probably inaccurate.

Normally, the defense comes up with outlandish tales to explain away the findings from physical evidence; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that when the accuser't tale/tales contradict the physical evidence, the physical evidence should simply be ignored.

Normally, people aren't indicted unless there's probable cause to believe at both a crime was committed and that they, in fact, committed the crime;

The security guard who is and was a black woman also said "ain't no way that woman was raped."

Well then Mr. Precedent let us have one bit of evidence that supports a finding that the three indicted boys committed a rape? Just one other than the word of the accuser. Can you do this? If I get no reply I will assume that you cannot.

GALANTER: They took an initial screen to determine whether or not there were any illicit drugs in her or alcohol. They did not do a toxicology report for the date rape drug.

So I guess the point is that since the police wrote flawed reports we should presume that everything was actually in favor of the AV.

Maybe all the cops and all the hospital personnel didn't understand that when the AV said she wasn't raped and when she said she was raped by five men, she was actually saying she was raped by three men. Or maybe they all misheard.

Here's the problem, folks. The cops are the prosecution witnesses. If there's no witness to any rape, if there's no evidence, and if the various versions of the AV's story doesn't match anything else, chances are having incompetent police witnesses isn't going to sell the deal.

There is no better description than "Alice in Wonderland." I wish someone would post up an appropriate quote from that fairy tale.

In this case, the AV was NOT a danger to herself or others by the time she was able to communicate with those around her. I maintain that she would not have been committed because the psychiatrist would not have found her in need of it.

Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?

Do you have evidence that she was involuntarily committed and that it was on psychiatric grounds?

I have no idea what the AV was hospitalized for last year, except that there is no such thing as "nervous breakdown" as a medical diagnosis. I don't believe that I ever raised the question of whether or not she was voluntarily admitted. Most psychiatric admissions are voluntary. The seriousness is that she was admitted at all.

Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?

No source, no proof. Just a theory.

MrPrecedent posted:

Newport, leaping towards unfounded and amusingly erroneous conclusions, guesses:

Those leaps often start from a firm foundation of made up "facts" whose "source" is his "common sense."

There is no Mr. Precedent, he is just another sock puppet. He's gone and imho is here, they are both quibblers, what does that tell you.

You can see why I don't respect you. Dirtying down people is about as low as it gets. These are people you don't even know, and you sit there blithely defaming them without a care in the world in between hikes.

For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann at risk of conviction, even if it meant throwing out everything the AV has already said and letting her start over but does not materially contradict the known physical evidence (photos, phone logs etc).

Maybe the kindly Dr. Bob in Pacifica, in his capacity as a faux psychiatrist, has recently gained access to her medical records.

For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann at risk of conviction, even if it meant throwing out everything the AV has already said and letting her start over but does not materially contradict the known physical evidence (photos, phone logs etc). In other words if the AV could rewrite her whole story what could she say that would not contradict the known facts and yet would still support a rape conviction against Seligmann?

Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?

Imho,

You wrote:

Maybe the kindly Dr. Bob in Pacifica, in his capacity as a faux psychiatrist, has recently gained access to her medical records.

If so, my apologies Bob.

I posted that even if you gave Wilson the benefit of the doubt about his twenty vs five argument (which was your big issue at the time), his statement in a press conference that there were no inconsistencies in the AV's story showed that he was full of it. Wilson's views were reported by several media outlets, not just one - I provided a link to that little known Duke-loving rag, the NY Times. Of course, that's a substantial point and you rarely address substantial points.

"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."

"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."

"Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.

"You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.

"Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said

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.

Hi MrPrecedent. Great name. Very witty. Fellow Durham resident here. Welcome.

It seems Durham is a much bigger city than people make it out,

because in my circles (post-grad, gay and straight, lefties with families) the predominant belief is that Nifong really did a lot that violates what any defendant has a right to--and we are ticked off.

You're right, this is not the biggest thing happening (Congratulations, Canes!) but still people are concerned and welcome the possibility that Lewis Cheek may run for DA.

Perhaps you are out of my demographic and that's why we're not in sync.

Though I suspect I saw you at the Farmers' Market this AM. Did you buy the last chocolate empanada? I thought so.

Were you here for the Hardin years?

The last media circus occurred during his tenure (the Michael Peterson case) and Hardin (and Freda Black) certainly spent a lot of time in front of TV cameras. I don't remember any them eating up the camera as Nifong did pre-election.

MrPrecedent says: What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?

So, are you saying that each and every different claim the AV is reported to have made should be discarded because we don't have Video or Audio of her making the statement?

Or, perhaps, all reports of conflicting claims, except for the one about being raped by three guys?

Maybe we should discard them all except for the claim that she wasn't raped which was recorded by Shelton.

Those leaps often start from a firm foundation of made up "facts" whose "source" is his "common sense."

I think you employ a variant of Cheney's doctrine. Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment, there's maybe a 1% chance that he meant to challenge the 20 attacker comment and was not merely backtracking after the fact. Yet you adamently cling to the hope that Linwood is right.

I think you employ a variant of Cheney's doctrine. Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment, there's maybe a 1% chance that he meant to challenge the 20 attacker comment and was not merely backtracking after the fact. Yet you adamently cling to the hope that Linwood is right.

Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment,...

Well, OK. But it has already been clearly recognized on this board -- by all sides -- that the Grand Jury in this case is little more than a rubber stamp for the DA -- they act on his recommendation at least 99% of the time, so no, that is not unusual at all. But what you are really saying then is, "Because Nifong said it should."

It is a legitimate question to ask why it should go to trial -- without even a preliminary hearing on the merits of the case -- simply on the say-so of one person named Nifong?

When such a trial can be delayed for a year -- or more -- until it even gets started, that is an abuse of power by the government.

Though I suspect I saw you at the Farmers' Market this AM. Did you buy the last chocolate empanada? I thought so.

Not a chance

briefly defendant's have a right to an untainted jury pool--calling them hooligans, displaying choke holds, saying DNA will prove something and then saying it doesn't matter when it doesn't, multiple line-ups without unknown innocents included--just for starters.

Mr. P, what does the defense have that it's holding back? The last I saw they were asking the court to unseal the AV's medical records. Considering that it's the DA's job to seek truth and the defense's job to defend their clients, it seems pretty curious that it's the defense that keeps asking the DA to reveal information to the public.

Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it.

Is that because even if he did it he wasn't there?

I think this kind of non-response response shows how desperately PB clings to the hope that the AV will be vindicated. Pitiful.

Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it.

I think it has yet to be established when the dance ended, and it has yet to be established where the three defendants were between the time the dance ended and the time Seligman called the cab.

If the prosecution can put the three of them in the bathroom with the accuser during that time it would constitute a "risk" to them, no matter how crazy the accuser's stories have been since that time.

As for the other three events decried, they are truly non-starters. The dna, as promised, excluded all but David Evans from being the scratcher, did it not? The fact that absence of dna does not absolve people of crimes as readily as the presence of dna is a fact of nature, is it not? And the lineup was released by the defense, not by the prosecution. So if it effected the jury pool, who's fault is that? As for the choke-hold, well... I'm going to let you think about that one on your own. If you need help, I'll be around.

The dna, as promised, excluded all but David Evans from being the scratcher, did it not? The fact that absence of dna does not absolve people of crimes as readily as the presence of dna is a fact of nature, is it not?

If you're willing not to take Nifong to the woodshed for the many lies he's told, surely you're comfortable withholding judgment on the 20 comment until it's fully vetted in court.

IMHO, even if you're correct that the reporters and Cheshire misunderstood the nature of the question, our dear Linwood did not dispute the fact that the accuser changed her story many times. That's the "so what" here.

1. I should have said scratchee, not scratcher.

2. I shouldn't have said scratchee or scratcher, because the person she scratched me not have left any dna, and Evans dna may have gotten on the nail by some other innocent form of transfer.

3. It may not be Evans dna, but may have come from any of a large number of non-suspects in the general population including, presumably, some kid working in a Chinese fingernail manufacturing sweatshop.

4. Hasn't someone stated that the sample was "mixed" and that more players than Evans could conceivably be the source of the mixture? Looks like we're in for some high stakes combinatoric arguments at trial

I hope these corrections have set the record straight. What I should perhaps have said is that the dna found on the fingernail cannot be used against any suspect but Evans, and that that fact, in combination with the fact that Evans was chosen by the accuser from a lineup that included these same suspects, will "tend" to reduce their exposure to bogus charges as "scratchees". Had the dna been more abundant, it might have actually made many of the suspects even less viable candidates.

The defendants haven't claimed, nor have their attorneys, to my knowledge, that they weren't in the bathroom with the accuser. That's a point of interest.

Seligmann in the moments prior to contemplating his gang rape would have had to give his cell phone to one of his friends. He would also have had to tell him his girlfriend's number. His friend would have to be a willing accomplice in the rape.

Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.

DURHAM, N.C. -- An exotic dancer who says she was gang-raped and beaten at a Duke lacrosse team party where she was hired to perform was given a test at a hospital to determine if she had a date-rape drug in her system, WRAL has learned.

Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.

Why would anyone think that would be funny?

The prosecution must assert a theory, based in fact, on which to base their claims. So far, Nifong's public comments have proven false: alleged lack of cooperation by the accused, statement that the DNA would conclusively identify the defendants, backtracking post-DNA that the guys wore condoms, speculation about a date rape drug, misrepresentations about the consistency of story and ID, anchoring his belief in a medical report that he had only heard described and that doesn't actually prove the case, the list goes on. That does not qualify as "spin" -- rather they are "lies".

And this person (to think it was funny) would need to know how Seglimann programmed his g/f's name in his phone's memory.

In any event, luckily, this person handed the phone back to Seglimann as Seglimann exited the bathroom so Seglimann could call the cab company.

Seligmann in the moments prior to contemplating his gang rape would have had to give his cell phone to one of his friends. He would also have had to tell him his girlfriend's number. His friend would have to be a willing accomplice in the rape.

IMHO, grasping at straws, wrote:

Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.

Why would anyone think that would be funny?

wumhenry

Why would anyone think that would be funny?

Because when people are inebriated and/or immature, they often do things that they think are funny but aren't.

[Seligmann] could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called . . . We don't know."

[Seligmann] could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called . . . We don't know."

We just don't know.

In OJ the prosecutors could have reduced their case to one point. OJ's blood and that of his wife, were found together in his car. The only way it got there is from OJ or he was framed by the police and or the lab. They should have spent their whole case trying to show how the framing was impossible and in any event without some reason and some shred of evidence to show that the framing took place there is no reason to vote for aquital. If the mere possibility of framing is an adequate defense then no one could ever be found guilty.

My phone lists the last ten numbers I have dialed by the names I used to place them in my phone book: 1.) Newport 2.) Madison 3.) ding7777 etc.

The best inconsistencies to use, I submit, would be her changing descriptions of the rape itself, involving various combinations of v*ginal, an*l, and oral. I don't think most people would buy that she couldn't tell her v*agina from her *sshole, so where she alleges one thing one place and another somewhere else, that may be an inconsistency worth pursuing, especially if it conflicts with the SANE examination.

He would not have had to do any of those things. He could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called. If it's like my phone it will display the names of those people if they are in the phone's memory. No one else has know what is going on in the bathroom. Reade may have left messages to his girlfriend during those calls. We don't know.

Madison, what exactly is EDTA? A blood preservative?

There are morals to this sad tale. The notion of justice in America will be damaged for decades to come. The public will not trust DA's pronouncements in the future, nor will they trust that the police can conduct an honest investigation to weed out false charges.

First, there were nine phone calls made from Seligmann's phone not one. Three consecutively to his girlfriend's number, then two to another number then three more back to his girlfriend and then one to the taxi co. So this is not a random call where someone picks up a phone and makes a call possibly by accident. This 'practical joke' goes on for 8 minutes, but ends conveniently when the rape is over so that Seligmann can call a cab.

The 'practical joke' is also happening while a violent rape is going on a few feet away. Your theory posits that it is quiet and no one need know what is going on.

Kim, by her statement, is also in the bathroom with the AV so presumably she is involved in the rape because she has not reported seeing one or being the victim of one. No one outside the bathroom knows what is going on because the AV is being gang raped quietly, or maybe Kim has brought the duct tape (though that would rule out the oral penetration).

Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?

Lawyering-up will be the rule of the day, even for people that know they are innocent and would like to explain themselves.

People will distrust people of other races even more than they do now. Racial hatred will increase.

People will avoid living in racially mixed areas even more than they do now.

We will grow apart, not together, as a result of this case and one white man's misguided attempts to correct past wrongs.

Duke University will also be affected for years to come.

Fewer people will want to attend Duke University because of its location and the smearing of its reputation.

It's my opinion that the FA will be one of those witnesses. (No IMHO I can't prove it ... that's why it's an opinion)

Since the only independent, allegations of inebriation implicate the FA how do you think the FA managed to operate Seglimann phone while in the bathroom? Did she leave any fingernail fragments wedged in the keypads?

They were definitely drunk and drinking..

immie, I am flattered that my number is first on your cell phone list but you really should give up hope, I am taken.

Fill, Newport has the right of first refusal, but you are second. I'm not half as obnoxious in person.

Yes. Try Sutton's police report, that is the ticket.

It would seem I'm now at the top of the list.

So, where do you live?

immie, I am flattered that my number is first on your cell phone list but you really should give up hope, I am taken.

fillintheblanks, re Kim's probation violation: my recollection is that in addition to leaving the state without permission, she never paid any of the restitution to her victim. The latter will be her biggest problem, but with the Great and Powerful Nifong on her side, she just might be able to "sit back, brush herself off" and click her heels to get out of it. So long as no one looks behind the curtain of his case.

Mostafa also described Seligmann and Wellington as "a little drunk."

These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny

If she was 100% sure about Seligman, and the jury decided she was 100% wrong about him, how could they believe her 100% about Finnerty, or her 90% about Evans, still to be valid? I find it especially disturbing that she could be 100% wrong about the one who was in front of her, but a jury would continue to give her id of the men behind her credence.

IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann

Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me"

Sgt: "How sure of that are you?"

Victim: "100%

From IMHO

These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny

I've heard different versions of the alleged broomstick remark. Source?

What would your hypothetical jokester have planned to do to consummate the joke if the girlfriend answered the call?

The transcript of the line up reads:

IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann

Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me""

These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny

What would your hypothetical jokester have planned to do to consummate the joke if the girlfriend answered the call?

It was probably a lacrosse stick, but anyway -- and you left yourself wide open for this one IMHO -- I am quite sure that there are any number of posters on this board who would think it pretty funny to see a broomstick shoved up at least one woman's *ss that I know.

And she also id'ed a fourth man as "looking like" one of the perps, right?

So we have a mystery man who "sort of looks like" one of the ones who raped her; Finnerty: 100% sure he is one of the ones who raped her; Evans: 90% sure (if he were wearing a mustache) he is one of the ones who raped her; and Seligman which she is 0% sure is one of the ones who raped her?

Seligman was not indicted because he "looks like" one of the AV's rapists. One does not indict someone for "looking like" the actual perpetrator.

IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann

Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me"

Sgt: ""How sure of that are you?"

Victim: "100%

It's frightening that someone could get indicted when he can produce a video of himself someplace else at the time of the alleged crime on the basis of the accuser, in what seems to have been her third go-around with an ID process, saying, "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me."

Is it a camera phone? Maybe send her a photo of the stripper's shoe on the floor. A photo of the guy "sleeping" with a wet spot on his pants? A photo of guys urinating off the porch? Maybe send her a photo of him coming out of the bathroom?

PB, I agree about witness identification, generally, being not the most reliable evidence. But in this case the AV, from what we have seen so far, really, is not only the witness, she is the victim witness in a case that seems to me to be very light on physical, forensic evidence. The lack of the latter makes the former all the more critical.

*We've all seen the other player's picture, imho, please stop posting it and linking to it.

Two questions. First, if the intention was to send a photo, why would it be necessary to keep re-dialling the number? Second, why would anyone, drunk or sober, think it would be funny to send photos of any or all of the above to Seligman's girlfriend?

Were there no "fillers" in the other lineups? Tell me how we know that. Please don't say "common sense." Tell me how we know that.

If the AV fingered the same three guys in other lineups that were conducted with fillers, in keeping with the relevant NC good practice standard, wouldn't Nifong or a Durham PD spokesman have said so to parry all the criticism in this regard?

Independent allegations of inebriation? Well, there's that photo of the guy on the floor with his pants slightly open and a wet spot on them, but may have just been very, very, sleepy

Not at all, imho. Reference that there is a photo of an undicted player who looks like Seligman. They ask for a link and you post it. Simple, and to my mind embarrassing an innocent player and his family.

Maybe they think degrading women is funny, SLOphoto does.

IMHO: Tone is everything. Gentle, gentle. It's still a tribute to your persona even when others don't recognize the fondness in the caricature. -- With respect to you as always.

WumHenry, You wrote:

If the AV fingered the same three guys in other lineups that were conducted with fillers, in keeping with the relevant NC good practice standard, wouldn't Nifong or a Durham PD spokesman have said so to parry all the criticism in this regard?

If the defense had evidence that would make Nifong look bad at no expense to their clients, wouldn't they release that evidence?

However many photo ID sessions there were, the one on which Nifong pursued indictments had no fillers, and was conducted by the two lead investigators of the case

And this, of course, is why it's so important that the photo ID session, like so many other aspects of this case, didn't follow the state rules that people like PB so cavalierly and consistently dismiss.

It seems that they don't have it but are trying to get it. My question stands.

imho: Back to that again, are we? Point One: Posting a first name only of the AV? I don't see how that would embarrass her family. But if so, then I apologize, just as I did to readers of this board. Point Two: if the pictures had shown her face I would be outraged.

This is a case where the use of fillers probably wouldn't have mattered much, since she had obviously seen many of the players at the party. It's probably better for the players that the lineup didn't have fillers, because it gives them another thing to gripe about. How hard would it have been, with fillers, for her to choose the players she had seen and claim they had raped her. Not that big a deal.

imho: Back to that again, are we? Point One: Posting a first name only of the AV? I don't see how that would embarrass her family. But if so, then I apologize, just as I did to readers of this board.

and, imho, I have never seen picture of the AV such as you describe. ". . . photos of her wearing a 'see-through red outfit with no undergarments' . . ." in any of the media. I have heard that description, but I've never seen a picture that fit that description.

PB you have an utter contempt for justice and due process and protection of innocents. Is this because you feel you got railroaded. So, the way you deal with your feelings is to hope that others get railroaded too.

Please let me know how many of you think that there should be a limit on the number of comments a person can post on a thread. Is 15 enough or too many? I'm considering placing a limit so the threads don't get dominated by one or two people.

I would greatly appreciate responses from anyone familiar with the rules of discovery in NC.

Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services.

Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services.

imho has repeatedly said that Nifong wasn't obligated to follow these guidelines, but that's not at all clear.

Abrams:  There's no question that if everything the second stripper is saying is true that there is a window of opportunity for something horrible to have happened in that house.  The problem is that the accuser's account is entirely inconsistent with the second stripper's.

She [the AV] said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an argument about going back inside.

She [the AV] then told me [Kim-"Nikki"] that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there.

These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny

From the line up.

I saw the program and was surprised by Abrams' overall reserved tone...

They don't get through to anyone so they hit redial or punch another number. It ends when Reade gets his phone back when he needs it to get out of there. They can be dialing the phone from anywhere in the house or yard, just so they get it back to Reade in time for him to call for the cab. No one playing with his phone needs to know what is going on, much less be a "willing accomplice in the rape" Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?

They don't get through to anyone so they hit redial or punch another number. It ends when Reade gets his phone back when he needs it to get out of there.They can be dialing the phone from anywhere in the house or yard, just so they get it back to Reade in time for him to call for the cab. No one playing with his phone needs to know what is going on, much less be a "willing accomplice in the rape" Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?

If the only evidence against Seligman is the accuser's ID and the fact that the captains did not include him among the party-goers, Nifong is simply putting off his own embarrassment at Seligman's expense. But I don't understand why you would believe that to be the case? Aren't you a lawyer? Have you not seen first-hand how they act?

"Not a chance" on the chocolate empanada or the Farmer's Market? You should try them both before you say not a chance.

Don't have a lot of time to reply--family obligations today--but briefly defendant's have a right to an untainted jury pool--calling them hooligans, displaying choke holds, saying DNA will prove something and then saying it doesn't matter when it doesn't, multiple line-ups without unknown innocents included--just for starters.

By the way, whether or not you're employed by Duke doesn't matter--I can think of at least 89 people who are employed by Duke and have come down against these kids...(Group of 88 plus Joseph DiBona.)

Wow, you have a parking SPACE? Not just a general lot pass?. Fann-cee! You must be a muckity-muck and not just an ordinary Joe. ;)

There was something else you said but I need to attend to a child...do you have insomnia?

I'm amazed at the volume and timing of your posting. Get some rest!

Mr. P, what does the defense have that it's holding back?

Considering that it's the DA's job to seek truth and the defense's job to defend their clients, it seems pretty curious that it's the defense that keeps asking the DA to reveal information to the public.

Anybody else notice the similarities in styles, not to mention quantity, between the posts by our new member, MrPrecedent & IMHO? Maybe great minds think alike?

We need a Durham resident and one appears. A prolific, but previously absent one, at that.

I am impressed by the large volume of posts in the wee hours of the night for a Durham resident.

That used to be IMHO time - and gee, who else is posting at this wee hour?

No source, no proof. Just a theory.

And the lineup was released by the defense, not by the prosecution. So if it effected the jury pool, who's fault is that?

Huh? And what evidence would that be?

Mr. P, if the defense keeps turning up exculpatory evidence and the DA has nothing to back up his version of events,

saying that it's the defense's obligation to prove their clients are guilty is INSANE.

I don't think you're IMHO's sock puppet

because even in her most rarified moments she's not that wacky.

You are a complete and utter fool Mr. Precedent if you think that the defense should release its entire file. I have NEVER heard of a single case where the defense has released its entire file, and neither have you. No competent defense attorney would do that because of fear of malpractice.

Seligmann gets into a cab at about 12:19 a block away from the house.

From there on out his whereabouts are pretty well known (atm photo, dorm sign-in etc).

The publicly available information at this time contains a set of time stamped photos, which show the dancers performing between 12:00 and 12:04.

Bisseys affadavit states that the dancers entered the house a bit before 12:00 because after they entered he looked at his cellphone.

The above makes it pretty clear that at least Seligmann is innocent beyond any doubt whatsoever

To those who say 'lets wait for the trial', why not just wait for the verdict? The 'evidence' established in a trial is only relavent to the jurors. Why not just take the verdict and go 'that's it' regardless of what is said at the trial.

After all those 12 people get to determine the truth or falsity of all the 'evidence'.

As citizens we all have a stake in the criminal justice system. At a minimum we need to speak up when a travesty such as this one is unfolding in front of our eyes.

Well, has anyone here ever heard of a single case of this?

Nifong made his statments to the media when no defendant had been named-

and as a result a vigilante poster sprung up and non-LAX Duke students were assaulted merely because of their affiliation with Duke.

Further, he said the actions were motivated by race...it will be interesting to see him prove that but he doesn't need to because he's already convinced enough voters that it was.

I think many of your posts against the AV are stated with a degree of certainly that simply is not justified by the available evidence.

I asked the same question a few months ago, and someone said that the idea of twenty guys going on the stand and saying that nothing happened prior to the indictments would not do well for him getting his indictments.

"Bill Thomas, a lawyer for a player who has not been charged, said that one of the two men under indictment did not even attend the party. He would not specify which one, saying only that "multiple witnesses and a commercial transaction" would provide an alibi."

I'm going to post up Talk Left later to see what can be done about him.

If Mr. Precedent went to Duke I'm Arnold Palmer. I'm going to post up Talk Left later to see what can be done about him.

Further, he said the actions were motivated by race...it will be interesting to see him prove that but he doesn't need to because he's already convinced enough voters that it was.

Matt grabbed me and looked at me. He said, 'Sweetheart, you can't leave.' He grabbed the back of my neck and said, 'I'm going to kill you, n----- b---- if you don't shut up"...They started kicking me in my behind and my back...Matt hit me in the face while Brett kicked me."

Dear Arnold: The guy makes cogent arguments you dislike so you are going to complain to the managment?